Should the government give high-risk offenders gaming systems to reduce crime?

Regular readers will recall that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick responded to the school shooting in Santa Fe by suggesting that Texas eliminate subsidies aimed at luring video game companies to the state. Grits responded by disputing the purported link between video-game violence and violent crime.

The more I think about it, though, I wonder if video games might be part of a solution to violent crime?

Here's an outside-the-box (but not the Xbox) suggestion for reducing crime that's cheaper than incarceration and gives authorities a better tool to help offenders comply with probation: Give young people at high risk of committing serious crimes gaming systems as part of probation terms and make taking them away a punishment for violating conditions.

Several different strands of thought led me to this idea, which I've not seen proposed elsewhere.

In recent years, we've seen pilot programs where law enforcement identified the people at the highest risk of committing violent crime and simply paid them not to. And it seems to work! Some of the methods for identifying the most high-risk folk can be pretty sophisticated.

At the same time, we've seen studies showing that youth playing violent video games (or really, any video games) tend to commit less crime because of the voluntary incapacitation effect: The kid playing Grand Theft Auto for hours doesn't have time to be out stealing my car.

(On Twitter, John Pfaff recently pointed to a paper showing a similar voluntary incapacitation effect related to violent movies.)

My personal belief is that the rise of video games and online entertainment caused a much greater proportion of the crime decline witnessed in the past quarter century than most observers have considered.

Young males through about their mid-to-late twenties are the highest risk population group for committing crime. This is also the group with whom video games are most popular.

So what if we combined these observations to create a correctional strategy? What if high-risk young male offenders on probation were given a PlayStation or Xbox and a few popular games when they went on supervision, and allowed to keep the equipment if they successfully completed their probation term?

I see several benefits:

1) The incapacitation effect: The more time these youth spend playing video games, the less likelihood they'll get into trouble.

2) Incentive for good behavior: Just like payment is a positive incentive not to commit crime in the pilot programs described above, access to a video game station is a significant incentive not break the law or violate probation rules, as well as to complete probation.

3) Tool to address rules violations: Similarly, taking access to the video game system away is a significant additional negative incentive, a tool that could be used to punish technical non-compliance (half of all revocations to prison from probation in Texas are for technical violations).

4) Economics: Gaming systems are cheaper than paying a monthly stipend, as in the above-cited examples, and the project could be scaled up more easily.

The complaint would come from people who say, "My kids don't have a Playstation, why should the government buy one for criminals?" But since the answer is so firmly rooted in public-safety goals - particularly if the tactic were reserved for the most serious, high-risk probationers - IMO it could be justified. We spend a lot of money already on these high-risk populations.

The same parental controls that keep young kids from accessing inappropriate stuff could be used to limit improper use of the system (contacting victims, etc.), and of course improper use could be punished by taking it away.

IMO this could reduce crime among the population eligible for the program and make it easier to get people to comply with their probation terms. The cost of each system is significant (~$300 + games), but a lot less than incarceration, and I bet under such circumstances the state could get a bulk-purchase discount.

This is a brainstorming post, not a fully formed policy suggestion. But as cost-effective public safety solutions go, this idea seems to check a lot of the boxes.