Reducing crime by 1% through incarceration would cost billions of dollars nationally.

Reducing crime by 1% through incarceration would cost billions of dollars nationally.

• A. Mundane factors in parole and sentencing
• B. Cost of reducing crime through incarceration
• C. Incarceration and crime reduction
• D. Restitution

Answer: (B)

The statement is about the economic cost tied to achieving a specific level of crime reduction through incarceration. It focuses on the financial burden required to reach a given outcome (reducing crime by 1%), which is a cost-analysis of a crime-control strategy. That’s why the description best matches “the cost of reducing crime through incarceration.” The other ideas don't fit as well: mundane factors in parole and sentencing would cover routine process details rather than the overall price tag of the outcome; restitution refers to money paid to victims, not the broader cost of delivering a policy outcome; and incarceration and crime reduction concentrates on whether incarceration actually reduces crime and by how much, not on the cost to accomplish a certain reduction.

The statement is about the economic cost tied to achieving a specific level of crime reduction through incarceration. It focuses on the financial burden required to reach a given outcome (reducing crime by 1%), which is a cost-analysis of a crime-control strategy. That’s why the description best matches “the cost of reducing crime through incarceration.”

The other ideas don't fit as well: mundane factors in parole and sentencing would cover routine process details rather than the overall price tag of the outcome; restitution refers to money paid to victims, not the broader cost of delivering a policy outcome; and incarceration and crime reduction concentrates on whether incarceration actually reduces crime and by how much, not on the cost to accomplish a certain reduction.