That’s exactly the kind of nuance I was hoping to get. Sharp by name, sharp by nature! Yes, if there are increased disclosures then it follows that costs as a response will go up. However, that in turn could have a deterrent effect.
If it would turn out that the response costs outweigh the savings, then from a purely costs perspective, the most cost efficient thing could be to… do nothing. Don’t try to prevent CSA once the harm is already there.
Response costs should probably be treated as either neutral or as part of the justice system’s baseline functioning, rather than as part of the marginal calculation. Which, of course, would change the model...
That’s exactly the kind of nuance I was hoping to get. Sharp by name, sharp by nature! Yes, if there are increased disclosures then it follows that costs as a response will go up. However, that in turn could have a deterrent effect.
If it would turn out that the response costs outweigh the savings, then from a purely costs perspective, the most cost efficient thing could be to… do nothing. Don’t try to prevent CSA once the harm is already there.
Response costs should probably be treated as either neutral or as part of the justice system’s baseline functioning, rather than as part of the marginal calculation. Which, of course, would change the model...