TO FIGURE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF COMBATING CRIME, ONE MUST FIRST FIND OUT WHO IS HURT BY THE CRIME, HOW MUCH LOSS IS SUSTAINED, AND HOW MUCH IT WOULD COST TO ELIMINATE THE LOSS. OFTEN COMBATTING CRIME BENEFITS ONLY THE WEALTHY. AN EXAMPLE IS THE $103 MILLION SPENT ANNUALLY ON AIRPORT SECURITY TO PREVENT HIJACKING WHEN RELATIVELY FEW PEOPLE FLY AIRPLANES. A STUDY OF CRIME IN THE GARMENT DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOUND OWNERS FELT IT WAS BETTER TO TAKE OUT THEFT INSURANCE THAN TO INVEST IN THE EXPENSIVE AND ELABORATE SECURITY NECESSARY TO CONTROL INTERNAL THEFT. PERCEPTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING CRIME ALSO AFFECTS ONE'S WILLINGNESS TO TRY. THE MANUFACTURERS IN THE GARMENT DISTRICT FELT LOSSES BY TRUCKERS WERE THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEM AND THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT BECAUSE ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROLLED THE TRUCKS. SOCIAL COSTS OF CRIME CONTROL ARE OFTEN SEEN AS TOO HIGH. MANY COLLEGES REFUSE TO TIGHTEN DORMITORY SECURITY BECAUSE THE LOSS OF FREEDOM IS SEEN AS MORE COSTLY THAN THE THEFTS. TO COMPLICATE MATTERS, MANY PEOPLE OTHER THAN THE CRIMINAL BENEFIT FROM HIGH CRIME RATES -- SELLERS OF SECURITY DEVICES, POLICE CHIEFS WHO APPLY FOR LARGER DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS, COLLEGE PROFESSORS TEACHING CRIMINOLOGY COURSES, AND VICTIMS WHO USE THE INSURANCE MONEY TO BETTER THEIR POSITION. CRIME IS NOT JUST A FIGHT BETWEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND CRIMINALS. IT IS AN INTERWOVEN SYSTEM OF SOCIAL LIABILITIES AND BENEFITS, AND UNLESS IT IS SEEN THIS WAY THE TRUE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF CRIME PREVENTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED.