THE COSTS OF CRIME MAY BE SOCIAL AS WELL AS FINANCIAL; THE PURPOSE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS TO REDUCE THESE SOCIAL COSTS OF CRIME. ALTHOUGH THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN OF CONCERN SINCE THE TURN OF THE CENTURY, STUDIES HAVE BEEN COMPLICATED BY THE DIVERGENT CONCEPTS OF CRIME AND BY DEFINITIONS AMENABLE TO COST CONSIDERATIONS. AS A RESULT, DOLLAR VALUES OF ESTIMATES REMAIN SUSPECT. THE IMPACT OF CRIME IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN BE MEASURED BY THE COSTS TO VICTIMS, WHO UNTIL RECENTLY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS ECONOMIC FACTORS. COSTS OF VICTIMIZATION DERIVED FROM UNDESIRABLE PROPERTY TRANSFERS, VIOLENCE TO INDIVIDUALS, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF SOCIAL VICTIMIZATION AND VICTIMLESS CRIMES. AS THE CONTROL OF CRIME IS VIEWED AS A PUBLIC GOOD, SUCH CONTROL HAS BEEN FINANCED OUT OF THE PUBLIC REVENUES. IN A FEW INSTANCES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES, COURT FUNCTIONS, OR CORRECTIONS FUNCTIONS, IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE TO ESTIMATE COSTS AND TO LINK THE COSTS TO CRIME IN AN APPROPRIATE FASHION. FOR EXAMPLE, ARREST, PUNISHMENT, AND PERHAPS RESTITUTION REQUIREMENTS DO SEEM TO HAVE A DETERRENT EFFECT, BUT FAR MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED TO ASSESS THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE ACTIVITIES. APPLICATION OF THE ECONOMIC MODEL TO JUVENILE CRIME SUGGESTS THAT PUNISHMENTS ARE ONLY EFFECTIVE WHEN EXTREMELY SEVERE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT FUTURE RESEARCH EFFORTS FOCUS ON THE SOCIAL COSTS OF VICTIMLESS CRIMES, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION SUCH AS RESTITUTION IN REDUCING SOCIAL COSTS OF CRIME, COLLECTION OF MORE ACCURATE CRIME DATA, AND COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROJECTS RATHER THAN OVERALL CRIME COSTS. NOTES, TABLES, AND AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIORAPHY ARE INCLUDED.