I'm going to come at this from an odd angle, but it does lead to Developing Different Dimensions.
A young woman, late at night, walking home alone from the club, and through the park. She gets asked by a stranger for light before the park. In the park, stranger ambushes her. She survived. Recent news in the region although no one I even faintly know.
One blogger says she is in part responsible because she did not take elementary precaution. There's some arguing, and legalistic stuff by those who don't want to blame the young woman at all for making some unwise choices.
I get a flash of insight. What the 'she is not responsible, and its hateful for you to say she is' people want is for the police to be there in person, or in robotica (cameras and lights). They are making a claim on the finite resources of the society.
The criticizing blogger (a female mind you) is making a claim on the personal resources of the young women going to clubs. 'You have a duty to learn how to protect yourself in the most basic forms, at the least.'
The clubbers don't want to spend their own resources. They want to spend society's resources so they don't have to spend their own.
Now consider several different societal responses, and how it yields vastly different feelings of worlds in places that are essentially alike.
1. Society spends little, clubbers spend little, crime statistics shoot through the roof until the police stop bothering to collect the data cause it makes them look bad. In some cases we start to see problems about ethnic violence, and rioting, and then police brutality seems to go up (it does, but the claims of it go up even faster). The city is in a death spiral. It may take decades, but the city is dying.
2. Society spends a lot (installs cameras everywhere, lights on every major and minor footpath, and a large number of police are put into action.) Clubbers wave merrily to Officer Friendly on his big horse as he sedately ambles down Nightclub Road keeping an eye on any potential troublemakers who are easily spotted under the bright lights. As a side effect, a lot more work and ordinary life gets done at night. It used to be in major cities that ordinary people went out at midnight to eat ice cream in the park (probably because in the summer it was the only cool part of the day. the kids are asleep, walk across from your apartment with your wife, and chat with her and some of your buds about working in the steel mill all day...)
3. Society claims to spend a lot, but there is more Big Speeches and Posters than real effect. Cameras get put up because they're cheap. A few lights get put up. Few officers are hired. Things stay the same, but the pols proclaim "We're Safe City!" This is a good setting for crusading activists and private investigators (versers can be one too!) who find out which pol is on the take from which crime group, and track down maniacs who have kidnapped decent citizens.
4. Society spends little, but decides to go for max effect. Scum are scum after all, and 'rights' are for decent folk. A little curbside justice 'explains' things wonderfully. There is a dangerous edge to the City, but its generally safe if you're cautious. However, mouthing off to a cop is a very bad idea. Your teeth will not thank you. And the cop has a dozen friends who will assure the judge he was on the other side of town in a bar if you bother to wade through the red tape arrayed against you. After which, you'll get another shellacking some night real soon.
Its actually fairly effective. And if you're not suicidally inclined, you'll probably do just fine. And its a lot cheaper.
Its a good place for private detectives with big fists.
5. The society spends little, but the clubbers spend more. Most clubbers have mace, a snapstick baton, and are at least a green belt in Baton-Ryu, or as MJ would put it Beat-on-ryu or Mow Git Smashed. They also make efforts to carry 'screamers' and to stay to well lit areas. Private bouncers at clubs know the faces of regulars, and pair them up with other trusted regulars as they leave. Bouncers also know the signs of trouble, and might on occasion administer a dumpster dive on a creep.
Also, 'pack not a herd' mentality occasionally kicks in as when a woman screams for help, and the ten nearest women as if galvanized by an electric shock charge in and beat the snot out of some creep. (There's been a few incidences somewhat similar to this in the last few years.)
Also having a big, strong boyfriend is better than having a sensitive skinny poet even if the first guy really likes football.
Result....crime goes down, way down. Tax bills go way down. While there are dangerous areas, there are relatively few. And there are concerted efforts by 'Night Clubs' to eliminate those which consist of 'take back the night' community activities.
However, with all the money spent on Kikhaid and mace and concealed carry pistols and range time there is less money spent on fancy restauraunts and museums on on Xbox and DVD movies. On the whole its cheaper than letting the gov't do it because the gov't is vastly inefficient.
But its a hugely different society in which one--woman is fearful of her safety as she looks out in daylight through the glass of her restauraunt at a guy openly studying her with ill intent, and expects gov't to handle it, but knows it won't and is sitting down in a very fancy restauraunt with the latest iPod, palmtop, and celphone....and two--woman smiles evenly as she drops into a horse stance after leaving the diner, and slips her fingers over the cool stainless steel of the .45 revolver in her fanny pack that her boyfriend bought her last Christmas, and the possibly predatory male who heads on his way to spend another night not doing what he should not be doing. The first is our society. The second is a nicer one I think.
And it comes down to how we think that gov't and people should spend their resources of money and time.