Supported as something the author would agree with. Stronger punishments lower the expected utility from criminal activity, and so based on the UM principle, people would be less likely to engage in such activity.

Supported as something the author would agree with. Rehabilitation efforts are one of the measures proposed by the “societal norms” side of the debate. The author says that these kinds of measures increase the expected utility from lawful activity. So if these measures are ended, there will be less expected utility from lawful activity, and people would be more likely to engage in criminal activity instead.

Anti-supported as something the author would agree with. She says that crimes occur when the expected utility of criminal activity is outweighs than the expected utility of lawful activity. If the expected utility of lawful activity decreases, then the utility of criminal activity is likely to win out in more cases, meaning the crime rate would increase.

Supported as something the author would agree with. Access to economic institutions increases the expected utility of lawful activity. If access decreases, the expected utility of lawful activity will decrease, and the utility of criminal activity will win out in more cases. So the crime rate would increase.

Supported as something the author would agree with. If the level of enforcement goes up, then the expected utility of criminal activity goes down, and so people are less likely to engage in such activity. This means that as enforcement goes up, the rate of crimes goes down—or in other words, that the crime rate varies inversely (i.e., in the opposite direction) with the level of enforcement.