I disagree. You seem to think that the list of missing technologies sketched by Crawford is exhaustive, but it’s not. One example that ties in your conclusions: paper. Maybe the Romans could have invented the printing press, I’m not sure, but printing on super-expensive vellum or papyrus is pointless.
And it’s just one example. I make another. The Romans spread and improved watermills, so they were interested in labor-saving technology contra your argument. But their mills were not as good or widespread as modern or even late medieval ones. (mill technology was very important to the industrial revolution as you mention too)
The point is that if the majority of the “cost of crime” is actually the cost of preventing potential crime, then it’s not obvious at all that more crime prevention will help.
Sure, sometimes it’s better to shift from private prevention (behavior change) to collective prevention (policing) at the margin, but not always.