I'd consider this as well. It's a matter of safety for the tenant, and vandalism for the owner. I wouldn't want to risk either.
But, I guess according to the masses here, the landlord would have to foot the bill for the replaced locks. That's the fair way, right?
I wonder how this would work for rental insurance. Assuming that the tenants are required to have rental insurance, if the place was robbed/vandalized would the insurance agency possibly say that since the locks weren't changed coverage is denied? Or is that paranoia?