8/14 How California's Lock-Em-Up Mentality actually makes crime worse:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426
\_ Sounds nice, but the stats say the crime rate is better since
we started locking them up.
\_ You should look up "correlation and causation."
\_ Just because they are not necessarily correlated doesn't
mean they aren't.
\_ I know you are but what am I?
\_ The Economist would beg to differ with you:
http://tinyurl.com/m9wa5l
\_ This article doesn't mention the crime rate at all. It
mentions recidivism. Even with the same yahoos getting
out of jail and immediately committing more crimes, the
crime rate has fallen. Imagine how good it would be if we
simply executed those troublemakers. Now, I don't think
that is morally acceptable and don't condone it, but I
say that to point out that the prison programs are broken
but that has nothing to do with sentencing. We can
restore funding to prison programs and cut the costs of
housing prisoners (per prisoner) *both* with the current
tough-on-crime stance still in effect. However, you
shouldn't need a PhD in statistics to realize that
releasing a lot of gang-affiliated criminals in jail for
lesser sentences like assault and dope dealing is not
going to be *GOOD* for the crime rate.
\_ These guys have a good summary of the research on the topic,
but the summary is that states with higher incarceration
rates have actually seen less of a drop in crime than
those states with lower incarceration rates:
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_iandc_complex.pdf
\_ Interesting article, but one might argue that the
states with less crime therefore needed fewer
incarcerations. In Figure 2, the authors point to
two time periods with increased incarcerations. In
one of them, the crime rate increased and in the
other it decreased. They call this "divergent". One
might also say that even though the rate of
incarceration increased perhaps it didn't increase
*enough* and that the results of the second time period
were partially a result of the higher incarcerations in
the first time period. I don't think anyone is
naive enough to suggest that other factors (like the
economy) don't influence crime, but even the
authors of this study don't go so far as to say
that incarcerations do not affect positively the crime
rate - claiming it accounts for only 25% of the
reduction. They take this figure from another paper
in the UK which did some econometric studies. I
started to read this and it looks like good
research, but I hate to restate the obvious:
releasing criminals from jail is not going to lower
the crime rate. Therefore, it could only increase
or stay the same. Given that the CA prison system
is inept at rehabbing prisoners, I am going to
guess those people will return to crime. The
solution is not to release people early or get soft
on crime. The solution is to lower prison costs and
put some of that savings into programs that might
actually rehabilitate criminals. If that happens
then maybe we can consider revising sentencing.
Until then, you will be releasing people into the
community that have no business being released.
\_ One could argue that the real problem was locking
them up in the first place, which has been shown to
turn petty drug dealers into hardened criminals. So
in the short term you might be right, but in the long
term, locking up fewer people (and the right people
of course) will likely lower the crime right.
of course) will likely lower the crime rate.
\_ I don't like to argue the past. However we got
here, we are here. I would argue that if you
lock up enough people (all of them) the crime rate
can be reduced to zero. Dealing and doing
drugs is not a victimless crime and we are
right to be hard on those criminals, but we
need better support programs for them because
it's a hard habit to break. If you want to
lock up fewer people then they need to commit
less crime, but I refuse to ignore crimes
that are committed. There are programs which
may help make people less inclined to turn to
a life of crime, but those are orthogonal to
what to do with the people who have already
chosen that path.
\_ I am sure the crime rate in prison is higher
than the crime rate outside of prison, so your
lock em up mentality is unlikely to work.
Smoking a doobie doesn't mean you have chosen
a "life of crime" by your standards all of our
last three presidents are career criminals.
Come to think of it...
\_ As long as pot is illegal then it's a crime
and a lot of crimes were likely committed to
bring that joint to you, some of them
not so innocuous.
\_ Speeding is illegal too, are you planning
on locking up all the auto drivers, too?
I am sure more people are killed over oil
than pot, does that make driving immoral?
\_ Speeding is illegal, but not a felony.
However, there are plenty of
situations where speeders can end
up in jail, too. Smoking pot is
not a victimless crime. If it's
made legal then that would solve
a lot of the related crime, but
it's illegal and, yes, there is a
lot more crime committed to grow,
smuggle, and sell you drugs than
there is to pump, refine, and
sell you gasoline from Texas.
\_ Smoking pot is not a felony either.
80% of our oil comes from overseas,
so you should look at what is
happening in Iraq, Venezuela or
Nigeria, instead of Texas. Most
CA pot is grown locally, in fact.
\_ Selling it is and having
more than an ounce of it
could be. Cultivation is
also a felony. The rest of
your straw man bores me.
How many people are killed
in the name of dihydrogen
monoxide? We compete for
all resources. However, I
guarantee you Chevron is not
out there committing rampant
crimes to obtain, manufacture,
and distribute its product.
\_ we should lock them up in labor camps
\_ At least we shouldn't provide better healthcare to them than to
citizens outside of jail. |