5 ms·

This is a nice data point in how crazy a "study" can be in how it abuses statistics to detach itself from reality. With a billion variables to control for, you

This is a nice data point in how crazy a "study" can be in how it abuses statistics to detach itself from reality. With a billion variables to control for, you can find many that seemingly account for trends in crime. Basically, locking people up prevents them from committing crimes for that duration. For anything besides organized crime, that's going to reduce crime by removing whatever crimes they'd commit.

dllthomas 8y ago
> For anything besides organized crime, that's going to reduce crime by removing whatever crimes they'd commit. That doesn't automatically follow. First, it ignores crimes committed while in jail, which is totally a thing - but at least hopefully the impact of those on "innocents" is reduced. Second, if punishment reduces honest opportunities and increases criminal opportunities (networking?), enough new criminal acts may follow to make up for the lost time.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  I think punishment can reduce honest opportunities when you go from zero jail to some jail, but once you're in prison for a year, my guess is the additional effect of having a record and disrupting your career is lower, with basic ways you'd expect like being out of contact with people you know, or being behind on technical training. Likewise, I think networking also doesn't account for much when your prison sentence is five or ten years instead of three. There's a big jump from zero to one, and a much smaller jump after. (Regardless, that's one reason why I explicitly excluded organized crime.) These are a few reasons why I think corporal punishment might be a good idea.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Why go straight to corporal punishment rather than any of the other non-custodial solutions like electronic tagging? Or is the brutality part of the point?
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Because with corporal punishment once it's over you're done. You don't drop off the face of the earth for weeks to years like you do with prison. I'd totally take lashes in exchange for a reduced sentence.
      - gnode 8y ago
        Fines also have this quality.
        fundingshovel 8y ago
        Only if you can afford to pay them. Otherwise they linger for quite some time.
        gnode 8y ago
        Even in the case where a fine takes some time to pay, it doesn't exclude the offender from society while they're paying it.
  - pimmen 8y ago
    The biggest problem I have with corporal punishment is the same with capital punishment; I could never live knowing a not 100% effective justice system harms or kills innocent people, and I'm supporting it by electing the leaders and paying the money to implement it. An incarceration focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment is something i think would work a lot better, I could at least stand sending innocent people to such a place.
  - megaman22 8y ago
    In some ways, I do think corporal punishment is more humane. Given the option of twenty lashes or a year in jail, sign me up for the cat-o-nines. Time is precious, and pain is fleeting.
    - emiliobumachar 8y ago
      I'd too take the lash, these days. But keep in mind that back when that was popular, they didn't have antibiotics nor germ theory, and being unable to do physical labor for any length of time was a lot more problematic. Death was a common consequence.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Depending on the methods employed, one's convalescence from twenty lashes could last longer than a year.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      Within a few years, "tough on crime" US politicians will lead to people being routinely maimed or beaten to death. Soundbites, "accidents happen", etc etc, next back-door execution please.
pjc50 8y ago
You've overlooked the "incarceration increasing crime" factors: > "Incarceration is not only "an expensive way to achieve less public safety," but it may actually increase crime by breaking down the social and family bonds that guide individuals away from crime, removing adults who would otherwise nurture children, depriving communities of income, reducing future income potential, and engendering a deep resentment toward the legal system."
- Arnt 8y ago
  Right. Put crudely: Put someone in jail and he's not going to be around to rob anyone. But he's also not going to be around to talk sense into his kid brother.
  - dzdt 8y ago
    Nor is he around his grandma for her to talk sense into him; instead he is around a bunch of career criminals. Nor is he around his children, making a stable household for them to grow up focusing on school and building their own futures.
- king07828 8y ago
  Imprisonment doesn't always rehabilitate and is perhaps linked to not properly weighting the reactions of others and long-term consequences that are in response to one's own actions. I wonder what the effects would be of requiring inmates to handwrite or type a 400 word essay (i.e., just over a page, written from scratch, no cut and paste, each inmate has to write their own) every day responding to the stimulus of "What did you do today to improve your life and the lives of those around you?". Any response is sufficient, even if it is off topic or similar to prior responses. I'd be curious to learn if the inmates would begin to more properly weight others' reactions and long term consequences.
kartan 8y ago
> With a billion variables to control for, What if I told you that to imprison citizens for small crimes causes them to commit a more serious crime in the future? Does that changes your conclusion? Your over-simplification does not make sense. And assuming that the people that did the study are just blatantly incompetent without any information is very presumptuous.
furyg3 8y ago
> Basically, locking people up prevents them from committing crimes for that duration. [...] that's going to reduce crime by removing whatever crimes they'd commit. You're making a lot of assumptions here. 1) There is no crime in prison. 2) The imprisoned would have kept on committing crime for their total sentence if they were not in jail. 3) Prisoners 'return' to the world committing the same type/volume of crimes that they were committing when they went in. For #1: There is crime in prison, a whole lot of it, and (even if you don't have sympathy for criminals) it's bad for society; people may come out worse off than they went in, driving crime up further. Jail is an intense experience, and it seems like the skills that you develop while 'surviving' in jail may not be so constructive for society when you're released. For #2: As a kid my friends and I made a lot of stupid mistakes and some pretty bad decisions. Purely arbitrary factors (race, affluence, geography, etc) meant that none of us were ever locked up for them. We had the opportunity to correct our behavior, grow out of it. Had we have been punished harshly, it's likely that that our bad behavior would have continued. This is due to #1 (exposure to crime/criminals in prison, and contact with the justice system), but also loss of opportunities, and probably a different exposure or experience with drugs. For #3: The above two points lead to the possibility that people who come out of jail are more likely to engage in more or worse criminal activity when they're released than when they went in. So while there need to be consequences for crime, it's not at all evident that increased incarceration, certainly the way we are doing it, would lead to reduced criminal activity.
- skate22 8y ago
  Well for my family member who was/is a heroin addict, 6 months in jail meant 6 months of not stealing from her family. 6 months of not neglecting her kid. 6 months of sobriety to reflect on where her life was going. She did not stay clean, and I'm sure we can do better as a society to rehab our people, but for 6 months she was limited in the damage she could do to those around her. I'm pretty conflicted on the topic
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    How could one possibly not neglect one's kid while in jail? Presumably someone or some institution stepped in, probably the family. How much was the jailing necessary for the kid to get this help?
matt4077 8y ago
Controlling for confounding factors is required when such factors exist. To use it as an argument to attack the study is rather bold, considering not correcting would actually be statistical malpractice. If you believe confounding factors make it impossible to use empirical methods to study the subject you're just giving up on scientific method. Because your alternative seems to be a few slogans that claim to be "common sense", but are really just a projection of your moral preferences into a causal model. Fortunately, policy professionals are not giving up on evidence-based decision-making quite as quickly.

dllthomas 8y ago

> For anything besides organized crime, that's going to reduce crime by removing whatever crimes they'd commit. That doesn't automatically follow. First, it ignores crimes committed while in jail, which is totally a thing - but at least hopefully the impact of those on "innocents" is reduced. Second, if punishment reduces honest opportunities and increases criminal opportunities (networking?), enough new criminal acts may follow to make up for the lost time.

SamReidHughes 8y ago
I think punishment can reduce honest opportunities when you go from zero jail to some jail, but once you're in prison for a year, my guess is the additional effect of having a record and disrupting your career is lower, with basic ways you'd expect like being out of contact with people you know, or being behind on technical training. Likewise, I think networking also doesn't account for much when your prison sentence is five or ten years instead of three. There's a big jump from zero to one, and a much smaller jump after. (Regardless, that's one reason why I explicitly excluded organized crime.) These are a few reasons why I think corporal punishment might be a good idea.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Why go straight to corporal punishment rather than any of the other non-custodial solutions like electronic tagging? Or is the brutality part of the point?
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Because with corporal punishment once it's over you're done. You don't drop off the face of the earth for weeks to years like you do with prison. I'd totally take lashes in exchange for a reduced sentence.
    - gnode 8y ago
      Fines also have this quality.
      - fundingshovel 8y ago
        Only if you can afford to pay them. Otherwise they linger for quite some time.
        gnode 8y ago
        Even in the case where a fine takes some time to pay, it doesn't exclude the offender from society while they're paying it.
- pimmen 8y ago
  The biggest problem I have with corporal punishment is the same with capital punishment; I could never live knowing a not 100% effective justice system harms or kills innocent people, and I'm supporting it by electing the leaders and paying the money to implement it. An incarceration focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment is something i think would work a lot better, I could at least stand sending innocent people to such a place.
- megaman22 8y ago
  In some ways, I do think corporal punishment is more humane. Given the option of twenty lashes or a year in jail, sign me up for the cat-o-nines. Time is precious, and pain is fleeting.
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    I'd too take the lash, these days. But keep in mind that back when that was popular, they didn't have antibiotics nor germ theory, and being unable to do physical labor for any length of time was a lot more problematic. Death was a common consequence.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Depending on the methods employed, one's convalescence from twenty lashes could last longer than a year.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    Within a few years, "tough on crime" US politicians will lead to people being routinely maimed or beaten to death. Soundbites, "accidents happen", etc etc, next back-door execution please.

pjc50 8y ago

You've overlooked the "incarceration increasing crime" factors: > "Incarceration is not only "an expensive way to achieve less public safety," but it may actually increase crime by breaking down the social and family bonds that guide individuals away from crime, removing adults who would otherwise nurture children, depriving communities of income, reducing future income potential, and engendering a deep resentment toward the legal system."

Arnt 8y ago
Right. Put crudely: Put someone in jail and he's not going to be around to rob anyone. But he's also not going to be around to talk sense into his kid brother.
- dzdt 8y ago
  Nor is he around his grandma for her to talk sense into him; instead he is around a bunch of career criminals. Nor is he around his children, making a stable household for them to grow up focusing on school and building their own futures.
king07828 8y ago
Imprisonment doesn't always rehabilitate and is perhaps linked to not properly weighting the reactions of others and long-term consequences that are in response to one's own actions. I wonder what the effects would be of requiring inmates to handwrite or type a 400 word essay (i.e., just over a page, written from scratch, no cut and paste, each inmate has to write their own) every day responding to the stimulus of "What did you do today to improve your life and the lives of those around you?". Any response is sufficient, even if it is off topic or similar to prior responses. I'd be curious to learn if the inmates would begin to more properly weight others' reactions and long term consequences.

kartan 8y ago

> With a billion variables to control for, What if I told you that to imprison citizens for small crimes causes them to commit a more serious crime in the future? Does that changes your conclusion? Your over-simplification does not make sense. And assuming that the people that did the study are just blatantly incompetent without any information is very presumptuous.

furyg3 8y ago

> Basically, locking people up prevents them from committing crimes for that duration. [...] that's going to reduce crime by removing whatever crimes they'd commit. You're making a lot of assumptions here. 1) There is no crime in prison. 2) The imprisoned would have kept on committing crime for their total sentence if they were not in jail. 3) Prisoners 'return' to the world committing the same type/volume of crimes that they were committing when they went in. For #1: There is crime in prison, a whole lot of it, and (even if you don't have sympathy for criminals) it's bad for society; people may come out worse off than they went in, driving crime up further. Jail is an intense experience, and it seems like the skills that you develop while 'surviving' in jail may not be so constructive for society when you're released. For #2: As a kid my friends and I made a lot of stupid mistakes and some pretty bad decisions. Purely arbitrary factors (race, affluence, geography, etc) meant that none of us were ever locked up for them. We had the opportunity to correct our behavior, grow out of it. Had we have been punished harshly, it's likely that that our bad behavior would have continued. This is due to #1 (exposure to crime/criminals in prison, and contact with the justice system), but also loss of opportunities, and probably a different exposure or experience with drugs. For #3: The above two points lead to the possibility that people who come out of jail are more likely to engage in more or worse criminal activity when they're released than when they went in. So while there need to be consequences for crime, it's not at all evident that increased incarceration, certainly the way we are doing it, would lead to reduced criminal activity.

skate22 8y ago
Well for my family member who was/is a heroin addict, 6 months in jail meant 6 months of not stealing from her family. 6 months of not neglecting her kid. 6 months of sobriety to reflect on where her life was going. She did not stay clean, and I'm sure we can do better as a society to rehab our people, but for 6 months she was limited in the damage she could do to those around her. I'm pretty conflicted on the topic
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  How could one possibly not neglect one's kid while in jail? Presumably someone or some institution stepped in, probably the family. How much was the jailing necessary for the kid to get this help?

matt4077 8y ago

Controlling for confounding factors is required when such factors exist. To use it as an argument to attack the study is rather bold, considering not correcting would actually be statistical malpractice. If you believe confounding factors make it impossible to use empirical methods to study the subject you're just giving up on scientific method. Because your alternative seems to be a few slogans that claim to be "common sense", but are really just a projection of your moral preferences into a causal model. Fortunately, policy professionals are not giving up on evidence-based decision-making quite as quickly.