3 ms·
Wait, so California made if very hard to put a youngster in juvenile detention, and the number of youngsters juvenile detention plummeted. Is there some deep me
by smsm42 8y ago
Wait, so California made if very hard to put a youngster in juvenile detention, and the number of youngsters juvenile detention plummeted. Is there some deep meaning behind this that I am missing? It's like saying "we reclassified most crimes from felony to misdemeanor and the number of felonies decreased dramatically!" Well, duh!
The thing to check would be what happened to crime/reoffense rates. And then making conclusions. But that didn't happen in the article.
- beat 8y agoYes, there is a deep meaning you're missing... namely, that the drop in juvenile detention mirrors a drop in crime across all parts of society.
- smsm42 8y agoI see no such comparison in the article. It may be so, or not - I have no idea. I know general crime rates are mostly declining (though it depends on place and crime - it's not universal) but I have no idea whether the drop in juvenile detention is the same as in crime, more or less. If it's the same, does it mean the reform described in the article had absolutely no effect and the reduction in detention is caused by other trend that was outside of reformer's control? Or does it mean absence of detention actually reduced the crime, causing virtuous cycle? If it's falling faster, how much this actually reduces the crime? None of these questions - which are vital for understanding the matter - were even mentioned, let alone answered.