3 ms·
If "gaming" the system means less recidivism, that sounds good to me. Prison ships to Australia were originally paid per passenger that boarded in Britain. The
by civilian 7y ago
If "gaming" the system means less recidivism, that sounds good to me.
Prison ships to Australia were originally paid per passenger that boarded in Britain. The death rates were horrible, in the double-digit percentages. When the transport ships were instead paid per passenger that _arrived_ the death rates went down phenomenally.
And someone like you might say: "omg these prison ships gamed the system by saving lives!!!" Yes, that's what we want to happen.
- dannypgh 7y agoYou can lower recidivism rates by reducing rates that people are released. Or, for that matter, by providing legal assistance to ex-cons who reoffend. Not sure people who want to see real criminal justice reform would be happy about either... (edit: not sure what the downvote is for, but I want to be clear that I'm not for gaming the rates in this way. I'm merely saying we don't want to incentivize lowering recividism rates at the expense of everything else)
- okonomiyaki3000 7y agoWhat we want is not just less recidivism but fewer people going to prison in the first place. If you're getting paid for lower recidivism rates, you'll want to increase the rate of people going to prison one time, not zero times. It means you might lobby for the kinds of laws that would make that happen or you might bribe judges to get the kind of inmates you want (which might mean people who are possibly innocent or would really be better off with probation or house arrest).