3 ms·

1st - is there actually a higher statistical likelihood of poor people reoffending? Rich people go to jail less often, so I’d imagine those that do might even h

1st - is there actually a higher statistical likelihood of poor people reoffending? Rich people go to jail less often, so I’d imagine those that do might even have a higher rate. 2nd - if you wanted to drop the reoffense rate, as well as the offense rate, what would you do? Why aren’t we doing it?

throwaway894345 6y ago
1. I'm not sure. It's only my assumption, but it should definitely be verified. Obviously if the assumption is bad then my conclusion is no good. 2. Several broad categories of solutions spring to mind with their own tradeoffs: 2.1 Invest in rehabilitation. Difficulties are cost and probably political problems due to ignorance (or maybe I'm ignorant for my faith in rehabilitation?). 2.2 Longer sentencing (or rather require prisoners to serve more of their sentence more frequently, as opposed to early probation, etc). Downside is cost, ethics, and politics (a lot of well-meaning, typically upper- and upper-middle-class folks believe that longer sentences harms communities of color more than violent re-offenders, or rather they don't consider the costs of the latter). 2.3 Death penalty. Downside is ethics.
- taurath 6y ago
  2.1 - What does "rehab" constitute? Crimes of need are not likely to go away unless people's situation improves. 2.2 - We punish more people for longer than anywhere else in the world. Our prison population backs that up. (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7...). Its absolutely not the case that we get better outcomes. There's no evidence to support that longer sentences will solve anything. 2.3 - Has its own problems - a nontrivial amount of people are put to death who are later exonerated. Its costly. Its also not an effective deterrent Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    2.1 you said we were talking about reducing recidivism, not reducing crime overall. To reduce crime in general, I mentioned addressing the systemic upstream factors like poverty and inequality. 2.2 Point blank if you imprison people they aren’t a threat to society while they’re being held. It’s not a good idea IMO, but you didn’t ask for my preferred ideas. 2.3 right, like I said: ethics In general I think we’re agreeing, but your tone seems to suggest otherwise. Hopefully I’m just misreading.

throwaway894345 6y ago

1. I'm not sure. It's only my assumption, but it should definitely be verified. Obviously if the assumption is bad then my conclusion is no good. 2. Several broad categories of solutions spring to mind with their own tradeoffs: 2.1 Invest in rehabilitation. Difficulties are cost and probably political problems due to ignorance (or maybe I'm ignorant for my faith in rehabilitation?). 2.2 Longer sentencing (or rather require prisoners to serve more of their sentence more frequently, as opposed to early probation, etc). Downside is cost, ethics, and politics (a lot of well-meaning, typically upper- and upper-middle-class folks believe that longer sentences harms communities of color more than violent re-offenders, or rather they don't consider the costs of the latter). 2.3 Death penalty. Downside is ethics.

taurath 6y ago
2.1 - What does "rehab" constitute? Crimes of need are not likely to go away unless people's situation improves. 2.2 - We punish more people for longer than anywhere else in the world. Our prison population backs that up. (https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7-176264_w1024_n.jpg https://www.apa.org/images/2014-10-incarceration-chart2_tcm7...). Its absolutely not the case that we get better outcomes. There's no evidence to support that longer sentences will solve anything. 2.3 - Has its own problems - a nontrivial amount of people are put to death who are later exonerated. Its costly. Its also not an effective deterrent Further reading: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  2.1 you said we were talking about reducing recidivism, not reducing crime overall. To reduce crime in general, I mentioned addressing the systemic upstream factors like poverty and inequality. 2.2 Point blank if you imprison people they aren’t a threat to society while they’re being held. It’s not a good idea IMO, but you didn’t ask for my preferred ideas. 2.3 right, like I said: ethics In general I think we’re agreeing, but your tone seems to suggest otherwise. Hopefully I’m just misreading.