5 ms·

For example the method of human caging, which there is a large and growing body of research establishing does not prevent crime. https://daily.jstor.org/rethink

For example the method of human caging, which there is a large and growing body of research establishing does not prevent crime. https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-future-crime/ https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-deterrent-to-...

BryantD 4y ago
Also, if you don’t ruin someone’s life based on a false conviction, the impact of the inevitable junk science is reduced.
vorpalhex 4y ago
This is terrible research and JSTOR should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it. > They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference. No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience. > the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial. The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system. We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses. That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  It's really easy to do the reflexive HN contrarian takedown on pretty much any single piece of work if you're motivated to do so. This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. If you're interested you could look into this entire domain of research and see what it suggests.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    This is a variant of ad hominem attack. He must be "motivated" to disagree with you. It's "reflexive." Maybe he just disagrees. If you didn't present "the best nor even a representative" link, why don't you contribute to the debate and present it?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    > This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. Then why did you post it?
- magicalist 4y ago
  > A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. Did you read the actual studies to see if they controlled for this very obvious objection? Seems important when accusing of incompetence. > We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses We also use it for people who can't afford to get out, who then often lose their jobs, possibly where they live, etc. I know this because the article states that directly, not your "article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system" summary which doesn't appear to be part of the article (but maybe I just missed it?). > “Holding them for a couple days, a couple months pretrial has devastating implications[1] for their lives,” Ghandnoosh says. Many find it hard to keep a job, hard to keep their housing. Such outcomes for a minor offense or no offense at all, she says, makes it more difficult to live a law-abiding life and could tip people into crime. Seems like lots of evidence in the article, actually, and overall the criminologists quoted seem very careful to not overstate the conclusions the evidence can support. [1] https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/economic-costs-pretrial-detention https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/economi...
josephcsible 4y ago
Even if jail were completely ineffective as a deterrent (which isn't true), it would still prevent crime, since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail.
- misnome 4y ago
  Only if you never release anyone, because otherwise there is the possibility that it would increase instances of crime _more than if they had never gone to jail_ after release.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    Actually, that's provably false: older people commit fewer crimes.
    - BigRedDog1669 4y ago
      In general, yes they commit less crimes. But does a 45yo person who was caged for 5 years and neglected commit less crimes than a 40yo free person?
      - UIUC_06 4y ago
        You could research that; of course you'd have to control for "having committed a crime in the first place."
- schwartzworld 4y ago
  > since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail. Does this mean you would be in favor of judicial reform that prevented those convicted of non-violent crimes from going to prison? No reason to keep someone locked up on a petty possession charge if our concern is safety of others.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    "safety" in this context need not mean solely physical safety.

BryantD 4y ago

Also, if you don’t ruin someone’s life based on a false conviction, the impact of the inevitable junk science is reduced.

vorpalhex 4y ago

This is terrible research and JSTOR should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it. > They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference. No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience. > the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial. The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system. We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses. That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!

giraffe_lady 4y ago
It's really easy to do the reflexive HN contrarian takedown on pretty much any single piece of work if you're motivated to do so. This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. If you're interested you could look into this entire domain of research and see what it suggests.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  This is a variant of ad hominem attack. He must be "motivated" to disagree with you. It's "reflexive." Maybe he just disagrees. If you didn't present "the best nor even a representative" link, why don't you contribute to the debate and present it?
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  > This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. Then why did you post it?
magicalist 4y ago
> A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend. Did you read the actual studies to see if they controlled for this very obvious objection? Seems important when accusing of incompetence. > We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses We also use it for people who can't afford to get out, who then often lose their jobs, possibly where they live, etc. I know this because the article states that directly, not your "article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system" summary which doesn't appear to be part of the article (but maybe I just missed it?). > “Holding them for a couple days, a couple months pretrial has devastating implications[1] for their lives,” Ghandnoosh says. Many find it hard to keep a job, hard to keep their housing. Such outcomes for a minor offense or no offense at all, she says, makes it more difficult to live a law-abiding life and could tip people into crime. Seems like lots of evidence in the article, actually, and overall the criminologists quoted seem very careful to not overstate the conclusions the evidence can support. [1] https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/economic-costs-pretrial-detention https://www.cato.org/research-briefs-economic-policy/economi...

josephcsible 4y ago

Even if jail were completely ineffective as a deterrent (which isn't true), it would still prevent crime, since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail.

misnome 4y ago
Only if you never release anyone, because otherwise there is the possibility that it would increase instances of crime _more than if they had never gone to jail_ after release.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Actually, that's provably false: older people commit fewer crimes.
  - BigRedDog1669 4y ago
    In general, yes they commit less crimes. But does a 45yo person who was caged for 5 years and neglected commit less crimes than a 40yo free person?
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      You could research that; of course you'd have to control for "having committed a crime in the first place."
schwartzworld 4y ago
> since the rest of the world is safe from prisoners while they're in jail. Does this mean you would be in favor of judicial reform that prevented those convicted of non-violent crimes from going to prison? No reason to keep someone locked up on a petty possession charge if our concern is safety of others.
- kube-system 4y ago
  "safety" in this context need not mean solely physical safety.