4 ms·

Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what

Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629 https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629

Sammi 2y ago
Ok so now you're saying we don't know. Before you were saying you did know. I see what you did there. Convenient.
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  I do not understand your comment. OP explained his point about how the rates vary
  - Sammi 2y ago
    > the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes First he says he knows recidivism in scandinavia is not low. > Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. Then when pushed his proof is that we cannot know that recidivism in scandinavia is not low. Grade A bullshitter right there.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      My understanding was that he said that the headlines report numbers that are not backed off by science (your first quote) and then goes on explaining why (your second quite). He could have used "high" and "USA" instead and it would have been the same.
      - Sammi 2y ago
        Had he left out "rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes" then maybe. But he didn't and made is initial argument sound stronger than it is. Classic motte-and-bailey argument.

Sammi 2y ago

Ok so now you're saying we don't know. Before you were saying you did know. I see what you did there. Convenient.

BrandoElFollito 2y ago
I do not understand your comment. OP explained his point about how the rates vary
- Sammi 2y ago
  > the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes First he says he knows recidivism in scandinavia is not low. > Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates. Then when pushed his proof is that we cannot know that recidivism in scandinavia is not low. Grade A bullshitter right there.
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    My understanding was that he said that the headlines report numbers that are not backed off by science (your first quote) and then goes on explaining why (your second quite). He could have used "high" and "USA" instead and it would have been the same.
    - Sammi 2y ago
      Had he left out "rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes" then maybe. But he didn't and made is initial argument sound stronger than it is. Classic motte-and-bailey argument.