3 ms·
There is not an unlimited supply of potential prisoners. As wmil says, imprisonable crimes are generally those arising from poor impulse control and low intelli
by Daniel_Newby 13y ago
There is not an unlimited supply of potential prisoners. As wmil says, imprisonable crimes are generally those arising from poor impulse control and low intelligence. (If you want to learn more, Russell Barkley has some informative books on the connection between brain executive function, intelligence, and life outcomes.)
If we made wearing socks a three-strikes-eligible law, the same people would go to prison. Normal people would adapt, impulsive and dull people wouldn't. American criminal law is basically a test of certain neurological abilities. If you fail the test, they hit you with the banhammer. Psychiatrists would be cheaper and better, but democracy produces popular myths, not rational plans.
- Mithaldu 13y agoProclaiming theories as fact is not a very nice way to proceed in an argument. That said, please consider a counter-theory to your theory: Due to the fact that many people imprisoned for long terms do end up obtaining their GED and one or more vocations, it seems quite probably that american criminal law is a test of education more than one of genetic factors.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoAlas, no. Mental tests in childhood and early adolescence predict subsequent educational failure. The effect is independent of race, culture, parental socioeconomic status, etc.
- Mithaldu 13y agoThat doesn't mean anything though. :) It merely proved a correlation between mental ability and educational success in the current educational system. It does not show whether the cause of crime is the actual lack of mental ability, or the failure of the education system to properly prepare them for adult life. In other words: You've not shown that more effort to educate people would result in the same crime levels as with the current effort.