4 ms·

Your argument makes it sound like you're advocating that people who violate the law shouldn't face punishment.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
What I'm saying is that it's an empirical fact that sending criminals to prison makes you "less safe" than leaving them on the street. That isn't saying they shouldn't be punished in some other way, just that they shouldn't be sent to prison, and anything that causes them to be sent to prison does more harm than good. Imagine someone suggested that forcing criminals to become addicted to cocaine or meth would be a good punishment. Yes, that is definitely a form of punishment. That doesn't imply that doing it would make the world safer or in any way better. Moreover, from a "makes people safer" perspective, if you have a trade off between actual safety against attackers and law enforcement effectiveness, you almost always want to choose the thing that provides actual safety. Law enforcement effectiveness just doesn't make that much difference since actual effectiveness has such a tenuous relationship with perceived effectiveness and perceived effectiveness is what matters for deterrence.
- csandreasen 12y ago
  Maybe it's a difference in our interpretations as to meaning of "criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk". That doesn't necessarily imply a prison sentence - it implies a conviction irrespective of what the actual punishment is. The iPhone encryption argument isn't about which crimes deserve which punishments; it's about being able to gather evidence to present in court.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    That's kind of like saying that it's fine to provide rope to someone you know is going to use it for a lynching because you like knots and you want to encourage people to tie knots. Moreover, it doesn't change much when you substitute a different punishment. You don't ever want to be in that situation because you only get there after you've already failed to deter the crime. If the efficiency of your coroner's office seems like a problem, that isn't your actual problem.
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      No, it's kind of like saying that people should only be convicted in a court of law when the prosecution shows all available and relevant evidence to convince a jury of their guilt, and if convicted the punishment should fit the crime. Again, you're suggesting that criminals shouldn't face punishment because it's society's fault that the crime wasn't deterred in the first place.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        What I'm saying is that the percentage of criminals who are actually punished has very little practical effect. It doesn't affect deterrence because the other prospective criminals never know about it either way. It won't make any particular criminal's victims whole either way (if anything it makes it worse by reducing their ability to pay restitution). It doesn't reduce recidivism. It's not that we shouldn't try to do it. It's that failure is mostly irrelevant.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Can you link or describe the resource you are leaning on here? I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > Can you link or describe the resource you are leaning on here? http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 Short version: 76.6% of convicts released from prison are re-arrested within 5 years, half of those within one year. From this we have to add the percentage who committed crimes without being arrested and account for those who would not have re-offended regardless of whether or not they had served prison time. The latter numbers are obviously difficult to come by but I think it's safe to assume that they aren't both zero. The recidivism rates in countries that use non-prison punishments or shorter prison terms are obviously lower than this (since it would be nearly impossible for them to be any higher). > I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates. You may find this relevant: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li... Also, the number of inmates in prison has finally started to decline over the last few years and the crime rate is still falling, consistent with the linked article but not with a link between higher incarceration and lower crime rates.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      The jump from recidivism rates to characterizing public safety is a giant flying leap out into a chasm. That there are places with lesser sentences and lower crime is a good data point for establishing that a society need not rely on imprisonment, but it actually isn't instructive as to the effectiveness of imprisonment in other societies. I think the US imprisons too many people for too long, but you are using a phrase like 'empirical fact' to describe an opinion you have reached. Also, note I said "completely disconnected", I'm at least somewhat aware of the speculation and research into lead and criminality (my favorite question is how the lead effect might compare to the Sesame Street effect). An alternate explanation of the trend you speak of in your last paragraph is that stricter enforcement has made criminality less attractive (I'm not endorsing that argument, I'm saying I think it has equal footing with your conclusions).

What I'm saying is that it's an empirical fact that sending criminals to prison makes you "less safe" than leaving them on the street. That isn't saying they shouldn't be punished in some other way, just that they shouldn't be sent to prison, and anything that causes them to be sent to prison does more harm than good. Imagine someone suggested that forcing criminals to become addicted to cocaine or meth would be a good punishment. Yes, that is definitely a form of punishment. That doesn't imply that doing it would make the world safer or in any way better. Moreover, from a "makes people safer" perspective, if you have a trade off between actual safety against attackers and law enforcement effectiveness, you almost always want to choose the thing that provides actual safety. Law enforcement effectiveness just doesn't make that much difference since actual effectiveness has such a tenuous relationship with perceived effectiveness and perceived effectiveness is what matters for deterrence.

csandreasen 12y ago
Maybe it's a difference in our interpretations as to meaning of "criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk". That doesn't necessarily imply a prison sentence - it implies a conviction irrespective of what the actual punishment is. The iPhone encryption argument isn't about which crimes deserve which punishments; it's about being able to gather evidence to present in court.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  That's kind of like saying that it's fine to provide rope to someone you know is going to use it for a lynching because you like knots and you want to encourage people to tie knots. Moreover, it doesn't change much when you substitute a different punishment. You don't ever want to be in that situation because you only get there after you've already failed to deter the crime. If the efficiency of your coroner's office seems like a problem, that isn't your actual problem.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    No, it's kind of like saying that people should only be convicted in a court of law when the prosecution shows all available and relevant evidence to convince a jury of their guilt, and if convicted the punishment should fit the crime. Again, you're suggesting that criminals shouldn't face punishment because it's society's fault that the crime wasn't deterred in the first place.
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      What I'm saying is that the percentage of criminals who are actually punished has very little practical effect. It doesn't affect deterrence because the other prospective criminals never know about it either way. It won't make any particular criminal's victims whole either way (if anything it makes it worse by reducing their ability to pay restitution). It doesn't reduce recidivism. It's not that we shouldn't try to do it. It's that failure is mostly irrelevant.
maxerickson 12y ago
Can you link or describe the resource you are leaning on here? I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Can you link or describe the resource you are leaning on here? http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17 Short version: 76.6% of convicts released from prison are re-arrested within 5 years, half of those within one year. From this we have to add the percentage who committed crimes without being arrested and account for those who would not have re-offended regardless of whether or not they had served prison time. The latter numbers are obviously difficult to come by but I think it's safe to assume that they aren't both zero. The recidivism rates in countries that use non-prison punishments or shorter prison terms are obviously lower than this (since it would be nearly impossible for them to be any higher). > I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates. You may find this relevant: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-li... Also, the number of inmates in prison has finally started to decline over the last few years and the crime rate is still falling, consistent with the linked article but not with a link between higher incarceration and lower crime rates.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    The jump from recidivism rates to characterizing public safety is a giant flying leap out into a chasm. That there are places with lesser sentences and lower crime is a good data point for establishing that a society need not rely on imprisonment, but it actually isn't instructive as to the effectiveness of imprisonment in other societies. I think the US imprisons too many people for too long, but you are using a phrase like 'empirical fact' to describe an opinion you have reached. Also, note I said "completely disconnected", I'm at least somewhat aware of the speculation and research into lead and criminality (my favorite question is how the lead effect might compare to the Sesame Street effect). An alternate explanation of the trend you speak of in your last paragraph is that stricter enforcement has made criminality less attractive (I'm not endorsing that argument, I'm saying I think it has equal footing with your conclusions).