1 out of every 150 people in the US are in prison!

[wring]

Ok Jack a little less than one decade out of the 20 - 30 years. :rolleyes:

Manufacture/smanufacture. I’ve contended that other factors are more relevant, named and repeated two (economy and aging of the baby boomers, both of which would have had a major impact in the past decade or so, which <<ahem>> corresponds exactly with, and only with, the consistent downturn of the past decard. You, however, cling every so strongly to the idea that it’s the increased rate of incarceration that has the major impact. Keep on clinging, in the face of evidence to the contrary (ie that only during the past decade or so, has it consistently dropped, and not the entire 20-30 years…)

yep, casdave, we even had a saying in the elections ‘it’s the economy…’

[jshore]

I’ve just found a remarkable correlation between falling crime rates and increasing computer processor speed that has held through much of the 90s! Clearly, increases in CPU power is causing less people to turn to a life of crime. (Or maybe it’s that fewer crimes allows chip designers more peace-of-mind to do their best work.)

[Note, I am not trying to argue that there isn’t some contribution to lowering crime rates from locking people up, but simply that, as wring has been arguing very effectively, a case for incarcerations being the major (or even a major) reason for the decrease in crime rate is hard to make. Even the argument based on correlation being causation seems to rely on a very selective time-windowing of the statistics!]

By the way, Jack, in regards to your Royko link , how seriously can we take someone who claims:

To argue that we need prisons and that they are of social value is to label yourself as cruel and insensitive.
Even worse, lacking vision and insight into society’s real problems.

Can you please find me quotes from the people who Royko is referring to (apparently “society’s opinion makers” no less) who are advocating completely doing away with prisons?

[Jackmannii]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jshore *
**as wring has been arguing very effectively, a case for incarcerations being the major (or even a major) reason for the decrease in crime rate is hard to make…

By the way, Jack, in regards to your Royko link , how seriously can we take someone who claims:

To argue that we need prisons and that they are of social value is to label yourself as cruel and insensitive.
Even worse, lacking vision and insight into society’s real problems.**

Actually, wring has been consistently denying that the incarceration rate has anything to do with the decrease in the crime rate (as evinced by remarks such as “you’re entitled to your opinion that there’s a connection”). It is to this sort of thinking that Royko was referring. You could ask him what anti-incarceration, inmate-as-victim zealots he was referring to, but good luck getting a response from a dead person.

Dreadfully amusing little argument there connecting computer processing speeds with crime. To be more relevant to the antilogic displayed here though, we should see you denying that increased processing speed has anything to do with the ability to perform computer tasks more efficiently. The real reasons must be the improved economy, the increasing age of computer users, etc. etc.

[december]

*Originally posted by jshore *
**I’ve just found a remarkable correlation between falling crime rates and increasing computer processor speed that has held through much of the 90s! Clearly, increases in CPU power is causing less people to turn to a life of crime. (Or maybe it’s that fewer crimes allows chip designers more peace-of-mind to do their best work.)

[Note, I am not trying to argue that there isn’t some contribution to lowering crime rates from locking people up, but simply that, as wring has been arguing very effectively, a case for incarcerations being the major (or even a major) reason for the decrease in crime rate is hard to make. Even the argument based on correlation being causation seems to rely on a very selective time-windowing of the statistics!] **

The “Lock 'em up” approach has a theory behind it – that there are a number of really bad apples, who are responsible for a big share of violent crime, so that getting them off the street produces major benefits. IIRC this theory was being espoused around 25 years ago.

To evaluate cause and effect, one could try to study how successful the criminal justice system has been at identifying and incarcerating these particular people. That would give more precise data than just looking at the raw number of people incarcerated.

[casdave]

Hmm. I already mentioned that Victorian England has already tried the lock 'em up approach, didn’t have much effect on crime.

Not surprising really when one considers the conditions that much of the population had to endure at the time.Read up on your Dickens folks.

If you remove a significant percentage of the population from within the age group most likely to offend what you do is create more shattered families, which is just the right environment for the next generation to grow up in - not.

Yes you can argue that having a druggie for a parent is worse than no parent at all and it will be true in a number of cases but not on the scale that is happening in the US.

What appears to be happening in the US, looking from UK shores ,is that a whole layer of society, is growing up simply to become prisoners, and since these are, in certain areas, largely black and hispanic it is creating a persecuted, almost slave mentality among those groups.

I do not think this is healthy in any way, inner city schools with poor education, trial after trial being found to have been conducted apallingly but this only come to light in death sentence appeals. Poor access to medical care, and yes I know it can be obtained but dont give me all that choice stuff about why folk are prepared to pay rather than go to the charity hospitals.

There is a layer in US society that does not feel that the state offers them anything at all so what do you do, lock every one of them up ? How many will that be 10 million? 20 million?

Or just maybe you find a way to show these people they have a stake in society, that they are equal, that they are capable of earning their way in the world.

Sure you need to control the crime situation, but all stick and no carrot is likely to fail.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *

Actually, wring has been consistently denying that the incarceration rate has anything to do with the decrease in the crime rate (as evinced by remarks such as “you’re entitled to your opinion that there’s a connection”). It is to this sort of thinking that Royko was referring. You could ask him what anti-incarceration, inmate-as-victim zealots he was referring to, but good luck getting a response from a dead person.

Well, I can see little evidence from reading, say, all of the wring’s posts on 5/18/2001 to support your argument that he is denying the incarceration rate definitely has nothing to do with it (although he might say, I certainly would from what I know, that it is completely unclear if there is any cause and effect at all).

Note, however, that this is not at all equivalent to arguing that if we go to the extreme of incarcerating nobody that our crime rates won’t increase. The point is that just increasing your numbers doesn’t mean you are doing a better job at getting the truly dangerous people off the streets and actually increases the possibility that you are doing some counteracting harm by breaking up families and making hardened criminals out of people who went into jail for relatively petty offenses.

And thus we are left to conclude that Royko’s statements were nothing more than hot air.

Crime policy is one area where it would be wise for U.S. policymakers to actually recognize that there is a larger world out there that we can learn from…Most democratic nations in fact seem to be doing much better than us with this problem. We could also learn from the study of criminology. Alas, in this country, the political debate on crime policy is really a cartoon of real political discourse, with being “tough on crime” equated to be effective against crime no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

[Jackmannii]

I can find much to agree with in casdave’s post.

Of course, getting tough with law enforcement/incarceration is not the only solution to crime (nor has it been argued that it is). Nor can we expect a steady unbroken succession of dropping crime rates into the distant future - for one, it is not economically or socially desirable to infinitely increase incarceration rates.

It would be nice though to see recognition that it is the poor who are disproportionately the victims of crime, and who deserve vigorous protection from criminals.

[flawdlogic]

A bit of a hijack, but it seems to me that there’s something amiss when a large-scale policy is implemented with no [or very little] data to show that it actually returns the intended result.

In other words - what’s the rationale for locking up ~2 million American citizens if there is very little evidence that doing so lowers the crime rate [which is the intended goal, right?]?

Say I wanted to implement a policy tomorrow to eradicate the Latin American killer bee in America [the rationale being that if it’s allowed to breed it’ll eventually end up causing xx dollars in damages annually]. My solution is to fund a several hundred billion dollar a year effort [heartily supported by the major pesticide companies] to spray Agent X over the whole of the country. Of course, there’s only shaky proof that Agent X is effective against the killer bee - though its use has increased nearly 4 fold in the past two decades, the killer bee population hasn’t really changed all that much [and certainly hasnt decreased by a factor of 4]. Chances are more than decent that such a plan wouldn’t fly. Why, then, are prisons still used to ‘combat’ crime if the evidence simply isnt there that they actually do so?

[wring]

*Originally posted by Jackmannii *
**Actually, wring has been consistently denying that the incarceration rate has anything to do with the decrease in the crime rate (as evinced by remarks such as “you’re entitled to your opinion that there’s a connection”). **

wrong on two counts.

1. I’m female.

2. I’ve said (pulling quotes from this thread alone)"Crime data has to be analyzed carefully. There’s no quick and dirty number =cause =solution "

“Some of the factors worth mentioning are demographics; (snip)The economy has been doing well (in general) during the 90s (which has quite a bit of an effect on the crime rate)”;
"Studies on human behavior can rarely (IME) be concluded with a simple if-then kind of summation. Humans do things for a variety of reasons " ;

“attempting to reduce or explain human behavior to one cause/reason was unlikely to be accurate or of any appreciable benefit. crime, in particular feeds off of many other issues (substance abuse, poverty, mental illness, to name a few).”;

Many factors can impact crime rates. You’ve attempted to conclude that the increased rate of incarceration had a major impact on crime rates. I’ve pointed out that the increased rates started in the 70’s, giving us 30 years of data to examine. that only since the 90’s have the rates consistently gone down. Given that there are a multitude of other potential factors (age of population and economy going gang busters) that also coincided with the consistent downward trend, that to speculate that the increased incarceration rate was a major (or even significant) factor is unsupported by the evidence.

[Jackmannii]

Sorry, wring, but recapitulating your riff on why humans behave as they do still doesn’t fit here. I gather you’re hung up on disproving the idea that punishment deters crime, which is a subject for another debate (and good luck on it). Since the message apparently didn’t get through before, here it is again: criminals who are locked up get little to no chance to repeat their crimes against society while behind bars. Hence, a statistically and logically supported connection with lowered crime rates.

You’ve previously listed other factors which you think are important causes of lowered crime, but I still don’t see any response that acknowledges incarceration’s role. Here, for the first time, you seem to be indirectly conceding (squirm, squirm) that locking people up may be a factor, however insignificant (that’s a paraphrase, wring - learn the difference between a paraphrase and a quote).

Congratulations on being female. Exactly where did I refer to you as male, irrelevant as that is?
Oh, and flawdlogic (splendid username, by the way): locking up close to 2 million people (and it’s a bit of a jump to assume they’re all citizens of the U.S.) means that they are not running around your and my neighborhood committing crimes. That’s not how I define the word failure.

[wring]

Once again - I do ** not ** deserve the rudeness that you are continuing to display. Please stop. It doesn’t add to your argument at all, and is unbecoming of the forum.

Some one referred to me as male, corrected the error, sorry if you felt it was directed at you.

Your logic is flawed. You repeat once again:

Since the message apparently didn’t get through before, here it is again: criminals who are locked up get little to no chance to repeat their crimes against society while behind bars. Hence, a statistically and logically supported connection with lowered crime rates.

In the first place, it is not ‘a statistically and logically supported connection with lowered crime rates’, as evidenced by twenty years worth of data, which has been repeatedly referenced here and you continue to ignore.

If it’s a major factor, why was there no appreciable effect for the first 2 decades? why did it have to wait til the 3rd decade when other factors came about? Hmmm? care to explain that?

Your message has gotten through, it’s just in error. You wish to believe that incarceration is a major factor. It’s been repeatedly demonstrated that is not correct.

You might try and proof your other thesis, too, that persons who are incarcerated would be out committing other crimes against people and their property if they weren’t incarcerated.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by wring *
You might try and proof (sic) your other thesis, too, that persons who are incarcerated would be out committing other crimes against people and their property if they weren’t incarcerated.

Wow, not only is there no connection between putting criminals in jail and decreasing crime rates, but there are no repeat offenders. I am too stunned by this revelation to offer a rebuttal. Awesome.

wring, when you have ceased manufacturing quotes and arguments for your opponents in debate, and stopped accusing them of imaginary malfeasances, you’ll be entitled to a harangue about civility. But not until then.

[pantom]

Jackmanii, you’re extrapolating from the individual to the collective, which is fallacious.
If the Feds succeed in locking up a major Latin American drug lord, will this stop or even significantly slow down the flow of drugs?
No, obviously, because the opportunity to make scads of money will still be there, and all locking up this person will do is allow some other person to make scads of money. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t lock him up, but it also means that extrapolating from his lock up to any trend in drug use and drug-related crime will be fallacious.
Stolen car ring? Same thing.
Burglary? Same thing.
Rape? Lock 'em up, certainly, but it’s not going to stop the next guy.
And on and on.
Now, it is certainly true that focussing on career criminals will have a definite effect on the crime rate, which is part of NYC’s success. But this is different from saying just “lock 'em all up!” which is what the NY state Rockefeller drug laws said, to disastrous effect. So much so that today’s NY politicians are actually able to speak in public about revising these laws, a thing that would have been poison politically even as little as five years ago.

[krinklyfig]

Wow, this thread is going 'round in circles.

I think that there are two fundamentally different ideas being expressed here at this point, and mainly expressed by two people - one, as expressed by wring, is that simply locking more people up in general, regardless of whether or not the crime actually deserves prison time, is not helping. The other, as expressed by Jackmannii, is that putting more people in prison reduces the crime rate. Although the debate has centered around the question of whether putting more people in prison in fact does reduce crime rate, the discussion is becoming a bit splintered on differing points, which is why, perhaps, it keeps going around.

FWIW, Jackmannii, correllating a lower crime rate with a higher prison population is spurious and unscientific. While it is emotionally satisfying to see the numbers beside each other, the assertion simply does not hold up under any measure of scrutiny that we have available. As wring has pointed out more than a few times, even looking at a larger timeline will reveal trends in crime and incarceration which are clearly not at all related. Certainly, the correct assertion can be made that putting a criminal in prison will prevent that person from committing crimes on the outside, which is true in a simplified sense, and you have pointed that out more than once. But, one can even look at other countries and their historic eras, and incarceration vs. crime over an extended period, and see that the two are not interrelated. The most influencial factor in crime rates is economics, period. Of course, some of the most orderly societies go above and beyond this question by being tyrannical police states. Since I am assuming that that is not an acceptable solution, the the larger question of rehabilitation still remains.

Aside from serious, habitual and violent criminals, the assumption is that one will not be in prison for life. This assumes, then, that the criminal will have been “taught a lesson,” and will therefore be ready to enter into a free life and assume the responsibilities thereof. The prison system, as it is now run, assumes very little of the role of rehabilitation. There are programs, and some people even end up devout religious followers. But most often the prisons are in and of themselves fostering and encouraging crime. Retribution and vengance is the norm, as is power, and violence, drugs and rape are the tools of the trade. Most prisons are like living in a war-zone area of a big city from which one cannot escape. Many guards are complicitous, and the others who are not are often not in a position to stop it.

Now, there is the argument, which I have heard before, that this is the best environment for the serious criminal, as they deserve what they get. Perhaps. But is it the role or goal of our penal system to create such an environment? And, is it realistic to believe that once one enters the world after being within such a system for years, that a crime-free life will follow?

Now, consider the problem of the casual drug user, or even, for simplicity’s sake, the drug user with no violent tendencies - the average Joe who likes to smoke a joint on the weekends - and let’s say that Joe lives in Nevada. Joe gets busted one night when the cops knock on his door looking for a peeping tom in the neighborhood. The cops smell the joint Joe just smoked, and so can enter and search his apartment under reasonable cause. In doing so, the cops find a quarter bag (1/4 oz.). Under the Nevada state law, Joe, if convicted, will face 1-4 years in prison. Because Nevada changed its drug laws in 1999, probation is not guaranteed. Let’s say the cops also find a scale, which Joe uses to make sure his quarter bag is weighed fairly - he doesn’t deal, but, since it is a black market, Joe wants to be sure he gets what he’s paying for. The cops use this, and the fact that there were a few stray baggies around, as evidence that Joe is dealing. Joe now faces 1-20 years. His property - his house, his car - can be seized without a conviction. He can lose all rights as a parent. Joe never got in a fight in his life. Joe does not have any prior record, not even a speeding ticket. Joe works hard, makes about $16/hour as a mechanic, and he has a wife and child. Joe cannot afford an attorney. Joe is a good father, is well-liked and respected by family and friends, and he works hard so that his family can have a decent life, because he loves them. He likes to smoke joints on the weekends with his buddies, which is not a problem, as they usually sit around and swap stories, maybe watch a movie on cable. They are mellow nights of pizza and settling into a quieter life.

Joes’ public defender tries, but does not succeed, in proving Joe’s innocence - he isn’t really innocent anyway, at least of simple posession. Joe gets sentenced to five years, a lesser sentence because of his lack of criminal history, and because Joe didn’t have much weed on him at the time. At the very least, the judge has to sentence him to one year, but five seems fair for a dealer to him.

I know a lot of average Joes. Among my friends, many fit this profile, and all of my friends are good people, respected, loved. What would prison do for these very upright citizens, who vote, pay taxes, raise loving and successful families, etc.? How will sentencing more of them help anyone?

Devising and implementing rehabilitation that actually works is a necessary step in improving our penal system, as is changing the nature of the prisons themselves. Appropriate sentencing is another very crucial step in dealing with crime and punishment. So far, we are moving away from these objectives, though state initiatives have moved the drug debate into view again, even though the Supreme Court rejected medical marijuana.

This argument really isn’t about drugs per se, but many current sentencing laws tend to satiate the desire for retribution more than they deal with the problem at hand, i.e. the Three Strikes law, which takes all sentencing discretion out of the hands of a judge, and assumes the most horrible motive when it needn’t even be established legally that such a motive exists. Even murder is assigned degrees dependent mostly on intent.

But one thing is crystal clear: imprisoning more people in and of itself is a simplistic and naiive approach, though exceedingly popular with politicos of all stripes. Enforcing laws we do have is generally a good idea, but some laws put average Joe behind bars with Joe rapist and Joe murderer, and sometimes for longer sentences. We need to examine our laws and the fact that their consequences are sometimes far different than what was intended, or perhaps promised.

Now, I know this goes beyond the scope of the incarceration vs. crime stats, but my intent is to show that incarcerating more people based on our penal system and courts’ decisions isn’t the most desireable outcome. I am not at all suggesting we set everyone free, nor do I believe we should simply halt sentencing until it’s perfect. But some of our most vigorously enforced laws with prison sentences are simply not logical laws. We are approaching the horse at the tail end, and we’re not seeing the whole animal. Or duck, as it were.

It is completely natural to desire to live apart from criminals, and to be free from crime in our persons and homes. But the fact is that some people, quite a few, in fact, are being sent to prison for crimes which never deserved a prison sentence, and always in the name of justice, and often to great applause and little effect.

So, I don’t think the question should be, “How do we put more criminals in prison?” I think it should be two questions, “How do we rehabilitate a criminal (or what’s our best shot at it), and how does incarceration affect a prisoner?” If we knew the answers to those questions, or at least if we actively worked on these problems, our prisons might work, and they might house a lot more people who really deserve to be there, and a lot less people in general. I am not for setting murderers and rapists free, but we do that anyway. How about a greater assurance that those who do leave prison are ready to do so? That would make me feel far better than having more people behind bars, given the choice …

[wring]

well, since jack wants to focus on quotation/summation instead of answering a challenge ( as in explain why it took 20 years before increasing rate of incarceration had any major effect), we’ll go on to actual data.

Welcome to the newbie krinklyfig with a thought provoking first post, too.

columnist on increased incarceration just for drill

here’s our neighbors to the north who comment

Let’s be clear, however, about what incarceration does not do. There is no conclusive evidence that long sentences and the greater use of incarceration have a deterrent effect, reduce crime, or reduce the rate of recidivism, which means re-offending.

Research over the last 20 years bears this out. A major U.S. study compared recidivism rates of offenders sentenced to probation and those sentenced to prison; it found no difference. A British study found that young people who were kept in custody were more likely to re-offend than those who stayed in the community under certain conditions.

(of course it does say that we need to protect society from some individuals, and for those, incarceration is the best alternative, but the wholesale warehousing is not the answer).

BOJ figures on recidivism which includes this piece of data :The proportion of offenders returning to Federal prison within 3 years increased from 11.4% of those released during 1986 to 18.6% of those released during 1994. 60%(of those returning) returned following a technical violation of release conditions (ie, not a new criminal offense), 30% following a conviction for a new offense, and 10% for other violations.
California 3 strikes findings which links to other data as well, includes this bit about the relative effectiveness of a variety of models

Spending $1 million more on each strategy would have the following results: (1) mandatory minimums would reduce cocaine consumption by 13 kilograms, (2) conventional enforcement would cut it by 27 kilograms, and (3) treatment by heavy users would slash it by more than 100 kilograms. Rand Corporation, 1997.
Spending $1 million on the treatment of heavy users would reduce about 10 times more serious crime against people and property than conventional law enforcement and 15 times more than mandatory minimums. Rand Corporation, 1997.

data on Kentucky recidivism

A 1993 study concluded that four fifths of the growth in U.S. incarcerations was attributable to the increased likelihood of prison sentences, rather than rising crime rates. Consequently, our reaction to crime has become a source of rising public costs.

Flordia recidivism data, including demographics

international use of incarcertation which actually addresses the OP “does the US have a higher crime rate therefore the higher percentage of prisoners?”

The conclusion was that “only a small measure of the differences in prison population between one jurisdiction and another or the changes in prison populations within particular jurisdictions seem to be related to crime rates.”

Further, the assumption that crime rates are substantially higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations is not true for most offenses

(for example, the US has a higher per capita car ownership, therefore it’s not unusual to have higher rates of car theft. It goes on to say

There is a small body of opinion, generally represented by the National Rifle Association and its allies, that contends that the prison buildup of the 1980s had a dramatic effect on crime rates and that “Incarceration works.” This assertion turns out to be based on serious distortions of criminal justice data

And, includes the major point about drug crime.

You see, when the FBI issues it’s uniform crime report, it doesn’t include the drug crimes. And that makes sense to a degree - take drug possession for example. There is no reliable method to determine how many people are ‘guilty’ of drug possession (it’s not a ‘reported’ crime in general - you call the cops to report an assault, a robbery, you don’t call to report ‘hey, I was in possession of less than 50 grams of a controlled substance’). So, since a great quantity of the folks who’ve been incarcerated were locked up because of drug crimes, their ‘crimes’ were not part of the universal crime data base in the first place.
is there a relation between crime and incarceration rates?

It is clear from a review of the academic literature that the existence of a relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates is still in question. Studies that have focused on determining if such a relationship exists have found mixed and weak results. Studies that have focused in on incapacitation as a policy predict only modest reductions in crime rates by substantially increasing incarceration rates. The literature seems to arrive at consensus on only one point: that further research is needed to better sort out the confusing and complex relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates.

(so that by ceasing this rate of incarceration, we wouldn’t expect the crime wave that jack seemed to believe would happen.

Since many of the recent boon in incarceration are due to the War on Drugs, this is appropriate as well:poor prescription costs of imprisoning drug offenders which found that

Finally, we utilized data from 23 very diverse states around the country for which we had both drug use data and rates of drug offender admissions to prison. We found a significant, positive correlation between the two, suggesting that, if anything, states with higher rates of drug incarceration experience higher, not lower, rates of drug use.

So, oddly enough for the folks who believe that drug use and crime are entertwined (thus justifying the huge increases in the number/percentage of folks in prison simply for drug possession), there seems to be a positive correlation between drug use and incarceration - IOW, by incarcerating the drug offender, they may be increasing the probability of them using again.

[Jackmannii]

Well wring, I see you’ve gone from total denial of any connection between jailing people and preventing crime, to “modest reductions in crime rates” (to cite one of the studies you quoted). I guess that’s progress.

This debate features two of the major defects plaguing this forum:

1. the tendency in a response not to address what was said, but to bring up some pet theory or issue (i.e. reforming drug laws to avoid going after casual pot users).

2. the urge to bend facts to fit them into a particular world view, rather than vice versa.
   Take the view that the state of the economy is what determines the crime rate. If one bothers to look at the crime rate in comparison to the unemployment rate, gaping holes in that theory immediately appear. Allowing a one year lag between unemployment rate changes and subsequent changes in wring’s cited crime index (a reasonable methodology unless you assume that people who are laid off immediately run out to rob the 7-11), the expected correlation between unemployment and crime materializes in only 13 of 22 years. If one looks only at the '80s (before the significant jump in incarceration rates), the expected correlation occurs in only 3 of 11 years (the results are unchanged here even if you match crime rates and unemployment rates to the same year).

I submit that if one wishes to have any credibility, one should avoid sweeping claims that rising incarceration rates have nothing to do with lowering crime rates. Feel free to factor in economics, Social Injustice or whatever your hot-button issues are, but denying the obvious makes you look silly.

[wring]

let’s compare again:

jack sez:"Should we be incarcerating fewer criminals so that crime rates can increase again? "

Which says that incarcertaion = less crime, less incarceration = more crime, very directly.

Is there data to support this? no. All data indicates that crime data vs. incarceration is not a clear line of ‘increase commitments = less crime, decrease commitments = less crime’. But jack continues to assert that my position is the flawed one?

remembering, my position is that a large number of factors go into the stats, that extrapolation of one factor as being the major factor is not reliable. Have I demonstrated this with cites, positions, data? yes.

Has jack refuted this? no.

[wring]

this should read:

*Originally posted by wring *
All data indicates that crime data vs. incarceration is not a clear line of 'increase commitments = less crime, decrease commitments = more crime’. But jack continues to assert that my position is the flawed one?

remembering, my position is that a large number of factors go into the stats, that extrapolation of* increased commitments* as being the major factor is not reliable. Have I demonstrated this with cites, positions, data? yes.

Has jack refuted this? no. **

italics indicated changes. My position has not been, as **jack ** erroneously and continually claims, ‘increased commitments has zero effect’, but that increased commitments have little appreciable effect, certainly is not the major or even a significant factor’ , and when combined with a study of other potential uses of our tax dollars in the battle of crime, to rely on increasing prison commitments - wastes money, doesn’t really effect crime much at all, and ignores other, more appropriate, less costly and more effective means of addressing crime.

Perhaps at some point jack will stop flailing at that straw man, and instead support his position.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by wring *
let’s compare again:
remembering, my position is that a large number of factors go into the stats…

“Remembering”, your position is that incarcertaion (sic) rates have nothing to do with the crime rate. I’ve gone beyond Sociology 101 and acknowledged that multiple factors may be applicable.

Review again the upsurge and rate of climb of incarceration rates over the last decade or so, compare to the steadily falling crime rate for nearly a decade now, re-examine the defects of the Crime As A Function of the Brutalization of The Underclass dogma (i.e. see above), apply logic, demonstrate adaptability to reason, and you will come to see that jailing criminals actually does have an impact on crime. Sorry if you take that as an insult to your ex-con clientele.
Which again of your dynamic arguments or links proves that crime is a one-time affair (i.e. recidivism does not exist, as you were suggesting earlier)? I generally don’t attempt to refute magical thinking, but I’ll give you a one-time dispensation here.

[Jackmannii]

*Originally posted by wring *
let’s compare again:
remembering, my position is that a large number of factors go into the stats…

“Remembering”, your position is that incarcertaion (sic) rates have nothing to do with the crime rate. I’ve gone beyond Sociology 101 and acknowledged that multiple factors may be applicable.

Review again the upsurge and rate of climb of incarceration rates over the last decade or so, compare to the steadily falling crime rate for nearly a decade now, re-examine the defects of the Crime As A Function of the Brutalization of The Underclass dogma (i.e. see above), apply logic, demonstrate adaptability to reason, and you will come to see that jailing criminals actually does have an impact on crime. Sorry if you take that as an insult to your ex-con clientele.
Which again of your dynamic arguments or links proves that crime is a one-time affair (i.e. recidivism does not exist, as you were suggesting earlier)? I generally don’t attempt to refute magical thinking, but I’ll give you a one-time dispensation here.