And that goes double for me.
- Show where I said “incarceration rates have zero effect”. Others have pointed this straw man out to you before. when are you going to drop it? I’ve maintained and proved that there is little effect overall. You’re waffeling on the ‘decade or so’ of increased incarceration (it’s more like the past 20-30 years). “jailing criminals actually does have an impact on crime”. It makes it slightly more difficult (not impossible) for exactly those that are incarcerated (** and of those who are incarcerated, those that would commit new crime**), and only those that are incarcerated (not those on the outside), to commit additional crimes for exactly the period of time that they were in prison. Does that make an appreciable difference to overall crime rates. Studies, data say no.
Did you read the link that demonstrated the ‘crime data funnel’? where you have all crime funneled into smaller subset of reported crime, which is then funneled into smaller subset of convicted crime. So, of that very small subset of convicted persons, you might slow down the # of crimes they do (while incarcerated), but given that not all who are incarcerated would commit more crime to start with, you’re left with a tiny percentage of ‘supposed’ crime that you might be ‘preventing’, which, since the general solve (not convicted rate) IIRC was about 17% of all crime, amounts to a ‘not significant’ amount.
-
Show me where I said “recidivism does not exist”. I linked to data showing that it does, and at varying rates. My point in that is to decide that every single person inside the prison is the equivalent of ‘x # of crimes not being committed’ is wrong. (no, you didn’t actually say that)
-
Your personal attacks are as indefensible as your straw man arguments about ‘recidivism doesn’t exist’, ‘incarceration has no effect on crime’.
from this posted already why doesn’t incresed incarceration have a major impact on crime data?, calling it a ‘limited impact’, reasons suggested include:
(link is supplied, snipped out some pieces to avoid huge chunk being quoted).
Appears my memory was slightly off in terms of crime clearance rates, 50% roughly for violent, 18% for non violent, which is 21% overall (since violent crimes are a small proportion of the crimes) Point remains, huge increase in incarceration will have little effect on over all crime rates. (note, not zero, little, appreciable). (from this thread
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by wring *
**
Sigh. I had hopes for awhile there that you had learned the difference between a quote and a paraphrase. Apparently not. All of your responses until quite recently to the idea that increased incarceration rates reduced crime were to the effect that we need only consider other factors.**
I refer you to your post at the top of this page, where you were requiring me to “proof” that criminals would commit more crimes if out of jail; i.e. indicating that you don’t believe in recidivism.**
We’ve been through this pot-and-kettle thing before. wring, if sheer doggedness were the equivalent of intellectual honesty, you would be a moral titan.
Since the all-or-none dogma seems to be so attractive to some who’ve posted here, I assume that you’ll work to ensure that certain assumptions (a total lack of efficacy to vigorous law enforcment and the need to drastically reduce prison populations) will form the basis of a plank in your party’s '04 platform. I’m sure the voting public will be extremely impressed.
If a representative of the U.S. energy industry posted here, claiming to prove that there is absolutely no connection between soaring energy prices and fat profits for the industry, you’d be leaping all over him.
Amazing how self-hypnosis can defeat reason if one is faced with the necessity to alter one’s core beliefs.
and it’s truly amazing how you can continue to ignore the evidence that higher rates of incarceration have little appreciable effect on crime rates. You still have yet to explain why the increased rates of incarceration took nearly two decades to show any consistency. But you do seem to enjoy personal attacks on me.
Let me get this straight - you are allowed to ‘paraphrase’ my arguments to fit your needs, but I cannot ‘paraphrase’ yours, lest I argue with something you never said, and you call me intellectually dishonest?
Bah.
Tell you what - insults belong in the pit. Take it there if you desire.
Your ‘paraphrasing’ amounts to straw men. Try attacking my argument, repeatedly stated, supported by multiple sites, data, reports, studies etc, that many factors impact crime stats, that isolation of the one factor ‘raising incarceration rates’ does not, in and of itself, lead to significant reductions in crime rate. Many factors.
Until then, play in IMHO, since you seem unable to present data to support your position.
From Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
quote: To speak or write (a passage) from another, usually with credit acknowledgment. To set off by quotation marks.
paraphrase: A restatement of a text, passage or work, giving the meaning in another form.
These are not synonyms.
synonym: One of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meanining in some or all senses.
On July 7, 1953
I was doing time for armed robbery
About 3 o’clock in the morning I was asleep in my cell
I heard a whistle blowing and I heard somebody yell
(chorus)
There’s a riot going on
There’s a riot going on
There’s a riot going on
Up in cellblock number nine.
Riot in Cellblock #9, Lieber & Stoller
defining the terms ‘quote’ and ‘paraphrase’ now?
so what?
You’ve attacked positions I haven’t held, and won’t back up your thesis, attacked me personally and finally resort to quoting the dictionary and songs. You could have saved me quite a bit of time had you simply started off with that. I won’t bother again in the future.
Make that the same meaning in all senses.
Self-reminder: post after morning coffee.