Different demographics.
You’re failing to persuade because your theory doesn’t account for the facts- or any facts, really. Particularly not the ones you’ve posted. 
Again I say,
The only people who refuse to accept an argument so obviously valid are those who do not want to. They do not want to because they feel compassion for lower class violent street criminals. The electorate does not share that compassion.
Those who hate taxes have a difficult time understanding that higher taxes lead to higher tax receipts.
Those who care about lower class street criminals have a difficult time understanding that more punishment leads to less crime.
In each case these are ideologues who refuse to accept truths that are easy to substantiate using well documented facts.
There’s a difference between substantiation using documented facts and pulling facts of of your ass to make a point. You have not proven any correlation between higher incarceration rates and lower crime rates. It’s the same logic that is used by some people to, for example, theorize that vaccinations cause autism, since you know, as more children received vaccinations the autism rate also rose in unison.
There’s no disputing that locked-up criminals can’t be committing any new crimes, but there are obviously other factors at work that correlate more closely with the reduced crime rate, such as an aging baby-boomer population, for example.
Fortunately most Americans agree with me, rather than you. That is why the prison population keeps growing, and why the crime rate continues to decline.
Now, I do not deny that a high youth population is a factor contributing to a high crime rate. There is not much we can do about a high youth population. We can put more criminals in prison, and keep them there longer.
This is a text-based medium, so repeating arguments that were shot full of holes earlier in the thread does not work very well. If your argument was “obviously valid,” you would not have to ignore so much information to make it fly. Several other posters already illustrated that fact. You’re employing an very elementary logical fallacy here, and since people already have a pretty good idea why you are so intent on sticking to your conclusion regardless of its flaws, this kind of dogged determination does not help you.
One thing that is omitted in a comparison between U.S. and third world incarceration rates is that conditions in third world prisons are harsher than in American prisons. This has a deterring effect.
Are you claiming the the United Kingdom is a third world country?
What is the “very elementary logical fallacy” I am making? This website should help you find it.
I expect you to say I am guilty of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
Causal relationships are often difficult to prove in history. They certainly do exist.
In order to demonstrate that incarceration is irrelevant to the crime rate you would need to show where a significant rise or fall in incarceration had little or no effect on the crime rate, while other factors remained constant.
I don’t need help finding it, and obviously you already knew the one I was talking about.
Yes, they do. And when you have to delete fact after fact from the historical record to make your point, you’ve disproved the causal relationship.
No. In addition it has a much lower third world population. This contributes to a lower crime rate.
What are the facts I have deleted from the historical record?
The crime rate increased dramatically after Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty and signed civil rights legislation.
As previously shown, it has a higher crime rate. Now what?
Hrm… count the number of black people?
You’ve read the posts at least enough to respond to them. What purpose is served by asking me to repeat them?
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc,” or “correlation is not causation” can be used against any cause for a correlation. If I wear a blue shirt and it rains, it would be incorrect to say that my blue shirt caused the rain. On the other hand, if there is an overcast sky with dark clouds and it rains it is reasonable to assume that the dark clouds did cause the rain.
One needs to have a sense for what is plausible. It is plausible that putting more criminals in prison and keeping them there longer reduces the crime rate. I have demonstrated that a tripling of the prison population has been followed by a reduction in the crime rate by one third.
Now the crime rate was lower in 1960 when the prison population per capita was lower. Other factors were responsible for a lower crime rate in 1960. For one thing, illegitimacy was much lower. Also a high IQ was less important to earn a reasonably comfortable income.
It cannot be argued that there was a more generous welfare system in 1960. Nor can it be argued that the creation of a more generous welfare system after 1964, or even the civil rights legislation, lead to a decline in the crime rate, as both were expected to by their advocates.
“It sounds plausible to me” isn’t evidence. However it does provide an excuse for saying people who disagree are denying the obvious because of bias rather than noting they have found flaws in one’s argument.
Neither of those facts is in dispute. What’s in dispute is that one caused the other, and you’ve failed badly at that because the evidence doesn’t support you. That’s why you fell back on the claim that people are desperate to deny the obvious because they’re overwhelmed with compassion for “lower class street criminals.”
The “far-right” could not have destroyed the high confidence in the government unless their arguments resonated with a white majority that was tired of being told that they were responsible for high and rising rates of black crime.
I have not denied that a decline in the youth population contributed to the decline in the crime rate. You have denied that the increase in the prison population also contributed.