Crime and Prison

[Lewkowski]

----
Does the risk of prison deter crime?

According to a brand-new and extensively covered study by the JFA Institute, a George Soros funded group, the U.S. prison system doesn’t deter crime and is "a costly and harmful failure.”

Prison is supposedly so useless that the U.S. prison population could be cut in half with no effect on crime.

This distrust of prison reducing crime is not new, but many have a hard time believing the simplest rule of economics: if you make something more costly, people do less of it. People accept that this principle applies to what we buy in grocery stores, but not to “bad” things that people might do.

So how plausible is deterrence? Let us take a couple examples from sports.

When college basketball’s Atlantic Coast Conference increased the number of referees per game from two to three in 1978, the number of fouls dropped by 34 percent. Why? Basketball players fouled less often because they were more likely to get caught. In fact, the actual decline in fouling was probably even larger, since fouls that may have gone unnoticed by two referees were more likely to be caught when there were three officials.

Baseball players respond no differently. The American League has more batters hit by pitchers than the National League, but this difference only occurred after 1973, when the American League removed its pitchers from the batting lineup in favor of designated hitters. Since American League pitchers no longer worried that they themselves would be hit in retaliation if they hit an opposing batter, they began throwing more beanballs.

Take another case where the “crime” becomes more profitable, specifically a type of fraud committed by air traffic controllers. To receive disability benefits due to job-related stress, air traffic controllers must present a well-documented stressful incident—a collision or close call—that has caused a deterioration in their performance.

Unsurprisingly, when it became easier to file for disability, flights suddenly started experiencing more “close calls.” And these were not cases that the air traffic controllers could simply make up; they were reported by a sophisticated performance evaluation called the “Operation Error Severity Index.”

Given these results, is it really difficult to believe, as the JFA Institute report claims, that the number of prisoners increased while crime rates fell? Is there really anything that makes criminals immune to these same forces?

A large number of studies indicate that the more certain the punishment, the fewer the crimes committed (for a survey click here.) Arrest rates of criminals are usually the single most important factor in reducing every type of crime. The death penalty may get the most media attention, as it deserves, but everyday police work is really important in making neighborhoods safer. Changes in the arrest rate account for about 16 to 18 percent of the large drop in the murder rate during the 1990s. Conviction rates explain another 12 percent.

By comparison, the death penalty execution rate accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.

Prison stops crime in two ways: deterrence and incapacitation. The JFA Institute report misses both points. A longer prison term deters some would-be criminals from committing crimes to begin with. For those criminals who are not stopped by the threat of prison, at least they are taken off the streets and locked up, preventing them from committing yet more crime.

Longer prison sentences explain at least another 12 percent of the drop in murder rates. Why is it “at least”? Good data simply isn't available. It’s surprisingly difficult to measure how long criminals actually end up being in prison. The length of a criminal’s sentence is often much longer than the actual time served. Furthermore, the time that is served varies widely, even for a single type of crime, depending on a suspect’s criminal history and the severity of the offense.

The Department of Justice responded to the JFA Institute report by claiming that 25 percent of the drop in violent crime during the 1990s was due to increased imprisonment. But, unfortunately, the research that they cited only looks at the percent of people in prison, not other factors that are correlated with imprisonment such as arrest and conviction rates, thus falsely attributing too much of the drop to prison.

Economics explains something else about the drops in crime rates. Everyone knows how violent crime fell dramatically during the 1990s. What is less commonly understood is that the drop was much bigger than reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

With the exception of the data on murder, the FBI crime data are based on crimes that victims reported to police departments. But, of course, not every victim reports when a crime occurs. Victims are most likely to report two kinds of crimes: the most serious crimes, and the ones that they believe have the greatest chance of being solved. As arrest and conviction rates rose, victims more frequently reported crimes committed against them. Increasing the rate that crimes were reported makes it look as if crime rates are not falling as much as they actually are.

These changes are not trivial. For example, if the rate of reporting violent crimes had remained constant and not increased after 1999, the violent crime rate in 2005 would have fallen to 390 per 100, 000 people, not 469, a 17 percent lower rate than it actually was in 2005.

The JFA Institute sees it as a good sign that states are starting to shorten prison sentences to save money. Possibly states do have more important things to spend money on. But economists have a simple prediction: less imprisonment, more crime.


John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.\
----

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313310,00.html

I can't believe liberals are so stupid. Actually believing prison doesn't work in keeping people safe.

Like the piece states, prison does two things. One it acts a detterent, people are less likely to do something as the costs rise. Secondly people who have comitted violent crimes are more likely to do so again, therefore the longer then spend behind bars the safer everyone is.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I can't believe liberals are so stupid. Actually believing prison doesn't work in keeping people safe

Depends upon the crime, some people are willing to do something, and don't care whether or not they get caught, or perhaps getting caught is little worse than the situation they're in now, so again they don't care whether or not they get caught.

that's not to say the principle doesn't apply, but rather how bad prison is depends on the person's current situation.

In sports each players current situation is roughly the same, to use the examples given in your posted text, so we expect a roughly equivalent reactions to the rules, for most players, but of course some players aren't just playing the game, they like get even, or get pissed when they're bested or whatever, and will foul irrelevant of whether they get caught or not, becuase the satisfaction of "getting back at" another person is obviously greater than not getting caught after you do it, and to them it could be greater than getting when you did t, so they'll do it eitherway.

So the severity of what prison is may need to be modified... and also perhaps prison as a horrible place needs to be more widely emphasised, perhaps you're right prison is a horrible place, and a great detterrant as know one would want to be in it, however if a criminal is misinformed about how bad prison is, then the detterant won't be as strong... secondly if a person doesn't really recognize the odds they'll get caught, or doesn't pay them any mind, then it's not giong to deter them. If a person isn't made to feel like the chance of getting caught is high, or they aren't able to see that as somehow evidently true, then their willingness to attempt/commit a crime is much higher.

That's why shows like "cops" or America's Most wanted, are neccessary in order to make prison effective, for it makes people feel like they'll get caught if they try something, or that'll it'd be really hard to pull off a crime.

essentially in economic terms if prisons value would be wieghed something like this (percent chance of getting caught) times (negative value of being in prison) Each of these depend on the particular crime being commited, since some crimes are easier to pull off than others, and some crimes have heftier sentencing than others.

So prison is effective as a detterant if we can make it clear that those two are high, or make it seem as if they are, namely the chance of getting caught, adn the bad state of being in prison.

But some crimes prison isn't good for no matter what, like for people acting in the spur of the moment, sometimes, horribly awful things can happen in an instance, someone attacking and killing another person out of anger...

Or if say a person is addicted to drugs it'd have to be a massive detterant to have an effect, and then it may work to prevent them.

And again prison wouldn't work on bums very well as a detterant prison negativeness isn't that low to them etc.. etc..

there are many things prison can't help with, but overall prison is helpful and yes things would be a TON worse without it. as far as what people woudl be willing to do and try.. morality doesn't hold everybody back.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Sometimes I get these two blokes confused.

[Flixy]

Like the piece states, prison does two things. One it acts a detterent, people are less likely to do something as the costs rise. Secondly people who have comitted violent crimes are more likely to do so again, therefore the longer then spend behind bars the safer everyone is.

That is true, buyt if it does not work as a deterrant anymore, that only leaves keeping them away from the public.

That is of course a good thing, especially with violent crimes. But mind you, violent crimes are only a fraction of the crimes that get you in prison. And people who go to prison are also more likely to commit crimes again if the re-integration with society does not work well. So keeping people behind bars is a good thing, but you should watch out that they do not become more criminal inside.

So to keep the prison system effective, the catch-rate should be high, the conviction rate should be high, and people released from prison should be able to fit back in society without falling back to criminality (think about counseling, learning a job inside (with the extra benefit that by working inside they pay back a bit to society) and stuff like that).

[Timbuk2]

fn;dr

[supermarioman]

Originally Posted by PWN-Flixy

That is true, buyt if it does not work as a deterrant anymore, that only leaves keeping them away from the public.

That is of course a good thing, especially with violent crimes. But mind you, violent crimes are only a fraction of the crimes that get you in prison. And people who go to prison are also more likely to commit crimes again if the re-integration with society does not work well. So keeping people behind bars is a good thing, but you should watch out that they do not become more criminal inside.

So to keep the prison system effective, the catch-rate should be high, the conviction rate should be high, and people released from prison should be able to fit back in society without falling back to criminality (think about counseling, learning a job inside (with the extra benefit that by working inside they pay back a bit to society) and stuff like that).

I concur. PWN, that Is the most intelligent post I have read all day.

[Steely Glint]

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I can't believe liberals are so stupid. Actually believing prison doesn't work in keeping people safe.

Yeah, stupid liberals. All they've got is that exhaustive study, what's that compared to at least two tangentally related anedotal examples and red-blooded american common sense!

Secondly people who have comitted violent crimes are more likely to do so again,

Your deterrant works out real good, then.

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...41666120071119

This is the report the article talks about. It's a little more nuanced then: "Prison is so useless that the U.S. prison population could be cut in half with no effect on crime.".

It recommends shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs. It said the steps would cut the prison population in half, save $20 billion a year and ease social inequality without endangering the public.

So, instead of saying: release half the inmates! It doesn't matter anyway, it proposed measures which have that effect.

Violent offenses usually do not recieve alternative punishment, recreational drugusers are not hardened criminals.

Also:
Given these results, is it really difficult to believe, as the JFA Institute report claims, that the number of prisoners increased while crime rates fell? Is there really anything that makes criminals immune to these same forces?

See, the bolded part is not claimed, the study sais:

Although the U.S. crime rate began declining in the 1990s it is still about the same as in 1973, the JFA report said. But the prison population has soared because sentences have gotten longer and people who violate parole or probation, even with minor lapses, are more likely to be imprisoned.

So, accoording to the study it didn't decrease because the bad guys get longer sentences, the population supposedly increased because more people end up in jail for smaller offenses.

I'm not saying I agree with this study, I am saying that the Foxnews piece attacks a simplification and a misrepresentation of the study.

[Nessus]

Just another demonstration of how horribly, horribly idiotic the whole war on drugs business is.

[Widows Peak Oz]

I just was watching a show where these two young teenage girls were spiraling out of control, snorting coke, drinking, screaming and swearing at the ex-alco mother and ****ing random older guys...............

It wasnt very pleasant.

[Khendraja'aro]

And once again, deterrence is made up of three factors, Lewk.

1) Reliability of punishment
2) Adequacy of punishment
3) Chronological adjacency of punishment

Simply ramping up the amount of punishment and believing this to be the end-it-all is idiocy of the worst kind. And, as Ziggy put it, promptly leads to these overcrowded prisons for minor deeds.

[Ominous Gamer]

Originally Posted by Nessus

Just another demonstration of how horribly, horribly idiotic the whole war on drugs business is.

Isn't that my line?

[Timbuk2]

If it is you stole it from me.

[Steely Glint]

RATTLE OF KEYS. CELL DOOR OPENS.

In here, miss.

Oh! Oh, Richard. Richard. How are you?

I'm fine, Barbara. Stop blithering, woman.

I'll be just outside, miss, if he tries anything.

Yes, thank you, sergeant.

DOOR LOCKED AGAIN.

I couldn't believe it was true when they told me Daddy was dead and you'd been arrested. Say it's not so.

I'm afraid it is true, Barbara.

Oh! But why, Richard? Why?

Oh, it's the old story, Barbara. A broken home; withdrawn, aching loneliness; episodes of violence; mood swings; drink to forget the pain, then the hellish spiral of poverty, drugs, prostitution, crime, and now this - murder and prison. It's happened a million times to a million people.

Yes, but not all in the same morning. Why didn't you say something, Richard? I could have helped you.

I did ring, but you were out. Shopping, apparently.

Oh dear.

And?

Sorry.

Well, at least that's something.

[DecoyMilk]

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And once again, deterrence is made up of three factors, Lewk.

1) Reliability of punishment
2) Adequacy of punishment
3) Chronological adjacency of punishment

Simply ramping up the amount of punishment and believing this to be the end-it-all is idiocy of the worst kind. And, as Ziggy put it, promptly leads to these overcrowded prisons for minor deeds.

I thought the speed in which the punishment is delivered was one too.

[Nessus]

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

I thought the speed in which the punishment is delivered was one too.

That's the third one.

[Khendraja'aro]

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

I thought the speed in which the punishment is delivered was one too.

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

[...]
3) Chronological adjacency of punishment
[...]

Hmmh...

[Lewkowski]

Violent offenses usually do not recieve alternative punishment, recreational drugusers are not hardened criminals

The study wasn't talking about just drug use.

And once again, deterrence is made up of three factors, Lewk.

1) Reliability of punishment
2) Adequacy of punishment
3) Chronological adjacency of punishment

Your assumption is that if it doesn't fit all the critera it doesn't function as a detterent, and if you believe that your being silly.

Simply ramping up the amount of punishment and believing this to be the end-it-all is idiocy of the worst kind. And, as Ziggy put it, promptly leads to these overcrowded prisons for minor deeds.

People act rationally. If you increase the cost of something people will do it less. If people do not act rationally and they go to prison longer, thats great. I certaintly don't want a bunch of irrational criminals on the streets!

[Ziggy Stardust]

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The study wasn't talking about just drug use.

I ... you .... That's not ....

Allright.

Grapefruit! Big Yellow Grapefruit! Big Yellow German Grapefruits falling out of the sky. Don't look so sour! It's healthy for you.

This message was brought to you by the: It doesn't seem to matter what I post anyway foundation. Donations can be made at nr 555-DUCK

[DecoyMilk]

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Hmmh...

Rofl. You and your big ****ing words

Sorry

[Khendraja'aro]

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Your assumption is that if it doesn't fit all the critera it doesn't function as a detterent, and if you believe that your being silly.

ADEQUACY of punishment, Lewk. The punishment has to fit the crime committed. You're always looking at just one of the three and try to make it look like doling out more "justice" is the singular wisdom handed to you from above. Nothing could be further from the truth.

People act rationally. If you increase the cost of something people will do it less. If people do not act rationally and they go to prison longer, thats great. I certaintly don't want a bunch of irrational criminals on the streets!

Actually, people act rationally, yes. Which means that if punishment doesn't fit the crime you'll get civil disobedience, for example. See the actions of Gandhi or Martin Luther King as an example.
Or if you're caught in only 1% of all cases, you can ramp up the punishment all you want, it won't help anything. Because criminals commit crimes when they think that they won't get caught. It doesn't matter if they had to go to prision for 10 or 1.000 years - they think that they won't have to endure prison time anyway!
You're short-sighted, Lewk. The world is a complex thing and just adjusting one screw won't certainly help your cause.

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

Rofl. You and your big ****ing words

Sorry

I'm sorry if my skills in English exceed your own

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

fn;dr

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

I ... you .... That's not ....

Allright.

Grapefruit! Big Yellow Grapefruit! Big Yellow German Grapefruits falling out of the sky. Don't look so sour! It's healthy for you.

This message was brought to you by the: It doesn't seem to matter what I post anyway foundation. Donations can be made at nr 555-DUCK

You have to give Lewk credit for persistence. It's not often that somebody posts an article that is so misrepresentative, gets their head handed to them, then comes back and continues to defend their original post.

You do realize that this was an editorial and not a news article, right? So basically the facts matter little, since the point is to influence public opinion.

I've noticed that Lewk has started posting editorials from Fox rather than Ann Coulter. Why they are not as extreme as he likes, they have the veneer of legitimacy because they are from a news outlet. The fact that they are still editorials, and therefore just some donkey's opinion, still escapes him. I'm still not sure whether he fails to understand the distinction, or sticks with them because real news doesn't support his extreme stances.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hey, I'd rather read a Fox editorial than Ann. It's a progress. Don't diss him for that. And he in turn rather reads Fox news editorials than posts. Which is better than, prefering reading Ann's foaming drivel over posts. So that's progress as well. It's all good.

[Yakuza]

todays justice system is so unreliable and the general population is so disasociated with prison of course prison doesn't deter crime. However we bring back public execution and i bet crime would drop, well at least in certain crimes. Also for a lot of these people, prison offers MORE than what they would have outside. A roof over their head, 3 square meals, generaly a lot of allies or friends, drugs and other contraband.

[']['ear]

Originally Posted by Yakuza

todays justice system is so unreliable and the general population is so disasociated with prison of course prison doesn't deter crime. However we bring back public execution and i bet crime would drop, well at least in certain crimes.

IIRC studies showed that it didn't when the DP was reinstituted back in the 70s. But there are so many other factors that it's hard to tell. Sort of like how Giuliani claims to have defeated crime in NYC because the murder rate plummeted, but it did so nationwide.

But there will be more data soon, since many states are placing moratoriums on the DP because of various problems (unequally applied, "cruel and unusual punishment" due to the pain of the injections....)

Also for a lot of these people, prison offers MORE than what they would have outside. A roof over their head, 3 square meals, generaly a lot of allies or friends, drugs and other contraband.

Hard to say.

[DuSt0fF]

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

People act rationally.

[Lor]

Can i go to prison? By the looks of things, they get 3 meals a day, don't pay tax and sometimes earn a little cash for doing jobs. Has me sold!

[Yakuza]

Originally Posted by ']['ear

IIRC studies showed that it didn't when the DP was reinstituted back in the 70s. But there are so many other factors that it's hard to tell. Sort of like how Giuliani claims to have defeated crime in NYC because the murder rate plummeted, but it did so nationwide.

But there will be more data soon, since many states are placing moratoriums on the DP because of various problems (unequally applied, "cruel and unusual punishment" due to the pain of the injections....)

Tis true, tis true.

Hard to say.

hehe that was more or less paraphrasing what my brother said, who is currently "locked-up".

[Yakuza]

Originally Posted by Lor

Can i go to prison? By the looks of things, they get 3 meals a day, don't pay tax and sometimes earn a little cash for doing jobs. Has me sold!

Also, apparently there are no women in there so i would retract my application, thats is of course you enjoy a sausage in your burrito.

One thing that my brother doesn't like, is the whole cultural segragation within the prison and the ranking order within each racial system.

I just went to visit him a couple of weeks ago. He said he had to pound one of the white new guys because he was getting out of line and starting to cause trouble for the other races. he said he didn't like to punch him, only once in the jaw, but that kind of stuff in prison is taken seriously.

[Lor]

Originally Posted by Yakuza

Also, apparently there are no women in there so i would retract my application, thats is of course you enjoy a sausage in your burrito.

One thing that my brother doesn't like, is the whole cultural segragation within the prison and the ranking order within each racial system.

I just went to visit him a couple of weeks ago. He said he had to pound one of the white new guys because he was getting out of line and starting to cause trouble for the other races. he said he didn't like to punch him, only once in the jaw, but that kind of stuff in prison is taken seriously.

Hey superstar, you dropped the soap.