Of course I can think of better ways, of stemming violent crime, than putting more people in prison and KEEPING them there ... but they’re just too hard and people don’t want to try them ... https://www.cjlf.org/publications/OverIncarcerationMyth.pdf
Okay, I read that opinion piece by a guy who works for a crime victims' rights advocacy group. His case is we have more incarceration because we have more crime and other countries are lying about their stats. What parts did you find relevant to this discussion? I find the studies referenced here more germane: Explainer: Incarceration Rates vs. Crime Rates.
I don't care about the cost. If you want to cut costs, stop prosecuting non-violent drug offenses. I don't believe in prison at all for many non-violent crimes. "Homicide" is a vague term. It could mean a drunk driving accident. It could mean a person who was viewed as participant in a murder, but didn't pull the trigger, e.g., someone hanging out near a failed drug deal. But I absolutely believe the 2.3 million is a bargain for people who commit, or attempt to commit, depraved crimes.
Roughly $1 per year per California adult for every 547 inmates. Seems like a bargain even if $123/day cost per inmate seems a bit high. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Did your article-writer, a guy with a “strong interest in poetry, fiction and activism” address how the guy would have killed four people from his jail cell ?
OK so it sounds like you are fine with releasing this guy in a few years, say 2025 if he has been rehabilitated?
Aren’t we already paying like $45k for every HIMARS shell we’re sending to Ukraine ? I don’t get all this hand-wringing about money all of a sudden.
Clearly a bad dude but to be clear he was convicted of assault not attempted murder. I agree 11 months for aggravated assault seems too short. Must be the liberals in Tennessee.
Either you kill him, imprison him for life or eventually release him. If it's the latter, you've got to decide when and how to reduce the chances of him actually killing someone weighed against societal and economic factors. You have to do this knowing you can't completely prevent recidivism. Some people are just broken. But my initial point, many, many posts ago, is I think we should be doing more to create better communities than merely accepting our failures and locking people away forever. Fixing homelessness, poverty, mental illness, ignorance, broken homes, etc can prevent many of these crimes.
Sigh... as I mentioned on introduction of the link, there are academic studies referenced in the article. You're not answering direct questions in our exchanges. I'm going to stop feeding you.
I definitely understand from where you are coming. These stories are horrible, and I feel terrible for the families and communities. Still, it may be trickier to ignore cost than it first seems. One cannot totally eliminate any harm, as the marginal cost of elimination grows ever higher as the zero level is approached. Economist Robert Frank demonstrates this point by asking crowds how many people had their car’s brakes checked this week. He says a couple people usually raise their hands. Then he asks those people if they are going to do it again today. They of course look at him like he’s crazy. Maybe we don’t know the optimal frequency of brake checks, but clearly every week isn’t it. From an economic perspective, 2 million dollars might save 0.1 lives, but then cost 0.2 lives by not making roads safer or hospitals more accessible. From an ethical perspective, we have to consider the proper moral justice and also the costs of putting away innocent people. I don’t know the “right” answer to these tough questions, but I know that the optimal society will still display some non-zero level of violent recidivism. That is tragic, but also unavoidable.
Caring for prevention calls for an additional layer of thought that some either are incapable of, or are unwilling to achieve. The same has been true with Covid.
