Posted on 11/28/2007 5:24:39 AM PST by libstripper
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Two cities with low prosecution rates have extremely high crime and murder rates. Philadelphia, because witnesses are afraid of retribution if they testify and New Orleans, because of the truly incompetent DA, (who just resigned BTW).
From what I’ve seen on TV, the gangs are operating from within prison walls, and getting their drugs, too.
The crime rate of most prisons make even the worst cities seem safe.
Maybe if prison meant a cell and isolation, rather than just another form of society, it would be a deterrent.
But I’m with the idea that the criminal is off the streets and away from us. If that deters another criminal, fine. But it should be the fear of ‘bread and water’ and being totally alone behind bars and away from society, FOR THAT PERSON, that should make a criminal think twice.
I don't side with Soros on anything, but I agree that prison is NOT the deterrent it was intended to be. Too many felons who have served time are now treated as cult heros instead of being treated with the disdain they deserve.
By the same token, Americans are being so overlegislated to the extent that we are being imprisoned for stupid or political "crimes" ("hate" crimes comes to mind) that prisons are not being used effectively to deter crime.
So, how do we fix a system that (like so many other governmental entities) seems to be broken? I suggest that we start by getting rid of the TVs, law libraries, gyms, and free college education. We also need to stop mollycoddling criminals and allowing them to clog up our courts with frivolous lawsuits. To stop that, I suggest that any inmate who files a lawsuit that is deemed to be frivolous, automatically gets an additional 5 years tacked onto their sentence.
Next, prisons need to stop worrying about the civil rights or prisoners. I don't believe that any of those in prison today was too concerned about the civil rights of their victims. Criminals, IMO, pretty much gave up their rights when they committed their crimes.
Frankly, I favor a return to the prisons of the Cagny films where the guards beat the prisoners just because they were having a lousy day!! The prison reform movement launched by the liberals in the 60s has created this cult that prison should be Club Fed and it is time to end it. The same with endless appeals for death row inmates. It is criminal (IMO) that the "Candy Man" (who poisoned his own son with Halloween candy) lived longer on death row than his son lived!!!
I could on on with my rant, but I've probably reached "boring" for anyone still reading this far!!! This one is just too much of a hot button issue with me (or could you tell? :-)).
Add to that what the Army does in its prisons -- strict discipline and order, far more than what a new recruit gets in boot camp. Eight hours of drill training as soon as they hit the prison. But I would allow the best-behaved and best-working to have library and education privileges. Some people actually want to have a good life after they've paid their dues.
****************
Wrong question.
Works for me.
Can’t recall where they got their percentages from. One state’s prison system or ?
The training we received in the 80s was that true pedophiles, as opposed to divorce accusations, were incapable of refraining from their sexual proclivities and would re-offend. Everyone one of them, everytime.
It’s hard to victimize people on the outside when you are locked in a cell. That’s good enough for me
At the height of the Jessica Lunsford murder, I had to write two research papers - one for a Statistics class the other in my Abnormal Psychology/Criminal Behavior class.
Seeing that I could do one topic for both papers, I choose the recidivism rates of pedophiles and escalation of violent behavior in the pedophile population.
To the best of my recollection, the recidivism rate amongst pedophiles was somewhere around 68% with close to 30% escalating molestation into torture, murder and other violent crimes.
I picked 3 counseling/restoration programs currently being offered in prisons and tried to make a connection between therapy and reduction in recidivism rates. I could find none.
looking at incarcerated child molesters found that pedophiles who were given prison sentences of any length are more apt to molest once they are released.
The only category of former inmates who did not fit this criteria were ones who were given parole into their late 70’s to early 80’s. Even then I found a research study that sampled this small population. Even with their advanced age, the desire to molest children was still strong, however they lacked the physical ability or opportunity to carry out their desires.
Because of this simple bit of easily accessible research I became a proponent for life in prison, without parole, for any adult who has sex with a child 12 and under. I have no problem with the death penalty for any adult who forces sex upon a child 10 and under.
Rational means a person weighs the benefits and costs in their own mind and acts accordingly.
Being bad at math, committing mass murder, giving your life to save another, giving to charity, gambling with the odds against you, assaulting a spouse: none of these things are inconsistent with ‘rationality’ as defined in economics.
I thought prison is where we put people who are a danger to society.
Obviously, prison is a "deterrent" to the prisoner, whose only victims while he is incarcerated are other criminals.
I thought prison is where we put people who are a danger to society.
Obviously, prison is a "deterrent" to the prisoner, whose only victims while he is incarcerated are other criminals.
Not when they’ve got 3 hot meals, a bed, cable TV, and all the butt sex they could ever possibly need!
I’d say turn ‘em all loose in Soros’ neighborhood.
Let’s see how liberal he remains.
College is more punishment than the prison system these days......and both provide degrees in shit’n shineola .
Until punishment is reinstated and you lie to criminals by telling them that their BS is not their fault it is everyone else’s you get what ya breed......
Parole should be abolished. Prisons should be self sustaining, profitable, and zero education, entertainment and health spa body building institutions. A friggin insult that a working, law abiding family can NOT get educational assistance for their selves or their children’s college yet some POS criminal can.......Doom on such a system and those that support it !
Turn prison into a punishment program of hard work with minimal rewards or a hard life in solitary.
Just my opinion of course !........:o)
I agree, but it isn't the act of weighing; it is the choice of an objectively better outcome that makes the choice rational. A rational person seeks to maximize an objective value, like, say, utility. So they'll typically assume that given a set of fixed alternatives with known probabilities of outcomes, a person will behave in the manner that will result in highest utility.
Choosing suboptimal outcomes is simply irrational. That's all there is to it.
My statement would assume that people would value money more than the thrill of playing. I think this is a safe assumption because most people eventually take the banker's offer, which seems to demonstrate that the thrill of playing does not outweigh the utility of the money in the briefcase.
I think the "Deal or No Deal" situation is more an example of emotional bias that leads to suboptimal results.
The fact that my dad would whip our butts kept my brother and me from lots of mischief — damn right!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.