Study finds putting people in prison increases re-offence rate vs. probation

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/10/05/uc-berkeley-professor-co-authors-study-saying-people-sentenced-prison-likely-return/

by arikr • 9 years ago

235 144 9 years ago

zelos2• 9 years ago

But the decision between probation or a custodial sentence is based partly on the attitude, risk profile and situation of the offender. Surely that's going to skew the statistics?

jackvalentine• 9 years ago

I hope that was controlled for somehow. I’m on mobile and can’t pinpoint the paper itself to read and find out - http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=t5XxEi8AAAAJ&hl=en

kgwgk• 9 years ago

Apparently not... The abstract mentions only “taking into account sentence lengths and stratifying our analysis by race”. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/26/1701544114.shor...

zelos2• 9 years ago

My knowledge of statistics is negligible, but is it possible to measure a system and control for the same factors that the system itself is trying to control for?

fictionfuture• 9 years ago

All studies from Berkeley are politically biased.

tyfon10• 9 years ago

Here is a presentation[1] of one of the maximum security prisons in Norway. If you treat people better you will have lower rates of reincarceration[2]. In essence, they are trying to create "good neighbors" out of the prisoners.

And we are certainly not a homogeneous society that many use as an argument that this would not work elsewhere.

In my city, Drammen, a bit outside of Oslo, about 1/3 of the population are not native Norwegians and there are over 100 nationalities here. My daughters school has over 30 nationalities. (And I don't think this is a bad thing)

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB037gVIpJc

[2]http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-...

wallace_f• 9 years ago

A bit of a tangent, but evidence such as this makes me fear the trend towards greater centralization and globalization of powers. In other words, it's not just that there are obvious benefits to competition, it's probably true that we need it to progress.

FreekNortier• 9 years ago

Prisons like that are only possible in countries with a high percentage of tax paying citizens as is the case in Norway. Here in Africa there is simply no money for that.

b0rsuk6• 9 years ago

I don't mean to sound patronizing and teach you about your own continent, but I heard the main problem with Africa is not lack of money. It's corruption. Africa has lots of space and natural resources. Those resources are mined, extracted and sold but profits go to a small caste of wealthy warlords and/or corrupt leaders.

And yes the climate is harsh. Especially the heat literally makes thinking hard. There was a study about government clerks in USA, their work effectiveness shot up by 20% once they got air conditioning.

In a way Africa is similar to Russian Federation. Both are vast, both have bad climate and both have lots of natural resources. Both are hamstrung by corruption.

vidarh2• 9 years ago

Why do you assume they'll be more expensive?

Not least because reduced reincarceration rates translates to fewer people in prison where they cost the state a lot of money, when they could be out and participating in growing the economy.

SeanDav• 9 years ago

OT:

"If you treat people better you will have lower rates of reincarnation"

I think the Buddhists will be very disappointed to hear that...

I believe you meant "reincarceration" (We know you meant that!)

tyfon10• 9 years ago

Obviously! :)

My auto correct feature has been a bit overzealous here and English is not my 1st language. Updated the post you referenced.

jfaucett• 9 years ago

I think Buddhists will be very disappointed...

Actually, Buddhists would be very happy indeed, no reincarnation means nirvana has been reached :)

HalfwayToDice2• 9 years ago

Norwegian and USA societies are vastly different. There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.

For instance, look at the gun ownership/gun crime rates.

I want to add another comment, which is slightly more difficult. You say that your daughters school "has over 30 nationalities, and that it's not a bad thing". I admire you for this. BUT I don't think it's representative of how Norwegian society is, judging from my 6 months working in Oslo.

ejolto• 9 years ago

For instance, look at the gun ownership/gun crime rates.

Could you expand on this?

Norway ranks at 6th place in number of guns per 100 inhabitants and 39th in number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 population per year. The US ranks 1st and 11th respectively, having 3.6 times the number of guns per 100 people and 6 times the number of firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people compared to Norway. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

mrow842• 9 years ago

Norwegian and USA societies are vastly different. There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.

Can you elaborate on which social differences you think might make it difficult or impossible to implement a Norwegian-style justice system in the USA?

tyfon10• 9 years ago

I agree that they are vastly different and I don't think you can expect the prisoners that have been conditioned to be animals to change overnight. I'm not saying the way used here is the ultimate solution, however it seems to work better. In the presentation you can see that a hardened criminal has a very long path through the system before they are released.

In regards to the society. There are always many different views and situations, however mine is not uncommon. I know there are some that do not look favorably on this but they are from my experiences in the minority. Most people I know are more in line with this man[1]. Personally I think that a diverse society is a strength rather than a weakness.

I am a native Norwegian so that might have something to do with my experience and I won't say you have not had another in Oslo.

[1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=y&prev...

ceejayoz2• 9 years ago

Norwegian and USA societies are vastly different.

Maybe this a good way in which we could be a little less different.

There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.

It working in one country is evidence that it may be a good approach, worthy of experimentation/testing. Not reflexive dismissal.

marcosdumay2• 9 years ago

There is absolutely no reason that something that works in one country will work in the other.

Nope. There are plenty of reason to expect that, and it should be the default assumption. People don't become aliens just because they were born at the wrong side of an imaginary line.

If you would like to protest that assumption, it is up to you to provide data.

rayiner4• 9 years ago

86% of Norway is ethnically Norwegian. Then there are the folks from Sweden, etc. Suffice it to say Norway is highly homogenous.

tyfon10• 9 years ago

While seen as a whole this might be true, but if you look at the major cities the story is very different. The latest statistic from Oslo[1] shows that 32.8% are immigrants and 40% of these are from Europe. So between 15-20% of Oslo are "non-western" immigrants which I think is what you are aiming for.

I don't know what counts as homogeneous and not, but if you walk around in Oslo you see a lot more colours than white :)

[1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/stati...

splitrocket• 9 years ago

I've never quite understood this argument.

Why does ethnic homogeny matter?

wongarsu• 9 years ago

73% of the US is ethnically European, Germany is 81% ethnic Germans, France is 89% ethnic French (and another 5% from their colonies).

Yes, Norway is fairly homogeneous. But most countries are fairly homogeneous, Norway doesn't really stand out.

pbhjpbhj• 9 years ago

That didn't seem terribly large, I looked for UK and found c. 80% white-British. What's the median of these across countries?

Broken_Hippo• 9 years ago

Um... I don't see why that matters. It isn't like this is the country of choice for a lot of folks. It is cold and dark sometimes. Things are expensive, and sometimes there isn't a lot of choice at the stores - especially in the smaller places.

I'm an immigrant in Norway - I'm from the US. A lot of folks I talk to are Norwegian, spouse included. (I'm in Trondheim, so there is much more diversity here in the city). Like everywhere, there is some anti-immigrant sentiment if you look in the right places.

But mostly, I feel included - that goes along with the general values of the nation. Heck, the kind gives speeches of inclusion. The linked speech is a common example [1, english subtitles]. The local school has messages saying "people are different, and that's OK" and "just because people are different, we still include people" (not direct translations).

Having a homogenous society doesn't matter so much when the society tries to be inclusive as a whole. That doesn't happen so much in the US, even as a citizen.

Edit: The US isn't even the most ethnically diverse place, so I fail to take that as an excuse. Both the US and Mexico are more diverse. [2]. Also, forgot to link the speech above.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16...

vilmosi8• 9 years ago

And? How does this relate in any way to the parent comment?

yodsanklai2• 9 years ago

Sadly, I have the feeling that the idea of more humane prisons is widely unpopular.

eeZah7Ux• 9 years ago

...in US.

alexasmyths7• 9 years ago

That's all fine and good and I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the Scandinavians about this.

But there's a huge component missing to this - and that is the rights of the victims.

There are quite a number of people who have 'committed a crime' and really are at no risk of re-offending in the first place.

A Montreal doctor, in a fit of fury, murdered his wife and children. I believe - with some basic help and observation, it's entirely unlikely he'd do such a thing again. I don't think for a second that 'prison' or even the 'threat of prison' factors into his likelihood of recitivism.

So the 're-integration' thing to do for this doctor would just be a little time in a psych/hospital, then re-integration and observation/checking-in on him.

But what about the wife? The kids that were murdered? What about their rights as victims?

If you 'slander' someone - you might have to pay them $100K.

But if you 'murder' them - there's nobody to pay?

This is a real issue - and more real in Scandinavia.

I have a distant relative who is Danish - a rough and tumble guy who hangs out with bikers. Over at his place for dinner one day (in Denmark) - the guy sitting beside me (who seemed rather normal if a tiny bit thuggish) - was a murderer.

He spent four years in jail for murdering someone, and was now in a 'half way house' for a couple of years. That's it.

I don't doubt that maybe his situation is optimized for 'non recidivism' - but there are moral questions with this.

Four years in a really nice jail - with Internet, a 'instrument' room with instruments, a goddam mixing panel to make tracks (!), a gym, half decent food - etc. - is just wrong.

Imagine if your mother/family member was ruthlessly murdered by her landlord.

He does four years in an easy prison. No worries. His property, holdings intact. He comes back as if it didn't happen, with a little bit of 'checking in' form the government?

We cannot think of crime just as a matter of 'recidivism rates' - yes - those are important - but the moral implications are equally as important.

neilparikh• 9 years ago

Is how much "justice" the victim really equally important to the recidivism rates? I don't think it is.

If one treatment method is "more unjust" towards the victim, but it leads to a lower recidivism rate, I think we should use that one. For example, in the case of murder, I think it's obvious that it's in society's best interest to optimize the justice system around reducing the murder rate as a whole, not how much "justice" the victim receives.

Now, if there's 2 methods that (somehow) lead to the same recidivism rate, then we can consider the one that is "more just" towards the victim, but even then, I'm not 100% sure.

Note: I put justice in quotes not because I'm trying to minimize it (it's definitely that has to be considered, or people will lose faith in the system), but because it's an ill-defined term right now.

incorrect_mule• 9 years ago

So you want to knowingly create more criminals, just so you feel better? That's just disgusting

vilmosi8• 9 years ago

That's just the difference between justice and revenge. That's why we have a "justice" department.

dovdovdov• 9 years ago

just as intended, this is business, not some societal good doing.

wu-ikkyu2• 9 years ago

Despite the down votes, you are correct. Jon Oliver did a bit a while back about for profit prisons, which revealed how "high recidivism rates" were part of the investor sales pitch.

rutierut• 9 years ago

Wow what a miracle who could have seen this coming -_-. It is an absolute mistery to me how a county this big still runs a prison system that is so obviously dysfunctional.

rurban• 9 years ago

It's a misery, but it's very functional for them:

1. cut democratic voters by half. Blacks used to vote democratic. Once in a prison you cannot vote anymore. 50% of all young black men in the working age once were in prison. Mostly due to selective targeting and drugs policies.

2. prison for profit. It's modern slavery, free workforce. Together with the colluding justice system a perfect slavery system.

jlebrech• 9 years ago

some people deserve their full sentences and not probation, but instead they are locked up and released early and recidivise.

sgift• 9 years ago

instead they are locked up and released early and recidivise.

Where humans work errors happen, there are no guarantees in life.

gerbilly• 9 years ago

deserve

I don't think anybody is qualified to know what people 'deserve.'

JulianMorrison• 9 years ago

Prison was always about revenge. And slavery. Nasty, childish thing.

tyfon10• 9 years ago

Now, this is what has always baffled me about the US. I will try to condense this a bit.

The US is primarily a christian country supposedly founded on christian values etc.

I am an atheist, and a nihilist in that I do not think there is an inherent moral in the universe. However, that means that life is a chance happening. There is probably life elsewhere in the universe but it is rare as far as we know. This means each life is inherently special and we should strive to enable each and everyone to reach their maximum potential and explore this great opportunity we have. This means adopting a humanistic approach to life (and in my case, life as in all life not just humans).

Back to the US. I have read the bible and I have taken many lessons from it even though I am not religious. Jesus was one of the first real humanists and have many great things to say.

Do no kill.

Do to others as you want them to do to you.

Turn the other cheek.

Forgive..

This is the essence of christianity.

They make sense to me even if I am not religious. Many of his guidelines would improve everyones life. But in the US you are so hell bent on revenge that the words fall on death ears. I know I am generalising here and this is not the case for every American. But as you say, prisons were always about revenge.

Is there any explanation for this paradox?

creaghpatr• 9 years ago

Sure, Jesus practiced what he preached and the result was he got nailed to a cross.

But at least he didn't have to suffer through subpar American prison conditions!

smhost• 9 years ago

If you label something as evil, as the anti-Christ, and as an assault on the Kingdom of God, there's nothing you can't justify. If you listen to conservative radio, you'll hear people very soberly talking about how the literal Apocalypse is just around the corner, about the insidious operations of the Illuminati, and other things like this. It's the same on alt-right cesspools like /pol/. They think that gender studies professors are literally the true seat of political power in the U.S. and that they're trying to sabotage the nation by sowing degeneracy into our lives. They think that degeneracy (which includes things like homosexuality, nudity on television, etc.) will destroy the social fabric within our lifetime and we'll descend into chaos and our civilization will end.

If you're convinced that your civilization is literally about to end, locking up these evil criminals actually becomes an act of kindness and mercy.

hacker_92• 9 years ago

Because you don't truly know how you'll act until you are put in the horrific situation where a friend or family member is murdered. Forgiveness does not naturally come easy, and why should it? Ultimately those guidelines are so you can find peace for yourself, not so the offender has a better life.

psyc• 9 years ago

The Christian standard of appropriate punishment for even the smallest transgression is burning in a fire for eternity.

wu-ikkyu2• 9 years ago

Perhaps it is because all it takes to "be a Christian" is to say "I believe in Jesus", or at least that is how it has been predominately defined by the religious authorities over the past 2,000 years. From then on it is supposed you will go to Heaven no matter what sins you commit

joshuahedlund2• 9 years ago

A fair question. There is actually a sizeable movement within American Christianity that fits within your expectations, calling for the end of the death penalty, visiting and ministering to prisoners, etc, however there is certainly a more dominant retributive aspect. I'm not qualified to fully answer your question, but I think a partial answer would involve remembering that Christianity overall explores the tension between mercy/forgiveness and justice/judgment (ex. Romans 11:22), and in the work to build a functioning society, some gravitate more easily towards one or the other...

athenot3• 9 years ago

The US is primarily a christian country supposedly founded on christian values etc.

Nitpick: the predominant Christianity flavor in the US is a branch that split off after ~ 15 centuries, officially for purist reasons but practically for "pick-and-choose" reasons. Naturally, that's instable and that branch furter split into more and more isolated denominations, carfully picking what they choose to believe in and rejecting the rest (or rejecting factual history, thus doomed to repeat it).

In particular, many in that group (but not all: it's impossible to generalize here) have forgotten how "life is inherently special" and became more preoccupied with justifying how their particular branch/flavor of belief is the best, applying personal judgement despite the warnings of the One they claim to follow.

Of course, being Catholic, I'm biased in this matter and am certainly no saint. But there's a fundamental difference between adhering imperfectly to a set of beliefs which are hard but coherent, and adhering to a subset carved out in order to feel good about being able to follow everything and judge all those who don't.

And worse: there are many Catholics who use particular points of doctrine to cast judgement on others and white-wash their personal bias, and missing out on the bigger picture. This is something we're continually having to address because we are all imperfect and living within the influence of our culture. But this is where time and plurality of culture comes in, because over the centuries, knowledge has been accumulated regarding cultural notions that turn out to be very bad ideas, and distilled into a (relatively) compact compendium.

hacker_92• 9 years ago

So offenders don't deserve to be put behind bars and have their time taken away from them? Lawful society only exists because there is punishment. This is just how the human mind works - if you don't follow an unlawful action by a negative experience, they will never learn to change.

halleym• 9 years ago

Hang on, while your statement seems logical, it doesn't necessarily hold true. Certainly does not work when training dogs.

https://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

laretluval• 9 years ago

This is just how the human mind works - if you don't follow an unlawful action by a negative experience, they will never learn to change.

Not only a property of the human mind: if there are no negative consequences then they have no rational reason to change their behavior.

b0rsuk6• 9 years ago

The bad part of jail system is that law-breakers are put in contact with other law-breakers. It's no secret environment infuences people and people learn by example.

This post is inspired by Finnish education system. I read an article which mentioned a bad behaving class, which was merged with a good behaving one. Their behavior improved, because they were suddenly under good influence and bad behavior was no longer universally tolerated.

What I'm trying to say is perhaps law-breakers should be inserted into some MODEL society, some kind of modern utopia/forced labor camp where people are treated nice and work is hard but satisfying. And not a place where everything they get is for free.

Do you know any examples where something like this took place ?

codesnik• 9 years ago

we need new Australia! but on Mars.

b0rsuk6• 9 years ago

Ahh, Australia, the continent where going to toilet at night requires checking your shoes and looking under toilet seat. Where even silly looking platypus is venomous.

reubeniv• 9 years ago

Tricky, because I would also think it's almost impossible to factor in the likelihood of deterring a first offence either might have

jasonmaydie• 9 years ago

Study finds not putting people in prison increases crime rate

jaclaz• 9 years ago

Am I missing something?

The leading picture is about California prisoners, the study is on Michigan ones (BTW between 2003 and 2006), and most considerations are about US in general.

Besides obvious differences in demographics and possibly "types of crimes", AFAIK in Michigan there is no "three strike Law":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law

(while there is, and it is seemingly enforced very aggressively, counting even what other states/coutries would define minor offences) in California.

olavolav2• 9 years ago

Dear HN audience. For almost all of the topics discussed here, if you haven't already, please go read this book:

Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison [1]

The seminal book on questions like: Where do prisons come from? Why did anyone ever think that they were a good idea? Do they work?

Highly recommended

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

Double_a_92• 9 years ago

People that did bad things are not running around freely anymore... It's not rocket science ._.

olavolav2• 9 years ago

Well, I think the OP should give you the idea that if your goal is (for example) to reduce violent crime rates overall, then the answer might be more complicated than that...

spoiledtechie• 9 years ago

Or, maybe just the harder criminals are always going to reoffend. Vs the probation criminals did something, which they learn from. Because they are the softer criminals.

program_whiz• 9 years ago

Seems like the study is confusing cause/effect. Those on probation are probably less likely to commit another crime partly because the crime they did commit was a first offense, less serious/violent, etc. -- otherwise they probably would not have been paroled (e.g. you're more likely to go to prison if you killed someone than if you got caught with a small quantity of illegal drugs).

Similarly, the article talks about how "education reduces recidivism by 50%". However, this is a self-selecting group of prisoners who decide to go to school/college, and so they are less likely to commit future crimes. I doubt those kind of numbers would hold if you forced all inmates to gain education. Since HS education is free, and most people now can get a loan for college and go somewhere (at least as good as prison college), almost all of these people who didn't get the education "on the outside" decided not to pursue it. So logically, those prisoners joining these classes voluntarily are mostly prisoners who realize they need to change and already see education as a "way out" -- so its not really a cause/effect but a correlation.

Edit: Clarity of last sentences

gipp• 9 years ago

Seems like the study is confusing cause/effect.

The article provides literally no context on which to base that judgment. The study could most certainly have been designed to (at least attempt to) disambiguate all of the issues you're talking about here. Everything you've mentioned is experimental design 101, these are routine things to take into account.

Of course, since the study (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/26/1701544114.abst...) is PNAS and not open-access, I also have no context to make any conclusions.

thanatosmin• 9 years ago

Quickly reading through the study, they stratify prisoners by severity of crime, claiming this is a natural experiment because the only remaining variation is in the judge selected. Not an expert in sentencing but I thought extenuating circumstances can be considered which wouldn't be corrected for here.

VikingCoder3• 9 years ago

I saw someone suggest on Reddit, "What if after someone is released from prison, we paid the prison a bonus every year they go without being convicted of a crime?"

Seemed super smart to me. Incentivise the right behavior.

vidarh2• 9 years ago

Until some prison warden decides to cripple as many prisoners as possible to ensure they can't reoffend.

VikingCoder3• 9 years ago

That would be illegal. And they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

KekDemaga• 9 years ago

What is "the prison"? A state run organization? In that case why would some bureaucrat care if his budget goes up, he's a union member most likely thus his pay is more related to time employed than the budget being fiscally sound. Now consider this is a private prison, why would they ever not release someone? Releasing someone lowers their costs and may provide a reward, on the other hand they have to continue to pay for a prisoners upkeep and have no chance at a reward if they vote for him to stay.

This is all moot because it isn't prisons that decide who gets to go free but a parole board. That's part of a judicial process typically unaffiliated from the prison itself.

VikingCoder3• 9 years ago

In the United States, many prisons are private, for-profit enterprises. They're the ones I'm talking about.

It's not up to a private prison WHEN they release someone. It's up to them how they are treated while they are IN the prison. If they are offered classes, job training, mental health care, support groups, etc. Or if they're brutalized in an uncaring institution, and released worse off than when they came in.

Sorry I didn't explain myself well.

whiddershins• 9 years ago

It seems nearly impossible to do this study ethically and also remove all confounding variables. The best way I could think of would be to compare the results of sentences given by different judges or jurisdictions who have different tendencies to imprison for the same exact offense.

The problem is that there’s not really any such thing as “the same offense.”

If you talk directly to people who work in law enforcement they indicate sentencing is much less about the precise crime and much more about whether all involved perceive the offender as a “bad guy.”

If the people involved (da, police, judge, jury) are in any way accurate in that assessment, it will stand to reason a person incarcerated will be more likely to reoffend. That’s what everyone was perceiving which is why they incarcerated the person in the first place.

imroot• 9 years ago

The problem with prison in the US is that we, as a country, really don't have a way to separate the difference between those who we're truly afraid of as a society versus those who we are just upset with.

prisonthrowaway3• 9 years ago

Throwaway because I want to put my past behind me.

I've been to prison. Convicted of assault when I turned 18 years old. At 20, I was released and the system provided no re-integration efforts for me. In Feb 2003, I was homeless, no family, and I lost all my friends.

I applied for over 100 jobs while sleeping in the back of an abandoned car with no luck.

Finally I lied to get employment at a local McDonald's. Then I begged a literally insane person to let me sleep on her couch until I received enough money to get a place of my own. I had to pay her in sperm donations (as she wanted a child).

I had to steal food to eat in those first few months.

On top of that, I had $18,000 in restitution and 10 years of probation. If I missed payments, I'd go back to prison.

Fast forward 10 years, I put myself through college, paid off the restitution in full, got off probation 5 years early, moved the hell away from my home town, and built a million dollar company.

I got curious a few years ago and looked up all my fellow inmates. 100% of them were back in prison.

When I think of how lucky I am to have escaped that life, I have no words...

padobson• 9 years ago

Wow, what an awesome story. I don't think you should be ashamed of it - really inspiring.

Being a company owner, would you be more or less likely to hire folks with a criminal record based on your experience?

prisonthrowaway3• 9 years ago

I wrote a book describing my experience in detail and how I overcame particulars, but every time I think about publishing, I back down. The last few years, I'm finally rid of that "black spot" over my head that I'm not ready to bring it back quite yet. Not to mention, I need to focus on running my company at the moment.

I never ask if a person has been arrested/convicted of a felony during the hiring process. People can do great work regardless if they're black, white, male, female, immigrant, or felon.

lightedman• 9 years ago

You honestly can't expect much more from a state whose top attorney says "We need all this free slav^W^W prison labor to keep our state going!"

Evolved• 9 years ago

This is only partially related to the article but I still feel it is relevant and I'd like to know if anyone has data to support either side on this. Summed up, it explains that asocial violence or antisocial aggression in general are directly correlated with warmer climates.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23538771

arikr• 9 years ago

Highly recommended for anyone who liked this article: https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/impact-incarceration-c...

indubitable• 9 years ago

Studies like this are frustrating. The conclusion confirms my own biases, so I want to respect the study - but there are, invariably, issues that make it difficult to take their conclusions at face value. Put another way, it's entirely possible somebody looking at the data a different way could present an entirely incompatible conclusion.

For instance an issue this study faced was that it's difficult to control for the fact that extenuating circumstances and other factors help determine the sentencing for individuals. A judge, presumably, will make some effort to attempt to sentence individuals who are less likely to reoffend to probation rather than prison, and vice versa. The study argued that the random assignment of judges to cases, each of whom has their own sentencing tendencies, works as a control here but I think that is less than compelling. A judge may be more or less lenient on average, but that does not change the fact that all judges are going to be aiming to achieve the same thing. You're not comparing apples to apples.

It seems the only solution would be genuine random sentencing in a controlled experiment, but there are obviously certain ethical issues there. It's unfortunate since our system is completely broken. You create environments where individuals are treated like dehumanized animals and pushed towards greater degrees of sociopathy with no meaningful effort made towards rehabilitation. And suddenly after being in this situation for years, they're supposed to come out better than ever ready to integrate and become a productive member of society? Obviously the idea is that fear of being put in that circumstance is supposed to be a deterrent. But given an overall recidivism rate now of 76.6% [1] over 5 years, it should be self evident that this idea is quite obviously not working.

[1] https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986

Study finds putting people in prison increases re-offence rate vs. probation

Related Stories