Right? This is one of those plausible sounding explanations, except there really isn't that good of a correlation:



(from: What Caused the Crime Decline?, Brennan Center for Justice (2015))

Since you pulled such incredibly biased nonsense with the black crime thing (and knowing how fact-free, truth-hating, truth-hiding, and politically biased most of academia are), I check everything you say or reference now. And it's a good thing I did, or I'd believe your academic study. So let me ask you a question. Do you think this:

Is an accurate summary of this?



edit: And I contend that common sense should have made it obvious the study is absurdly false/fake news, without even having to check the prison stats.

http://theweek.com/articles/670635/h...mpaign=twitter

Looks like quadrupling the prison population had a pretty negligible effect on crime.

http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS...arceration.pdf

I mean the general consensus is that no one knows exactly what caused the decline in crime from the 70s to the 90s in the US. There are multiple hypotheses and many show correlations, but there hasn't been discovered a single strongly correlated causal relationship that people can point to and say "that's what did it, we need more of that!". Anyone says anything different is selling something.

I'm travelling so I grabbed one citation quickly but to be clear I agree entirely with what hue said and quoted

You could argue that short term locking up every male over 18 would very likely reduce crime drastically, but assuming there are a bunch of children still out there with no fathers to raise them or provide financial support, the number of criminals would be vigorously replenished. There are clearly many competing and cooperative factors involved in the general reduction over the past couple generations.

the quote is saying [1]there was a time in the past when increased # of prisoners led to less crime, [2]this correlation hasn't been true nationwide for a couple decades+, [3] California and other states in recent years have continued to experience a decrease in crime while also reducing # of prisoners

your graph only goes to [3] and shows it to be true for California

I'm saying:

- The way it's worded is plainly dishonest (or perhaps it was just well named's quoting that was dishonest - although he gets a pass this time for "just grabbing something" that happened to most strongly fit the "incarceration changes nothing" narrative.)
- The claims of magnitude are nosense
- It's a given, just from common sense, that locking up 1.3 million people caught for violent and property crimes is going to have a substantial affect on the number of around who are predisposed and willing to do violent and property crimes. The 6% of 0% is a total fiction. There are so many people in the US who do these crimes, or would.
If the evidence was fairly strong the imprisoning was a major part of it (and it seems to be, just looking at the graphs), do you think the far-left academia - prison hating, "systemic racism" claiming, against-the-drug-war, would present this conclusion honestly? That the majority of the studies would show that this imprisoning mostly minorities is what has brought crime down?

Guise, crime rates and prison population are literally directly proportional to one another. I hope I don't have to explain why.

.

ToothSayer, a small government liberal/libertarian, with an absolutely normal "I KNOWS IN MY HEART AND WON'T LISTEN TO NO LYING SCIENTISTS" reaction to that study..

Just like wil, a liberal who "hates cops" making a post that implies police brutality is necessary to control street crime.

TS literally unable to read a chart. Don't you allegedly do this kind of thing for a living?

No one thinks its amazing that when a leftist argument is made we have to jump through hoops and have our palms read to come to some nuanced conclusion, yet when the argument comes from the other side "we really don't know what caused it"? I mean 762 people got murdered, a 50% increase. Hey, maybe it's because the Cubs won the World Series, I mean, we just can't say for sure.

Blood pact with the devil, I told you guys.

Your claim that BLM protests in MO made Chicago police inept isn't jumping through hoops?

in a poker website we now have a bunch of white guys trying to explain with graphs why there are murders in chicago,whether its safe to walk in bad neighborhoods at night,and why guns being brought from outside states are the reason. in order , people kill people in chicago because they are not very smart and do not fear the consequence. it is bad to walk in some neighborhoods at night if you do not belong there. back in the day if you were a black guy walking thru cromwell ct. at night a cop was going to roust you,and on the other hand if you were a white guy walking down blue hills ave in bloomfield ct. a cop was going to roust you. and finally the idiot gun laws of illinois have made buying guns and selling them to the not so smart folks a thriving trade. think back to prohibition. no legal booze but the mob made gazillions. see this is what common sense looks like. try it sometime. this has been typed in by becky88 as quoted directly from HIM

You think that summary passage is a fair summary of the relationship between crime and imprisonment? The correlation numbers are clearly wrong. The language is dishonest, cherry picking whatever can minimize the obvious "imprisonment = crime reduction" correlation, while not mentioning the things that strongly suggest it.
You think the Brennan Justice Center are scientists? They're leftist lawyers and humanities academics. They wouldn't know the ins and outs of statistics if their life depended on it. No wonder you guys swallow this nonsense uncritically. "Scientists" - hahaha my God.

It's precisely because I have respect for the scientific method and why it was created in the first place that I know the study is nonsense.

"Science" is a prolonged and difficult process for getting at truth - it's not the naive belief that something automatically has credibility because it's published by a left-leaning humanities or law department. That belief is the opposite of science, actually.

Yes, absolutely that is my claim. It happened all over the country. It's not a coincidence.

lol, did you really think no one would even glance at the chart? This isn't Reddit, son. Incarceration went up ~450% but crime only went down 15%. You're an utterly dishonest fraud with delusions of math literacy.

Mind boggling. A sudden massive change after decades...gee I wonder what changed after 2014? What new groups appeared? What new politics were advanced? What did police suddenly become wary of doing?

Just shrug and claim it's 5 sigma variance I guess....

What the actual **** are you talking about? Is a different graph loading for you or something?



And even if your numbers were true, why do the percentages matter? It could be prison population up 1000000% and crime down 15% and it wouldn't matter at all. It's a question of what percentage of the potential crime committing population is being removed from the streets. That has no relation to the original prison population.

Homicides dropped in NYC, rose a small 5% in LA, dropped 17% in DC and 22% in Baton Rouge.

Have you staked out a position on the cause of Chicago's murder rate? I've read your vagaries, but I don't recall you stating an explicit reason. Murder rates were higher in Chicago back in the day, ok fine, ignore that. 5ive claims (and I suppose I could google this claim and see if Chapo Guzman really was unloading dump trucks full of narcotics there) that there is/was a gang war over the lucrative illegal drug industry, that sounds pretty straightforward to me, ok fine, ignore that. Sooo, back to my first sentence, what do you think is the cause?

Also, taking a shot at this:
would be nice.