Interesting that the report only mentions incarceration rates at the end, but doesn't seem to give any credence to the idea that 'permanently' locking everyone up reduces crime.
The incarceration rate in the US is unbelieveably high, and started exploding in the late 80s. Increasing the incarcerated population fivefold isn't considered to have had a causal effect on the decrease in crime across the board? Come on, pull the other one.
My personal sympathies lie with ending the WoD and lowering the incarceration rate. However, I think a nearly fivefold increase in the rate of incarceration probably has something to do with declining crime as well.
Does anyone have any solid evidence that the jump in incarceration was not the driver of the decline in crime?
Maybe the Levitt paper addresses this. I'll check it out.
I don't buy that raising the incarceration rate leads to lowered crime unless you're putting people away for life. Seems more likely to create a larger number of people on the street with few job skills and a criminal record. Prison is where people who dabble in criminality become criminals for life.
Now, the idea that the drugs involved in the drug glut that brought on the peak in crime have been forced to lower prices without lowering risk - that seems plausible. Venkatesh's books showed us how little foot soldiers were making when the prices were twice what they are now.
The incarceration rate in the US is unbelieveably high, and started exploding in the late 80s. Increasing the incarcerated population fivefold isn't considered to have had a causal effect on the decrease in crime across the board? Come on, pull the other one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...