This is terrible research and JSTOR should be ashamed of themselves for publishing it.
> They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference.
No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend.
You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience.
> the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial.
The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system.
We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses.
That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!
> A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend.
Did you read the actual studies to see if they controlled for this very obvious objection? Seems important when accusing of incompetence.
> We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses
We also use it for people who can't afford to get out, who then often lose their jobs, possibly where they live, etc. I know this because the article states that directly, not your "article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system" summary which doesn't appear to be part of the article (but maybe I just missed it?).
> “Holding them for a couple days, a couple months pretrial has devastating implications[1] for their lives,” Ghandnoosh says. Many find it hard to keep a job, hard to keep their housing. Such outcomes for a minor offense or no offense at all, she says, makes it more difficult to live a law-abiding life and could tip people into crime.
Seems like lots of evidence in the article, actually, and overall the criminologists quoted seem very careful to not overstate the conclusions the evidence can support.
It's really easy to do the reflexive HN contrarian takedown on pretty much any single piece of work if you're motivated to do so.
This isn't the only piece of work on this subject nor the best nor even a representative one. If you're interested you could look into this entire domain of research and see what it suggests.
> They randomly assigned criminal cases to judges within the court (in other court systems, case assignment isn’t random). If the future crime rate ended up lower for people sentenced by lenient judges than by judges who sent more people to jail, it would be clear evidence that time in jail — not any quality within the criminals themselves — was making the difference.
No it does not evidence that conclusion. Judges have written sentancing guidelines. A repeat offender, vicious offender or someone who has burned up their three strikes is likely going to both get a serious prison sentance and reoffend.
You can't disentangle that reasoning on a post hoc statistical analysis. That is pseudoscience.
> the data suggest that people held in jail before trial have a higher likelihood of committing crime after their release than people who remain in the community before trial.
The article goes on to argue that this is because people no longer trust the system.
We use pretrial detention for criminals who are either more likely to flee or committed more serious offenses.
That conclusion from JSTOR has no evidence and flies in the face of any sane reasoning. They didn't even questionnaire the re-offenders!