Tuesday cheer: reducing mass incarceration
July 13, 2021 10:08 AM Subscribe
Why would declining to prosecute people for low-level crimes also reduce other types of crimes? The study, by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found that the key is keeping folks out of the criminal justice system. Doing so reduced the odds by 58 percent that these folks would engage with that system in the future. ... I decided to call up the three authors of this study to see what they felt were the implications of their research on this policy. It turns out they were as pleasantly surprised by the results as I was. David Byrne writes about US counties and cities that have stopped automatically prosecuting minor nonviolent crimes and seen overall crime go down.
Slightly (but not much) oversimplified TL;DR: prisons cause crime.
posted by biogeo at 10:32 AM on July 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 10:32 AM on July 13, 2021 [10 favorites]
I am under the impression that the local district attorney has a lot of say in which charges are ignored. But probably you should talk to someone who knows more about the system in your own town. Good luck!
posted by Bella Donna at 10:50 AM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 10:50 AM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
I thought that TL;DR was that bad laws that criminalize acts with no victims cause crime.
You know, laws against jaywalking or selling "loosies." Stuff that doesn't really harm anybody.
Seriously, what was the true economic impact of Eric Garner selling loosies? Was Phillip-Morris sending the cops after him specifically because that one man was about to destroy their profit margin?
No, the cigarette company still got their fucking money when he bought the damn cigarettes, and if he chooses to sell them individually at a markup, why the hell couldn't he?
The taxes on the cigarettes were already paid, and so what, he was murdered by the city over getting more sales tax on the second sale? Once again, the amounts of money lost by this are so fucking piddly that is honestly makes zero fucking sense for these to be "crimes" and not things that can be punished by, say, a ticket or a fine.
Because the real issue is that these laws are about keeping poor people "in line" and not allowing individuals to participate in exactly the same kind of behavior large corporations take part in. Buying a product and re-selling it at a higher price is so fucking common in US business, but when individuals do it on their own, and don't let the taxman get in the middle, apparently it's time to ruin some fucking poor people's lives and maybe murder a couple of them in cold blood along the way.
The fact that actual serious laws with serious consequences never touch the lives of the rich and famous (Caitlyn Jenner ran over someone and killed them and it hasn't touched her life an iota.), just goes to show the laws are really only for the poors.
EDIT: Oh also the whole "poors can't afford lawyers" thing, so cops feel fine railroading them.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:10 AM on July 13, 2021 [33 favorites]
You know, laws against jaywalking or selling "loosies." Stuff that doesn't really harm anybody.
Seriously, what was the true economic impact of Eric Garner selling loosies? Was Phillip-Morris sending the cops after him specifically because that one man was about to destroy their profit margin?
No, the cigarette company still got their fucking money when he bought the damn cigarettes, and if he chooses to sell them individually at a markup, why the hell couldn't he?
The taxes on the cigarettes were already paid, and so what, he was murdered by the city over getting more sales tax on the second sale? Once again, the amounts of money lost by this are so fucking piddly that is honestly makes zero fucking sense for these to be "crimes" and not things that can be punished by, say, a ticket or a fine.
Because the real issue is that these laws are about keeping poor people "in line" and not allowing individuals to participate in exactly the same kind of behavior large corporations take part in. Buying a product and re-selling it at a higher price is so fucking common in US business, but when individuals do it on their own, and don't let the taxman get in the middle, apparently it's time to ruin some fucking poor people's lives and maybe murder a couple of them in cold blood along the way.
The fact that actual serious laws with serious consequences never touch the lives of the rich and famous (Caitlyn Jenner ran over someone and killed them and it hasn't touched her life an iota.), just goes to show the laws are really only for the poors.
EDIT: Oh also the whole "poors can't afford lawyers" thing, so cops feel fine railroading them.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:10 AM on July 13, 2021 [33 favorites]
Oh, follow-up. Sales tax is regressive taxation, on top of it all. All just meant to keep people down.
posted by deadaluspark at 11:29 AM on July 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by deadaluspark at 11:29 AM on July 13, 2021 [1 favorite]
In the US, incarceration is generally not about reducing violent crime. The evergreen assumption of good faith behind the development of penal law, especially among monied liberals, really frosts me.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 11:55 AM on July 13, 2021 [17 favorites]
posted by Sheydem-tants at 11:55 AM on July 13, 2021 [17 favorites]
Related: Jen Doleac (one of the authors of the article) on "ways to prevent crime other than police and prisons." The discussion is very much focused on traditionally progressive reforms ("lead reduction is the best buy ... in crime prevention," and "one day training program that officers just took once pretty dramatically reduced both complaints and use of force significantly"). But she actually relies on evidence and acknowledges facts, including that body-worn cameras don't reduce police misconduct, increasing the number of police reliably reduces crime - though that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea - and "decriminalizing drug possession would not end mass incarceration in the United States. .. if we want to reduce incarceration rates in any meaningful way, we need to be dramatically reducing incarceration for violent offenders." And overall, "We don’t have a good sense about how to fix policing."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:03 PM on July 13, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:03 PM on July 13, 2021 [8 favorites]
I thought that TL;DR was that bad laws that criminalize acts with no victims cause crime
While I don't disagree about the prevalence of bad laws, I think it's important to get away from the idea that it is injustice that makes a system of punishment ineffective at preventing crime. There's a huge body of evidence, established over decades (I remember having conversations with my dad about this when he was working with young people in the criminal justice system in the 1990s), that strongly supports the view that, pretty much independently of everything else, institutions of incarceration increase recidivism. Even quite profound differences in what those institutions are like doesn't make much difference. Harsher conditions do seem to probably increase recidivism a bit. Rehabilitation programmes can work to some extent for some groups, but even the best of these don't make up for the effect of just being locked up in the first place.
It's important to recognise this as distinct from wholly justified anger at punishing people for victimless crimes, because it indicates that something much more uncomfortable (for most of us) is very likely true: we don't just harm society by incarcerating people who don't deserve punishment, but also by incarcerating those who most would say absolutely do.
While it is possible that the deterrent effect of incarceration on those who have never been imprisoned is sufficiently beneficial to the average person to justify its enormous social cost, I don't think it particularly plausible (putting it mildly). The arguments for prison abolition are rational and reasonable, but the concept is so alien to our society that it's easy to think of all the evidence in support of abolition as being evidence of injustice in our current implementation of incarceration, rather than of the general inefficacy of incarceration as a tool for controlling crime.
posted by howfar at 1:39 PM on July 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
While I don't disagree about the prevalence of bad laws, I think it's important to get away from the idea that it is injustice that makes a system of punishment ineffective at preventing crime. There's a huge body of evidence, established over decades (I remember having conversations with my dad about this when he was working with young people in the criminal justice system in the 1990s), that strongly supports the view that, pretty much independently of everything else, institutions of incarceration increase recidivism. Even quite profound differences in what those institutions are like doesn't make much difference. Harsher conditions do seem to probably increase recidivism a bit. Rehabilitation programmes can work to some extent for some groups, but even the best of these don't make up for the effect of just being locked up in the first place.
It's important to recognise this as distinct from wholly justified anger at punishing people for victimless crimes, because it indicates that something much more uncomfortable (for most of us) is very likely true: we don't just harm society by incarcerating people who don't deserve punishment, but also by incarcerating those who most would say absolutely do.
While it is possible that the deterrent effect of incarceration on those who have never been imprisoned is sufficiently beneficial to the average person to justify its enormous social cost, I don't think it particularly plausible (putting it mildly). The arguments for prison abolition are rational and reasonable, but the concept is so alien to our society that it's easy to think of all the evidence in support of abolition as being evidence of injustice in our current implementation of incarceration, rather than of the general inefficacy of incarceration as a tool for controlling crime.
posted by howfar at 1:39 PM on July 13, 2021 [13 favorites]
this is great stuff, thank you for posting.
the real thorny problem is what to do with the majority of prisoners in US state prisons who are there for violent crimes. a lot of progressive prosecutors like gascon in LA ran on reducing prosecutions for nonviolent offenses, as well as ending capital punishment, but then radically changed how they prosecute noncapital violent crime. i will be curious to see how voters respond to this.
posted by wibari at 2:17 PM on July 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
the real thorny problem is what to do with the majority of prisoners in US state prisons who are there for violent crimes. a lot of progressive prosecutors like gascon in LA ran on reducing prosecutions for nonviolent offenses, as well as ending capital punishment, but then radically changed how they prosecute noncapital violent crime. i will be curious to see how voters respond to this.
posted by wibari at 2:17 PM on July 13, 2021 [4 favorites]
While it is possible that the deterrent effect of incarceration on those who have never been imprisoned is sufficiently beneficial to the average person to justify its enormous social cost, I don't think it particularly plausible (putting it mildly)
Of the conventionally enumerated goals of incarceration I would guess that incapacitation - that people in prison are physically prevented from committing additional crimes on the outside - is on the most solid ground (as far as whether it works and justifies putting some people in prison).
posted by atoxyl at 2:49 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
Of the conventionally enumerated goals of incarceration I would guess that incapacitation - that people in prison are physically prevented from committing additional crimes on the outside - is on the most solid ground (as far as whether it works and justifies putting some people in prison).
posted by atoxyl at 2:49 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
If true, this strongly implies that "broken windows" policies were not merely useless but positively counter-productive.
Of course that in turn depends on our beliefs about what is to be produced. If the answer is "fodder for the prison-industrial complex" and "ensure the continued oppression of marginalised communities" then perhaps broken windows worked as designed.
But still.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:18 PM on July 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Of course that in turn depends on our beliefs about what is to be produced. If the answer is "fodder for the prison-industrial complex" and "ensure the continued oppression of marginalised communities" then perhaps broken windows worked as designed.
But still.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:18 PM on July 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
I haven't read much of this but it was recommended by a professor in a class on race and urban planning as a more complicated explanation of the prison industry in California :
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
I'm looking forward to reading the articles linked above.
posted by sepviva at 4:17 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
Gilmore, Ruth Wilson. Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
I'm looking forward to reading the articles linked above.
posted by sepviva at 4:17 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
I never thought about it that way but it is a pretty large forced networking session over the course of months or years. And where there are people networking from a position of power and those being added to the network.
I had a friend in middle school who chucked a crappy teacher's keys over the fence and into the woods. Would have gotten probation but the teacher was very old at that point and had a screaming hissy fit in the court about him being a danger. He spent a month or so in juvie and came back and just wasn't with us anymore.
I hate that teacher so fucking much.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:58 PM on July 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
I had a friend in middle school who chucked a crappy teacher's keys over the fence and into the woods. Would have gotten probation but the teacher was very old at that point and had a screaming hissy fit in the court about him being a danger. He spent a month or so in juvie and came back and just wasn't with us anymore.
I hate that teacher so fucking much.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:58 PM on July 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Of the conventionally enumerated goals of incarceration I would guess that incapacitation - that people in prison are physically prevented from committing additional crimes on the outside - is on the most solid ground (as far as whether it works and justifies putting some people in prison).
To some extent, insofar as (as you indicate) it limits their criminal activities to the confines of the prison for a (typically limited) period of time. But, even leaving aside the huge numbers of unreported and/or unrecorded crimes that take place in prisons, and the moral questions arising around them, I think we have to ask exactly how effective incapacitation is at increasing safety from crime outside prison. The metric would be average lifetime offences, I guess.
One thing I note is that the US has somewhere around 7 times more prisoners per capita than the EU, with roughly comparable levels of regional variation in criminality (with the exception of homicide, of course) based on socioeconomic factors. Those numbers don't prove that incapacitation doesn't have significant benefits, of course, because there are all kinds of issues that would need to be accounted for in supporting that assertion. However, I think they do, at the very least, suggest that incapacitation probably only acts to ameliorate the increased rates of recidivism, and that the game may well not be worth the candle. How many years does one have to lock a person up for in order to decrease their overall lifetime prevalence of outside prison offending? There's clearly some number of years, if only because of physical decline and death, but whether that's a number a democratic society would be prepared to tolerate (for moral, social or fiscal reasons) for the purpose of reducing exposure to crime is unclear to me.
posted by howfar at 6:26 PM on July 13, 2021
To some extent, insofar as (as you indicate) it limits their criminal activities to the confines of the prison for a (typically limited) period of time. But, even leaving aside the huge numbers of unreported and/or unrecorded crimes that take place in prisons, and the moral questions arising around them, I think we have to ask exactly how effective incapacitation is at increasing safety from crime outside prison. The metric would be average lifetime offences, I guess.
One thing I note is that the US has somewhere around 7 times more prisoners per capita than the EU, with roughly comparable levels of regional variation in criminality (with the exception of homicide, of course) based on socioeconomic factors. Those numbers don't prove that incapacitation doesn't have significant benefits, of course, because there are all kinds of issues that would need to be accounted for in supporting that assertion. However, I think they do, at the very least, suggest that incapacitation probably only acts to ameliorate the increased rates of recidivism, and that the game may well not be worth the candle. How many years does one have to lock a person up for in order to decrease their overall lifetime prevalence of outside prison offending? There's clearly some number of years, if only because of physical decline and death, but whether that's a number a democratic society would be prepared to tolerate (for moral, social or fiscal reasons) for the purpose of reducing exposure to crime is unclear to me.
posted by howfar at 6:26 PM on July 13, 2021
An important justification for incarceration (or fines, or any punishment) is that victims will not be tempted to exact their own, perhaps disproportionate punishment. Violence and compulsion belong to the state, in this line of thinking, and as a matter of policy, it is prudent to make victims feel that something has been done.
This breaks down in the case of victimless crimes. Who is hurt by possessing a small amount of drugs? And returning to the article, almost all "low level" crimes of the sort described here are victimless, or small financial restitution to the victim would be adequate... but we don't want outraged shopkeepers exacting vigilante justice on shoplifters so it's interesting to think through how that policy question gets answered when there's no prosecution...
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:42 PM on July 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
This breaks down in the case of victimless crimes. Who is hurt by possessing a small amount of drugs? And returning to the article, almost all "low level" crimes of the sort described here are victimless, or small financial restitution to the victim would be adequate... but we don't want outraged shopkeepers exacting vigilante justice on shoplifters so it's interesting to think through how that policy question gets answered when there's no prosecution...
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:42 PM on July 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
I can't tell from the linked page -- is this David Byrne, or just David Byrne?
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 9:32 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 9:32 PM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]
I can't tell from the linked page -- is this David Byrne, or just David Byrne?
This is David Byrne. Yes, that one.
posted by andraste at 10:59 PM on July 13, 2021 [7 favorites]
This is David Byrne. Yes, that one.
posted by andraste at 10:59 PM on July 13, 2021 [7 favorites]
My suburban California community has had a huge surge in crime like burglary and people walking out of stores with large pile of items. Our right wing community members attribute it to the police and DA not arresting or filing charges for these "petty crimes." As a victim of both a suburban mugging and a burglary I have mixed feelings about this approach.
posted by cccorlew at 5:20 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by cccorlew at 5:20 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
Go watch Philly DA. You'll be glad you did.
posted by Paul Slade at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by Paul Slade at 6:08 AM on July 14, 2021 [3 favorites]
My suburban California community has had a huge surge in crime like burglary and people walking out of stores with large pile of items. Our right wing community members attribute it to the police and DA not arresting or filing charges for these "petty crimes." As a victim of both a suburban mugging and a burglary I have mixed feelings about this approach.
This is an entirely reasonable concern.
But I don't think anyone's suggesting that police should not stop crimes in progress. Arresting is a separate question; the study looked at the choice of whether to prosecute, so by definition there was an arrest. It also looked at nonviolent offenses; I think mugging would generally be considered a violent crime.
From the study: "It is also possible that a change in policy to reduce prosecution of nonviolent misdemeanors could increase the number of crimes committed by other residents (who are not yet in our data) by reducing general deterrence. ... Effects on reported crime are noisy, but there is certainly no evidence that this policy change had detrimental effects on public safety. It will be important to track changes over time in this setting and elsewhere, to more fully understand what trade-offs, if any, exist."
There could very well be a longer-term negative effect if police decide that they should not arrest, or or even interrupt a crime in progress, if it's not going to prosecuted. But that's not what the available evidence suggests.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is an entirely reasonable concern.
But I don't think anyone's suggesting that police should not stop crimes in progress. Arresting is a separate question; the study looked at the choice of whether to prosecute, so by definition there was an arrest. It also looked at nonviolent offenses; I think mugging would generally be considered a violent crime.
From the study: "It is also possible that a change in policy to reduce prosecution of nonviolent misdemeanors could increase the number of crimes committed by other residents (who are not yet in our data) by reducing general deterrence. ... Effects on reported crime are noisy, but there is certainly no evidence that this policy change had detrimental effects on public safety. It will be important to track changes over time in this setting and elsewhere, to more fully understand what trade-offs, if any, exist."
There could very well be a longer-term negative effect if police decide that they should not arrest, or or even interrupt a crime in progress, if it's not going to prosecuted. But that's not what the available evidence suggests.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:18 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
So my interpretation is that, maybe the act of being arrested is enough of a deterrent by itself, without any subsequent prison time?
I could see how that could work. I've heard for years that the biggest deterrent to crime is the perceived chances of being caught, not the severeness of the punishment that might occur. This is what "tough on crime" conservatives routinely fail to grasp: simply ratcheting up the severity of punishments doesn't have much of a deterrent effect, because people are bad at evaluating high-severity but low-probability risks.
It would make sense, then, that you could move resources from semi-permanent incarceration to crime deterrence, and have a downward effect on the number of crimes actually committed.
The easiest example I've ever personally witnessed was with red-light running and speeding: you can make the penalties for moving violations incredibly draconian, and yet people will still do it if they perceive the probability of getting caught is low. But if the probability of getting caught is really high—like if you have a speed or red light camera, or a cop who just sits at the intersection regularly—even though the punishment might be pretty low ($80 camera ticket or whatever), it seems to be more effective at actually modifying behavior.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:11 AM on July 14, 2021 [5 favorites]
I could see how that could work. I've heard for years that the biggest deterrent to crime is the perceived chances of being caught, not the severeness of the punishment that might occur. This is what "tough on crime" conservatives routinely fail to grasp: simply ratcheting up the severity of punishments doesn't have much of a deterrent effect, because people are bad at evaluating high-severity but low-probability risks.
It would make sense, then, that you could move resources from semi-permanent incarceration to crime deterrence, and have a downward effect on the number of crimes actually committed.
The easiest example I've ever personally witnessed was with red-light running and speeding: you can make the penalties for moving violations incredibly draconian, and yet people will still do it if they perceive the probability of getting caught is low. But if the probability of getting caught is really high—like if you have a speed or red light camera, or a cop who just sits at the intersection regularly—even though the punishment might be pretty low ($80 camera ticket or whatever), it seems to be more effective at actually modifying behavior.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:11 AM on July 14, 2021 [5 favorites]
Seconding the recommendation to watch Philly DA. I'm not done watching all of the episodes, but the ones I've seen are very enlightening. The system is set up to work against those who have committed a crime to ever get back on their feet.
posted by BeBoth at 9:59 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by BeBoth at 9:59 AM on July 14, 2021 [1 favorite]
If true, this strongly implies that "broken windows" policies were not merely useless but positively counter-productive.
The interesting thing is, if you go back to the original 1982 research developing "broken windows" theory, it doesn't at all follow from their findings that we should come down hard on small property crimes.
A piece of property is abandoned, weeds grow up, a window is smashed. Adults stop scolding rowdy children; the children, emboldened, become more rowdy. Families move out, unattached adults move in. Teenagers gather in front of the corner store. The merchant asks them to move; they refuse. Fights occur. Litter accumulates. People start drinking in front of the grocery; in time, an inebriate slumps to the sidewalk and is allowed to sleep it off. Pedestrians are approached by panhandlers.Now, you could draw from that the conclusion "punish people for smashing windows." But what if the conclusion was "don't let properties become neglected and abandoned and full of weeds"?
This New Yorker article goes into some depth on current research in this area - they follow a program that remediated neglected places and turned abandoned lots into pocket parks.
Compelling theories, as critics of broken-windows policing know all too well, are often betrayed by evidence. That’s why Branas was so surprised by the findings from their first study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, which showed a thirty-nine-per-cent reduction in gun violence in and around remediated abandoned buildings and a smaller—but still meaningful—five-per-cent reduction in gun violence in and around remediated lots. These are extraordinary numbers, at a level of impact one rarely sees in a social-science experiment.posted by Jeanne at 10:02 AM on July 14, 2021 [10 favorites]
Equally powerful, Branas said, was that there was no evidence that the violence had simply shifted to nearby places. The declines were real. And they lasted from one to nearly four years, making the benefit far more sustainable than those of other crime-reduction programs. “Honestly, it was a bigger effect than we’d expected to find,” he said.
Could we at the very least not house non violent criminals with violent criminals, so as not to create more violent criminals.
posted by Beholder at 12:43 PM on July 14, 2021
posted by Beholder at 12:43 PM on July 14, 2021
I don't think incarceration is an appropriate punishment for shoplifting and similar low-level non-violent crimes. But, I don't know how you discourage those crimes if incarceration is off the table. I want to believe there's a way, but what can you do with a confirmed low-level recidivist?
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:56 AM on July 15, 2021
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:56 AM on July 15, 2021
I don't know how you discourage those crimes if incarceration is off the table.
Did you read the article? I’m not being critical, I’m just asking because here’s the thing: according to the study, the total number of recidivists dropped significantly with this approach. Clearly the current system is not working in the United States. It may not seem to make sense if you haven’t read the article but there are many reasons why not putting these folks in jail prevents future crime.
Because they aren’t sent to jail, they actually are motivated to avoid crimes and arrests in the future. Becoming a criminal and being sent to jail makes it essentially impossible for people to have normal lives. So intervening after a low-level crime but before a prison sentence gives these people a second chance, and it’s a chance that a surprisingly high number of them take.
That to me is not a problem, that is an amazing success, and we need more of them in the US. The US system has been willing to ignore a host of so-called white-collar crimes committed by wealthy people for years. The article highlights what appears to be an evidence-based approach to lowering crime. I don’t see a problem with adopting it more broadly.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:30 AM on July 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Did you read the article? I’m not being critical, I’m just asking because here’s the thing: according to the study, the total number of recidivists dropped significantly with this approach. Clearly the current system is not working in the United States. It may not seem to make sense if you haven’t read the article but there are many reasons why not putting these folks in jail prevents future crime.
Because they aren’t sent to jail, they actually are motivated to avoid crimes and arrests in the future. Becoming a criminal and being sent to jail makes it essentially impossible for people to have normal lives. So intervening after a low-level crime but before a prison sentence gives these people a second chance, and it’s a chance that a surprisingly high number of them take.
That to me is not a problem, that is an amazing success, and we need more of them in the US. The US system has been willing to ignore a host of so-called white-collar crimes committed by wealthy people for years. The article highlights what appears to be an evidence-based approach to lowering crime. I don’t see a problem with adopting it more broadly.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:30 AM on July 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think it's interesting. In the UK we have a range of penalties beyond prison for low-level offences, for example community service or having to wear an electronic tag. This does reduce the level of disruption from a conviction, including to family members. The issue about having a criminal record still exists, although sentences of less than 30 months are deemed 'spent' after a certain period of time (anything from immediately for a caution to 10 years for a 30 month prison term) and no longer have to be declared to most employers and will not come up on a standard criminal records check. Exceptions apply if you want to work with eg children and require enhanced vetting.
posted by plonkee at 11:06 AM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by plonkee at 11:06 AM on July 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't know how you discourage [low-level nonviolent] crimes if incarceration is off the table.
Fines? Community service? Restitution to the victim in the form of either of those two things? Corporal punishment? Monitoring similar to (but hopefully less stringent than) parole monitoring? Social services to reduce crimes motivated by personal circumstances? Lots of ways to discourage crimes, both on a social and an individual level. They aren't even all punitive, but even among punitive approaches incarceration is but one option.
posted by jackbishop at 12:53 PM on July 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
Fines? Community service? Restitution to the victim in the form of either of those two things? Corporal punishment? Monitoring similar to (but hopefully less stringent than) parole monitoring? Social services to reduce crimes motivated by personal circumstances? Lots of ways to discourage crimes, both on a social and an individual level. They aren't even all punitive, but even among punitive approaches incarceration is but one option.
posted by jackbishop at 12:53 PM on July 15, 2021 [2 favorites]
« Older Flipping people: upgrading and dating | "What is the experience giving you?" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by aniola at 10:26 AM on July 13, 2021 [2 favorites]