@wally: oops, didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out. You should be happy, though; they're following your theory that fewer criminals in prison = lower crime rate.
Now, now. My point, way back when, was that statistics seemed to show that more criminals in prison ≠ lower crime rate. There's a difference. I don't know what the solution is. But it appears that you don't either.
@wally: well, I'm willing to test it empirically. How about we arrange that all the people arrested in my neighborhood for crimes be jailed for a year, and all the people arrested for crimes in your neighborhood be let off with a scolding, and see which of the two of us are happier with the situation at the end of a year?
Bob, I know you're joking, but the depressing this is, there are people on your side of the fence for whom this would be considered a legitimate argument.
This article, from Corrections Today, reports on and analyzes recent studies on incarceration rates vs. crime rates:
http://bit.ly/coRsOZ
The article finds some truth on both sides of the argument, a gray-area attitude that you evidently despise. But I hope you look it over nevertheless. The main thing I took away from it is that when incarceration levels are low in a community, increasing them reduces the rate of subsequent crime. But when they're high, this benefit gradually disappears--the law of diminishing returns. Unfortunately, in the US today, the incarceration rate is quite high. And incredibly expensive. If we continue to refuse to look candidly and without prejudice at the facts, then things will only get worse.
Please note, yet again, that I'm not advocating letting criminals off with a scolding. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that we'll never find it if we don't remove our blinders.
A newsroom comprised entirely of leftists/liberals is no more capable of ideological objectivity than an all-white newsroom would be of racial objectivity, or an all-male newsroom of gender objectivity.
Captain Louis Renault
"Round Up the Usual Suspects."
The Drawn Cutlass Philosophy
Be as decent as you can. Don't believe without evidence. Treat things divine with marked respect, and don't have anything to do with them. Do not trust humanity without collateral security, it will play you some scurvy trick. Remember that it hurts no one to be treated as an enemy entitled to respect until he prove himself a friend worthy of affection. Cultivate a taste for distasteful truths. And, finally, most important of all, endeavor to see things as they are, not as they ought to be.
Ambrose Bierce
The Foe
When I am free to walk the streets of Mecca or Medina as the agnostic I am and receive nothing but curious glances, I will believe Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.
Sign On. You Know You Want To.
A Few Words From Some Founding Fathers
All Men Are Created Equal. (Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father)
But Differ Greatly In the Sequel. (Fisher Ames, Founding Father)
Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety
All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
Bob's Addendum To Cooper's Rules
A Gun is not a Toy. Don't Play With It.
Bob's Theory of Hush Puppies
Bob's Theory of Hush Puppies: The best hush puppies are oblong shaped, rather like dog turds. The worst ones are spherical, like balls. The spherical ones are usually made from the recipe on a pre-packaged box of hush puppy mix.
Restaurant Ratings
My restaurant ratings, mostly intended for BBQ restaurants, will be on a 1-5 scale, with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best. Unlike most reviewers, I don't intend to play games with the rating scale by introducing fractions such as "2 and 1/2" or "4 and 3/4," I've always considered that stupid and a signal that the reviewer is trying to avoid making an honest 1-5 judgment.
Here is the breakdown of the ratings:
1 out of 5: waste of time, crap, unable to finish eating; apathy by staff/ownership
2 out of 5: edible, but no effort to impress; staff/management going through motions; desultory.
3 out of 5: average; reasonably good food, moderate effort by staff/management
4 out of 5: good; tasty, well-prepared food, staff alert, restaurant clean.
5 out of 5: great; excellent food, cooked fresh. Staff attentive and proactive, management responsive to complaints. Restaurant spotless.
On Self-Reliance
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
6 comments:
"Imagine that" is right! How could burglaries have risen because of a recommendation that was just made two days ago?
@wally: oops, didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out. You should be happy, though; they're following your theory that fewer criminals in prison = lower crime rate.
Now, now. My point, way back when, was that statistics seemed to show that more criminals in prison ≠ lower crime rate. There's a difference. I don't know what the solution is. But it appears that you don't either.
@wally: well, I'm willing to test it empirically. How about we arrange that all the people arrested in my neighborhood for crimes be jailed for a year, and all the people arrested for crimes in your neighborhood be let off with a scolding, and see which of the two of us are happier with the situation at the end of a year?
Bob,
I know you're joking, but the depressing this is, there are people on your side of the fence for whom this would be considered a legitimate argument.
This article, from Corrections Today, reports on and analyzes recent studies on incarceration rates vs. crime rates:
http://bit.ly/coRsOZ
The article finds some truth on both sides of the argument, a gray-area attitude that you evidently despise. But I hope you look it over nevertheless. The main thing I took away from it is that when incarceration levels are low in a community, increasing them reduces the rate of subsequent crime. But when they're high, this benefit gradually disappears--the law of diminishing returns. Unfortunately, in the US today, the incarceration rate is quite high. And incredibly expensive. If we continue to refuse to look candidly and without prejudice at the facts, then things will only get worse.
Please note, yet again, that I'm not advocating letting criminals off with a scolding. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that we'll never find it if we don't remove our blinders.
Post a Comment