> "Advocates would and will respond to arguments like this by saying that this is unfair: that criminal history enhancements deny people second chances, and that they trap people in the cycle of crime."
I'm sympathetic to your general argument, but you seem evasive on this point (or a closely related point). There is a real argument about…
> "Advocates would and will respond to arguments like this by saying that this is unfair: that criminal history enhancements deny people second chances, and that they trap people in the cycle of crime."
I'm sympathetic to your general argument, but you seem evasive on this point (or a closely related point). There is a real argument about U.S. prisons promoting recidivism, and you're not confronting it in this post. I might even feel better if you'd written "Yes, criminal-history enhancements promote a cycle of crime, and that is a price worth paying, because we need these repeat offenders to be incarcerated." (I don't know that this is your view; I am just guessing.)
I don't mean to sound too critical—I haven't read most of your previous work on public disorder, so if you've taken up the crime-promoting effects of prison in that work, I've missed it.
I don’t think prison is criminogenic. The most criminogenic thing that results from the current setup of the US justice system is the scarlet letter status of a felony conviction. I’m of the opinion that felonies committed before age 22 should be somehow retroactively reduced to misdemeanor status five years or so after their commission.
I personally know someone who received a felony conviction for a crime committed at age 17, and although he is a totally different person now, it will most likely follow him forever. The effects of this status are the only thing that I could imagine pushing him to recidivism.
> "Advocates would and will respond to arguments like this by saying that this is unfair: that criminal history enhancements deny people second chances, and that they trap people in the cycle of crime."
I'm sympathetic to your general argument, but you seem evasive on this point (or a closely related point). There is a real argument about U.S. prisons promoting recidivism, and you're not confronting it in this post. I might even feel better if you'd written "Yes, criminal-history enhancements promote a cycle of crime, and that is a price worth paying, because we need these repeat offenders to be incarcerated." (I don't know that this is your view; I am just guessing.)
I don't mean to sound too critical—I haven't read most of your previous work on public disorder, so if you've taken up the crime-promoting effects of prison in that work, I've missed it.
as I explain here, most of the high-quality evidence refutes the claim that prison is criminogenic.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/build-more-prisons
I don’t think prison is criminogenic. The most criminogenic thing that results from the current setup of the US justice system is the scarlet letter status of a felony conviction. I’m of the opinion that felonies committed before age 22 should be somehow retroactively reduced to misdemeanor status five years or so after their commission.
I personally know someone who received a felony conviction for a crime committed at age 17, and although he is a totally different person now, it will most likely follow him forever. The effects of this status are the only thing that I could imagine pushing him to recidivism.
Thank you. I hadn't been aware of the instrumental-variable-based research that you cite in that article.