The emphasis matters though - I don't think that Matt of 2012 would have disagreed with any of this, but he could have picked a different second point for his 'Common Sense Democrat manifesto' and it's meaningful that he didn't
"Deterrence is a function of swiftness, certainty, and severity."
This is simply Skinner's behavior modification, which demonstrably works on all organisms. Given an undesired behavior, if a negative stimulus is applied to the actor, the promptness with which the stimulus is applied, and its strength and consistency, reduces the behavior in proportion. If the behavior is repeated, the negative stimulus must be re-applied consistently.
This works to reduce the identified undesired behavior, it has been demonstrated to work predictably on every organism from humans to mollusks, and it is so intuitively apparent that all sentient humans can see this unless they are in denial.
I concede that many indeed *do* deny this, or dismiss its effectiveness, but this is due to an surfeit of empathy in which the sympathizer imagines how he/she would feel if they were the subject of such negative stimuli, becomes uncomfortable with this feeling, and wants it to go away so that they can be mentally comfortable again. So they oppose effective countermeasures so that they no longer have to think of them and become queasy.
But I'd posit that beyond a certain localized point empathy is a luxury, and that costs are involved. If one is a member of a group that can afford, and indulge in, excessive and indiscriminate empathy, and yet is insulated from these costs, this undesired behavio (excessive empathy), too, will continue and perhaps expand.
> "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.
#4 and 5 is particularly important. There was a story I read about a few months ago. A group of three or four Irish (I think) car thieves were killed in a car accident in Dublin, after which car theft in the city virtually ended. Collectively, these guys had been arrested like a hundred times but were still at liberty due to what I can only call idiocy.
I think for situations like this, we need some kind of drastic rule. Call it the twenty-strikes rule. The twentieth time you're arrested on suspicion of a felony, you're automatically eligible for the death penalty when you're tried, and your rights of appeal from that death sentence are limited. You still get your one automatic appeal maybe, but that's it.
If I had it entirely my way, probably I'd just make it the rule that on your twentieth felony arrest, you're just immediately executed, but I don't think that would be constitutional.
Second chances are one thing. Twenty-first chances, no one gets.
Point of order, criminal history can be considered in sentencing in general but not in determination of guilt. The purpose of this is to prevent the police from “solving” crimes via arresting the nearest perceptible ne’er-do-well, an occurrence that you will find in a lot of death penalty exonerations.
Hey Charles - I read the book "The City That Became Safe" that you recommended on Ezra Klein, and I found the distinction that Zimring made between "Broken Windows Policing" and "Preventative Policing" a helpful clarification on how pro-Broken Windows and anti-Broken Windows people are talking past each other. Could you clarify what practices you are personally referring to when you invoke a Broken Windows approach? If you've already written this somewhere I'd be happy with a link (:
On reading through this, I don't see the difference between you and the MATT/normie economist approach. I'm glad _you_ got on board. :)
"Got on board?" I think Matt has been on the right (cost effective enforcement) side of this for awhile.
The emphasis matters though - I don't think that Matt of 2012 would have disagreed with any of this, but he could have picked a different second point for his 'Common Sense Democrat manifesto' and it's meaningful that he didn't
"Deterrence is a function of swiftness, certainty, and severity."
This is simply Skinner's behavior modification, which demonstrably works on all organisms. Given an undesired behavior, if a negative stimulus is applied to the actor, the promptness with which the stimulus is applied, and its strength and consistency, reduces the behavior in proportion. If the behavior is repeated, the negative stimulus must be re-applied consistently.
This works to reduce the identified undesired behavior, it has been demonstrated to work predictably on every organism from humans to mollusks, and it is so intuitively apparent that all sentient humans can see this unless they are in denial.
I concede that many indeed *do* deny this, or dismiss its effectiveness, but this is due to an surfeit of empathy in which the sympathizer imagines how he/she would feel if they were the subject of such negative stimuli, becomes uncomfortable with this feeling, and wants it to go away so that they can be mentally comfortable again. So they oppose effective countermeasures so that they no longer have to think of them and become queasy.
But I'd posit that beyond a certain localized point empathy is a luxury, and that costs are involved. If one is a member of a group that can afford, and indulge in, excessive and indiscriminate empathy, and yet is insulated from these costs, this undesired behavio (excessive empathy), too, will continue and perhaps expand.
Yet another irony...
> "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.
#4 and 5 is particularly important. There was a story I read about a few months ago. A group of three or four Irish (I think) car thieves were killed in a car accident in Dublin, after which car theft in the city virtually ended. Collectively, these guys had been arrested like a hundred times but were still at liberty due to what I can only call idiocy.
I think for situations like this, we need some kind of drastic rule. Call it the twenty-strikes rule. The twentieth time you're arrested on suspicion of a felony, you're automatically eligible for the death penalty when you're tried, and your rights of appeal from that death sentence are limited. You still get your one automatic appeal maybe, but that's it.
If I had it entirely my way, probably I'd just make it the rule that on your twentieth felony arrest, you're just immediately executed, but I don't think that would be constitutional.
Second chances are one thing. Twenty-first chances, no one gets.
Point of order, criminal history can be considered in sentencing in general but not in determination of guilt. The purpose of this is to prevent the police from “solving” crimes via arresting the nearest perceptible ne’er-do-well, an occurrence that you will find in a lot of death penalty exonerations.
Hey Charles - I read the book "The City That Became Safe" that you recommended on Ezra Klein, and I found the distinction that Zimring made between "Broken Windows Policing" and "Preventative Policing" a helpful clarification on how pro-Broken Windows and anti-Broken Windows people are talking past each other. Could you clarify what practices you are personally referring to when you invoke a Broken Windows approach? If you've already written this somewhere I'd be happy with a link (: