Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CitadelGrad wrote:Fatal firearm crime is declining but non-fatal is rising over the past few years. This tells me some marksmanship training is needed. Criminals just aren't aiming as well as they used to.

Skjellyfetti wrote:All violent crime, not just with guns, started dropping in the early 90s....

...as Roe v. Wade reached its 20th anniversary...

Skjellyfetti wrote:We've lost more to guns since the 1970s than in all the wars we've fought combined.

In 2013, according to CDC data, 63 percent of gun-related deaths were from suicides, 33 percent were from homicides, and roughly 1 percent each were from accidents, legal interventions and undetermined causes.

93henfan wrote:
All take "Correlations" for $100, Alex!

93henfan wrote:So, prison population up, gun violence down.

All take "Correlations" for $100, Alex!

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:So, prison population up, gun violence down.

All take "Correlations" for $100, Alex!

LeadBolt wrote:So if gun violence is down, it would appear we are taking a good course, increasing gun ownership and imprisoning violent criminals with mandatory sentencing.

Now if we could do something about the mentally ill, reducing the number of alienated young men without father figures, and increase gun education, then we would really get somewhere.

That would seem to track under correlations.

Chizzang wrote: We're certainly a lot better at reporting gun violence

93henfan wrote:

kalm wrote:

You're not grasping that putting more criminals behind bars lowers crime? I thought you were a smart guy.

It turns out that increased incarceration had a much more limited effect on crime than popularly thought. We find that this growth in incarceration was responsible for approximately 5 percent of the drop in crime in the 1990s. (This could vary from 0 to 10 percent.) Since then, however, increases in incarceration have had essentially zero effect on crime. The positive returns are gone. That means the colossal number of Americans cycling in and out of prisons and jails over the last 13 years was not responsible for any meaningful fraction of the drop in crime.....

Increased incarceration accounted for about 6 percent of the property crime decline in the 1990s, and 1 percent of that drop in the 2000s. The growth of incarceration had no observable effect on violent crime in the 1990s or 2000s. This last finding may initially seem surprising. But given that we are sending more and more low-level and non-violent offenders to prison (who may never have been prone to violent crime), the finding makes sense. Sending a non-violent offender to prison will not necessarily have an effect on violent crime......

Due to the war on drugs and the influx of harsher sentencing laws in the 1980s and 1990s, an increasing proportion of the 1.1 million prisoners added since 1990 were imprisoned for low-level or non-violent crimes. Today, almost half of state prisoners are convicted of non-violent crimes. More than half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug offenses. The system is no longer prioritizing arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating the most dangerous or habitual offenders. In this case, each additional prisoner will, on average, yield less in terms of crime reduction. We have incarcerated those we should not have. This is where the “more incarceration equals less crime” theory busts.......

Fortunately, there is a real-time experiment underway. For many reasons, including straitened budgets and a desire to diminish prison populations, many states have started to cut back on imprisonment. What happened? Interestingly, and encouragingly, crime did not explode. In fact, it dropped. In the last decade, 14 states saw declines in both incarceration and crime. New York reduced imprisonment by 26 percent, while seeing a 28 percent reduction in crime. Imprisonment and crime both decreased by more than 15 percent in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Eight states—Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah—lowered their imprisonment rates by 2 to 15 percent while seeing more than a 15 percent decrease in crime...

Our findings do not exist in a vacuum. A body of empirical research is slowly coalescing around the ineffectiveness of increased incarceration. Last year, the Hamilton Project issued a report calling incarceration a “classic case of diminishing returns,” based on findings from California and Italy. The National Research Council issued a hefty report last year, finding that crime was not the cause of mass incarceration. And, based on a summary of past research, the authors concluded that “the magnitude of the crime reduction [due to increased incarceration] remains highly uncertain and the evidence suggests it was unlikely to have been large.”

No one factor brought down crime. Today, incarceration has become the default option in the fight against crime. But more incarceration is not a silver bullet. It has, in fact, ceased to be effective in reducing crime—and the country is slowly awakening to that reality. Incarceration can be reduced while crime continues to decline. The research shows this and many states are watching it unfold.

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:
You're not grasping that putting more criminals behind bars lowers crime? I thought you were a smart guy.

It ain't that simple.

It turns out that increased incarceration had a much more limited effect on crime than popularly thought. We find that this growth in incarceration was responsible for approximately 5 percent of the drop in crime in the 1990s. (This could vary from 0 to 10 percent.) Since then, however, increases in incarceration have had essentially zero effect on crime. The positive returns are gone. That means the colossal number of Americans cycling in and out of prisons and jails over the last 13 years was not responsible for any meaningful fraction of the drop in crime.....

Increased incarceration accounted for about 6 percent of the property crime decline in the 1990s, and 1 percent of that drop in the 2000s. The growth of incarceration had no observable effect on violent crime in the 1990s or 2000s. This last finding may initially seem surprising. But given that we are sending more and more low-level and non-violent offenders to prison (who may never have been prone to violent crime), the finding makes sense. Sending a non-violent offender to prison will not necessarily have an effect on violent crime......

Due to the war on drugs and the influx of harsher sentencing laws in the 1980s and 1990s, an increasing proportion of the 1.1 million prisoners added since 1990 were imprisoned for low-level or non-violent crimes. Today, almost half of state prisoners are convicted of non-violent crimes. More than half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug offenses. The system is no longer prioritizing arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating the most dangerous or habitual offenders. In this case, each additional prisoner will, on average, yield less in terms of crime reduction. We have incarcerated those we should not have. This is where the “more incarceration equals less crime” theory busts.......

Fortunately, there is a real-time experiment underway. For many reasons, including straitened budgets and a desire to diminish prison populations, many states have started to cut back on imprisonment. What happened? Interestingly, and encouragingly, crime did not explode. In fact, it dropped. In the last decade, 14 states saw declines in both incarceration and crime. New York reduced imprisonment by 26 percent, while seeing a 28 percent reduction in crime. Imprisonment and crime both decreased by more than 15 percent in California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. Eight states—Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Utah—lowered their imprisonment rates by 2 to 15 percent while seeing more than a 15 percent decrease in crime...

Our findings do not exist in a vacuum. A body of empirical research is slowly coalescing around the ineffectiveness of increased incarceration. Last year, the Hamilton Project issued a report calling incarceration a “classic case of diminishing returns,” based on findings from California and Italy. The National Research Council issued a hefty report last year, finding that crime was not the cause of mass incarceration. And, based on a summary of past research, the authors concluded that “the magnitude of the crime reduction [due to increased incarceration] remains highly uncertain and the evidence suggests it was unlikely to have been large.”

No one factor brought down crime. Today, incarceration has become the default option in the fight against crime. But more incarceration is not a silver bullet. It has, in fact, ceased to be effective in reducing crime—and the country is slowly awakening to that reality. Incarceration can be reduced while crime continues to decline. The research shows this and many states are watching it unfold.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... me/385364/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
It ain't that simple.



http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... me/385364/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You couldn't find a more conservative source than the Atlantic like Slate or Huffpo?

The incarceration vs. rehabilitation argument is old, tired, predictable what sources will favor which one, and ultimately unwinnable.

LeadBolt wrote:So if gun violence is down, it would appear we are taking a good course, increasing gun ownership and imprisoning violent criminals with mandatory sentencing.

Now if we could do something about the mentally ill, reducing the number of alienated young men without father figures, and increase gun education, then we would really get somewhere.

That would seem to track under correlations.

kalm wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:So if gun violence is down, it would appear we are taking a good course, increasing gun ownership and imprisoning violent criminals with mandatory sentencing.

Now if we could do something about the mentally ill, reducing the number of alienated young men without father figures, and increase gun education, then we would really get somewhere.

That would seem to track under correlations.

Ending the war on drugs and incarceration of non-violent drug offenders would help with the fatherless young men thingy.

Chizzang wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:So if gun violence is down, it would appear we are taking a good course, increasing gun ownership and imprisoning violent criminals with mandatory sentencing.

Now if we could do something about the mentally ill, reducing the number of alienated young men without father figures, and increase gun education, then we would really get somewhere.

That would seem to track under correlations.

Just for the record ^ You and I aren't going to agree very often


So I wanted to take this moment and point out "we are in agreement"