America’s incarceration rate is in decline • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#361

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:03 PM UTC

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #80

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be statutory limitations for prosecutors concerning the use of plea deals. No more than 1% of cases in any calendar year should be permitted to even offer plea deals, so that they use that tool sparingly and only when appropriate. If they waste it out of laziness or apathy, then the subsequent cases that year would have to be brought to trial. This would cut down on alot of the bullshit (and not just for…

Most convictions are due to plea deals. If you limit that tool, people would simply have charges dropped due to Sixth Amendment violations and people languishing in prison awaiting trials. It would be gridlock. "Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States." https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-percentage-of-criminal-c...

> Most convictions are due to plea deals.

Probably, but why should that matter?

>If you limit that tool, people would simply have charges dropped

So you mean that charges that don't matter are often pressed anyway, because prosecutors have a cheat code to short circuit the long and arduous process of trial which is supposed to be long and arduous? No thanks.

If they could prosecute fewer cases, then they would pick the ones that mattered. Last time I did grand jury duty, it was 40 cases every day, most of them bullshit drug possession charges.

Or maybe, maybe they really do have so many important cases that this would become a problem. Then it should become a problem, so the public is forced to realize it must fund a more robust judicial system that can handle that high load. Either way, I do not want prosecutors using plea deals. And you shouldn't either.

>"Plea bargaining accounts for almost 98 percent of federal convictions and 95 percent of state convictions in the United States."

There was a slow day at the grand jury, and the assistant DA was talking to us jurors. Claimed that our small city had about 4000 cases per year, and only 30 or so ever went to trial. How can justice be served if that's the case? He certainly thought that he was doing justice, but some of those people were just pleading out so that they could put an end to the nonsense, and not out of any true guilt. Whether they were forced to go to trial so that they would be then compelled to assert their (true) innocence, or whether the prosecutor would just stop making up bullshit charges, we'd all be better off. He genuinely thought of trials as some sort of fun distraction instead of what it really was... the entire point of his job. It was fucked up.

The trouble with our world isn't that there aren't solutions, it's that when someone proposes them, they sound outlandish to people who subconsciously want the problems to persist.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#362

Post by rahimnathwani » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:08 PM UTC

energywut wrote: post #133

pengaru wrote: post #3

Does that mean we can stop keeping mouth wash and deodorant behind lock and key on store shelves and resume locking up the criminals making messes of our cities?

Putting poor, desperate people in jail isn't going to solve the systemic issues that create poor, desperate people. Locking up people for petty theft is almost certainly FAR more expensive than the cost of the materials being stolen. It costs tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars to house an inmate every year, to say nothing of the damage it causes that inmate. Prisons make criminals more likely to co…

  Prisons make criminals more likely to commit crime in the future.

Prisons make people less likely to become criminals.

Your comment focuses on prison and the impact it has on a single criminal who is caught, convicted, and put in prison. Sometimes this is a useful way to look at things.

I think it's far more useful to consider prison's impact on all the people who are not in prison. It serves as a crime deterrent.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#363

Post by Avshalom » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:16 PM UTC

mandmandam wrote: post #355

Avshalom wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#Crit...

There seem to be two main points of critique there: 1. That there was war and war sucked; disease; and also infant mortality was high - therefore life sucked back then. None of that really factors in to the debate of how much free time people had; and those thing are all still very much with us (especially in America). 2. That food prep and gathering firewood takes time. Well, gathering firewood is also known as 'goi…

1. how many hours a day would you work if it meant not watching 6 of your 7 children die.

2. How'd you get those dried beans out of their pods? Where'd you get that pot? Where'd you get the water?

3. You didn't actually read the critique did you, you the wikipedia paragraph characterizing the critiques.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#364

Post by naasking » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:17 PM UTC

andsoitis wrote: post #274

naasking wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out. Or the less popular more controversial hypothesis: the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and…

> the steepest decline in births is among the poor, a population with, on average, worse impulse control and more issues with mental health, and since all qualities are at least partly heritable... Surprisingly, the fertility rate among the affluent does not appear to be nearly as impacted. Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations. This pattern is observed both…

> Generally, fertility rates are higher among poorer populations compared to wealthier populations.

Yes, but they were even higher in the past. Fertility has declined among the poorer classes much more than among higher income classes, probably due to the availability of contraceptives and abortion:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gs5lgb_bIAAYoo1?format=jpg

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#365

Post by ncruces » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:20 PM UTC

pamelafox wrote: post #98

bluGill wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55…

I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their k…

You'll probably be 80 by the time your oldest grandkid enters kindergarten. How energetic will we be in our 80s? That's the bit that's scary to me.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#366

Post by hirvi74 » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

ern wrote: post #148

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's lead. Lead concentration in America "rapidly increased in the 1950s and then declined in the 1980s" [1]. There is a non-linear discontinuity among kids born in the mid 80s, with linear improvements through to those born in the late 2000s [2]. Arrest rates for violent crimes are highest from 15 to 29 years old (particularly 17 to 23-year olds) [3]. They're particularly low for adults after 50 years old. We're aro…

I think lead is nasty stuff, but if it was the single cause of high crime, surely we'd see a similar effect in other domains, like a rebound effect on IQs (another thing lead was blamed for)? Instead the Flynn Effect seems to have been strongest during the era of high lead, and it's tailing-off now.

I'm not convinced these tests measure what they claim to. Even assuming they do, IQ scores offer little practical value.

The human body and mind are always adapting, however subtly, to changing environments. So I wonder -- are IQ tests assessing abilities that may no longer be optimal today?

Homer likely had an exceptional memory, as did many ancient Greeks that participated in oral traditions. But how relevant is memorizing epics in the modern world?

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#367

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

bluGill wrote: post #55

strict9 wrote: post #12

> Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material that feeds the prison system: As one generation ages out, another takes its place on the same horrid journey. Another factor which will soon impact this, if it isn't already, is the rapidly changing nature of youth. Fertility rates have been dropping since 200…

> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55…

Lifestyle is key here.

An older friend conveyed to me pretty much the exact same thing you are, that he cannot imagine having kids at 40 because you will not be able to keep up with them energy wise. You get old and your body really starts to give in.

Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change.

Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#368

Post by snarf21 » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #321

Incarceration isn't the same thing as crime. If the most populous state by far (California, almost 40m people in 2025) passes a law[0] that stealing things under $950 is a misdemeanor rather than a felony, then crime can continue while incarceration rates drop. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47

This is a very one sided presentation of the facts. This fact is generally used to suggest that theft is all a liberal blue state issue. The highest felony theft amount in the US is in red Texas and is $2500. Around 40 states have a *HIGHER* felony $ limit for theft than California. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense to not spend $10K+ to jail someone for stealing $500 of stuff. There are more cost effective ways to rehabilitate people. However, our society doesn't prioritize helping as much as punishing.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#369

Post by kashunstva » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

999900000999 wrote: post #150

pamelafox wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had my children at 36 and 38, and I'm the mother, and energy-wise, I've had no issues. Yes, they considered me to be of "advanced maternal age" in the OB department and gave me special treatment due to it, but my doctors told me that the "advanced maternal age" threshold (35) was based off outdated research anyway. In the bay area, most of the mothers I've met were around that age, and my friends are having their k…

The issue here is this can lead people to pushing it till 40+. I was talking to a nice girl up until she mentioned still wanting kids in her late 40s. Maybe I’m old school, but telling someone you froze your eggs the same day you meet them is weird. Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle. This rapidly transformed int…

> this can lead people to pushing it till 40+

…which is not necessarily problematic either. I was 43 and my wife 41 when our daughter was born. Our child has had a great life and so have we. While I’m 60 now and don’t have quite the same energy I had at 20-30’something, everything has worked out well for us.

Everyone’s path, goals and priorities is different and as long as would-be parents consider the trade offs all around, it’s hard to be prescriptive about this.

> Society itself is broken. You SHOULD be able to graduate high school and make enough to support yourself and a family with a bit of struggle.

No argument there. The complex socioeconomic forces that has created this dilemma are going to tough to unwind.

Re: America’s incarceration rate is in decline

#370

Post by mandmandam » Thu, Jun 26, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #363

mandmandam wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seem to be two main points of critique there: 1. That there was war and war sucked; disease; and also infant mortality was high - therefore life sucked back then. None of that really factors in to the debate of how much free time people had; and those thing are all still very much with us (especially in America). 2. That food prep and gathering firewood takes time. Well, gathering firewood is also known as 'goi…

1. how many hours a day would you work if it meant not watching 6 of your 7 children die. 2. How'd you get those dried beans out of their pods? Where'd you get that pot? Where'd you get the water? 3. You didn't actually read the critique did you, you the wikipedia paragraph characterizing the critiques.

1. The choice isn't between having free time and having modern maternity care. And it's not what was being debated. Like, yeah, antibiotics and anesthetic are great to have, but working 40+ hours a week isn't a prerequisite for them to exist so I have no idea why you're bringing it up.

2. Sitting around the table, singing songs, telling stories, or quietly reflecting; all working at my own pace, in the comfort of a home that's been owned outright for generations, surrounded by organic soil free from pesticides and plastic.

3. I read your link, not every cited article. I've personally lived that way, and I know what I'm talking about. There's a big difference between shucking corn with your family or stacking logs, and shuffling numbers at a bullshit job which exists to make two or three incredibly rich people thousands of miles away a tiny bit wealthier. That said, if there's something more you'd like to bring to the discussion, bring it.