> This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which means that all of us will be less safe.
Serving prison time actually increases recidivism (by increasing debt, straining or severing ties with family and community, creating ties to other criminals, making it harder to find a job, etc.), so it turns out that in practice sending criminals to prison makes us less safe.
> The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework.
Putting aside that the system doesn't actually work, it also doesn't require anything you're suggesting it does. Searching a suspect's mobile device is far from the only tool law enforcement has -- and it's one that they didn't have a decade ago, so suggesting that not having it would cause the world to descend into chaos is disingenuous.
And the way the system actually does work is by creating a nontrivial possibility that committing a crime will result in punishment, thereby deterring the large majority of prospective criminals. This doesn't require anything even resembling 100% enforcement effectiveness. In fact, its actual effectiveness is almost irrelevant because people have no sense of its true effectiveness and the deterrent is based entirely on what prospective criminals think would happen rather than what would actually happen.
That is one of the reasons why the system is so broken -- the deterrent is effective even though the system isn't, so people think it's working and nobody demands that it be fixed.
> There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations.
Hollywood has confused everyone into thinking that ticking bomb scenarios are common. They are not. In the overwhelming majority of cases, law enforcement investigates crimes after they've been committed, not before. Basing major policy on something that occurs in a negligible percentage of cases is just silly.
> Serving prison time actually increases recidivism (by increasing debt, straining or severing ties with family and community, creating ties to other criminals, making it harder to find a job, etc.), so it turns out that in practice sending criminals to prison makes us less safe
Are you taking into account that while in prison, the person is not committing crimes (except possibly against other prisoners)?
Prison will cause recidivism in some who would have given up crime if given some non-prison punishment, but it will also reduce crime from people who would have been recidivists anyway by delaying their return to crime.
Offhand, I don't recall seeing data on what the optimal term is for minimizing crime, but I don't recall looking for such, either. Anyone have numbers?
> Also, are you really suggesting that crimes against prisoners are not crimes?
No. I interpreted the original assertion and subsequent discussion to be about the effect of prison on crime against the general public.
> The optimal term for minimizing crime is obviously life imprisonment but I'm not sure that information can be put to any productive use
My guess is that the crime rate against the general public as a function of prison time curve [1] is not monotonic. I expect that there is at least one local minimum before the absolute minimum reached at life imprisonment.
[1] it would probably be better to say "curves", not "curve", because different kinds of criminals probably have different shape curves.
> No. I interpreted the original assertion and subsequent discussion to be about the effect of prison on crime against the general public.
Even putting aside the implied exclusion of prisoners as members of the general public, it doesn't actually work that way. Prison inmates can cause physical or psychological damage to other inmates who are about to be released, increasing the subsequent drain they put on public resources and their likelihood of re-offending. Inmates can be threatened with violence if they don't convince their families or associates to commit crimes on the outside. Crime bosses can smuggle in cellphones and bribe prison guards to carry on running their organizations. "What happens in prison stays in prison" is the opposite of what happens in prison.
> My guess is that the crime rate against the general public as a function of prison time curve [1] is not monotonic. I expect that there is at least one local minimum before the absolute minimum reached at life imprisonment.
I agree that it probably isn't monotonic, but it seems like asking the wrong question. If a specific type of punishment causes harm to the convict and causing harm to the convict increases the probability of recidivism then every ounce of that punishment you mete out is counterbalancing itself. Increasing the deterrent also increases the damage. Sure, the two curves may not be perfectly symmetrical and therefore allow you to find a local minimum. But that's like trying to optimize the amount of poison to put in your food as a preservative. Is it not better to just use a non-poisonous preservative?
What I'm saying is that it's an empirical fact that sending criminals to prison makes you "less safe" than leaving them on the street. That isn't saying they shouldn't be punished in some other way, just that they shouldn't be sent to prison, and anything that causes them to be sent to prison does more harm than good.
Imagine someone suggested that forcing criminals to become addicted to cocaine or meth would be a good punishment. Yes, that is definitely a form of punishment. That doesn't imply that doing it would make the world safer or in any way better.
Moreover, from a "makes people safer" perspective, if you have a trade off between actual safety against attackers and law enforcement effectiveness, you almost always want to choose the thing that provides actual safety. Law enforcement effectiveness just doesn't make that much difference since actual effectiveness has such a tenuous relationship with perceived effectiveness and perceived effectiveness is what matters for deterrence.
Maybe it's a difference in our interpretations as to meaning of "criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk". That doesn't necessarily imply a prison sentence - it implies a conviction irrespective of what the actual punishment is. The iPhone encryption argument isn't about which crimes deserve which punishments; it's about being able to gather evidence to present in court.
That's kind of like saying that it's fine to provide rope to someone you know is going to use it for a lynching because you like knots and you want to encourage people to tie knots.
Moreover, it doesn't change much when you substitute a different punishment. You don't ever want to be in that situation because you only get there after you've already failed to deter the crime. If the efficiency of your coroner's office seems like a problem, that isn't your actual problem.
No, it's kind of like saying that people should only be convicted in a court of law when the prosecution shows all available and relevant evidence to convince a jury of their guilt, and if convicted the punishment should fit the crime.
Again, you're suggesting that criminals shouldn't face punishment because it's society's fault that the crime wasn't deterred in the first place.
What I'm saying is that the percentage of criminals who are actually punished has very little practical effect. It doesn't affect deterrence because the other prospective criminals never know about it either way. It won't make any particular criminal's victims whole either way (if anything it makes it worse by reducing their ability to pay restitution). It doesn't reduce recidivism.
It's not that we shouldn't try to do it. It's that failure is mostly irrelevant.
Can you link or describe the resource you are leaning on here?
I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates.
Short version: 76.6% of convicts released from prison are re-arrested within 5 years, half of those within one year. From this we have to add the percentage who committed crimes without being arrested and account for those who would not have re-offended regardless of whether or not they had served prison time. The latter numbers are obviously difficult to come by but I think it's safe to assume that they aren't both zero.
The recidivism rates in countries that use non-prison punishments or shorter prison terms are obviously lower than this (since it would be nearly impossible for them to be any higher).
> I have trouble believing that the massive increase in incarceration rates in the U.S. over the last 30 years is entirely disconnected from the drop in crime rates.
Also, the number of inmates in prison has finally started to decline over the last few years and the crime rate is still falling, consistent with the linked article but not with a link between higher incarceration and lower crime rates.
The jump from recidivism rates to characterizing public safety is a giant flying leap out into a chasm.
That there are places with lesser sentences and lower crime is a good data point for establishing that a society need not rely on imprisonment, but it actually isn't instructive as to the effectiveness of imprisonment in other societies.
I think the US imprisons too many people for too long, but you are using a phrase like 'empirical fact' to describe an opinion you have reached.
Also, note I said "completely disconnected", I'm at least somewhat aware of the speculation and research into lead and criminality (my favorite question is how the lead effect might compare to the Sesame Street effect). An alternate explanation of the trend you speak of in your last paragraph is that stricter enforcement has made criminality less attractive (I'm not endorsing that argument, I'm saying I think it has equal footing with your conclusions).
> The jump from recidivism rates to characterizing public safety is a giant flying leap out into a chasm.
It's a direct corollary to the argument that not convicting them would harm public safety. The assumption made by both is that commission of crimes harms public safety. If that assumption is false then why do we even care about punishing those crimes at all? If they're not hurting anybody then there is no harm in letting them keep doing it and we should just repeal those laws rather than worrying about how well they're enforced.
> That there are places with lesser sentences and lower crime is a good data point for establishing that a society need not rely on imprisonment, but it actually isn't instructive as to the effectiveness of imprisonment in other societies.
The thing about facts is that they're all probabilistic. Nobody knows anything 100%. This is true even in hard sciences but it's especially true in social science. If you want to make the argument that then facts don't actually exist, fine. People are still going to call things facts when they're only mostly sure instead of exactly 100%. And sure, better data is always great. Let's commission some new research. But meanwhile you still have to work with what you have rather than what you would like to have.
> Also, note I said "completely disconnected"
But you're not providing any evidence for your position. Crime rates have gone down everywhere regardless of the presence of "tough on crime" policies. The recidivism rate is so abominable that doing nothing instead would at worst not significantly affect it (because it can't get much worse) and with nontrivial probability would reduce it.
> I'm at least somewhat aware of the speculation and research into lead and criminality (my favorite question is how the lead effect might compare to the Sesame Street effect)
The article goes into this. Lead was banned in different localities and countries at different times and the crime rates in each place matches the lead level in that place in the preceding decades better than it matches anything else proposed as an alternative.
> An alternate explanation of the trend you speak of in your last paragraph is that stricter enforcement has made criminality less attractive
The clearance rate has been essentially unchanged since 1995 (the oldest date available). Moreover, a primary cause of the recent reduction in prison population has been imposing shorter sentences. Meanwhile the crime rate continues to fall.
So if someone attacked you or one of your loved ones, you would say "Set the attacker free because we don't want to increase recidivism"? Perhaps the current prison system is doing more harm than good, but the rule of law requires that laws actually be enforced in some way. There must be consequences for actions that are harmful to society. This is the goal of the justice system, and being able to execute warrants is a key part of that.
Likewise if you wound up in a highly unlikely ticking time bomb scenario, ie being kidnapped, you would probably hope that the authorities were using every means at their disposal to find you, up to and including going through
someone's iphone. The likelihood of a dangerous situation doesn't matter to someone who is at risk, and for that reason society should be able to offer every aid to people who wind up in rare circumstances.
If you're advocating that we throw out our entire legal system and start from scratch, I'd like to hear more about your proposal. The system that we have now is the careful combination of interconnected parts, one of which is
the power of a judicial warrant. We have to be careful about what we do in the name of privacy. Weakening one part of the system can threaten the whole.
Why would you optimize the system for rare circumstances? Why are you appealing to emotion with the "your loved ones"? Why are you talking about throwing out the legal system? Your arguments are all terrible, green poster.
Serving prison time actually increases recidivism (by increasing debt, straining or severing ties with family and community, creating ties to other criminals, making it harder to find a job, etc.), so it turns out that in practice sending criminals to prison makes us less safe.
> The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework.
Putting aside that the system doesn't actually work, it also doesn't require anything you're suggesting it does. Searching a suspect's mobile device is far from the only tool law enforcement has -- and it's one that they didn't have a decade ago, so suggesting that not having it would cause the world to descend into chaos is disingenuous.
And the way the system actually does work is by creating a nontrivial possibility that committing a crime will result in punishment, thereby deterring the large majority of prospective criminals. This doesn't require anything even resembling 100% enforcement effectiveness. In fact, its actual effectiveness is almost irrelevant because people have no sense of its true effectiveness and the deterrent is based entirely on what prospective criminals think would happen rather than what would actually happen.
That is one of the reasons why the system is so broken -- the deterrent is effective even though the system isn't, so people think it's working and nobody demands that it be fixed.
> There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations.
Hollywood has confused everyone into thinking that ticking bomb scenarios are common. They are not. In the overwhelming majority of cases, law enforcement investigates crimes after they've been committed, not before. Basing major policy on something that occurs in a negligible percentage of cases is just silly.