I think a lot of the negative attention this paper is getting is bc it is seen as undermining reforms. Which… it’s not!
To say that incarceration reduces some bad outcomes is NOT to say that it does so OPTIMALLY.
Think this points to a vulnerability in reform rhetoric:
To say that incarceration reduces some bad outcomes is NOT to say that it does so OPTIMALLY.
Think this points to a vulnerability in reform rhetoric:
https://twitter.com/AEAjournals/status/1387776406873071626
A lot of anti-prison rhetoric starts at “prison has entirely negative effects.”
And it’s true that studies increasingly indicate that the effects are, on net, much weaker than proponents suggest.
But some ppl are imminently dangerous. Removing them likely has some gains.
And it’s true that studies increasingly indicate that the effects are, on net, much weaker than proponents suggest.
But some ppl are imminently dangerous. Removing them likely has some gains.
But that does not mean prison is the EFFECTIVE way to do this. It doesn’t mean it’s the MORAL way to do this. None of this accounts for how we ignore the social costs of how we’ve done it.
But assuming these results replicate, they’re useful to have.
But assuming these results replicate, they’re useful to have.
If replicated—and while they go against the conventional wisdom, the literature on the parent-to-child prison connection is actually fairly thin and ambiguous—they point to issues reformers have to plan for in advance.
But don’t conflate “prisons work” with “prisons work WELL.”
But don’t conflate “prisons work” with “prisons work WELL.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
