Adding a new section to my crim class, and feel like this may be THE most under-appreciated fact abt the crim legal system: just HOW many cases drop out of it.
Half of crimes don't get reported. Half of THOSE don't get arrested. Maybe 5% of crimes --> prison in the end?
These are rough estimates, merging numbers from not-exactly-comparable datasets.
And yes, much of that data is old. It's the most up to date, but... yeah.
Still, even if off by a factor of 2 (weakest point is the arrest-to-prosecutor part)? There's a LOT of attrition.
The findings have ambiguous political implications.
Tough-on-crime types can look at it and say "man, imagine how much better still things could be if we shored this up."
My take? Non-crim legal system ... things ... are likely what constrain behavior the most.
But if nothing else, for the narrowest part of the crim legal system I study the most, it suggests that significant decarceration likely won't do much, unless we think--and I REALLY doubt this is the case--that 5% to 10% is precisely targeted at the more undeterrable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Saw this in Queens, too: Cabán did well where violence was high.
I’m about to try to get an RA to gather the data for Chicago in 2016, 2020, Boston, StL, etc Bet the pattern holds: more support for progressives in higher-impact nbhds.
Now, things looks MUCH worse at the state level, where crime policy is far more symbolic some impacted communities have far lesser voice: theappeal.org/defund-the-pol…
But it is VITAL to emphasize WHO is opposing the reformers. It’s the LESS-impacted.
So, as someone who (1) wanted Krasner to win, obvs, yet (2) is finishing up something on what the homicide spike means for reform, I think this take on these sorts of pieces is a bit harsh.
They were raising valid questions--and ones last night didn't decisively answer.
State officials can't preempt local elections. If cities elect progressive mayors and counties progressive DAs, a deep-red state lege can't change that
But they can (and are!) impose rules abt police funding, and they can (and are!) give state AGs more power over local cases.
PA is actually a good example of this. Even with a Dem governor, a chaotic end-of-session bill-passing spree allowed Philly's lone GOP state rep to slip in a provision giving the state AG the right to handle all gun cases... but just from Philly. A direct shot at Krasner.
It’s like the “million dollar blocks” claim. Equally wrong for the same reason, but so intuitively appealing that I think it is basically invulnerable.
So we’ll cut prisons, and not see the savings, and not get why (happened to a program in IN that made EXACTLY this error).
In short: $60,000 is the AVERAGE cost.
But 2/3 of that cost, if not more, if wages. Then some is heating and cleaning and other fixed costs.
So release 1, or 10, or maybe even 1,000, and savings will be <<< $60,000 per. Maybe $10,000, maybe less.
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.
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.
Already we see states and the Feds trying to figure out how to push protesting behavior into something far worse.
We are already arresting and charging the insurgents. We don’t need new laws to get them.
“But what about investigations?”
It’s worth noting that the PATRIOT Act created a special “sneak and peek” warrant to target terrorism… which has been used almost entirely to go after routine drug cases.