
Tell HN: If you liked the article about prison vs. probation, you'll like Roodman - arikr
David Roodman&#x27;s posts for Open Philanthropy on crime: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.openphilanthropy.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;impact-incarceration-crime
======
arikr
Series: [https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/impact-
incarceration-c...](https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/impact-
incarceration-crime)

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/9/25/16340782/s...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2017/9/25/16340782/study-mass-incarceration)

> The final report reaches two major conclusions:

> I estimate, that at typical policy margins in the United States today,
> decarceration has zero net impact on crime. That estimate is uncertain, but
> at least as much evidence suggests that decarceration reduces crime as
> increases it. The crux of the matter is that tougher sentences hardly deter
> crime, and that while imprisoning people temporarily stops them from
> committing crime outside prison walls, it also tends to increase their
> criminality after release. As a result, “tough-on-crime” initiatives can
> reduce crime in the short run but cause offsetting harm in the long run.

> Empirical social science research—or at least non-experimental social
> science research—should not be taken at face value. Among three dozen
> studies I reviewed, I obtained or reconstructed the data and code for eight.
> Replication and reanalysis revealed significant methodological concerns in
> seven and led to major reinterpretations of four. These studies endured much
> tougher scrutiny from me than they did from peer reviewers in order to make
> it into academic journals. Yet given the stakes in lives and dollars, the
> added scrutiny was worth it. So from the point of view of decision makers
> who rely on academic research, today’s peer review processes fall well short
> of the optimal.

