Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The five means by which the War on Drugs can drive up incarceration rates (or punishment more generally) considered in Part II are (1) the direct incarceration of drug offenders, (2) the re-incarceration of all types of offenders due to drug-related parole violations, (3) the impact of drug incarcerations on prison admissions instead of prison populations, (4) the extent to which prior drug offenses trigger repeat-offender enhancement, even for non-drug crimes, and (5) the effects of large-scale drug arrests and incarcerations on neighborhood social cohesion, and the connections between social stability and incarceration.



And most notably ignores the question of whether the war on drugs drives up violent crime.


Not only does it not ignore that question, it addresses it empirically. You should read past the 14th footnote, where you say you stopped; this is addressed towards the end of section 2, about halfway through.


In which table does it empirically address this question?


NOTE: It doesn't say the War on Drugs does those things, it systematically disproves each one of those beliefs.


No, all of those things are true, they just don't have overwhelmingly large effect sizes. They are, undoubtedly, still driving up the incarceration rate.


Right, I misspoke. They drive up the incarceration rate, but only negligibly. They do not explain the spike in prison populations.


Negligibly? Or is it just not the primary factor?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: