Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IRequirePants t1_jdxzehv wrote

> We've tried the "tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" angle for 40+ years

And all we got to show for it is the lowest murder rate in almost a century.

18

SuckMyBike t1_jdz3eym wrote

Every other developed country currently also has their lowest murder rate in a century. But they are locking up 10x fewer people than the US is.

In fact, despite by far having the highest prison population of any country (and it's not even close), the US still has the highest homicide rates of any developed country.

It's almost as if it's not working at all. If locking more people up was working, then the US should have the lowest crime rates of developed countries, not the highest.

4

IRequirePants t1_je0l9p9 wrote

>Every other developed country currently also has their lowest murder rate in a century. But they are locking up 10x fewer people than the US is

There is a million and a half reasons why this is. Edit: Since the comment was deleted - there are a million and half reasons why the US and other western countries have different circumstances

>It's almost as if it's not working at all.

The (until recently) record low homicide rate begs to differ.

0

SuckMyBike t1_je0li2b wrote

This post is pathetic. On the one hand you claim that there are a million reasons why crime rates are low in other countries, but then you go and claim that the US crime rate being low is thanks to putting people in prison.

Fucking pathetic.

2

fafalone t1_jdyt29l wrote

Computer technology got us the lowest murder rate in a century.

What, you can't just impute causation to whatever has a correlation?

Studied directly, the war on drugs has been an epic disaster, and crime fell entirely independent of it.

The murder rate fell despite the war on drugs funneling trillions to gangs and cartels, making them more powerful than ever.

1

IRequirePants t1_jdyux74 wrote

> Computer technology got us the lowest murder rate in a century.

COMPSTAT certainly helped.

I guess the difference here is that "War on Drugs" directly funneled money into police. It isn't tangential. It's directly related.

Now, if you want to say the War on Drugs had massive amounts of waste and other related societal harms, then sure. Over-incarceration, "stop-and-frisk" violations, etc.

−1