Hacker News Reader

> the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes

More on this?

Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates.

https://sci-hub.ee/10.1177/0011128715570629

Ok so now you're saying we don't know. Before you were saying you did know.

I see what you did there. Convenient.

I do not understand your comment. OP explained his point about how the rates vary

> the much-heralded low recidivism rates in Scandinavia are substantially a reporting artifact rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes

First he says he knows recidivism in scandinavia is not low.

> Headline recidivism rates aren't really comparable across jurisdictions, because there are so many variables - what kind of offences lead to imprisonment, what counts as "reoffending", how long you follow up for, how likely people are to be arrested, charged and convicted etc. One study found that recidivism rates could vary from 9% to 53% based on the same underlying data, simply by changing the definitions. The more you try to standardise the methods, the smaller the difference in apparent recidivism rates.

Then when pushed his proof is that we cannot know that recidivism in scandinavia is not low.

Grade A bullshitter right there.

My understanding was that he said that the headlines report numbers that are not backed off by science (your first quote) and then goes on explaining why (your second quite).

He could have used "high" and "USA" instead and it would have been the same.

Had he left out "rather than a meaningful difference in outcomes" then maybe.

But he didn't and made is initial argument sound stronger than it is. Classic motte-and-bailey argument.

Assuming prison is an eat or be eaten, survival of the fittest kind of environment can you blame the prisoners for being violent?

That assumption is based on cinema more than reality. Prison is just a microcosm of humanity, only slightly biased. Personal experience.

That does not contradict brikym's comment.

Of course, a lot of people are lucky and able to navigate our everyday jungle, thrive and blablabla, but they - almost by definition - don't end up in prison, and those who do already - again, almost by definition - have problems.

Underfunded mental health systems inside and outside, piling on more traumatizing experiences here or there ... sure, for some people getting a few years gives them that wake up call, but in general the problem seems to be that the whole police/prison concept is just a shitty bandaid on wounds festering from all kinds of problems (economical, political all of them usually point to psychosocial/cultural issues).

It is well known that levels and frequency of violence vary greatly by facility and by area within each facility. It sounds like you had a bit of luck with your placement. Sadly, this "penalization for survival" also happens regularly in juvenile facilities and schools.

It sounds like you're "just-so"ing a broken system that doesn't actually seem to be in the process of reforming (including implementing retroactive re-sentencing), and understating the role of the conditions such prisoners find themselves in in creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of re-offense. Ironically, you are kidding yourself, as to the defensibility of any part of this.

> IPP sentences were created specifically to deal with prisoners who habitually reoffend on release.

The whole point about this situation is that the sentences were applied to people who do NOT fit that description (not my just view, also the view of the architect of this atrocity, David Blunkett), so in the majority of cases in question your reasoning does not apply.

HM Inspectorate of Probation's review on IPP prisoners released on license paints a very different picture - of people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending.

IPP prisoners can't be arbitrarily detained forever. There has to be a reason for the refusal of parole or for a recall to prison. There are clearly significant shortcomings in how IPP prisoners are supported, but it's also clear that a cohort of people who are living with drug addiction, severe mental illness and behavioural problems are going to struggle to stay on the straight and narrow even in ideal circumstances.

https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-cont...

Thanks for the link - will take some time for me to digest.

> people with complex problems, chaotic lives and a high and ongoing risk of reoffending.

Surely that applies to almost all prisoners?

I don't think that you have addressed my point though, which is that the people who have been given these sentences are not those supposedly targeted by the law.

I couldn't disagree with any of the points that you make, but I think we're talking past each other. There is a threshold at which these sentences might make sense, and we risk conflating discussion about those cases with the much larger number of problematic cases where the logic is - at least quantitatively - different.

> Surely that applies to almost all prisoners?

The slippery slope argument can be made that this power could be abused (and likely is to some degree anyway) and that justifications could be made to apply to just about anyone. But if we assume the best intentions here, then something like this does make sense. There will always be a small percentage of people in any large society who are just going to commit violent and criminal acts over and over again.

I think most prisoners are in the category where they are regular people who made a bad choice due to things like environmental factors, poor judgement, and the like. And there are a few prisoners who are just wired differently - they will never not be dangerous. The trick is correctly sorting between the two.

>But if we assume the best intentions here

Why would you do that?

Because on the other side of the coin, in every large society there will also always be a small percentage of people who will try very hard do the right thing.

The incentives involved in incarceration as it's practiced in our society - as a means to secure the living of the people doing the incarcerating - means that you're implicitly not going to find any of that small percentage involved with it.

I wonder how much of that is "bad people" and how much of that is "Stanford prison experiment"

Or to put it another way, how much of this indefinite prison sentence due to reoffending is caused by prison guards assuming these people are bad apples and finding every fault they can with them to extend their sentence?