...and some that don't in criminal justice. Book review at Washington Monthly of Jennifer Doleac's The Science of Second Chances. He differentiates between Activists and Factivists in what works after arrest inb the criminal justice system, and places Doleac squarely among the latter.
...collecting the DNA of people charged with felonies reduced their future rate of criminal conviction by 42 percent. This is one of many studies that allows Doleac to underscore a critical point: The most powerful deterrent is not the severity of the punishment but the certainty of being punished. Once criminals know that it will be hard to get away with crimes because their DNA is on file, many desist. And importantly, as Doleac notes, crime deterrence isn’t just good for future victims; it also increases the likelihood that the one-time criminal will do more productive things, such as obtaining a job or receiving an education.
Fair monitoring of substance-use disorders has a good rate of return in lowering recidivism. The author suggests that doing this and little or even nothing else might be the best strategy for probation and parole. For reasons that favored my agency but not the patient, I was part of resisting this at the psych hospital for many years. Our position was that we were a mental health agency, not a substance treatment facility, and we would be overwhelmed with returning patients who did not have current psychiatric symptoms. We gradually shifted this because the long-term practicality proved itself out, but we were slow about it.
Something to surprise everyone in the topic.
2 comments:
"The most powerful deterrent is not the severity of the punishment but the certainty of being punished."
Hm. This is kind of a point of departure, isn't it? One could presumably take the DNA from everyone at birth, or at admission to the mandatory schooling; but how much would the decrease in criminal behavior be worth compared to the submission to another layer of surveillance? Liberals will have a different answer from libertarians; what conservatives might think is not immediately obvious.
Could we stop ourselves from doing that, or once the seal is broken for "only people who have been convicted" is all the air just going to rush in?
My guess is the latter. But I also think in twenty years it won't matter anyway, enough of your relatives will have their DNA done for medical or entertainment reasons that you'll be in the fishbowl anyway.
Post a Comment