Comment by throwmeaway222
1 day ago
most of this research is fake you know.
For example this was going around for a long time:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/debu...
Then this happened in 2025 when there was a crack-down on crime:
https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-mid-year-...
Also, 1% of the population is responsible for most of the crime
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3969807/
So if you end up jailing people, the crime just goes down.
Also, then if that's true, then cancel all murder prison sentences!
I don't understand the argument here. Both can be true, as those two statements don't really conflict:
1. Longer sentences could have no effect on crime rates.
2. Persecuting people for crimes lowers crime rates.
Honestly, to me it reads as "law enforcement is a good idea, prolonged incarceration is questionable".
I'm too lazy/busy right now to get you effective links (debugging a database migration right now) but Google AI said this:
Reported effects of CECOT on crime
Reduction in crime rates
Since Bukele declared a state of emergency in March 2022 and began mass arrests, El Salvador's crime rates have plummeted.
A large part of Cecot is the idea of "permanent prison". I would say your entire argument is completely debunked.
> I would say your entire argument is completely debunked.
With all due respect, I did not have any argument.
I was reading your conversation, I had difficulty seeing a contradiction, so I asked a question.
You've introduced one more statement instead, "mass arrests with long-term sentences have drastically reduced crime rate in El Salvador". I see your point but this doesn't really help me with my original question. How do we know that it's the sentence terms is a significant factor (out of the combination), and not the mass arrests or something else? We don't have a control group, do we?
Your argument only covers a three year period. How does that prove that long prison sentences reduce crime?