Comment by drdaeman

1 day ago

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".

3 comments

drdaeman

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.

    Homicide rate decline: The country's homicide rate fell from 103 per 100,000 people in 2015 to just 1.9 per 100,000 in 2024, one of the most drastic reductions in recent history.
    Increased public safety: Many Salvadorans, long subjected to extortion and violence by powerful gangs, report feeling much safer on the streets.

A large part of Cecot is the idea of "permanent prison". I would say your entire argument is completely debunked.

drdaeman 3 hours ago

> 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?
dabinat 1 day ago

Your argument only covers a three year period. How does that prove that long prison sentences reduce crime?