Polizia e carcere

• The US spends more than average on prison guards but less than average on police.
• Our focus on prisons over police may be crazy but it is consistent with what I called Gary Becker’s Greatest Mistake, the idea that an optimal punishment system combines a low probability of being punished with a harsh punishment if caught. That theory runs counter to what I have called the good parenting theory of punishment in which optimal punishments are quick, clear, and consistent and because of that, need not be harsh.
• Increasing the number of police on the street, for example, would increase capture rates and deter crime and by doing so it would also reduce the prison population. - -We based our calculation not only on our own research from Washington DC but also on the research of many other economists which together provide a remarkably consistent estimate that a 10% increase in policing would reduce crime by 3 to 5%. -
• marijuana decriminalization and legalization have begun to move resources away from the war on drugs. Legalization in states like Colorado does not appear to have increased crime and has likely contributed to a dramatic decline of violence in Mexico. As we move resources away from drug crime, police will have more resources to raise the punishment rate for those traditional crimes like murder, robbery and rape that communities everywhere do want punished. -

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/04/police-versus-prisons.html

Nothing works/Nothing works well/Something works

La storia che valuta il successo dei programmi riabilitativi in favore dei carcerati è particolarmente severa.

Martinson è stato il primo sostenitore della tesi "nothing works". Conclude così passando in rassegna 231 studi dal 45 al 68.

Una tesi successivamente confermata anche da Lipton/Martinson/Wilks.

Conclusioni similari vengono dal Panel on Research on Rehabilitative. In particolare Sechrest/White/Brown.

Non mancano studi che sottolineeano la scarsa qualità dei programmi analizzati. per esempio Gendreu/Ross.

Ma anche Hallek/Wittte.

Aggiungo anche Mair.

Il Panel, stimolato, insiste tentando di comprendere ulteriore materiale. Eppure le conclusioni non cambiano. Vedi in proposito Martin/Sechrest/Rdner.

Lattimore/Witte, successivamente, sono i più sistematici nel concentrarsi sull' importanza della qualità.

Sforzo doppiato da Lattomore/Witte/Baker.

Infine, un po' a sorpresa, uno dei coautori (Witte) ritratta gran parte delle precedenti conclusioni nel capitolo da lui curato in questo libro.

Leggermente diverso è il discorso sui programmi per i rilasciati e i detenuti in libertà vigilata.

Nel suo lavoro seminale Cook osserva come i prograami svolti in carcere abbiano scarsa influenza sulla recidività nonostante che le abilità risultino effettivamente aumentate. Cook suggerisce di privilegiare la ricerca del lavoro e il training on job.

Marks e Vining supportano Cook.

Mallar e Thornton documentano i risultati scadenti del programma LIFE.

Couch fa altrettanto per quanto riguarda il National Supported Work Program.

Basta così, concluderei con le parole dell' economista Kenneth Avio (Economics of Prison):

"...the evidence can be summarized as "nothing works well". Certainly the evidence suggests that a magic one-size-fits-all rehabilitation bullet does not exist. These programs tend to be "successful" only when evaluated on the basis of limited outcome mesaures and even then, the magnitude involved are typically small. Finally, it bear noting that even if "something works" in the limited sense of achieving e beneficiasl measured outcome, it may still be the case that such programs are too expensive to be worthwhile or that the resulting added incentives for individuals to enter the criminal market make the program indesiderable on net...".