Public safety matters, but too often our crime policies are built on gut instinct, not evidence. So what actually works?
In this episode of The Empower Podcast, Grant Callen sits down with Jennifer Doleac of Arnold Ventures and author of The Science of Second Chances. She breaks down what the data really says about deterrence, recidivism, and smarter policy, including why certainty beats severity, how simple nudges can reduce crime, and why second chances often pay off.
This is a practical conversation about what delivers results and what only sounds good in a press release.
This post is a paid advertisement.
17 comments:
I think the results in Memphis by the National Guard have proven active policing deters crimes even though all the leftys like to cite some biased academic studies that states it doesn't. If one were serious about turning around Jackson so it's a place folks want to move to and shop in again, Step 1 is saturating the City with police officers.
What works on crime is NO MORE SECOND CHANCES. Enough with the second chances. If you murder someone you should be put down. Stop giving people a “second chance” to hurt others that actually contribute to society. We have to got to start killing more of these savages and not letting them back out on the street. There are, in most cases, no hope whatsoever for them to redeem themselves. Murderers are lunatics. Start giving people that steal cars life sentences. Enough is enough.
Literacy reduces juvenile crime, which reduces adult crime down the road.
I bet that “simple nudges” author lives in a gated community. Harsher penalties is the way to go.
Pouring honey on them and putting them in a cage with bears is a great deterrent. For lesser crimes use fire ants.
Funny how all the “second chance” people change their minds once they or their family is attacked. It gets tiring when judges let these people out and they offend again and again.
If teachers knew how to teach
A law and order mayor would help. Mayor horn is another soft on crime mayor
Swift, certain, harsh, and humiliating punishment deters crime. Not much else. Read Kuan Yew’s “The Singapore Story.” He recounts that he learned during Japan’s occupation of Singapore that public canings were much more effective than imprisonment in stopping crime.
As I enter my 60's, my compassion for criminals is a little less than 0. I don't care whether they're wearing a hoodie or a $ 2,000.00 suit. Lock 'em up and protect me.
What deters crime? The number one answer is quite simple and well-known to those who have studied it: The perceived likelihood of arrest and incarceration, or worse (like getting shot). In other words, if the guy thinks he will most likely get caught and go to prison, he'll probably decline or move on. This may not apply to mental defectives and drug-addled addicts. Skip straight to being shot.
Winner end of conversation
How about instead of treating the criminal justice system like a giant social experiment we just punish people for crimes they commit in order to uphold the dignity and worth of the victim
No one who has any power to do anything wants to do anything. If crime was decreased what would lawyers, judges, and those who are soft on crime do? It is up to the citizens to protect themselves from crime.
Heard earlier today on the radio that Horhn's new female JPD Chief has a Harvard team in town studying -- you guessed it -- the perception of crime in Jackson. I'm telling you, this lady is going to talk her brains out. she's going to trot out every excuse and soundbite under the sun to explain crime all away.
Public executions would work wonders. Charge admission.
That’s Dr. Chief. No one ever told her that “Dr” is reserved for professors and physicians.
Post a Comment