Local Police Departments Take Note

[RaceFan]

You know what I think, Today is Christmas and I think we should give this subject a rest for today!

[RaceFan]

Thank-You for letting the KPC Forum be a peaceful place to be on Christmas Day.

[Common-Tater]

The only problem with that statement, despite you being sure, is that the statistics say the opposite.

But you already said the statistics don't really matter. I guess if you managed a baseball team you'd put the worst statistical hitter in at crucial moments. If you managed the Colts, you'd draft a guy with terrible numbers. Or maybe you'd repeal drunk driving laws, since statistics don't really prove that people drive worse when drunk. Statistics just can't be trusted.

Let's just go with what we believe and proof doesn't need to enter the equation.

There are times when statistics are important, but not in this case. You know very little about criminal justice or you'd understand.

[LuciusBeebe]

There are times when statistics are important, but not in this case. You know very little about criminal justice or you'd understand.

Really? That's your response? The statistics don't matter because you think I don't know about criminal justice?

Here's a hint, Tater:

All the statistics I'm throwing at you are compiled by people who do know about criminal justice.

This isn't global warming, global warming is easy to debate. There are studies that support both sides.

Find one, just one, study that says education doesn't effect recidivism rates.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

[Common-Tater]

Really? That's your response? The statistics don't matter because you think I don't know about criminal justice?

Here's a hint, Tater:

All the statistics I'm throwing at you are compiled by people who do know about criminal justice.

This isn't global warming, global warming is easy to debate. There are studies that support both sides.

Find one, just one, study that says education doesn't effect recidivism rates.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Just because you pull together information from a few websites doesn't mean you understand Criminal Justice. You have no idea how they even compiled the information. You're just pulling this stuff off the internet from sites that advocate the programs. I tried to explain why these statistics don't prove anything, but if it's beyond your ability to understand, perhaps you should take a course in criminal justice that focuses on Corrections. You trying to discuss this topic would be like me trying to discuss how to be a competative wrestler.

[LuciusBeebe]

Don't you find it kind of strange that you can't find one study that says education level has no effect on recidivism rates?

I know its difficult for you, Tater, but perhaps its time to admit you are wrong. Everything out there says its true.

Everything.

perhaps you should take a course in criminal justice that focuses on Corrections

You do realize that the very concept of "corrections" goes against everything you say, right? That people can be improved, or "corrected". That in the course of study I would be taught exactly what I'm already saying, that people can be improved on the inside, thus reducing the chances they re-offend. That education is a big portion of that correction.

[Common-Tater]

Don't you find it kind of strange that you can't find one study that says education level has no effect on recidivism rates?

Why would I need to. That's not my argument.

I know its difficult for you, Tater, but perhaps its time to admit you are wrong. Everything out there says its true.

Everything.

That's funny. I just looked through the instruction mannual for my toaster and it says nothing about recidivism rates.

You do realize that the very concept of "corrections" goes against everything you say, right? That people can be improved, or "corrected". That in the course of study I would be taught exactly what I'm already saying, that people can be improved on the inside, thus reducing the chances they re-offend. That education is a big portion of that correction.

No, I'm referring to a course of study. "Corrections," once called the "Penal System" is the study of prison systems and how they function. I could give you a history lesson, but you could just as easily look it up yourself. We have changed from a system that just locks people away (Penal System), to one that focuses on trying to change behavior. I didn't say corrections didn't work. Statistics only look at one contingency. Solely using statistics to support your arguement doesn't prove anything. Some would argue that just because a particular study shows that people's lives have changed and improved after accepting Christ doesn't prove that Christianity is true. There are a lot of factors that could have caused those people's lives to change and improve. And how would you explain those who's lives have not improved or those that have actually gotten worse after accepting Christ?

You can't just use statistics to argue a point. You need to actually know what you're talking about. And you don't have the background to know much of anything about this subject.

[armyda]

You can't just use statistics to argue a point. You need to actually know what you're talking about. And you don't have the background to know much of anything about this subject.

Okay Tater: Go back to this study. Why is it defective and fail to really show the positive results from education on recidivism rates?

One link, your are correct it doesn't look at Dekalb County: Three State Study So please fee free to post a study on Dekalb County recidivism in comparison with education.

I'm not aware of any studies in recidivism that are on a county basis. If you have something I'd enjoy seeing the data.

I'm not saying that rewarding good behavior is wrong, neither am I saying that investment in education doesn't reduce crime.

[krazetrain]

I could give you a history lesson.

The world according to tater! Considering your people skills, I doubt if LB would listen. I can't blame him.

You can't just use statistics to argue a point. You need to actually know what you're talking about. And you don't have the background to know much of anything about this subject.

You make a statement like that and expect people to take you seriously? LB could say the same thing to you about your trying to moderate this forum. But he hasn't! Not yet anyway! It must be tough being a legend in your own mind.

[armyda]

Everyone. Time to calm down. The personal statements and innuendo are crossing the line. Disagreeing with interpretation fine, arguing fine, insults no.

[LuciusBeebe]

That's not my argument.

The only reason we're still talking about it is because that's been your argument.

And you don't have the background to know much of anything about this subject.

Your "education" in corrections seems to have taught you that people never change and educating prisoners is a waste of time and money.

Whereas my education on the topic, and everyone else's, shows that educating prisoners reduces recidivism rates, which saves the tax payers money in the long run. That's why the studies were performed by the Department of Corrections, using their own data. It wasn't some hippy tree hugger study, it was a business decision. And every serious study done by department of corrections across the nation say the same thing:

educating prisoners reduces recidivism



But you disagree.

You're just pulling this stuff off the internet from sites that advocate the programs. I tried to explain why these statistics don't prove anything, but if it's beyond your ability to understand, perhaps you should take a course in criminal justice that focuses on Corrections.

The National Institute of Corrections doesn't know anything about corrections, either...

Perhaps you should take a course on statistics... I had 3 of 'em. One thing we never encountered, though, was a situation in which a die roll came up and then someone tried to argue that it didn't mean anything.

That's what you're asking us to believe, Tater. Not that people who got a GED in prison have a better chance of making it on the outside... but:



Tater's Reasons Why Prisoners Don't Re-offend

1. the biggest repeat offenders have moved out of the area
2. the biggest repeat offenders are serving much longer sentences
3. they've just gotten better at not getting caught
4. more prior inmates are getting lucky and finding work (a GED isn't required for that)


See, because I studied statistics and probability, I know that some of the above cases are possibilities. But I also know not to ignore the common bond of the analysis: their education. See, its probably also true of the guys in the study that they are predominately christian. Or that they eat meat. Or like football. Or drink Coke. But none of those common bonds would have an impact on their return to a life of crime. So at some point we have to use our common sense when looking at the data. And common sense tells us, just as data tells us:

The higher a person's education level, the lower the chances that he'll commit crimes.







Common sense also tells us that people who resort to personal attacks in lieu of making a point don't have a point to make.

[RaceFan]

I agree with Armyda, It's time to cool this subject down some. Giving opinions is fine, but the sarcasm is not needed. Lucius Beebe your reason for editing your last post "Because this Forum is full of Cry babies" I think that statement was uncalled for.

[armyda]

Who want's anyone to stop posting? Post away, disagree all day, fine.

[Common-Tater]

Okay Tater: Go back to this study. Why is it defective and fail to really show the positive results from education on recidivism rates?

My issue with this study is that it was not objective. The author set out to prove a point of view and collected only the data that supported his arguement. Here is an exerpt from another source...

According to the survey results, 45.4 percent of people released from prison
in 1999 and 43.3 percent of those sent home in 2004 were reincarcerated within
three years, either for committing a new crime or for violating conditions
governing their release. While differences in survey methods complicate direct
comparisons of national recidivism rates over time, a comparison of the states
included in both the Pew/ASCA and BJS studies reveals that recidivism rates have
been largely stable. When excluding California, whose size skews the national
picture, recidivism rates between 1994 and 2007 have consistently remained
around 40 percent.

The new figures suggest that despite the massive increase in corrections
spending, in many states there has been little improvement in the performance
of corrections systems. If more than four out of 10 adult American offenders still
return to prison within three years of their release, the system designed to deter them
from continued criminal behavior clearly is falling short. That is an unhappy reality,
not just for offenders, but for the safety of American communities.

http://www.ceanational.org/PDFs/EdReducesCrime.pdf (Page 2 of Executive Summary)

[LuciusBeebe]

What is your background and education in criminal justice?

I have read several books and watch all the documentaries I can find on the topic. I'm sure you will assail this as unacceptable, though signing up for classes would require.... reading several books and listening to people like in the documentaries.

More importantly, Tater, none of this is really relevant. My background on the subject really shouldn't enter into the debate. If you can't debate the point with examples of your own, and must rely on chipping away at me personally, then you're not really debating the point at all. I don't recall asking what your education level on political science is when debating points of politics. Or asking how many economics courses you've taken when the subject of government spending comes up.

In other words, stick to the topic, not the poster.

For example, I will now talk about what you posted earlier.

The quote above doesn't even seek to look at the statistics of prisoners who completed a GED program. It just looked at total recidivism. It states that there was "massive increase in corrections
spending", but it doesn't even say what those increases were. That's like saying new trends in AIDS research or cancer treatment have been useless, because the mortality rate for everyone in the country has remained unchanged. You can't go broad scope if you're looking to find the effectiveness of a small slice of the pie. And when it comes to looking at the slice of the pie which includes guys who got their GED in prison, THAT slice has a lower recidivism rate than the entirety of the pie.

It also should be pointed out that the link you posted above proves what I've been saying:

For re-arrest, correctional education participants had statistically significant
(at the .01 level) lower rates of re-arrest (48%) when compared to the comparison
group of non-participants (57%).

• For re-conviction, correctional education participants had statistically significant
(at the .01 level) lower rates of re-conviction (27%) when compared to the
control group of non-participants (35%).

• For re-incarceration, correctional education participants had statistically significant
(at the .01 level) lower rates of re-incarceration (21%) when compared
to the control group of non-participants (31%).


So... what can I say? Thanks, I guess. Thanks for helping me prove you wrong.

[armyda]

My issue with this study is that it was not objective. The author set out to prove a point of view and collected only the data that supported his arguement. Here is an exerpt from another source...

What evidence do you have that the study wasn't objective. Because of the report title?

The Study itself was the "Three-State Recidivism Study"

Here are a couple of excerpts:

"The Three-State Recidivism Study is not the first study to highlight the positive impact education can have on reducing criminal behavior and improving the chances for successful employment after release from prison. It is, however, a study with many firsts. The design has been reviewed by a number of highly regarded correctional researchers."

"So what is the importance of such a study? Why did such a study have to be made? First, and foremost, we wanted to know if education does, in fact, make a difference in the lives of exoffenders after release from incarceration. If there is a difference, does it affect public safety positively? In addition, does the difference justify the use of federal and state funds for inmate education?"

"Although many people believe that there are numerous other social and economic benefits to be gained from educating inmates, this study focused primarily on the recidivism outcome. While not initially planned as part of the study, the focus of the research was extended to include wage and earnings data as well."

You have constantly expressed disdain for our opinions and provided information while not providing one verifiable source of your own. The only thing I've seen from you on here is your opinion. Also, as you keep pointing out, security is not law enforcement or corrections, your stated education is in security. So I have to ask what are your qualifications to have a relevant opinion on this issue?

[RaceFan]

Geeeeeeez Tater & Lucius Beebe do I have to send you both to a corner for a timeout? LOL. You both bring up good points and it's great to see the fire that you both have as long as the sarcastic nonsense is left out. And I don't consider myself one of the over Zealous Moderators on here since most of the time I don't have to say anything about how people post. I like to see good debates as long as it doesn't get personal and then I have to do the job I was asigned to do. So with that being said, have a great night.

[HomeyG]

The Amish may be on to something with their shunning. When there is no one to argue with the argument is over.

[RaceFan]

Lucius has called it exactly right. Everyone is NOT held to the same standard here, and that is why no one is posting.

Graygleam and everybody else I will not discuss this problem any further on this public forum. If you have an issue PM me and we'll discuss it. Please stay on the subject of the original post.

[krazetrain]

LB nailed it again! There was a posting last night pointing out the unequal treatment, to which I agreed. They were both deleted! I did not slam anyone. I just said that I agreed. I still stand by a thread I started this summer, that was also closed. TROLLS can ruin a forum! I am not sure what Ogres do in them,but it can't be good.