Most active commenters
  • anyfoo(3)

←back to thread

America’s incarceration rate is in decline

(www.theatlantic.com)
257 points paulpauper | 13 comments | 25 Jun 25 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.43s | source | bottom
Show context
strict9 ◴[25 Jun 25 17:54 UTC] No.44380047[source]▶
>Rapidly declining numbers of youth are committing crimes, getting arrested, and being incarcerated. This matters because young offenders are the raw material that feeds the prison system: As one generation ages out, another takes its place on the same horrid journey.

Another factor which will soon impact this, if it isn't already, is the rapidly changing nature of youth. Fertility rates have been dropping since 2009 or so. Average age of parents is increasing. Teen pregnancy on a long and rapid decline.

All of these working together means that each year the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources. Which in turn should mean fewer youth delinquency, which as the article notes is how most in prison started out.

replies(14): >>44380181 #>>44380473 #>>44382284 #>>44382898 #>>44382909 #>>44382947 #>>44383374 #>>44384109 #>>44384259 #>>44384324 #>>44385946 #>>44387386 #>>44388342 #>>44389101 #
bluGill ◴[25 Jun 25 18:32 UTC] No.44380473[source]▶
> the act of having a child is much more deliberate and the parents likely having more resources

This is both good and bad. Having a child is very difficult, but it gets harder as you get older. You lack a lot of monitory resources as a teen or the early 20s, but you have a lot more energy, as you get older your body starts decaying you will lack energy. A kid had at 40 will still be depending on your when you are 55 (kids is only 15), and if the kids goes to college may have some dependency on you when your peers are retiring. Plus if your kids have kids young as well as you, you be around and have some energy for grandkids.

Don't read the above as advocating having kids too young, it is not. However don't wait until you think it is the perfect time. If you are 25 you should be seriously thinking in the next 2 years, and by 30 have them (if of course kids are right for you - that is a complex consideration I'm not going to get into). Do not let fear of how much it will cost or desire for more resources first stop you from having kids when you are still young enough to do well.

replies(19): >>44381237 #>>44381941 #>>44382227 #>>44382361 #>>44382472 #>>44383033 #>>44383863 #>>44384919 #>>44386153 #>>44386316 #>>44386477 #>>44387278 #>>44387735 #>>44388449 #>>44388573 #>>44389324 #>>44389472 #>>44389581 #>>44390035 #
1. anyfoo ◴[25 Jun 25 21:21 UTC] No.44381941[source]▶
We did wait for the “perfect” time, and are very happy we did.

I got my son at almost 40, and I’m positive I’m a much better parent because of that. Sure, kids cost energy, but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric. I often get the opportunity to compare our parenting style to younger parents, and it’s clear that they often have some emotional growing up to do themselves. They complain about normal parenting things that we just shrug about, they are torn between their career and raising a kid, and most importantly they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.

replies(4): >>44382052 #>>44385020 #>>44386109 #>>44386851 #
2. Izikiel43 ◴[25 Jun 25 21:39 UTC] No.44382052[source]▶
> but at 40 and 50 you’re not geriatric.

biologically, and for pregnancy, yes you are.

replies(2): >>44382080 #>>44382325 #
3. anyfoo ◴[25 Jun 25 21:43 UTC] No.44382080[source]▶
I didn’t say get pregnant at 50. I said I became a parent at almost 40, my wife is a couple of years younger. No problems whatsoever, and I seem to have more energy for parenting (and especially patience) than the parents in their 20s who haven’t even found themselves yet.
4. malcolmgreaves ◴[25 Jun 25 22:23 UTC] No.44382325[source]▶
It's actually the age of the egg that matters most, not the age of the mother during pregnancy.
replies(2): >>44382708 #>>44382966 #
5. pnw ◴[25 Jun 25 23:19 UTC] No.44382708{3}[source]▶
Paternal age is also a contributor. Children with fathers over 40 see an increase in potential diseases, a shorter lifespan and higher infant mortality, likely due to DNA mutations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect

replies(2): >>44382969 #>>44383543 #
6. kccqzy ◴[26 Jun 25 00:01 UTC] No.44382966{3}[source]▶
How are these two measures different? Oocyte formation happens before birth.
replies(1): >>44383413 #
7. anyfoo ◴[26 Jun 25 00:01 UTC] No.44382969{4}[source]▶
According to that page, the whole issue seems to be very nuanced. It also contains the quotes I attached below.

Be it as it may, I conclude that there is an elevated risk for problems the older you get (although for some issues, cause and effect may be reversed, which is hard to resolve), but that that risk may not be so significant as to outweigh other advantages.

> A simulation study concluded that reported paternal age effects on psychiatric disorders in the epidemiological literature are too large to be explained only by mutations. They conclude that a model in which parents with a genetic liability to psychiatric illness tend to reproduce later better explains the literature.[9]

> Later age at parenthood is also associated with a more stable family environment, with older parents being less likely to divorce or change partners.[43] Older parents also tend to occupy a higher socio-economic position and report feeling more devoted to their children and satisfied with their family.[43] On the other hand, the risk of the father dying before the child becomes an adult increases with paternal age.[43]

> According to a 2006 review, any adverse effects of advanced paternal age "should be weighed up against potential social advantages for children born to older fathers who are more likely to have progressed in their career and to have achieved financial security."[63]

8. lazyasciiart ◴[26 Jun 25 01:28 UTC] No.44383413{4}[source]▶
I believe freezing eggs is considered to be keeping them at the age they were when frozen?
9. dh2022 ◴[26 Jun 25 01:54 UTC] No.44383543{4}[source]▶
It seems kids procreated by older parents (aged 35 years or older) have increased risk of Down Syndrome. The effect is most pronounced when both parents are older than 35 years: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12771769/
10. arkey ◴[26 Jun 25 07:21 UTC] No.44385020[source]▶
> they often lack patience, where to us it just comes natural.

Having kids fast-tracked me to a critical increase in patience. I've grown so much in less than three years because of my kids. I'm not sure this growth would have ever happened so quickly through other means.

And I'll always have a special, particular respect especially towards my firstborn for causing that in me, and for enduring my shortcomings in the meantime.

11. sethammons ◴[26 Jun 25 10:53 UTC] No.44386109[source]▶
My wife and I had our first at age 15. Then another at 22. And our last at 27. I've raised children while on welfare and while a software engineer.

I was more patient as a teen than I am now in my 40s. Now I am tired. All the time. I fear I would literally die of exhaustion if I had to maintain more irregular hours than I already do due to insomnia that I have developed over the last half decade.

replies(1): >>44390782 #
12. TacticalCoder ◴[26 Jun 25 12:40 UTC] No.44386851[source]▶
> I got my son at almost 40, and I’m positive I’m a much better parent because of that.

I think so too. Now to be sure to balance things, while I was 42 when we had our kid, my wife was only 28.

10 years later and things are still great.

13. wiether ◴[26 Jun 25 20:06 UTC] No.44390782[source]▶
The condition you're in now is a result of what you went through previously.

Someone with no one to care about until their 40s is supposed to be in a much better shape than someone who raised three kids for the last +25 years.

Congrats on making it though, I completely understand why you would feel tired all the time!