←back to thread

America’s incarceration rate is in decline

(www.theatlantic.com)
236 points paulpauper | 2 comments | 25 Jun 25 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.391s | source
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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[25 Jun 25 22:14 UTC] No.44382284[source]▶
It's lead.

Lead concentration in America "rapidly increased in the 1950s and then declined in the 1980s" [1]. There is a non-linear discontinuity among kids born in the mid 80s, with linear improvements through to those born in the late 2000s [2].

Arrest rates for violent crimes are highest from 15 to 29 years old (particularly 17 to 23-year olds) [3]. They're particularly low for adults after 50 years old.

We're around 40 years from the last of the high-lead children. 17 years ago is the late 2000s.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10406...

[2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP7932

[3] https://kagi.com/assistant/d2c6fdd5-73dd-4952-ae40-1f36aef1e...

replies(10): >>44382399 #>>44382504 #>>44382544 #>>44382720 #>>44382763 #>>44382975 #>>44383149 #>>44383384 #>>44383962 #>>44384279 #
throwaway_2121 ◴[25 Jun 25 22:54 UTC] No.44382544[source]▶
Lack of boredom is also a factor.

Social media and modern games are keeping them occupied.

replies(1): >>44382775 #
mymythisisthis ◴[25 Jun 25 23:30 UTC] No.44382775[source]▶
People also have fewer possessions worth stealing and trying to hock? It's not like TVs and radios cost that much anymore. People wear less jewelry. Though this is not a significant factor, it might be worth putting on the list still.
replies(6): >>44382907 #>>44383572 #>>44383767 #>>44384545 #>>44384617 #>>44385209 #
1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[26 Jun 25 01:58 UTC] No.44383572[source]▶
I was thinking that as I was getting ready to sell my house. I'm not a particularly materialistic person to start with, but there are hardly any physical objects in my home that I value that much besides (a) some photo albums/pictures and yearbooks - and for newer generations these are mostly digital I guess, (b) my violin and (c) my espresso machine and grinder. I guess you could throw my cellphone in there as well - easy to replace but would be a PITA, like losing my wallet. It'd be a pain to replace all my furniture and other stuff but I certainly don't feel any attachment to those things.
replies(1): >>44384640 #
2. matwood ◴[26 Jun 25 06:13 UTC] No.44384640[source]▶
I feel you. I’m selling my house and I joke that I’ll give someone a better deal if they just take everything in it as part of the sale. A suitcase for my clothes, my computer, and some physical mementos is all I need to keep. Even the clothes are optional, but I don’t feel like buying a new wardrobe.

My coffee grinder may have been on my list, but I moved countries and the power is incompatible hah.