Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    America’s incarceration rate is in decline

    (www.theatlantic.com)
    254 points paulpauper | 12 comments | 25 Jun 25 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.63s | 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. Workaccount2 ◴[26 Jun 25 14:24 UTC] No.44387735[source]▶
    Lifestyle is key here.

    An older friend conveyed to me pretty much the exact same thing you are, that he cannot imagine having kids at 40 because you will not be able to keep up with them energy wise. You get old and your body really starts to give in.

    Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change.

    Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.

    replies(7): >>44388118 #>>44388559 #>>44388949 #>>44389970 #>>44390373 #>>44390532 #>>44390554 #
    2. tsunamifury ◴[26 Jun 25 15:00 UTC] No.44388118[source]▶
    This is ridiculous. I’m 40 and in moderately good physical condition (I can lift and run many miles).

    I am perfectly capable of keeping up with my kids.

    My 72 year old father who is also in good condition keeps up with my 3 year old son.

    The difference I see between a reasonably fit 40 year old and not is the massive gap.

    3. winter_blue ◴[26 Jun 25 15:50 UTC] No.44388559[source]▶
    > Alright Geoff, thanks, but you are 54 and do zero exercise, have a diet of eating out at fast food and fast casual restaurants, a body type that would be described as "meatball", and a list of medical conditions which all scream lifestyle change.

    > Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.

    Yup, this is very much key.

    4. CPLX ◴[26 Jun 25 16:32 UTC] No.44388949[source]▶
    My son was born when I was 45 and I absolutely could not be more happy about it. I am in way better shape than I was at 30, I finally started taking that seriously, and also I am way wiser, more patient, and have more money.

    So if you hear anyone telling you they can't imagine late fatherhood ignore them, they obviously aren't good at imagining things.

    replies(1): >>44389259 #
    5. jajko ◴[26 Jun 25 17:10 UTC] No.44389259[source]▶
    While generally true, you are not the only one aging around you, and some sickness/accident stuff can happen with higher probability as years add up.

    The chance you will need to take care of both your kids and your parents in your 50s is pretty high (not even going into you and your partner), while facing declining health yourself.

    Could be easily manageable, or not. Ask me in a decade.

    But one thing is darn true - if a good long term stable match is not there, no point pushing for kids. World really doesnt need more damaged folks struggling their whole lives to overcome shitty childhood. And thats fine, parenthood is not for everybody and there can be an amazing life to be had instead (and I mean it in best way possible, but that life shouod not be spent behind the desk and on the couch)

    6. techdmn ◴[26 Jun 25 18:27 UTC] No.44389970[source]▶
    Aging sucks! Obviously you can do everything wrong, and mess your body up pretty good. You can also do everything right, and just have bad luck. Lingering injury, hereditary health conditions, things add up. By the time you are in your 60s, it takes a combination of good habits and good luck to be in good shape. It's comforting to point to active older people and say "I'm going to grow up to be just like them". Just aware of survivorship bias.
    replies(1): >>44390930 #
    7. ◴[26 Jun 25 19:12 UTC] No.44390373[source]▶
    8. Tade0 ◴[26 Jun 25 19:36 UTC] No.44390532[source]▶
    Physical shape is not the same or even proportional to the ability to pull all-nighters.

    I know two men 18 years apart in age who became fathers at the same time - two months apart to be exact. Even though the older is an avid gym-goer, it's only the younger who can pull off popping back into full strength after less than 6h of sleep.

    replies(1): >>44390960 #
    9. missinglugnut ◴[26 Jun 25 19:39 UTC] No.44390554[source]▶
    >Meanwhile at trail running meets, I bump into 60 year olds still giving some 35 year olds a run for their money.

    Interrupt that 60 year old's sleep twice a night with a newborn crying, add a bunch of new responsibilities, and I'll be impressed if he even makes it to the meet.

    You're comparing people who have made exercise their #1 priority in life to people who have made their kids and supporting their families financially their top 2 priorities. It's a bullshit comparison.

    10. Karrot_Kream ◴[26 Jun 25 20:24 UTC] No.44390930[source]▶
    Good news: most studies show that adults that do moderate exercise have a lower rate of fall-related injuries in old age than those that do little to no exercise.
    11. Karrot_Kream ◴[26 Jun 25 20:26 UTC] No.44390960[source]▶
    Newborns keep you up but an all-nighter is a stretch. Also, you're looking after your kid and trying to get them to sleep, not trying to churn out code to get something to market/go to prod.
    replies(1): >>44392238 #
    12. Tade0 ◴[26 Jun 25 22:52 UTC] No.44392238{3}[source]▶
    Both of mine had colic and went through difficult teething. I've pulled all-nighters to deliver something and it's much easier than several weeks of sleepless nights with an infant.