A new look at existing data by LSU researchers refutes the Trump administration's claims.
- The United States Department of Defense gifts surplus military equipment and clothing to local police departments.
- The militarization of police coincides with a significant loss of trust in law enforcement from the American public.
- Militarized police departments are more likely to interact violently with their communities.
A wide lack of support<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk0NTA5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MTgxMjQ3MX0.MkHMggYd2V-JEEGobDPR51QSNgycPFCUFXGMMPCS2cc/img.jpg?width=980" id="e4754" width="1440" height="912" data-rm-shortcode-id="a9a257cd69f59ebeb65c3a49b8f0a0a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Credit: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images<p>It's no wonder that more than half of the American public <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/us/gallup-poll-police.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">no longer trusts the police</a>. It's hard not to get the impression that for many police departments, the mission has changed from one of support for its communities to an attempt to intimidate and dominate its members.</p><p>Studies back this up. Police whose departments use military equipment are <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2053168017712885" target="_blank">more often violent</a> with community members and are more likely to kill them. Neither is this a small problem at the margins of policing: <a href="https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Over 1,000 people</a> are killed by police annually.</p><p>In spite of the Trump administration's faith in the soundness of the 1033 program, others from across the political spectrum disagree. On the right, the Charles Koch Foundation <a href="https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/militarization-of-police/" target="_blank">asserts</a>, "This erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and low support for militarization impedes law enforcement's ability to effectively secure public safety." From the left, the American Civil Liberties Union <a href="https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/police-militarization" target="_blank">says</a>, "We advocate for a return to a less dangerous, more collaborative style of policing. We should not be able to mistake our officers for soldiers."</p>
Sketchy records<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDk0NTA5NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTE1Nzk5MX0.KuoUq6a7B-1Pc01yH9bMziQE6rTg-aGvN00SgSCBUVA/img.jpg?width=980" id="7f861" width="1440" height="1033" data-rm-shortcode-id="747b7e333cb0f27b114a0f823ccd4ec4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Credit: JeremyAdobe Stock<p>Gunderson explains to <a href="https://www.lsu.edu/mediacenter/news/2020/12/07polisci_gunderson_nature.php" target="_blank">LSU Media Center</a> that, "scholars rely on accurate data to track and analyze the true effect of police militarization on crime. Policymakers also need accurate data to base their decisions upon. However, to-date, we do not have reliable data on SME transfers to local police and sheriffs through the federal government."</p><p>The research cited by the Trump administration was a study done by the American Economic Association based on SME data collected through a 2014 Freedom of Information Act request. Having a look at that data themselves, along with other FOIA 2014 data released by National Public Radio and newer data from 2018, the LSU researchers found that things didn't quite line up. Where FOIA suggests certain counties received SME, NPR's data showed no such transfer. Similarly, NPR reported departments receiving items such as weapons, grants that were not reflected in the 2018 data as expected.</p><p>"When we looked at the data and ran the replications, nothing looked like the results being cited by the Trump Administration," Gunderson recalls. "We spent a year trying to diagnose the problem."</p>
Instead<p>The LSU researchers' conclusion was the the previously released SME data from the DOD was too inconsistent to produce reliable insights. They conducted their own analysis, aligning newer data with country-level LEA data, to derive a cohesive, accurate picture that allowed them to more definitively assess who got SME transfers and who didn't, and what effect it had on local crime statistics.</p><p>They found no indication that SME transfers led to a reduction in crime. The study concludes, "we find no evidence that federal distributions of SME to local LEAs across the United States reduce crime rates, neither violent nor nonviolent crime rates, in the jurisdictions that receive it."</p><p>Gunderson adds:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"This is a cautionary tale about the importance of oversight. The most important thing for policymakers and the public to know is that you can't justify giving surplus military equipment to police departments on the grounds it will lead to a reduction in crime. There is no evidence for that. You can't claim this program is important because it reduces crime."</p><p>What's more says, the report, "because of serious data problems and debatable methodological choices in prior studies, the empirical foundations on which social scientists, along with policymakers and the public, stand when making causal claims about the effects of the transfers of SME may be no firmer than quicksand."</p>
A new study finds that some people just want privacy.
- Despite its reputation as a tool for criminals, only a small percentage of Tor users were actually going to the dark web.
- The rate was higher in free countries and lower in countries with censored internet access.
- The findings are controversial, and may be limited by their methodology to be general assumptions.
What do half of those words mean?<p> For those who don't spend all of their time on the internet, a few of these terms might be new to you. We'll go over them first before we continue. If you do know all of these terms, you can skip ahead to the next section.<br> <br> <em>Surface Web:</em> The regular internet that you can find with a search engine. You're on it right now; unless these articles are shared in places we don't know about. <br> <br> <em>Deep Web</em>: The part of the internet not indexed by search engines. This includes things like your email inbox; you can't get there from Google or Bing, but instead have to enter a password to find it from another page. You've probably visited the deep web today, too. </p><p><em>Dark Web</em>: A subsection of the deep web that requires special software to access. While not everything there is bad, there are social media sites, email services, hidden forums, and even puzzle games down there; this is also where you would find the places for illegal markets and other, extremely nefarious, things.</p><p> <em>Tor:</em> A kind of software that allows users to browse the internet in near-total anonymity. It does this by encrypting connection data and scrambling the route a computer takes to connect to a site, thus making it difficult, but not impossible, to find who is using a particular website. The potential value of this to criminals should be evident to you. <br> <br> While it often gets bad press for how it can be used for illicit purposes, it should be said it was created and used by the United States government for often banal purposes. The leaders of the Tor Project often remind the public that "normal people" use Tor for everyday internet activities as well.</p><p> As a personal example, I once used it to get around the <a href="https://www.wired.com/1997/06/china-3/" target="_blank">Great Firewall of China</a> when I wanted to get to the regular, uncensored internet.</p>
Back to the study<p> The study observed the final destination of a random selection of Tor users to determine if they went to surface websites or more hidden areas of the internet after connecting to the Tor network. This was done by monitoring the data from entry points in the Tor network, which would allow an observer to where someone was going, but not who.</p><p> Those going to surface websites were assumed just to be using Tor for anonymity and security, while those going into the dark web were presumed more likely to be using it for illegal reasons. <br> </p><p> Despite the popular conception of Tor as a tool for criminals looking to cover their tracks, only 6.7 percent of these users went to sites defined as the dark web, which were themselves not necessarily devoted to illegal <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/only-a-small-fraction-of-the-dark-web-is-being-used-for-hidden-activity-study-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">activity</a>. </p><p> The results were further broken down by country, which revealed another layer of information. The authors noted that in countries deemed "not free" by Freedom House, the rate of possible malicious use goes down to 4.8 percent. In countries considered free, the percentage nearly doubles to 7.8 percent.</p>
What does this mean for the internet?<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MBh7K5ooF2s" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> The dark web might be a little lighter than previously suggested. While it is true that there is some horrible stuff down there, this study suggests the people getting to it using the Tor network are mostly using it for legal, and perhaps even banal, purposes. This interpretation is additionally supported by the difference in usage across countries judged free and not free. In those countries with censorship, where a variety of tools must be used to get to sites like Facebook or Wikipedia, the percentage of users going towards locations on the dark web was smaller.</p><p>The authors conclude:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"> "The Tor anonymity network can be used for both licit and illicit purposes. Our results provide a clear, if probabilistic, estimation of the extent to which users of Tor engage in either form of activity. Generally, users of Tor in politically 'free' countries are significantly more likely to be using the network in likely illicit ways."</p><p> Additionally, they mention that the Tor network's infrastructure is predominately in free countries, which then see higher rates of its use to reach places that could advance illegal activities. This find may be of interest to policymakers looking to balance the promotion of autonomy and the freedom of information with the goal of preventing crime.</p>
What’s the catch?<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2UNUMgM9Gwo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> It has been suggested that the internet is the first thing humanity ever created that we don't fully understand. If that is true, it should surprise no one that there are objections to the methods used to study it. <br> <br> The executive director of the Tor Project, Isabela Bagueros, explained their objection to the study's methodology and assumptions to <a href="https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/does-tor-provide-more-benefit-or-harm-new-paper-says-it-depends/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ars Technica</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"> <em>"The authors of this research paper have chosen to categorize all .onion sites and all traffic to these sites as "illicit" and all traffic on the "Clear Web" as 'licit.'</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>This assumption is flawed. Many popular websites, tools, and services use onion services to offer privacy and censorship-circumvention benefits to their users. For example, Facebook offers an onion service. Global news organizations, including The New York Times, BBC, Deutsche Welle, Mada Masr, and Buzzfeed, offer onion services.</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>Whistleblowing platforms, filesharing tools, messaging apps, VPNs, browsers, email services, and free software projects also use onion services to offer privacy protections to their users, including Riseup, OnionShare, SecureDrop, GlobaLeaks, ProtonMail, Debian, Mullvad VPN, Ricochet Refresh, Briar, and Qubes OS…...</em></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><em>Writing off traffic to these widely-used sites and services as "illicit" is a generalization that demonizes people and organizations who choose technology that allows them to protect their privacy and circumvent censorship. In a world of increasing surveillance capitalism and internet censorship, online privacy is necessary for many of us to exercise our human rights to freely access information, share our ideas, and communicate with one another. Incorrectly identifying all onion service traffic as "illicit" harms the fight to protect encryption and benefits the powers that be that are trying to weaken or entirely outlaw strong privacy technology."</em><br> </p><p>The critique here is justified; there are legitimate websites hidden behind layers of security which were deemed "illicit" by this study's methods. Many people are just trying to protect their anonymity when using them. However, the study's authors based their assumption on previous studies that demonstrate that these hidden sites are used for illegal activities at a higher rate than other parts of the <a href="https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/no20_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">internet</a>.</p><p>Until a more rigorous and ethically ambiguous method of determining what people using the network are doing on these dark websites is utilized, the findings of studies like this will be general and based on broad assumptions. </p><p>Despite all of this, we can take a few things from this study: most people using Tor to explore the internet aren't using it for evil, those using it in places with limited freedom of information are even less likely to use it for such purposes, and external factors can have significant impacts on how people use a tool such as the internet. <br></p>
This week, Big Think is partnering with Freethink to bring you amazing stories of the people and technologies that are shaping our future.
- There are over 250,000 unsolved murder cases in the United States. Thomas Hargrove, cofounder of Murder Accountability Project, wants that number to be as close to zero as possible, and he has just the tool to help.
- Hargrove developed an algorithm that, through cluster analysis, is capable of finding connections in murder data that human investigators tend to miss.
- The technology exists, but a considerable roadblock that the project faces is getting support and cooperation from law enforcement offices.
What do we want to do with convicted criminals? Penology has several philosophies waiting to answer that question.
- What is the purpose of punishing a convicted criminal supposed to be? It depends on which philosophy you prescribe to.
- None of these ideas are without their detractors, or qualifying evidence.
- As the United States grapples with criminal justice reform, the arguments each philosophy has behind it will have to be considered.
Retributive justice<p> Perhaps the most straightforward idea about <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">punishment</a> there is; if someone does something very wrong, they cause themselves to be worthy of <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">punish</a><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ment</a>. This punishment is good by itself, even if there are no side effects. Most theorists in favor of this system also posit that the punishment should be proportional to the crime and that it should only affect those duly convicted. </p><p>Most people have a strong intuition about this. A famous thought experiment with many variations asks people to imagine that murderers enjoy long tropical island getaways where they can't hurt anyone after conviction but appear to be suffering in jail for TV cameras every now and again, to deter other potential murderers. Even if the deterrent works, you might feel that something is off here. Something that can only be corrected by inflicting some kind of punishment on the murderer. </p><p>University of Chicago Professor Albert W. Alschuler argues that retributive justice can have positive consequences in addition to any inherent justice it <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1893&context=journal_articles" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">offers</a>. </p><p>He puts forward the idea of a neighborhood where no one parks correctly, with drivers frequently boxing in others and parking too close to stop signs and fire hydrants. The laws against this are unenforced in that neighborhood. Because there is no consequence for inconsiderate parking, there is no reason to be considerate yourself; your neighbors will continue to act like this in any case. It ends up being the case that everyone acts this way to avoid being a sucker. He points out that this situation could be resolved by punishing the lawbreakers, as it would drive people back to a state of fair play. He summarizes the concept by saying, "Withholding punishment is inappropriate when doing so would encourage people to conclude, 'Everyone else is looking out for themselves, and I'll be a fool unless I become a little bit like them.'"<br> <br> </p><p>Arguments against retributive justice often focus on the difficulties of justifying harsh treatments (rather than just punitive damages or restitution) against the convicted in a way that aligns with broader principals of justice. Many theories that attempt to do so have been deemed unsatisfactory by other <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/#QuesJust" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">philosophers</a>. Others point out that retributive systems only look backward on what has been committed and not forwards, to what situation we'd like to be in after matters are settled. </p>
Deterrence<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/G21L5bvxARM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Deterrence theory is the idea that punishments for crime should exist primarily to discourage others from committing a similar crime or to assure the punished individual won't do it again. For example, making the potential costs of committing a crime too high to justify doing it in the first place. </p><p><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jeremy Bentham,</a> the <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/most-eccentric-philosophers-history" target="_self">eccentric</a> founder of Utilitarianism, took a consequentialist approach to punishment. Seeing punishments as "always evil," he nevertheless hoped that the use of them could deter crime by others, increasing the total happiness of society overall and reducing the number of criminals in the future. He combined this support for deterrence with elements from other <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bentham/#PenLawPun" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">theories</a>. </p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">C</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Beccaria" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">easre Baccaria</a>, a jurist in Milan during the Enlightenment, argued that crimes strained the social contract and that punishments should be used to assure that people continued to stick to it. Rather than a retributive scheme, this called for a deterrence system to ensure that neither those punished nor those aware of the punishments would desire to commit such crimes in the future. </p><p>Of course, there are objections to this idea as well. The most common revolves around the theory's assumption that most people who break the law weigh costs and benefits before doing so. A point many would contest. The previously mentioned thought experiment (with the murderer on the island) also points to another objection to pure deterrence theories. Deterrence can be produced without actually punishing the convicted, a situation that strikes many as unsatisfactory. </p>
Rehabilitation<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q_hAE95LriQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Rehabilitative theories of punishment are diverse in their foundations. In general, they look at what causes a person to turn to crime and try to remedy the situation.<strong></strong></p><p><strong> </strong>Many proponents of rehabilitative theories argue that the decision to engage in criminal behavior is not as clear cut as other theories suggest. Factors of economic opportunity, addiction, mental illness, social issues, and circumstance can make it more or less likely that a person will be driven to crime. With that in mind, they suggest that the penal system should focus on resolving or mitigating those issues. </p><p>Others are more utilitarian in perspective. They argue that a person who went into jail with a criminal tendency is likely to come out the same way unless some action is taken. What that looks like, be it job training, education, counseling, or something else, depends on the situation. Making it less likely someone will return to crime by providing these services, they argue, benefits society as a whole. </p><p>This comparatively holistic and often humane approach doesn't mean there isn't a potential dark side to rehabilitation. The theory is very dependent on our understandings of psychology, sociology, and criminology being accurate. Mistakes can have horrible results. The modern practice of solitary confinement, a practice now deemed <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25633&LangID=E" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">torture</a> by the United Nations when used for more than two weeks, goes back to recommendations by the Quakers that leaving criminals alone and slightly sensory deprived would allow for <a href="http://learning.law.harvard.edu/frontiertorts/topics/solitary-confinement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">repentance</a> and reformation. They were extremely <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/10/solitary" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">wrong</a>. </p><p>Even when it works, there are concerns about its implications. In his pro-retribution <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1893&context=journal_articles" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">essay</a> on criminal justice, Professor Alschuler cites Francis A. Allen's argument that a dedication to rehabilitation can make it challenging to limit the scope of state involvement, as "one immediate consequence of a rehabilitative regime is a drastic enlargement of state concerns. The state's interests now embrace not only the offender's conduct, but ... his motives, his history, his social environment." </p><p>The concerns of libertarians and others interested in a limited state are easy to comprehend. </p>
Enough of this abstract philosophy, what does the data say?<iframe width="730" height="430" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/buCU6eP9iVA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe><p> Empirical data does exist in a wide variety of areas related to the criminal justice system. Here, we can use it to see if the above conceptions of justice can do what they set out to do. </p><p>Retributive justice benefits from only seeking to deal punishment out to those convicted of crimes, which it often manages to do. It isn't easy to empirically measure such a thing, but its various side effects can be measured.</p><p>Studies show that those close to a convicted individual can share the effects of punishment despite them not having committed a crime <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6148/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">themselves</a>. Similarly, a criminal record's impact can follow people long after they have "paid their debt to society," suggesting that it is more difficult to assure "proportionality" in sentencing than might be <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/134712/wounds-incarceration-never-heal" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">supposed</a>. In the United States, unequal sentencing is a known and well-documented <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">problem</a>, suggesting more difficulties in reaching the ideals of retributive justice in reality. </p><p>Deterrence theory has a fair amount of empirical evidence against it. Studies suggest that many crimes are committed under the rationality reducing influence of <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">alcohol</a>, that few people can tell you what the punishments for a given crime <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">are</a>, and that many people don't consider the possibility of being caught when planning a crime. </p><p>Longer sentences are associated with slightly higher recidivism <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/gendreau.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">rates</a>, the opposite of what a proponent of deterrence theory would expect from people with first-hand knowledge of the prison system. Likewise, programs like "scared straight" don't seem to do much. </p><p>However, Professor Daniel Nagin has argued for the existence of a general deterrent <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161005063450/http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/587/readings/Nagin%201998.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">effect</a> while also suggesting it is difficult to use this to make any new policy. Dr. Valerie Wright suggests that a deterrent effect does <a href="https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Deterrence-in-Criminal-Justice.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">exist</a>, but adds that it is tied to how certain a person is that they will be caught and given a specific punishment rather than how terrible their punishment might be. </p><p>Rehabilitation has shown promise in achieving its goals. Efforts at providing <a href="https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/ny_ged.shtml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">education</a> and <a href="https://www.apa.org/research/action/aftercare" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">addiction treatment</a> in the American prison system lead to reductions in recidivism. The Norwegian prison system, based on rehabilitation and renowned for its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">humanity</a>, boasts one of the lowest recidivism rates in the <a href="https://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">world</a>.<br> </p><p>Despite this, American efforts have yet to match the Norwegian system's effectiveness levels, and some studies also suggest that modern treatment programs have little effect on individuals with <a href="https://www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/2006-harris.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">psychopathy</a>, who are disproportionately incarcerated and have a high rate of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recidivism</a> to begin with. <br></p><p>What this data means is going to be influenced by which of the above arguments appeal to you. Do the side effects of retributive policies or the problems we have in assuring equal punishments for similar crimes outweigh the moral intuition towards punishing criminals? Do failures in rehabilitative practices make the concept worthless? Can deterrence be of use even if we know a disproportionate number of criminals aren't acting along the lines of its assumptions? </p><p>The raw numbers can't answer these questions by themselves. Philosophy has to step in and provide the tools for value judgments, answer questions of justice, and help determine where the line between theory and practice has to be drawn. </p><p>We'll probably never be rid of the need to do something with people who harm or violate the rights of others. What we do with them is another question. No definitive answer exists for what models of justice and punishment are best. Still, by considering the philosophy and raw data around each model, we might find something that works for our society. While many people would support a system that uses elements of all three of these considered philosophies, alongside others, how much of each to use remains the subject of continual debate. </p>
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
Cool hand rebuke<img class="rm-lazyloadable-image rm-shortcode" type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" width="917" height="453" data-rm-shortcode-id="5d7eb45f6c00b4b57d89a4e7c12fee98" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.