Baltimore police are scrambling to find an “extremely dangerous” man suspected of murdering 26-year-old tech CEO Pava LaPere, who was found dead in an apartment building on Monday.
The suspect, 32-year-old Jason Dean Billingsley, should be considered armed and dangerous as he is wanted on charges of first-degree murder, assault and other offenses, acting Baltimore Police Commissioner Richard Worley said Tuesday.
LaPere, co-founder of the small startup EcoMap Technologies, was reported missing Monday morning, police said. Hours later, police were called to a downtown apartment building, where LaPere was discovered with signs of blunt-force trauma to her head, Worley said.
Norway has demonstrated that rehabilitating prisoners leads to less crime than just punishing them. Who would be against that?
People who realize there are more differences between Norwegian society and American than just how they treat their prisoners.
Norway didn’t ‘prove’ your point. Sorry you think they did.
The main difference being that 'muricans, particularly conservatives, are effectively braindead.
I’ve provided evidence to back up my position. What have you provided except your opinion?
What do you mean ‘my opinion’?
It’s a fact that there are more differences between Norway and the US than how they treat their prisoners. Do you think these differences may impact the recidivism rate of prisoners in either nation?
I’m addressing your main point, which was:
My point is that deterrence has been proven to be a poor tool to reduce crime. Rehabilitation has been proven to be a relatively more successful tool to reduce recidivism.
The Norwegian approach to prisoners is one piece of evidence in support of this. Here’s some more (non-Norwegian) evidence:
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/fear-punishment-deterrence
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7363&context=jclc
Of course there are other differences between the US and Norway, but that doesn’t change the validity of what I’m saying. If you want to argue that deterrence works, back it up with some evidence.
You didn’t answer my question.
Do you think these differences may impact the recidivism rate of prisoners in either nation? Yes or no.
Your question is vague and unanswerable as you haven’t clarified what “these differences” are, so their impact on recidivism can’t be determined.
What I do know is that rehabilitation has been shown to reduce recidivism more than sanctions/supervision. Here’s a meta-analysis for you. It looks like at least some of this data is from the US.
“Supervision and sanctions, at best, show modest mean reductions in recidivism and, in some instances, have the opposite effect and increase re-offense rates. The mean recidivism effects found in studies of rehabilitation treatment, by comparison, are consistently positive and relatively large.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Lipsey/publication/228187332_The_Effectiveness_of_Correctional_Rehabilitation_A_Review_of_Systematic_Reviews/links/0deec518c2b2abd5fc000000/The-Effectiveness-of-Correctional-Rehabilitation-A-Review-of-Systematic-Reviews.pdf
What evidence do you have that deterrence and supervision are more effective at reducing crime than rehabilitation?
Lol, okay. I have my answer.
You know there are other factors that influence the recidivism rate for both countries, but you’re ashamed to admit it because you know it detracts from your point.
Glad we can clear that up. Have a nice day.
You are ascribing a position to me that I don’t have.
Nor have you provided any evidence for your point while I have provided links to several studies. Pony up some evidence for your argument or be prepared to learn and grow. Or remain stubbornly wedded to your incorrect opinion. Makes no difference to me.