Levitt And Dubner Freakonomics Analysis

In the book Freakonomics, written by economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubne, the authors go through different parts of modern life to show how economics describes why people act a certain way as well as the way specific outcomes occur. They look into different aspects of society and view them with different perspectives. With the use of specific data and the fundamentals of economics, the very obscure comparisons and the different chapters in the book show correlation between economics and human nature. The main point of this book is to explain a few fundamental ideas through the answers of strange questions and how they play a major role in society.

In chapters six through ten of The Collapse of American Criminal Justice, Stuntz talks about the changes that were being made in the criminal justice system, and the changes that can help fix the system. He goes in details when it comes changes in the system, from the courts putting limits on what the criminal procedure, for example, the “exclusionary rule”. Also the mention of the rise and fall of crime across the United States. Lastly, mentioning the famous landmark cases that helped sparked these changes.

The author Steven Levitt studied economics at Harvard University and MIT. He is primarily known for his work in the field of crime. The title Freakonomics means a study of economics based on the principles of incentives. The title is related to the book since he emphasizes how incentives drive and affect people’s actions. Although this book does not have a single theme, the main focus of the book is a new way of interpreting the world using economic tools. He explores incentives, information asymmetry, conventional wisdom, crime and abortion, and parenting throughout the six chapters of the book.

In chapter 2 of Freakonomics the main argument is that the absence of information can be used for personal gain. The main example used to display this tactic is when the KKK is compared to real estate agents. Although the crafty practice of real estate agents is in no way similar to the horrors of the KKK, they have a distinct similarity when it comes to the hoarding of information. The majority of the chapter focuses on the history of the KKK and Stetson Kennedy’s effort to stop it through the infiltration and exposure via radio of the Klan. Since the Klan was dependant on their violent—despite not being extremely violent—reputation, the disclosure of the information they had withheld from the public rendered them powerless. The narrators

The “get tough approach” to crime control has been prevalent since the 1960s. This approach takes the stance to a more firm and no tolerance policy against crime, hence the term “tough” in the actual title. “"Tough" crime control normally denotes more emphasis on police resources, faster apprehension of criminals, quick trials, and more severe sentences for guilty offenders” (Skoler 1971:29). The “get tough approach” emphasizes the need to arrest and punish criminals over rehabilitation and addressing the social factors that underlie criminal behavior (Barkan and Bryjak 2011). Deterrence of other criminals through severe punishments is the primary focus. The “get tough approach” of criminal justice institutions has been under scrutiny due to the outcomes that we will discuss further on. The purpose of this paper is to simply present the pros and cons that have resulted from the “get tough approach” on crime. The paper will try and remain completely unbiased to the “get tough approach” and solely focus on results that have come from said approach. We will begin by discussing the background and history of the “get tough approach” and what led to its development. We will then discuss things such as incarceration rates (US Department of Justice), crime rates (Dilulio 1995) juveniles in prison (Hinton 2015), policies that have been implemented (Shephard 2002), correctional costs, and destabilized urban neighborhoods (Barkan & Bryjak 2011; Black 2007; Mauer 2006) that result

Part 1 of the book highlights chapter 1 and 2, which talks about politics and the consequences of incarceration while chapter 2 talks about the politics of being punished within the united states, some sub topics between chapter 1 and 2 include problem ownership, philosophies, historic changes with the corrections policy throughout time and the economic impact of being incarcerated. Chapter 2 talks about the process in which politics can affect the outcome on crime and punishment, throughout the 1960s the criminal justice system has changed a lot especially correctional professionals who have brought issues to crime and its political forefront.

This paper explores several different sources that cover some aspect of how the United States Penal System went from the Rehabilitative Model to a punitive system. Bryan Stevenson and Betsy Matthews have written about how drug enforcement and the “War on Drugs” are responsible. Yeoman Lowbrow’s analysis of the crime rate and statistics will be considered alongside Matthews’ analysis of the different political parties’ changing views. The change in United States sentencing practices as a result will also be considered. In the conclusion a brief summary of a predicted future will be

Reiman and Leighton comprehensively begin the discussion of crime by outlining their main objectives, establishing the immediate problems surrounding crime control in America, and setting the groundwork for their premises. In recent years, the crime rate in the United States has declined. This decline is generally attributed to ‘tough on crime’ and mass incarceration policies, but the authors are quick to assert that other variables--economic, social-- are greater contributors to this decrease, with the ‘imprisonment binge’ only actually contributing a small amount to the decline. These strict crime enforcement policies might have a small impact on crime prevention, but criminologists are concerned with the potential effect such policies might have on criminal justice procedures--promoting profit rather than safety-- and endangering citizens’ rights (particularly those considered minorities).

The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, by Nancy E. Marion and Willard M. Oliver. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearso

Today, more than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in either a state facility, federal correctional facility or a local installation (Batey,2002). Due to longer sentences, incorporating harsh sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum punishments (NeSmith,2015). With each inmate costing taxpayers an average of $30,000 annually. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were increased sentences for a broad range of offenses, as well as establishing federal penalties for most murders and a large number of other crimes already subject to state law (Batey,2002). In addition to reducing the discretion of state judicial systems; as well as 85 percent of sentence satisfaction and establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (NeSmith,2015). .

In the past four decades, there has been a staggering increase in the United States prison population at the local and state level. Currently there are 2.2 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails that has added up to a 500% increase over 40 years (The sentencing project). The cause of this prison growth is a variety of laws and punitive sentencing policies that were initiated starting in the early 1970’s. Policies such as harsh drug penalties for non-violent crimes, Mandatory Minimum Maximum sentences and the Three Strikes law have all contributed to America’s current problem of mass incarceration.

In chapter 13 of Adam Benforado Unfair; Throwing Away the Key, the prisoner, the focus of the text is taking an in-depth look into Americans justice system and the love it has for mass incarnation. According to the reading, America only accounts for 5% of the world’s population, but nearly a quarter of all of the worlds prisoners. (P.g 209). There are 5 times more prisoners in state and federal prisoners than there where in 1978, a scary upward trend. There are several reasons into why Benforado believes the United States has yet to make any progress in deterring and impeded crime. One reason, Benforado suggest is that Americans favorite tools of mass incarceration and solitary confinement do not do what they are intended to do, in fact they do they opposite. Society tends to believe, that to decrease crime, we need to increase the magnitude of the punishment. With a growth in the severity of the punishment, criminals will not see the pay out in

Originating in Washington State in 1993, by the end of that year, over half of all states, including the federal government had enacted their variation of a “three strikes” law. Roughly contemporaneous with these measures, crime rates have declined nationwide.”(Michael, V. (2002) para. 1) “This law approving mandated life in prison without parole for offenders convicted of committing serious offenses such as murder, rape, and robbery a third time.” (Meehan, K. (2014) para4).

The chapter goes on to overview the crime crisis happening the United States in the 1980s through the 1990s. After exploring possible causes of the problem and how bad everything has gotten, the authors go on to explore possible solutions to the crime epidemic. The solutions are quite varied, well thought out, and are supported with statistical facts. For example in talking about the effect of gun buyback programs and their effect on homicide: “Given the number of handguns in the United States and the number of homicides each year, the likelihood that a particular gun was used to kill someone that year in 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buyback program

In chapter 4 the chapter considers a variety of possible explanations for the significant drop in crime and crime rates that occurred in the 1990s. Based on articles that appeared in the country’s largest newspapers, the authors compile a list of the leading, commonly offered explanations. The next step is to systematically examine each explanation and consider whether available data support the explanation. What the authors, in fact, demonstrate is that in all but three cases–increased reliance on prisons, increased number of police, and changes in illegal drug markets–correlation was erroneously interpreted as causation and in some cases, the correlation wasn’t even that strong.