Sure, I’m not saying their org should directly try to incarcerate people, or that their policy mightn’t be good impact/$, but they chose to comment on the prison approach. If their objection was purely cost then surely they would say “the iron-fisted war on crime, while effective at reducing crime, is very expensive”. What they wrote makes it sound like they don’t think it can achieve any significant progress on crime.
When we used the phrase “iron-fisted war on crime”, our intent was not to critique any single policy, such as the Salvadoran Gang Crackdown. While I have some initial personal views, I don’t consider myself an expert on this particular approach’s potential effectiveness, possible adaptations, or the ethical considerations it raises.
Instead, our focus is on broader trends observed across Latin America, and the conclusions we’ve drawn from them. I acknowledge that “iron-fisted war on crime” may have been misleading, and we’re considering adjusting our language in future discussions. Here are the key trends we meant to address:
Increasing violence rates: Even during periods of economic growth and heightened security measures, violence has continued to rise in Latin America. Conclusion: Past approaches have generally failed to deliver sustainable safety improvements.
High incarceration rates: There’s been a significant increase in prison populations, leading to substantial government spending and economic losses both for the incarcerated individuals and for society overall. Conclusion: Simply incarcerating more people is not a sustainable solution.
Disproportionate spending on law enforcement and courts: Compared to OECD countries, Latin America allocates relatively high budgets to judicial and punitive measures, with less investment in preventative approaches (e.g., CBT programs to reduce criminal behavior). Note: “Other expenditures ” includes spending on crime prevention. Conclusion: Latin American policies seem to diverge markedly from those of other countries, particularly in prioritizing punitive over preventive strategies.
The report further elaborates on the drawbacks of extensive incarceration policies. For instance, in many Latin American countries, minor drug offenders (such as those charged with drug consumption) are often incarcerated. Research shows that imprisoning low-risk individuals like drug users can increase their likelihood of committing serious crimes in the future—likely due to exposure to more serious offenders and the stigma of having been imprisoned. While incarceration may help reduce future crime for medium- to high-risk populations, it has little impact on those who were low-risk to begin with. Therefore, our critique is not aimed at imprisonment itself, but rather at poorly targeted incarceration practices.
We are not opposed to all punitive approaches and believe that targeted, evidence-based strategies—such as hot-spot policing, to name a non-CBT approach—should be prioritized.
Lastly, a brief disclaimer: The report cited is several years old. We’ve cross-checked some of its data to confirm that certain trends are still current, but not all data points have been updated.
I reviewed the source document you linked previously, but I didn’t really find much evidence for the claim (that ‘the “iron-fisted war on crime” is failing’) in it, and reviewed it again just now. Is there a particular section you mean to point towards? I realize the source asserts this claim, but it doesn’t seem to actually argue for it.
I’m also curious as to why you are using such old data? Government statistics are often slow, but your charts are literally almost a decade old. For example, you claim, based on the homicide data up to 2015, that
Even during periods of economic growth and heightened security measures, violence has continued to rise in Latin America. Conclusion: Past approaches have generally failed to deliver sustainable safety improvements.
But if we consult OWID, we see that there are six more years of data you excluded from your chart, and it shows the opposite pattern: violence has been falling.
If your argument was valid—that rising violence proves past approaches were bad—then this more recent data would suggest we should draw the opposite conclusion, and update in favour of existing approaches. (I don’t think we should infer this, because I think the argument is invalid anyway).
I think omitting this later data makes a pretty big difference, because you made a claim in the present tense—that the iron fist approach is failing—which suggests you should be basing this on evidence about current iron fist approaches. The El Salvador crackdown is the most famous and most iron fist approach around right now (most of these countries don’t even have capital punishment!), so I don’t think you can ignore it.
You also claim that prison spending is unsustainable, based on a forecast for 16bn-24bn of 2024 dollars spend on prisons:
High incarceration rates: There’s been a significant increase in prison populations, leading to substantial government spending and economic losses both for the incarcerated individuals and for society overall. Conclusion: Simply incarcerating more people is not a sustainable solution.
But Latin American + Caribbean GDP for 2014 was 5.4 trillion, so even at the upper end this is only 0.4%. You’re right that government spending can’t grow as a share of GDP forever, but I don’t see much reason to think this is the limit.
You’re absolutely right that our original statement, “the iron-fisted war on crime is failing,” was broad and, admittedly, more geared toward emphasizing the challenges than making a definitive, across-the-board claim. We recognize that this phrase, chosen to convey the intensity of the issue, may have come across as too sweeping—especially given that we are not experts on every country’s policies, including El Salvador’s current crackdown. Instead, our intent was to highlight the broader limitations of heavy punitive measures in sustainably reducing crime across Latin America, not to imply that every such approach in every context has failed or will fail.
Our assertion rests on several general concerns about incarceration’s long-term impact:
Questionable Reach in Preventing All Types of Crime: Incarceration can undoubtedly remove individuals from public spaces, reducing immediate crime in communities. However, we are uncertain to what extent all forms of crime are effectively deterred by this approach. In Colombia, for instance, we see evidence of persistent criminal activities, such as scam operations, conducted from within prison walls. This suggests that certain forms of crime may not be fully curbed by incarceration alone, pointing to potential gaps in reach.
Mixed Rehabilitation and Recidivism Outcomes: Some evidence suggests that incarceration does not always deter future criminal behavior and, in some cases, can reinforce it. In fact, recidivism rates have been growing every year in Colombia. Recidivism rates raise questions about the extent to which imprisonment fosters long-term change. There are also cases where people learn new criminal tactics while incarcerated, potentially intensifying criminal behavior post-release (same source as above). This suggests that while incarceration may reduce crime through incapacitation, it may not do so after people are released.
Permanent Incarceration as an Unethical Solution: One could argue for indefinite incarceration to prevent further crime through incapacitation. However, even if financially and logistically feasible, permanent imprisonment raises serious human rights concerns. Programs like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) demonstrate that people are not irredeemable and can change when given support to adopt more pro-social behaviors. Removing people’s freedom indefinitely when this is a possibility seems unfair. The opportunity cost of maintaining a large incarcerated population and of removing them from the workforce also warrants consideration; these resources could yield greater benefits if redirected to preventive or rehabilitative programs.
Our goal with ACTRA is to explore this complementary, rehabilitative approach, rather than to assert that punitive measures do not have any effect at all. We’ll work to convey these subtleties more clearly in future communications. Thanks again for raising these points.
Sure, I’m not saying their org should directly try to incarcerate people, or that their policy mightn’t be good impact/$, but they chose to comment on the prison approach. If their objection was purely cost then surely they would say “the iron-fisted war on crime, while effective at reducing crime, is very expensive”. What they wrote makes it sound like they don’t think it can achieve any significant progress on crime.
Hi Larks,
Thank you for raising this important topic.
Our assertion that punitive approaches in Latin America are failing is based largely on evidence from the following report: Link to report: Smart Spending on Citizen Security.
When we used the phrase “iron-fisted war on crime”, our intent was not to critique any single policy, such as the Salvadoran Gang Crackdown. While I have some initial personal views, I don’t consider myself an expert on this particular approach’s potential effectiveness, possible adaptations, or the ethical considerations it raises.
Instead, our focus is on broader trends observed across Latin America, and the conclusions we’ve drawn from them. I acknowledge that “iron-fisted war on crime” may have been misleading, and we’re considering adjusting our language in future discussions. Here are the key trends we meant to address:
Increasing violence rates: Even during periods of economic growth and heightened security measures, violence has continued to rise in Latin America.
Conclusion: Past approaches have generally failed to deliver sustainable safety improvements.
High incarceration rates: There’s been a significant increase in prison populations, leading to substantial government spending and economic losses both for the incarcerated individuals and for society overall.
Conclusion: Simply incarcerating more people is not a sustainable solution.
Disproportionate spending on law enforcement and courts: Compared to OECD countries, Latin America allocates relatively high budgets to judicial and punitive measures, with less investment in preventative approaches (e.g., CBT programs to reduce criminal behavior). Note: “Other expenditures ” includes spending on crime prevention.
Conclusion: Latin American policies seem to diverge markedly from those of other countries, particularly in prioritizing punitive over preventive strategies.
The report further elaborates on the drawbacks of extensive incarceration policies. For instance, in many Latin American countries, minor drug offenders (such as those charged with drug consumption) are often incarcerated. Research shows that imprisoning low-risk individuals like drug users can increase their likelihood of committing serious crimes in the future—likely due to exposure to more serious offenders and the stigma of having been imprisoned. While incarceration may help reduce future crime for medium- to high-risk populations, it has little impact on those who were low-risk to begin with. Therefore, our critique is not aimed at imprisonment itself, but rather at poorly targeted incarceration practices.
We are not opposed to all punitive approaches and believe that targeted, evidence-based strategies—such as hot-spot policing, to name a non-CBT approach—should be prioritized.
Lastly, a brief disclaimer: The report cited is several years old. We’ve cross-checked some of its data to confirm that certain trends are still current, but not all data points have been updated.
Warm regards,
Henning
Co-founder of ACTRA
Thanks for your response.
I reviewed the source document you linked previously, but I didn’t really find much evidence for the claim (that ‘the “iron-fisted war on crime” is failing’) in it, and reviewed it again just now. Is there a particular section you mean to point towards? I realize the source asserts this claim, but it doesn’t seem to actually argue for it.
I’m also curious as to why you are using such old data? Government statistics are often slow, but your charts are literally almost a decade old. For example, you claim, based on the homicide data up to 2015, that
But if we consult OWID, we see that there are six more years of data you excluded from your chart, and it shows the opposite pattern: violence has been falling.
If your argument was valid—that rising violence proves past approaches were bad—then this more recent data would suggest we should draw the opposite conclusion, and update in favour of existing approaches. (I don’t think we should infer this, because I think the argument is invalid anyway).
I think omitting this later data makes a pretty big difference, because you made a claim in the present tense—that the iron fist approach is failing—which suggests you should be basing this on evidence about current iron fist approaches. The El Salvador crackdown is the most famous and most iron fist approach around right now (most of these countries don’t even have capital punishment!), so I don’t think you can ignore it.
You also claim that prison spending is unsustainable, based on a forecast for 16bn-24bn of 2024 dollars spend on prisons:
But Latin American + Caribbean GDP for 2014 was 5.4 trillion, so even at the upper end this is only 0.4%. You’re right that government spending can’t grow as a share of GDP forever, but I don’t see much reason to think this is the limit.
Hi Larks,
Thank you for such an engaged response.
You’re absolutely right that our original statement, “the iron-fisted war on crime is failing,” was broad and, admittedly, more geared toward emphasizing the challenges than making a definitive, across-the-board claim. We recognize that this phrase, chosen to convey the intensity of the issue, may have come across as too sweeping—especially given that we are not experts on every country’s policies, including El Salvador’s current crackdown. Instead, our intent was to highlight the broader limitations of heavy punitive measures in sustainably reducing crime across Latin America, not to imply that every such approach in every context has failed or will fail.
Our assertion rests on several general concerns about incarceration’s long-term impact:
Questionable Reach in Preventing All Types of Crime: Incarceration can undoubtedly remove individuals from public spaces, reducing immediate crime in communities. However, we are uncertain to what extent all forms of crime are effectively deterred by this approach. In Colombia, for instance, we see evidence of persistent criminal activities, such as scam operations, conducted from within prison walls. This suggests that certain forms of crime may not be fully curbed by incarceration alone, pointing to potential gaps in reach.
Mixed Rehabilitation and Recidivism Outcomes: Some evidence suggests that incarceration does not always deter future criminal behavior and, in some cases, can reinforce it. In fact, recidivism rates have been growing every year in Colombia. Recidivism rates raise questions about the extent to which imprisonment fosters long-term change. There are also cases where people learn new criminal tactics while incarcerated, potentially intensifying criminal behavior post-release (same source as above). This suggests that while incarceration may reduce crime through incapacitation, it may not do so after people are released.
Permanent Incarceration as an Unethical Solution: One could argue for indefinite incarceration to prevent further crime through incapacitation. However, even if financially and logistically feasible, permanent imprisonment raises serious human rights concerns. Programs like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) demonstrate that people are not irredeemable and can change when given support to adopt more pro-social behaviors. Removing people’s freedom indefinitely when this is a possibility seems unfair. The opportunity cost of maintaining a large incarcerated population and of removing them from the workforce also warrants consideration; these resources could yield greater benefits if redirected to preventive or rehabilitative programs.
Our goal with ACTRA is to explore this complementary, rehabilitative approach, rather than to assert that punitive measures do not have any effect at all. We’ll work to convey these subtleties more clearly in future communications. Thanks again for raising these points.