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.
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.