> It's obviously not as simple as just "reduce jail terms",

This is really what needs to happen. However, the U.S. criminal justice system is geared toward severe sentencing. One reason is that the U.S. is the only country in the world (AFAIK) that guarantees jury trials for even petty criminal offenses.[1] So when a crime is prosecuted, both the police and government are strongly incentivized to make it count, thus the felony inflation to secure multi-year sentences, and to dissuade criminals from overburdening the system by demanding jury trials in minor cases.

> it can't be that the Americans are just built so they commit crime more.

The number of people the U.S. newly incarcerates each year is comparable with many other European countries, such as the U.K. However, the sentence lengths are 3-5x longer. In the U.K., ~80% of all prisoners are released within 1 year. This is almost certainly related to the fact that (AFAIU) the U.K. only grants jury trials for indictable offenses, or what in the U.S. we still generally call felonies. IOW, lesser offenses are more economical to prosecute in the U.K. and so that's where the emphasis lies.

In civil systems with even fewer procedural safeguards than the U.K., such as France, where it's easier to convict and jail someone, including pre-trial, sentence lengths are even shorter.

Unfortunately, American constitutional criminal rights protections have helped to build a system which is too lenient on the one-hand--petty and misdemeanor crimes don't see much attention--and too harsh on the other--when the government decides to prosecute, they prosecute hard.

[1] NYC is a rare exception, due to an esoteric New York State law that permits NYC to prosecute many misdemeanors without a jury trial. Probably not coincidentally, NYC sentence lengths and its incarceration rate are lower than other comparable U.S. cities.

You can't just compare the incarceration rate without also comparing the violent crime rate.

Your comment is a perfect example of what I was trying to head off: people that...

- don't live here (it appears you live in Europe?) - don't know anything about the local politics - don't want to listen when anyone tries to tell them - don't know much about the justice system (including the difference between jail vs prison) - use ham-fisted statistics like national incarceration rates but... - don't account for enormous variables (hint: guns), or... - weighting of prior sentences (it's a rolling average obviously)

But surprise! they want to squeeze every story into a large conversation so they can take the moral high ground against straw man arguments no one was making. Like this one:

> Why would you not want more of your citizens to live fuller, more accomplished lives rather than rotting in shitty prisons?

You took time out of your day to write that comment to some that told you they supported carceral reform. Heck, you even quoted me saying that I wanted carceral reform and thought "Nah, this guy needs my input about on whether we should let people rot in prison."

Here's a policy recommendation: don't run your mouth on topics you don't know much about. Greetings from New York.

What a civilized reply.

Are you attempting to imply that it isn’t? “Civilized” replies need not stroke one’s ego, or to be positive in tone.

Instead of trying to treat the conversation as having value to both parties it became another instant for you to come in and moralize about a situation you don’t understand.

How incredibly arrogant of you.

(I suppose you think being called out on your arrogance is also “uncivilized”; once more you would be wrong)

I define civilized as not resorting to rude assertions such as:

> they want to squeeze every story into a large conversation so they can take the moral high ground against straw man arguments

> Here's a policy recommendation: don't run your mouth on topics you don't know much about

I am not insane in thinking this is an abrasive way of presenting one's arguments.

You seem to think that abrasive and civilized are mutually exclusive and they aren’t.

We can be civil and yet abrasively disagree. That’s… sort of the point of civility.

If you can’t handle discussing ideas or accept that you might offend others with your ignorance then perhaps don’t engage in conversations.

The social contract in America is different. Many/Most people do not regard other citizens as their brethren who deserve better lives. They are adversaries and competitors. Everyone starts (ideally) with a blank slate and makes their lives what they will with minimal guidance or force by the state. If someone makes bad decisions that lead to criminality, they need to be eliminated from the public.

So the thinking goes.

Reforming the justice process depends on the will of the electorate. Since the above sentiment is so core to the American culture and values, it's not likely to change much.