Once again, you are attributing a causative effect to a correlation where no causative mechanism exists. No, I am not. I said in my prior post => "It does not necessarily mean there is causality, but there is definitely a strong correlation." In reading your comments, I'm not sure you get the distinction between correlation and causation.
You don't have much of a correlation on the "push back" theory of falling crime, either.(see chart below) From the mid-70s to the mid-90s, crime rose right along with incarceration. That's about 2 decades of positive correlation between rising crime and rising incarceration rates, and 2 decades of negative correlation.
The 3 factors I mentioned - loosening mj laws, the internet and armed citizens - have a much better correlation with the fall in crime.
No, I am not. I said in my prior post => "It does not necessarily mean there is causality, but there is definitely a strong correlation." In reading your comments, I'm not sure you get the distinction between correlation and causation. Actually, people who automatically assume that a correlation must mean causation are one of my pet peeves, which is why we are having this discussion. You may have stuck in the disclaimer that there is not necessarily a causative relationship, but then you talk about it as if it is fact established by stringent studies and observation that there *is* a causative relationship. Without characterizing a causative mechanism, a correlation is nothing more than an interesting coincidence, like this spurious correlation at the link.
You don't have much of a correlation on the "push back" theory of falling crime, either.(see chart below) From the mid-70s to the mid-90s, crime rose right along with incarceration. That's about 2 decades of positive correlation between rising crime and rising incarceration rates, and 2 decades of negative correlation.
Actually, your graph shows extremely well what I would expect to see if the tougher laws and mandatory sentencing requirements that have been enacted since the 1990s have been having the effect of reducing crime. As laws are made tougher, the incarceration rate goes up. As the incarceration rate increases, fewer criminals are out on the streets where they can commit crimes. The crime rate drops. Hence a *negative* correlation. Measures such as tougher laws never have an instantaneous effect since it takes time for a majority of the population to learn that crime *will* be punished. Therefore, a lagging indicator would be a drop in incarceration rate, which would begin to appear when increasing numbers of people decide not to commit crime in the first place. Your graph shows that, as well, with the peak incarceration rate occurring around 2007, a decade or so after 3 strikes laws started sweeping the country. In this case, there is a strong causative mechanism in place that accounts for the drop in crime--unlike the rather weak correlation you keep stressing between liberalized marijuana laws and drop in crime. I already pointed out that criminality has risen and fallen regardless of whether marijuana laws were strict or weak. I should also point out that because one effect of the brain damage caused by marijuana use is to *permanently* decrease a person's initiative to do anything, their ability to commit crime (which takes initiative) is also impaired. So I would *not* actually expect to see property or personal crimes to increase as a result of more potheads.
Also, the graph you posted has a horrible title. I would expect the incarceration rate of inmates to be 100% under all circumstances.