Second Amendment

Paul Krugman: 'Stand Your Ground' Laws Increase Incarceration by Reducing It

|

Walter Olson notes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's bizarre argument that "stand your ground" self-defense laws, which are promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), advance the interests of the private prison industry (an ALEC supporter) by putting more people behind bars. Which might make sense, except that the effect of these laws is to keep people out of prison by preventing their prosecution or conviction in cases where they are attacked and "meet force with force," even when there might have been a way to retreat. In fact, critics of "stand your ground" laws argue that they keep people out of the criminal justice system who belong in it (such as George Zimmerman). So how does Krugman arrive at his counterintuitive conclusion? Here is the closest he comes to an explanation*:

Where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it's the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It's neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren't just about generating immediate benefits to the organization's corporate sponsors; they're about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that's not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its "life preserver.") This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it's exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona's draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Krugman's point seems to be that encourgaging people to shoot young black men they consider suspicious, which is what he thinks "stand your ground" laws do, feeds the same "public fears" that reinforce tough-on-crime policies. So even though the laws' direct impact is to reduce incarceration, their indirect, long-term effect is to increase incarceration. That seems like a bit of a stretch, especially since the "stand your ground" defense is available to everyone who gets into a violent confrontation and meets the law's criteria, regardless of race. The New York Times reports/complains that Florida's law "is increasingly used by gang members fighting gang members" and by "drug dealers battling drug dealers." Given the demographics of the drug offenders who tend to get busted, it seems safe to assume at least some of these defendants are black. If so, the law that Krugman says eventually puts more black people in jail begins by shielding them from prosecution.

*Since a commenter accuses me of pushing a "willful misreading of the column, supported by misleading ellipses," I have restored what I snipped. It does not help Krugman. If anything, his column makes even less sense when read in full.

Advertisement

NEXT: ObamaCare on Trial, Day One: A Case of "Inartful Drafting By Congress"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. HELLO MY NAEM IS PAUL. MY HOBBYS IS MATHS AND LOGIC. I AM GOOD ATE THEM.

    1. When did Orrin start ghost writing bylines for the NYT?

      1. When he finally realized he wan’t limber enough to piss in his own mouth from a standing position.

      2. ghost writing?
        when i gots mine pulitzer toos

        1. The above post appears to have been made by an individual who assumes multiple identities, including, but not limited to, “Mary Stack”, “rather”, and “White Indian”.

          Please do not reply to posts made by this person or attempt to engage in debate.

          Characteristics of postings by this person include use of bold and italics, cutting and pasting of writings by Jason Godesky (who appears to not be involved), debating in bad faith, using inciteful language, making large quantities of posts 24/7.

          Thank you for your cooperation.

          1. MY NAME IS RECTAL STACK!

            1. I miss that clever “Krugman-with-his-cat” photo. Am I just being nostalgic? Discuss.

  2. Ladies and gentlemen, your Nobel Laureate.

      1. I meant this mistake.

        Pretty sure this was not taken in Hymietown.

        1. Does your betrothed still have a nice rack?
          Discuss.

    1. He’s not writing about economics.

      1. We know that. He’s cross-marketing his retardation now.

      2. You suck at one social science, you might as well suck at them all.

        1. What the fuck is a “social science”?

          Makes as much sense as “Adult Children” or “House Ethics Committee.”

          1. Break out your SAT —

            Social Science is to Science
            as
            Military Intelligence is to Intelligence

            1. They both pull a shitload of government money and don’t seem to do much with it?

          2. Social Science: Left wing version of creationism

  3. Ugh, it’s already too much to have to be aware of dipshit’s economic positions. Now we have to be subjected to his opinions on gun laws?

    1. Look, when you’re a columnist for the NYT, your opinions on any subject carry weight, even if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

      Like in Mr. Krugman’s case, economics.

  4. when we start offing crackers dont say shit mofoes

    1. Yes, that will go well for you. Two-dozen illiterate, unemployed, ex-con ghetto-dwellers versus 50 million law-abiding gun owners doesn’t sound like the greatest odds to me, but ya’ll go right ahead and start “offing crackers” , Mr Black Panther. It’s best if you start in Florida or Texas.

  5. Krugman is to column-writing what Madonna is to acting: They both do it, it is not pretty and we’re all thankful when it’s over.

    1. So what’s Krugman’s Body of Evidence?

      1. The shower scene he did with Ezra Klein in Dumb Pundits Gone Wild 6.

        1. Come on, that was kind of hot. Stoip being so critical of Uli Edel.

        2. It would have been okay except that they had Ezra play the top. And that just didn’t pass the laugh test.

          1. That twit is pushing rope, no matter what position he’s in. The only time he gets an erection is on Tax Day.

            1. I take that back. I guess when your b/f is Matt Yglesies, you are the top by default.

              1. Admit it…..you like a “little meat on their bones” too!

                Matty really does it for me!

                Not like that horrible Mary Stack!

      2. Ooh, good question. So many different directions one can go in.

      3. Wouldn’t it be “What is Kurman’s Shanghei Suprise”? Isn’t that kind of the gold standard of bad movies?

        1. Have you seen Body of Evidence, John? It’s probably the platinum standard of bad movies.

          1. Body of Evidence is at least a soft porn movie. So it has that going for it.

          2. Really? For me it is The Pope of Greenwich Village. Awful. Not that Body of Evidence can remotely be considered good, mind you.

            1. The cop shit in his pants, man!

              That right there puts it above (below?) Platinum Edition.

        2. Was Madonna in it? I think you missed an important nuance John.

          1. Yes she was. Her and Sean Penn.

            1. Huh, I bow to your knowledge of movies Madonna has appeared in.

            2. Sean Penn was in that? I remember Willem Defoe – but not Penn.

              1. Defoe was in Body of Evidence. Shanghi Surprise was with Penn.

          2. Shanghai Surprise starred Madonna and actor/pinko-activist Sean Penn.

            1. actor/pinko-activist Sean Penn

              Can anyone really consider Sean Penn to be an actor at this point?

              1. Wachutalkinabout, Willis?

                Penn was fantastic in Fast Times, Colors and Carlito’s Way. The fact that he’s also an asshole of the highest order is beside the point.

                1. And Bad Boys. There was a time when he could really act.

  6. Krugman’s conspiracy theory is incoherent. I don’t think he thought it through: which is basically what happens when you start simply assuming the worst about your political opponents.

  7. My favorite Krugman column was when he attacked Bush by calling him Captain Queeg from The Caine Mutiny. His (and his editors’) lack of self-awareness is stunning. Queeg was the GOOD GUY in that movie, and he was the good guy specifically because he did in his job in the face of incessant criticism from effete over-educated types who thought they knew everything better. In short, Krugs sux rhino nutz.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03…..queeg.html

    1. u mean like steaming over & cutting that target cable?
      or maybe dropping the dye marker too far offshore & bidding adios to the marines?
      >ol yellowstain

      1. The above post appears to have been made by an individual who assumes multiple identities, including, but not limited to, “Mary Stack”, “rather”, “White Indian”, “rctlfy”, and “mstack60”. Potential aliases could also include “shrike” and “o3”, but are not confirmed.

        Please do not reply to posts made by this person or attempt to engage in debate.

        Characteristics of postings by this person include use of bold and italics, cutting and pasting of writings by Jason Godesky (who appears to not be involved), debating in bad faith, impersonating others, using inciteful language, and making large quantities of posts 24/7.

        Thank you for your cooperation.

    2. Queeg was not the good guy.

      Queeg was crazy, and paranoid, and a danger to the ship.

      The mutineers weren’t good guys, either, because they could have dealt with Queeg differently, but chose not to for self-serving reasons.

      But Queeg WAS nuts.

      1. Queeg was broken from his service in the Atlantic. Fred McMurry was worse though. Queeg at least had an excuse. McMurry was just an asshole. What a great actor he was.

        1. agreed on mcmurry
          maybe his best performance

          1. He was the perfect Mr. Nice guy who stabs you in the back.

      2. The good guy was Jos? Ferrer.

        1. I will be outside. I am drunk so it will be a fair fight. Great line.

          1. I like how that movie doesn’t let you take a side completely. Queeg was screwy, but bad behavior by his officers made him screwier.

            1. It sucks you in to the mutineers side. Then Jose Ferrer gives his speech at the end, and you feel terrible for Queeg and realize what dicks the rest of them are. It is just a brilliant movie.

      3. Queeg wasn’t nuts at the start. He was a little close to the edge and the crew deliberately pushed him over through insubordination, then mutinied. With a different crew he would have been fine.

        1. Agreed. He was definitely a flawed character. Probably a marginally serviceable officer if he had a loyal crew. You can be a good guy without being flawless.

        2. I got the impression from the movie that Captain Queeq was older and kind of a washout (still a lieutenant-commander and all) but that’s probably just because Bogie was already 55 years old and looked older.

          According to the book, however, if the story was true he would have been a classmate of my father (USNA 1936). I’m not sure why Wouk picked that year; possibly because most were most were LCDRs and many getting their first commands by that time.

          Bogie was not a very convincing thirty-something year old (the age that a 1936 grad would be). However brilliant his performance it gets hard at times to suspend disbelief. Maryk and Keefer are much more believably caste. They were pretty much the right age for reserve LTs at the time.

  8. Willful misreading of the column, supported by misleading ellipses. Krug was specifically talking about draconian immigration laws in relation to prison-stuffing.

    1. His reasoning is still awful.

    2. You honestly read him as “specifically” talking about anything? Seems like some kind of hack partisan drunk ramble about something, but you can’t really figure out what it’s about because, well, it isn’t really about anything.

    3. Krugman failed to ever make a connection between stand-your-ground/castle doctrine laws and ALEC’s agenda.

      I know the people behind such legislation in WV and a (to a lesser extent) in OH. I can assure they are not beholden to any organisation. They’re as close to free-thinking citizens as one can get, and have expended considerable time and effort without renumeration from any well-connected or wealthy organsation.

    4. I’ve read the full article and the Sullum’s post is 100% accurate. The whole column reads like it was written by someone wearing an aluminum foil hat. He never once ties the stand-your-ground laws to increased prison populations. Closest thing I can see is that he assumes that stand-your-ground laws are somehow racist so that means we will lock up more of the “colored folks”. Not exactly a compelling thesis suitable of a “noble prize winner”.

      1. Logic has never been his strong suit.

      2. I concur completely.

  9. Jacob, do you have a couple more columns coming out today? You should quit slacking.

  10. A+ fucking alt-text

    1. Indeed!

  11. The most egregious thing is that Kruggy had to go and drag poor Warren Zevon into his nonsense.

    1. Werewolves of Florida?

      1. Aroooooooooooooo!

      2. I think his shit’s fucked up.

      3. I see no perfect hair in this whole affair, so such an analogy would in inapt.

        1. Replace the second “in” with “be”, por favor.

  12. Lefttards like to equate self defense with vigilantism.

    They will say that there is no difference from shooting someone in the face who is attacking you, and shooting someone in the back long after an alleged crime has occurred.

    No difference at all.

    Then again they also say that there is no difference between the right to private property and the right to the property of other people.

    I suppose this would be a good time to say EXTERNALITIES!

    1. Leftists on this every board argue there is no difference between aggression and retaliation to aggression. They have trouble with simple distinctions.

      1. I think it is because they care more about who does something than what is actually done.

        They care only for principals.
        Principles are a foreign concept.

        1. I think it is because they care more about who does something than what is actually done.

          That is exactly it. Watch MNG sometime. He only knows how to make ad homonym arguments. That is it. Liberals make those so frequently they don’t even notice doing it anymore.

          1. ad homonym arguments

            Are those arguments that look like you’re attacking one person when you’re really attacking someone else?

            Or are they arguments where you’re making the same argument just using different words?

            1. And ad homonim argument is one where what you say is wrong not based upon what you actually said, but on who you are.

              1. I’ll agree that that is an ad hominem argument. I’m not quite sure what ad homonym or ad homonim arguments are.

                1. Maybe he was having flashbacks to his undergraduate work in womyns studies?

                2. And there’s the argument ad Houyhnhnm, which involves attacking a person for being a horse rather than addressing the argument at hand.

            2. That comment from ozone down there is a great example. It refutes my comment implying that I watch FOX News.

              1. hom?o?nym (hm-nm, hm-)
                n.
                1. One of two or more words that have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning, such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept).

                It was SUPPOSED to be a joke. The joke is on me I guess.

                1. I think you’re all a bunch of homos.

                  1. Homo sapiens sapiens?

                2. I just assumed it was a misspelling.

                  1. I was just poking fun at John, it’s one of those rare cases where his horrible spelling came up with a word that has a completely different meaning.

          2. Watch MNG sometime. He only knows how to make ad homonym arguments.

            Bullshit. I disagree with MiNGe on a lot of things, but he is usually a thoughtful debater.

            Now Tony, there’s a douche!

            1. Don’t get involved in their twisted relationship, dude. Focus on your own happiness.

    2. It is all about identity politics and groups. If a member of an oppressed group breaks into your house, it is our job to cower in the corner and let said person steal your stuff and beat you up. This is true even if you are also a member of that group because the fact that you are not a criminal just means you an uncle Tom and lower on the social order than the guy robbing you.

    3. gosh sounds like a faux echo chamber!
      needs moar “theys” tho

      1. The above post appears to have been made by an individual who assumes multiple identities, including, but not limited to, “Mary Stack”, “rather”, and “White Indian”. Potential aliases could also include “shrike” and “o3”, but are not confirmed.

        Please do not reply to posts made by this person or attempt to engage in debate.

        Characteristics of postings by this person include use of bold and italics, cutting and pasting of writings by Jason Godesky (who appears to not be involved), debating in bad faith, using inciteful language, and making large quantities of posts 24/7.

        Thank you for your cooperation.

        1. + moar “theys” !

  13. I have a question, when the fuck did everything become an -industrial complex?

    1. Ike started it, lazy writing spread it.

    2. Once the complex-industrial complex reared its head.

    3. -Industrial complex-gate?

      1. -industrial complex-gatemageddon?

        1. neo-industrial complex-gatemageddon

          1. paleoneo-industrial complex-gatemageddon. Probably comes as either Classical or Proto.

            1. paleoneo-industrial complex-gatemageddontopia

              1. Conveniently headquartered in Delphtonopolisburg?

                1. I thought it was in Winchestertonfieldville.

                  1. Winchestertonfieldville.

                    No, that’s where that crazy church is located.

    4. aren’t we all members (well, some of us) of the Kock-complex, or Monocle-Manufacturing-complex?

      1. I don’t have a Koch-complex, I’m happy with mine the way it is.

  14. Clearly, Krugman chose the side of his arguement based on who is on the opposing side. Logic? Who needs logic?

  15. http://www.redstate.com/erick/…..patriotic/

    IN some ways this is outrageous. But I can’t help but think “suck it up”. I actually would love to have union goons come to my house and try to intimidate me, especially if I was in a state with the castle doctrine.

    1. You’re one of the six douchebags who comments at Red State?

      1. The above post appears to have been made by an individual who assumes multiple identities, including, but not limited to, “Mary Stack”, “rather”, and “White Indian”. Potential aliases could also include “shrike” and “o3”, but are not confirmed.

        Please do not reply to posts made by this person or attempt to engage in debate.

        Characteristics of postings by this person include use of bold and italics, cutting and pasting of writings by Jason Godesky (who appears to not be involved), debating in bad faith, using inciteful language, and making large quantities of posts 24/7.

        Thank you for your cooperation.

        1. i do my own quality trolling thank u very much

      2. Nope. But since you are obsessed with such places, I would assume you are.

  16. This reads like Krugabe overslept rolled out of bed five minutes before the deadline for this column.

  17. Handsome pic of the fella I have to admit. Reminds me of what Kramer said about George Will on Seinfeld.

    Jerry: Elaine and I were just discussing whether I could admit a man is attractive
    Kramer: Hmm. Yeah. I’ll tell you who is an attractive man: George Will.
    Jerry: Really?
    Kramer: Yeah. He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and?
    Elaine: He’s smart.
    Kramer: No, no, I don’t find him all that bright.

  18. Krugman better not walk through my neighborhood with a gray hoodie on.

  19. Off-the-topic…

    Still, she [Palin] was a total charmer, very friendly. The few things she said were intelligent. We were sitting virtually knee to knee in the cramped bus, and she radiated sensuality. Her skirt rode above her knees ? not exactly short, but close.

    John Thune, who looked like a movie star in or out of clothes, was constantly stretching. His lanky body seemed to have some kinks to iron out.

    -The Erotic Memoirs of Arlen Specter

    1. Time to come clean. You ghostwrote that book for him, didn’t you?

      1. [rifles through desk for non-disclosure agreement]

        No comment.

  20. Is Krugman the first internet troll to earn a PhD?

    1. I HAVE ONE! I GOT IT FROM JASON GODESKY!

  21. If anything, his column makes even less sense when read in full.

    I find myself say this after almost every Krugman article.

  22. I just want to make this clear: Someone is posting racist idiocy with my e-mail address. And while I cannot stop them from doing so, rest assured it is unacceptable. It’s one thing to spoof someone’s handle. I may think it’s tasteless, but it can still be done without implicating someone as a racist by attaching their e-mail address to the handle.

    I will ask you, whoever you are, to please stop doing this.

    Regards,
    sloopyinca
    kenspicer111@gmail.com

  23. Here’s my favorite part of the whole story so far (according to a Chicago Tribune article):

    At the time, Martin was suspended from high school after he was found to be in possession of an empty marijuana baggie, according to the Sentinel. Martin’s school has a “zero-tolerance” drug policy, the newspaper added.

    How did they know it was a “marijuana” baggie if the baggie was empty?

    1. If I was motivated, I’d go look up the Texas law on drug paraphernalia. Basically, any container can be drug paraphernalia. If you can put drugs in it, it’s paraphernalia.

      So anybody can be arrested at anytime for possesion of drug paraphernalia if the cops are so motivated. It won’t pass the smell test in court, but as I’ve heard way too much in Texas: you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride.

      1. Indeed, possession of small ziploc bags can be probable cause for a search, as is owning a small digital scale.

        I should probably get rid of my high school chemistry set. I’m pretty sure owning beakers, test tubes, etc. is considered running a meth lab these days.

        1. That and a few packs of sudefed would probably be enough to get your dog shot.

        2. Laboratory glassware requires a license in TX. If you get said license, you consent to having DPS search your premises at will. This despite the fact that any commonly available chemistry set has items which qualify as lab glass in TX. A freaking Erlenmeyer flask is subject to licensing in this state. I don’t know that anyone has ever been prosecuted separately for a violation, but I’m sure they’ll tack it on as a charge when you go down for running a meth lab.

          The WoD has made us collectively retarded.

          1. Every time I’m tempted to think about moving to TX, I learn about stupidity like this, or their myriads of occupational licencing laws, or their bizarro-universe income taxes on business that require a CPA to compute.

            1. I find it tolerable, but other people have different answers.

  24. Is that Paul Krugman or Col Landa from Inglorious Basterds?

    Oooh, that’s a bingo! Is that the way you say it? “That’s a bingo?”

  25. If voter identification laws “make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote” then higher taxes, higher labor costs and greater regulations make it hard for poor and ethnic minorities to start businesses.

    I’m unenthusiastic about voter identification requirements. But it’s disingenuous to imply racist motives. It’s just stupid given that Krugman supports all manner of rules that make it hard just for lower income people to participate fully in the economy.

    1. Requiring an ID makes it harder for minorities to vote. But requiring a government license to work in a field has no effect at all. Got it.

  26. His column makes less and less sense, the more you read it, in general.

    The only way to make “sense” of his column would be to start with the hypothesis that he’s being paid to be a propagandist, by the Democratic Party.

  27. Isn’t he supposed to be some sort of economist or something?

  28. He’s spreading himself too thin by trying to be illiterate on so many different topics. He needs to stick with economics.

    1. It would be nice to get a well-reasoned , but ultimately incorrect argument from him from time to time. Remember when it took facts and figures to disprove a Krugman article and not just basic logic?

  29. Krugabe grows less coherent each day.

  30. It’s a telling article about Krugman.

    According to Krugman, ALEC isn’t just a conservative/libertarian think tank, it’s actually some kind of James Bond villain that intentionally and literally wants people to shoot as many innocent black people as possible because fear of black people will advance corporations’ long-term interests.

    1) I guess if I believed that, then I would froth too.

    2) It’s also informative about Krugman’s own ends and means. Given that he claims to think that the right and libertarians routinely lie in order to spread fear and get what they want, one has to wonder whether Krugman is sinking to the same depths in “self-defense.”

    1. It’s common for people to suspect others of doing what one is himself guilty of. In other words, Krugman knows he’s a dishonest shit, so he assumes his opponents are too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.