I believe that all of the presenters delivered interesting and compelling arguments. There were a lot of compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs that were convincing to me due to the presentation of strong evidence in terms of the out weighing benefits that legalization would bring. One interesting paper that was presented was the paper on Iran-Conta that Brandon presented. The information was unique in content and strong in its argument and analysis. I would like to learn more about the subject matter presented as it is a subject that I have not heard a lot about. I would say another memorable and compelling paper would be Ben’s paper that confirmed prostitution as inferior good to the commodity of a wife. One of the compelling points of his argument to me is the 60% correlation between the relationship of increasing income rates and the decreased demand for prostitution. Ericka’s paper on the ineffectiveness of Juvenile incarceration system was interesting and compelling to me. I thought the fact that has no positive effect on recidivism was really interesting considering how costly the juvenile incarceration system is and how emotionally detrimental it is to juveniles.
(1) I liked the paper on the broken windows theory. It was an interesting to see that by stopping the little crimes, one is also deterring some of the bigger crimes. By cleaning up and replacing the broken windows, vandals are less likely to break more. Then people in the neighborhood would continue to live there and not flee before things got out of control. (2) Another paper I found interesting was the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole. I knew that some people found prison deplorable, but I never thought that the death penalty could be seen as a way to escape the punishment of prison life. (3) Lastly, the paper on trying to find ways to lower the cost of prisons was intriguing. Rather than prisoners being a burden, it would be good to try to find ways to incorporate them into contributing members of society.
As Natalie mentioned, all the papers seemed well done and well thought out. It's hard to pick just 3 because Brandon's Contra paper seemed interesting, and there were papers that related to one another that would make excellent back to back reads. Examples would be like Grant's prison privatization arguement followed by Alan's paper discussing private prison lobbyist. Ben's empirical model for prostitution as an inferor good followed by Natalie's paper on local prostitution would have also been interesting readings. Lastly, Brian's look at crime rates being counter cyclical seemed interesting. I would mention more but I've already mentioned more than 3, so I'll stop writing now.
I like the racial profiling, one about setting a location for prostitute and irancontra because it was a fresh set of idea. It wasnt just about drugs or crime as we had learned about in class but it was a new problem on the table and it was interesting
I found Chi's paper on the theoretical effects on crime that urban development creates. While inner-city projects have been done before only to become crime-trodden areas, the paper raises questions such as how one could formulate a way to maintain a project and create a self-sustainable urban environment which could serve as a model for other cities, and how can government spending be more effective rather than as be just dollars thrown at a brick wall. And as one asked, where is the line drawn? All of this could be used as a starting point to discovering proper resource allocation or maybe even treat urban renovation as a capital investment with the idea that the improvements would lead to better market performance. Because of the way it relates to these development related topics, he gets my vote.
Second, I have to disagree with the method in which Binh came to his conclusion that prostitution is an inferior good, yet I have to say that the work that he did could definitely be used as a piece of a larger process of determining A) what options can be explored in order to reduce prostitution within a legalized setting so that B) any negative externalities can be reduced as much as possible with the knowledge of how other available goods relate.
Finally, I took interest in Grant's observation of the privatized prison model. It's a serious question affecting many state budgets and it also addresses the possibility of danger connected to the incentive for overpopulating prisons under a for-profit model, especially if private enterprises are able to gain enough weight in the lobbying arena to affect police behavior.
Firstly I would like to thank all of the presenters for presenting about their research on Monday. All of the papers that I have heard were all great and every single one should be discussed. However if I have to pick the three, they will be (1) Alan’s paper on private prison, (2) Ryan’s paper on capital punishment, and (3) Natalie’s paper on local prostitution. Alan did a great job in finding empirical data on private prisons it is really interesting on the fact that he was able to show everyone how people would do anything for money (increasing arrests, etc), and the fact that prisons lead to more arrests, following the money they spent in lobbying the changes in the law and campaign contributions is quite fascinating. Ryan’s paper is very interesting in the are of analyzing the benefit-cost of capital punishment. He concluded that the death penalty should only be used if the cost is cut, in which the incorporated the principles of the Erlich’s paper in his paper. Lastly Natalie’s paper on local prostitution was also very interesting. I was quite fascinated by the data present in her study, and I also think that creating brothels to minimize the number of street walkers prostitutes is an interesting idea.
I was very interested in what everyone had to say about there own paper and arguments. Everyone clearly demonstrated there findings and “position” on that specific issue. I did my paper on Decriminalization of Marijuana, so some of the other essays on legalization, naturally caught my attention. However, I found that 1) Natalie’s essay on prostitution was very intriguing. She presented her position, but also a very realistic and efficient solution. Being a San Bernardino resident, the local aspect of her paper caught also my attention 2) The paper addressing prostitution as an INFERIOR GOOD, was also very intriguing to me, just because of the empirical research and points he made to support his position. While we did talk about prostitution in the class, Binh attempted a somewhat different way to argue his point, and that caught my attention. I may not have come to the same conclusion as he did, but I thought it was great that he challenged himself to use different types of empirical evidence. 3) Lastly, I did realize that a few other people took a stab at the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana (or all drugs, in some cases). I feel like my paper was intriguing because I did use many different/in-depth arguments to support my position, and while all the legalization essays were based on cost/efficiency models, I feel like mine used more info on the reforms of decriminalization in California (1970’s) for the framework of my arguments and possible solution. I did think some of the arguments from the other classmates, to legalize, were all relevant and rational. Unfortunately, It would have taken the whole class period to talk about all my research, arguments, etc.
1)I was really interested by Binh’s presentation that stated that prostitution is an inferior good. At first thought I honestly would have assumed that it was the opposite because prostitution is very expensive. It was interesting to see the opposite shown through empirical analysis. It also made to stop to think about exactly why that might be the case. 2)The second presentation that I enjoyed was Ty’s paper about racial profiling. I liked it because it was different than any of the other topics and it is also something that I've never really had to personally experience in my life. 3)Finally, I liked Erika’s presentation on the effects of the juvenile incarceration system. I found it both interesting and slightly surprising that the system doesn’t really effect the recidivism rate at all. It is clear that the system needs to be reconstructed. This is especially important those in juvenile hall are going to be in the federal prisons in the future. If we can help reform criminals while they’re in the juvenile system, we could reduce crimes in the future.
The papers i liked the most is the one ty presented about racial profiling. This is a controversial issue and it is worth paying attention to how by just a single event that happens through out history can have a huge impact on how people of a particular race are viewed, such as the happenings after 911. The private prison paper was appealing to me. Lastly,the paper on the broken windows theory. I agree with the fact that it is better to prevent a situation from escalating by taking action, as in replacing windows to not further pursue vandalism.
1.- I liked my paper because I learned a lot while writing. It involved justice, profiling, and benefit/cost while the final decision was made. Justice never appeared on the O.J. Simpson case because even though everyone knew he was the murderer, the system declared him not guilty. Then profiling played an important role into the judgment because important evidence wasnt count due to important arguments made by the defence saying that Simpson was being judge by his race. Finally the benefits and costs generated by the final decision were many. It cost the jury and the state a lot of money because most of the people were not satisfied with the final decision but in the same way their main benefit was that they control the posible revolts that were going to evolve if Simpson was declared as guilty. 2.- Stibali's paper about blood dimonds was interesting. I had the opportunity to read the paper and like the way she conducted the paper. It is important to notice how the people who work at the black market earn a huge amount of profit while abusing of the necessity of the poor ones. By the end of the day, the exploitation of children and adults are far less valuable than the profit earned by exploiting them. 3.- Racial profiling kept my attention too. It was interesting to see how profiling can influence in the life of a person by making them feel superior in inferior in society. Different races have different benefits from their background and some of them have plenty of disadvantages due to this type of judging.
First of all, I want to say that everyone did a good job in their papers. Like Binh said, unfortunately we have to select only 3. Unfortunately, since I have to pick three, the first one I will pick it’s Natalie’s paper. Her paper was about our local community, San Bernardino, and I thought that was quite unique. Second paper I will mention, but this doesn’t mean others were inferior papers, as Binh addressed prostitutes, was his, and it was quite unique too. The third paper I am going to mention that I found interesting too was the one on reconstructing LA. The information the producer of the paper made were quite interesting and I thought it made logical sense. I thought all you guys did great and it was a pleasure being in the class, and on top of all this, thanks to Professor Harris who was always there for us. Good Job you guys.
first, i like the one people said legalize the prostitution in san bernadino. i liked her back up point of why we should legalize the prositution. second, tai talk about racial profiling. it is pretty interesting topic because it is still big issue in our society. lastly, i liked the brandon's paper which is talked about iran contra. it was interesting to listen because he is really well organized and good back up his point and i didn't know much of it before he made a presentation. therefore, most of presentation was pretty interesting.
I am at a loss for missing class on Monday. I wanted to share in everyone's hard work on their projects. Since this project was positional, it would have been great to hear individual feelings on how crime can be viewed through an economics lens. I like that drugs, prostitution,recidivism, and even blood diamonds were covered. I wanted to share on the costs of terrorism. For my classmates, maybe we can strike up a conversation one day in passing.
Everybody wrote a good paper! I enjoyed Brandon paper about how crime is different in decades and how crime has increase with given recession. I like how he stared from the 1930 and went to early 2000's. I enjoyed hearing how we should make drugs legal. Ben, paper on prostitution, was good. I want to read more into his paper about how prostitution is an inferior good. I liked my own paper, since i learned a lot about others races getting profiling by law enforcement.
I believe that all of the presenters delivered interesting and compelling arguments. There were a lot of compelling arguments for the legalization of drugs that were convincing to me due to the presentation of strong evidence in terms of the out weighing benefits that legalization would bring. One interesting paper that was presented was the paper on Iran-Conta that Brandon presented. The information was unique in content and strong in its argument and analysis. I would like to learn more about the subject matter presented as it is a subject that I have not heard a lot about. I would say another memorable and compelling paper would be Ben’s paper that confirmed prostitution as inferior good to the commodity of a wife. One of the compelling points of his argument to me is the 60% correlation between the relationship of increasing income rates and the decreased demand for prostitution. Ericka’s paper on the ineffectiveness of Juvenile incarceration system was interesting and compelling to me. I thought the fact that has no positive effect on recidivism was really interesting considering how costly the juvenile incarceration system is and how emotionally detrimental it is to juveniles.
ReplyDelete(1) I liked the paper on the broken windows theory. It was an interesting to see that by stopping the little crimes, one is also deterring some of the bigger crimes. By cleaning up and replacing the broken windows, vandals are less likely to break more. Then people in the neighborhood would continue to live there and not flee before things got out of control. (2) Another paper I found interesting was the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole. I knew that some people found prison deplorable, but I never thought that the death penalty could be seen as a way to escape the punishment of prison life. (3) Lastly, the paper on trying to find ways to lower the cost of prisons was intriguing. Rather than prisoners being a burden, it would be good to try to find ways to incorporate them into contributing members of society.
ReplyDeleteAs Natalie mentioned, all the papers seemed well done and well thought out. It's hard to pick just 3 because Brandon's Contra paper seemed interesting, and there were papers that related to one another that would make excellent back to back reads. Examples would be like Grant's prison privatization arguement followed by Alan's paper discussing private prison lobbyist. Ben's empirical model for prostitution as an inferor good followed by Natalie's paper on local prostitution would have also been interesting readings. Lastly, Brian's look at crime rates being counter cyclical seemed interesting. I would mention more but I've already mentioned more than 3, so I'll stop writing now.
ReplyDeleteI like the racial profiling, one about setting a location for prostitute and irancontra because it was a fresh set of idea. It wasnt just about drugs or crime as we had learned about in class but it was a new problem on the table and it was interesting
ReplyDeleteI found Chi's paper on the theoretical effects on crime that urban development creates. While inner-city projects have been done before only to become crime-trodden areas, the paper raises questions such as how one could formulate a way to maintain a project and create a self-sustainable urban environment which could serve as a model for other cities, and how can government spending be more effective rather than as be just dollars thrown at a brick wall.
ReplyDeleteAnd as one asked, where is the line drawn?
All of this could be used as a starting point to discovering proper resource allocation or maybe even treat urban renovation as a capital investment with the idea that the improvements would lead to better market performance. Because of the way it relates to these development related topics, he gets my vote.
Second, I have to disagree with the method in which Binh came to his conclusion that prostitution is an inferior good, yet I have to say that the work that he did could definitely be used as a piece of a larger process of determining A) what options can be explored in order to reduce prostitution within a legalized setting so that B) any negative externalities can be reduced as much as possible with the knowledge of how other available goods relate.
Finally, I took interest in Grant's observation of the privatized prison model. It's a serious question affecting many state budgets and it also addresses the possibility of danger connected to the incentive for overpopulating prisons under a for-profit model, especially if private enterprises are able to gain enough weight in the lobbying arena to affect police behavior.
Firstly I would like to thank all of the presenters for presenting about their research on Monday. All of the papers that I have heard were all great and every single one should be discussed. However if I have to pick the three, they will be (1) Alan’s paper on private prison, (2) Ryan’s paper on capital punishment, and (3) Natalie’s paper on local prostitution. Alan did a great job in finding empirical data on private prisons it is really interesting on the fact that he was able to show everyone how people would do anything for money (increasing arrests, etc), and the fact that prisons lead to more arrests, following the money they spent in lobbying the changes in the law and campaign contributions is quite fascinating. Ryan’s paper is very interesting in the are of analyzing the benefit-cost of capital punishment. He concluded that the death penalty should only be used if the cost is cut, in which the incorporated the principles of the Erlich’s paper in his paper. Lastly Natalie’s paper on local prostitution was also very interesting. I was quite fascinated by the data present in her study, and I also think that creating brothels to minimize the number of street walkers prostitutes is an interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in what everyone had to say about there own paper and arguments. Everyone clearly demonstrated there findings and “position” on that specific issue. I did my paper on Decriminalization of Marijuana, so some of the other essays on legalization, naturally caught my attention. However, I found that 1) Natalie’s essay on prostitution was very intriguing. She presented her position, but also a very realistic and efficient solution. Being a San Bernardino resident, the local aspect of her paper caught also my attention 2) The paper addressing prostitution as an INFERIOR GOOD, was also very intriguing to me, just because of the empirical research and points he made to support his position. While we did talk about prostitution in the class, Binh attempted a somewhat different way to argue his point, and that caught my attention. I may not have come to the same conclusion as he did, but I thought it was great that he challenged himself to use different types of empirical evidence. 3) Lastly, I did realize that a few other people took a stab at the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana (or all drugs, in some cases). I feel like my paper was intriguing because I did use many different/in-depth arguments to support my position, and while all the legalization essays were based on cost/efficiency models, I feel like mine used more info on the reforms of decriminalization in California (1970’s) for the framework of my arguments and possible solution. I did think some of the arguments from the other classmates, to legalize, were all relevant and rational. Unfortunately, It would have taken the whole class period to talk about all my research, arguments, etc.
ReplyDelete1)I was really interested by Binh’s presentation that stated that prostitution is an inferior good. At first thought I honestly would have assumed that it was the opposite because prostitution is very expensive. It was interesting to see the opposite shown through empirical analysis. It also made to stop to think about exactly why that might be the case.
ReplyDelete2)The second presentation that I enjoyed was Ty’s paper about racial profiling. I liked it because it was different than any of the other topics and it is also something that I've never really had to personally experience in my life.
3)Finally, I liked Erika’s presentation on the effects of the juvenile incarceration system. I found it both interesting and slightly surprising that the system doesn’t really effect the recidivism rate at all. It is clear that the system needs to be reconstructed. This is especially important those in juvenile hall are going to be in the federal prisons in the future. If we can help reform criminals while they’re in the juvenile system, we could reduce crimes in the future.
The papers i liked the most is the one ty presented about racial profiling. This is a controversial issue and it is worth paying attention to how by just a single event that happens through out history can have a huge impact on how people of a particular race are viewed, such as the happenings after 911. The private prison paper was appealing to me. Lastly,the paper on the broken windows theory. I agree with the fact that it is better to prevent a situation from escalating by taking action, as in replacing windows to not further pursue vandalism.
ReplyDelete1.- I liked my paper because I learned a lot while writing. It involved justice, profiling, and benefit/cost while the final decision was made. Justice never appeared on the O.J. Simpson case because even though everyone knew he was the murderer, the system declared him not guilty. Then profiling played an important role into the judgment because important evidence wasnt count due to important arguments made by the defence saying that Simpson was being judge by his race. Finally the benefits and costs generated by the final decision were many. It cost the jury and the state a lot of money because most of the people were not satisfied with the final decision but in the same way their main benefit was that they control the posible revolts that were going to evolve if Simpson was declared as guilty.
ReplyDelete2.- Stibali's paper about blood dimonds was interesting. I had the opportunity to read the paper and like the way she conducted the paper. It is important to notice how the people who work at the black market earn a huge amount of profit while abusing of the necessity of the poor ones. By the end of the day, the exploitation of children and adults are far less valuable than the profit earned by exploiting them.
3.- Racial profiling kept my attention too. It was interesting to see how profiling can influence in the life of a person by making them feel superior in inferior in society. Different races have different benefits from their background and some of them have plenty of disadvantages due to this type of judging.
First of all, I want to say that everyone did a good job in their papers. Like Binh said, unfortunately we have to select only 3. Unfortunately, since I have to pick three, the first one I will pick it’s Natalie’s paper. Her paper was about our local community, San Bernardino, and I thought that was quite unique. Second paper I will mention, but this doesn’t mean others were inferior papers, as Binh addressed prostitutes, was his, and it was quite unique too. The third paper I am going to mention that I found interesting too was the one on reconstructing LA. The information the producer of the paper made were quite interesting and I thought it made logical sense. I thought all you guys did great and it was a pleasure being in the class, and on top of all this, thanks to Professor Harris who was always there for us. Good Job you guys.
ReplyDeletefirst, i like the one people said legalize the prostitution in san bernadino. i liked her back up point of why we should legalize the prositution. second, tai talk about racial profiling. it is pretty interesting topic because it is still big issue in our society. lastly, i liked the brandon's paper which is talked about iran contra. it was interesting to listen because he is really well organized and good back up his point and i didn't know much of it before he made a presentation. therefore, most of presentation was pretty interesting.
ReplyDeleteI am at a loss for missing class on Monday. I wanted to share in everyone's hard work on their projects. Since this project was positional, it would have been great to hear individual feelings on how crime can be viewed through an economics lens.
ReplyDeleteI like that drugs, prostitution,recidivism, and even blood diamonds were covered. I wanted to share on the costs of terrorism. For my classmates, maybe we can strike up a conversation one day in passing.
Everybody wrote a good paper! I enjoyed Brandon paper about how crime is different in decades and how crime has increase with given recession. I like how he stared from the 1930 and went to early 2000's. I enjoyed hearing how we should make drugs legal. Ben, paper on prostitution, was good. I want to read more into his paper about how prostitution is an inferior good. I liked my own paper, since i learned a lot about others races getting profiling by law enforcement.
ReplyDelete