The report empirically explores three potential relationships that may exist:
- Deterrent: As the prison length increases, the likelihood of recidivism decreases.
- Criminogenic: As the prison length increases, the likelihood of recidivism increases.
- No Effect: No statistically significant relationship between prison length and recidivism is identified.
Findings
- In each model, prison sentences of longer than 10 years (120 months) had a deterrent effect.
- In two of three models, the deterrent effect extended to prison sentences of longer than 5 years (60 months).
- The Commission did not find any statistically significant effect (criminogenic or deterrent) for prison sentences of 5 years (60 months) or shorter.
The Federal Defenders Office has issued a critique of this report (h/t: Guy Hamilton-Smith):
https://www.fd.org/sites/default/files/criminal_defense_topics/essential_topics/sentencing_resources/useful_reports/incarceration_and_recidivism_factsheet.pdf
who sponsored this study? any study can be spun any direction.
The United States Sentencing Commission
yes i see the name on it but that does not mean it was not spun in one direction or the other
I’m afraid this study will be used to give longer prison sentences. The prison industrial complex realized that prisons were not at full capacity, so they promoted/influenced/rigged this study to fill the prisons back up. So much for criminal “justice” reform. Remember, nothing is a coincidence.
Just because a president attempts to reform the prison system, it doesn’t mean the prison system will comply. They’ll keep on with business as usual. And the prison system is a business.
This completely contradicts a study I read about a year ago. In that study, researchers found that incarceration up to 22 months was found to be effective in deterring future crime. Anything above 22 months did not seem to deter crime as much as the inmates seemed to take on the characteristics of the more hardened criminals, learning how to better lead a life of crime. It always seems as though the U. S. Government research is slanted to show the need for longer and harsher punishments. SMART is right in there with them.
As far as the study supposedly showing that longer sentences makes someone less likely to re-offend, could it be that the individual is simply “aging” out of criminal activity? Some people do deserve lengthy sentences, but I have met some that do not.
The study does not measure who is more likely to re-offend, only who is more likely to have been re-arrested, for a probation violation or anything else. The report is explicit about this definition of recidivism, which to me limits the study’s usefulness.
Unfortunately, the study cannot properly be understood or evaluated by someone without a background in statistics. Yet SarahF you bring up an obvious point that is obscured by this study: what is the most obvious difference between the average person that is released after 10 years, and the average person that is released after less than five: they’re OLDER! And aging out of crime is a well-established phenomenon, isn’t it?
It is unclear whether sex offenders were accounted for in this study.
It is unclear whether sex offenders were accounted for in this study.
Maybe not. But it is clear that those who have served prison sentences for sex crimes are extremely unlikely to commit another, and that when they are arrested it’s nearly always for status offenses.
I recently read a report from some government agency (I think it was DOJ) which gave an elaborate explanation of how they interpreted the word “recidivism”. It was so far off from what I thought recidivism was that I am avoiding the word altogether. People definitely are not agreeing on the meaning of the word and that is putting out misinformation and confusion on the topic.
I am starting to use “re-offense” instead but am not sure that everyone agrees on the meaning of that word either. So I should probably say “someone who commits another sex crime”.
I’m sure the correct meaning of “recidivism” is that you keep committing crime over and over no matter how many times you’ve been arrested and jailed for each one. But apparently LE seems to consider a technical probation violation as recidivism which it should not be. Such a definition misleads the public.
More evidence that people “age out” of criminal behavior as they grow older, particularly if they are given help with reintegrating back into society:
https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/05/growing-old-in-prison-how-maryland-is-working-to-ease-the-path-to-release-for-a-low-risk-high-cost-population/