|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Van Dine et al. was to evaluate the effectiveness of incapacitation to reduce crime.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental design was employed to test the effectiveness of incapacitation at reducing crime. Using a cohort of 342 adult offenders who had been arrested in 1973 for index crimes in Franklin County, Ohio, the authors imposed hypothetical sentences on the last known offense of each recidivist. The hypothetical sentences ranged from most serious (one or more convictions, no prior felony, 5 year mandatory sentence) to least serious (one or more convictions, one violent felony required, 5 year mandatory sentence). The purpose of imposing these sentences was to see if the 1973 charge would have been avoided had the hypothetical sentence been in place.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The population of offenders contained 342 adults (gender was not specified) who had been arrested for either a violent or nonviolent offense in Franklin County in 1973. Of the 342 persons charged, 166 were found guilty of one or more index crimes. Of the 638 index crimes charged, 231 were convicted: 100 for robbery, 30 for assault, 24 for violent sex offenses, 20 for murder/manslaughter, and 57 for multiple offenses. In addition, of the 342 persons charged, only 107 had been convicted of a prior offense. This meant that 32% of the sample were first-time offenders. Through the imposition of hypothetical sentence #1 (a five year minimum for any felony conviction, prior to 1973), there would have been 68 offenders not charged, 115 indictment charges prevented (4% of Uniform Crime Report on Franklin County), and 54 conviction counts prevented. Under option 2 (a five year minimum sentence imposed upon any felony conviction after the first), 28 offenders (8.2%) of cohort), 43 indictment charges, and 20 conviction counts would have been prevented. Prevented under option 3 (3 or more convictions, no prior violent felony, five year mandatory sentence) would have been 12 offenders (3.5% of cohort), 21 indictment charges, and 11 conviction counts. Option 4 (one or more convictions, no prior violent felony, 3 year mandatory sentence) would have prevented 44 offenders (12.9% of cohort), 71 indictment charges, and 28 conviction counts. Finally, prevented under option 5 (one or more convictions, one violent felony required, five year mandatory sentence) would have been 21 offenders (6.1% of cohort), 41 indictment charges, and 24 conviction counts.
When compared with Uniform Crime Reports, even the most strict hypothetical sentence made a modest hypothetical impact upon crime rates. The authors presented three reasons why incapacitation did not affect crime rates: First, their study did not include juveniles. According to the authors, about 25% of all reported crime was committed by juveniles; harsher penalties, if not imposed on juveniles, can have little impact upon the total volume of crime. Second, this study revealed that 32% of the cohort were first-time offenders. The authors stated that target groups for a policy of incapacitation are possibly too small to have a substantial effect on crime rates. Third, the rate at which recidivists were reconvicted was too slow. The mean interval between violent offenses in this cohort was 5.6 years. This meant that a policy of incapacitation would have to impose lengthy, perhaps unjust, punishments in order to prevent potential criminal behavior. In conclusion, the authors stated that incapacitation is limited as an effective sentencing policy because of the characteristics of the criminal population and the limits of the criminal justice system.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
It was suggested by the authors that incapacitation could be an effective sentencing policy if apprehension rates were increased, or if a large percentage of those apprehended were not first-time offenders.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
1970s
Ohio
Adult Inmate
Adult Violence
Adult Offender
Incarcerated
Incarceration Effects
Violence Prevention
Violence Intervention
Crime Intervention
Crime Prevention
Offender Recidivism
Offender Sentencing
Correctional Decision Making
Correctional Institution
Criminal Justice System
Theory
Recidivism Prevention
Justice System Policy
Justice System Effects
Justice System Evaluation
Policy Effectiveness
Policy Evaluation
10-04 |