Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: The High Cost of Ignoring Science
Abstract
One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Andrews D. A., Bonta J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson/LexisNexis.
Bernburg J. G., Krohn M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41, 1287-1318.
Bernburg J. G., Krohn M. D., Rivera C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67-88.
Blumstein A., Cohen J. (1973). A theory of the stability of punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 198-206.
Beck A. J., Shipley B. E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Bushway S. D., Paternoster R. (2009). The impact of prison on crime. In Raphael S., Stoll M. A. (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 119-150). New York: Russell Sage.
Byrne J. M., Lurigio A. J., Petersilia J. (Eds.). (1992). Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Caputo G. A. (2004). Intermediate sanctions in corrections. Denton: University of North Texas Press.
Chen M. K., Shapiro J. M. (2007). Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. American Law and Economic Review, 9, 1-29.
Chiricos T., Barrick K., Bales W., Bontrager S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547-581.
Clemmer D. (1940). The prison community. New York: Rinehart.
Cullen F. T., Fisher B. S., Applegate B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In Tonry M. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 14, pp. 1-79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cullen F. T., Jonson C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Currie E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American challenge. New York: Pantheon.
Currie E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Durlauf S. N., Nagin D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced? Criminological and Public Policy, 10, 13-54.
Durlauf S. N., Nagin D. S. (in press). The deterrent effect of imprisonment. In Cook P. J., Ludwig J., McCrary J. (Eds.), Controlling crime: Strategies and tradeoffs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Farrington D. P., Welsh B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life in crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feeley M. M. (1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court New York: Russell Sage.
Felson M., Boba R. (2010). Crime and everyday life (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gatti U., Tremblay R. E., Vitaro F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991-998.
Gendreau P., Goggin C., Cullen F. T., Andrews D. A. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections Research, 12(May), 10-13.
Hartney C. (2006). U.S. rates of incarceration: A global perspective. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Jonson C. L. (2010). The impact of imprisonment of reoffending: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Kleiman M. A. (2009). When brute force fails: How to have less crime and less punishment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Langan P. A., Levin D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Latessa E. J., Cullen F. T., Gendreau P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43-49.
MacKenzie D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moore N. T., May D. C., Wood P. B. (2008). Offenders, judges, and officers rate the relative severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3-4), 49-70.
Nagin D. S., Cullen F. T., Jonson C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. In Tonry M. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 38, pp. 115-200). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nagin D. S., Snodgrass G. M. (2010). The effect of incarceration on recidivism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco.
Nieuwbeerta P., Nagin D. S., Blokland A. A. (2009). The relationship between first imprisonment and criminal career development: A matched samples comparison. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 227-257.
Petersilia J., Deschenes E. P. (1994). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. Prison Journal, 74, 306-328.
Petrosino A., Turpin-Petrosino C., Guckenburg S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration.
Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Pew Center on the States. (2010). Prison count 2010: State population declines for the first time in 38 years. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Sabol W. J., West H. C., Cooper M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Sampson R. J., Laub J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schwarzenegger A. (2010). Governor Schwarzenegger delivers 2010 State of the State Address. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Governor. Retrieved January 7, 2010, from http://gov.ca.gov/speech/14118/
Sherman L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
Smith P. (2006). The effects of incarceration on recidivism: A longitudinal examination of program participation and institutional adjustment in federally sentenced adult male offenders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
Smith P., Gendreau P. (2010). A longitudinal examination of inmate behavior and program activities on institutional adjustment and recidivism. Unpublished paper, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Smith P., Goggin C., Gendreau P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
Spohn C., Holleran D. (2002). The effect of imprisonment on recidivism rates of felony offenders: A focus on drug offenders. Criminology, 40, 329-347.
Sykes G. M. (1958): The society of captives: A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Van Voorhis P. (1987). Correctional effectiveness: The high cost of ignoring success. Federal Probation, 51(1), 59-62.
Villettaz P., Killias M., Zoder I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. noncustodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Philadelphia: The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group.
Waller I. (2006). Less law, more order: The truth about reducing crime. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Wimer C., Sampson R. J., Laub J. H. (2008). Estimating time-varying causes and outcomes, with application to incarceration and crime. In Cohen P. (Ed.), Applied data analytic techniques for turning points research (pp. 37-59). New York: Routledge.
World prison brief. (2009). London: King’s College London, International Centre for Prison Studies.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: July 19, 2011
Issue published: September 2011
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 42444
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 261
- Police-Led Interventions for Deterring Organized Crime: A UK Cluster Randomized Trial Targeting Criminal Network Recruiting and Its Vicarious Effects on Co-Offenders
- Chaos Before Peace: The Impact of Exposure to a Prison Riot on Incarcerated Persons
- Predicting support for fine penalty replacing imprisonment: Crime type, the severity of crime, situational factors and demographic characteristics: A factorial survey approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of Moral Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Moral Psychology
- Interventionitis in the Criminal Justice System: Three English Cases
- Can criminology sway the public? How empirical findings about deterrence affect public punishment preferences
- “You walk on glass if you are in that space”: Risks and harms of corruption in wildlife justice pathways in Uganda
- Criminal justice response in Cape Verde: Understanding punishment severity in case of gender-based violence against women
- Exploring Reentry Concerns of Incarcerated Individuals with Severe Mental Illness
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
