The incarceration dataset herein included a number of studies that produced multiple effect sizes. As a case in point, one study reported the effects of varying lengths of incarceration across 9 risk levels, producing 6 possible effect sizes for each level of risk. Had we applied more stringent selection criteria i.
In order to test the possible effects of non-independence on the results, a re-analysis of the data using the aforementioned selection parameters was performed. For the more vs. A similar pattern of results applied to the incarceration vs. Some important caveats should be noted regarding the quality of the research literature in this meta-analysis, particularly in the case of the two prison sanction groups.
Important sample and methodological descriptors were frequently missing. For example, no study recorded any information about the conditions of confinement, an absolutely critical component. The exact length of time confined was not precisely defined in many of the more vs.
Part of the problem and this is being charitable rests in the fact that few studies were specifically designed to test a deterrence hypothesis.
They were examining parole issues where, fortuitously for our purposes, the studies recorded varying lengths of time served with risk control comparisons or they were intermediate sanction studies that had, as their comparison groups, offenders who served time in prison.
Footnote 7 Some of the studies were quite dated, which, in itself, does not invalidate their contributions, but does speak to the unfortunate lack of contemporary studies given the ubiquitous use of prison as a control agent.
Finally, some studies produced a disproportionate number of effect sizes — particularly in the case of the prison more vs. Nevertheless, this database, imperfect as it may be, is the best there is to date if policy makers wish to entertain a serious discussion about the utility of prisons and intermediate sanctions as effective punishers. The three major categories of sanctions we investigated were based on huge datasets and were consistent in producing results unassociated with reductions in recidivism.
As to the second focus of this investigation, there were no differential effects of sanctions reported for juveniles, females, or minority groups or for high vs. Two cautions are warranted; the database for minorities is minuscule and there is a tentative indication that sanctions may affect females more adversely than males.
On the other side of the coin, "get tough" aficionados might cavil about the research design quality of the prison studies but the reality is that proponents of such sanctions have long rested their case on far less substantive foundations; common sense arguments and narrative reviews. Footnote 9 One cannot imagine, however, criminal justice systems suddenly embarking upon a number of randomized designs for the benefit of meta-analysts.
Thus, we are left with a collection of comparison group studies of varying quality for policy makers to ruminate over. What does one make of these? It is a complex issue. Several meta-analysts have suggested that good comparison group designs produce results similar to those of true experimental designs c. Footnote In our opinion, effect sizes from studies of better design quality within the prison sanctions categories were informative given that the experimental and comparison groups were comparable on at least 5 important risk factors i.
The results from these studies did not support the deterrence perspective. But even more important than considerations of design issues is the paramount fact that there is absolutely no cogent theoretical or empirical rationale for criminal justice sanctions to suppress criminal behaviour in the first place Gendreau, At best, most criminal justice sanctions are threats e. To those who believe that criminal justice sanctions in general or threats in particular are effective punishers or negative reinforcers, we advise they consult the relevant behaviour modification literature or any experimental learning text for supportive evidence e.
There is none. The results forthcoming from the more vs. Moreover, stronger criminogenic effects were found for greater differences in time served Table 2. These results appear to give some credence to the prison as "schools of crime" perspective given that the proportion of low risk offender effect sizes in each category in this particular analysis were very similar.
With these huge sample sizes, achieving statistical significance is of questionable import. One should be mindful, however, that if further research consistently supports findings of slight increases in recidivism then the enormous costs accruing from the excessive use of prison may not be defensible.
Percentage changes of as "little" as several percent have resulted in significant cost implications in medicine and other areas of human services Hunt, Arguably, increases in recidivism of even a modest amount are fiscally irresponsible, especially given the high incarceration rates currently in vogue in North America.
Our concluding observation is this. While this study produced worthwhile information from a clinical and policy perspective, we have to move beyond analyses such as this one. This is not necessarily a criticism of meta-analysis, but it is a blunt instrument when the studies involved are so uninformative about essential study features that there is no recourse but to generate better primary studies at the individual level. We must, instead begin to engage in more sensitive evaluations, particularly in the case of the effects of incarceration.
It should be mandatory that periodic assessments of offenders' adjustment are conducted every six months to a year on a wide variety of dynamic risk factors. Assessments of incarcerates' changes in behaviour e. Secondly, there should be assessments of how situational factors e. Only then will we address the controversial issue of the effects of prisons on recidivism in a much more adequate manner. At present, we are embarking upon a research program to address some of these issues in a series of primary studies which should offer a much more precise estimate of the effects of prisons on recidivism.
Andrews, D. Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts.
Manuscript under review. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, Using early release to relieve prison crowding: A dilemma in public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 32 4 , The impact of juvenile court sanctions: A court that works.
Probation versus imprisonment for similar types of offenders: A comparison by subsequent violations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2, Relationship of time served to parole outcome for different classifications of burglars based on males paroled in fifty jurisdictions in and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 9, Assessing length of institutionalization in relation to parole outcome. Criminology, 14, Time served and release performance: A research note.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 13, Time served in prison and parole outcome: An experimental study Research Report No. A Bayesian analysis of the Colorado Springs spouse abuse experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 83, The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional halfway houses. Journal of Research in Crime in Delinquency, 24, Restitution in correctional half-way houses: Victim satisfaction, attitudes and recidivism.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 25, Bonta, J. Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14, Commentary on Paulus and Dzindolet: Models of the effects of prison life.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, LEAD: A boot camp and intensive parole program. An impact evaluation: Second year findings. Shock probation in Iowa. Drug testing and pretrial misconduct: An experiment on the specific deterrent effects of drug monitoring defendants on pretrial release. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, Dramatic cures for juvenile crime: An evaluation of a prisoner-run delinquency prevention program.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 10, An impact analysis of the Alabama boot camp program. Federal Probation, 59, Restructuring probation as an intermediate sanction: An evaluation of the Massachusetts intensive probation supervision program.
Cohen, M. The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, The efficacy of probation versus imprisonment in reducing recidivism of serious offenders in Israel.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, Pretrial bond supervision: An empirical analysis with policy implications. Federal Probation, 56, Cullen, F.
Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects pp. Horney Ed. National Institute of Justice criminal justice Changes in decision making and discretion in the criminal justice system. DeJong, C. Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 35, The twelfth annual shock legislative report.
A dual experiment in intensive community supervision: Minnesota's prison diversion and enhanced supervised release programs. The Prison Journal, 75, An experimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. Electronic monitoring of released prisoners: An evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme.
Home Office Research Study, Doob, A. An exploration of Ontario residents' views of crime and the criminal justice system C System-initiated warrants for suspects of misdemeanor domestic assault: A pilot study. Justice Quarterly, 7, The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Turning up the heat on probationers in Georgia. Federal Probation, 50, Evaluation of intensive probation supervision in Georgia.
Georgia Department of Corrections. Do criminal sanctions deter drug crimes? Uchida Eds. London, UK: Sage Publications. Police cautioning of juveniles in London. Scared straight! And the panacea phenomenon. Special alternative to incarceration evaluation. NIC Information Center. Gendreau, P. The principles of effective intervention with offenders.
Harland Ed. Ottawa, Ontario: T3 Associates. The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. In Compendium of Effective Correctional Programs volume 1, chapter 4. The effects of prison sentences on recidivism.
The common sense revolution and correctional policy. McGuire Ed. Intensive probation in probation and parole settings. Hollin Ed. Predicting prison misconducts. Generating rational correctional policies: An introduction to advances in cumulating knowledge.
Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the "real world". Bernfeld, D. Leschied Eds. Offender Rehabilitation in Practice, pp. A meta-analysis of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, Classical discrimination eyelid conditioning in primary psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, Age and IQ discrimination conditioning of the eyelid response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, Profitable penalties for lower level courts.
Electronic monitoring of drug offenders on probation. The use and effects of financial penalties in municipal courts. Criminology, 29, The electronic monitoring EM of offenders, mostly using radio frequency RF technology to enforce home confinement, has been practiced in Europe for a quarter century.
At least twenty seven countries make use it, at a range of points in the penal process. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Engineering What are intermediate sanctions and what is their purpose? Ben Davis April 27, What are intermediate sanctions and what is their purpose? What are intermediate sanctions?
What are intermediate sanctions examples? How do intermediate sanctions work? What are some problems with intermediate sanctions? What are the two general goals of intermediate sanctions? Which of the following is an advantage of intermediate sanctions? What are the primary forms of intermediate sanctions? Which of the following is characteristic of intermediate sanctions? These innovations are called intermediate sanctions programs, which include: intensive probation supervision, house arrests, electronic monitoring, restitution orders, shock incarcerations or split sentences and residential community corrections.
The intermediate sanctions have the advantage of offering alternatives to jails and prisons. This is because penal institutions have not only proven to be costly but also injurious and ineffective. In addition, there is little evidence to prove that jails and prisons prevent future criminality as most inmates repeat the same crimes soon after they have been released.
According to the U. Bureaus of Justice Statistics Report of , approximately two-thirds of prisoners were re-arrested after release from correctional facilities over a period of three years.
0コメント