Analysis of “Powder Keg Theory” in State Escape Statutes

Abstract

Escape research has debunked the powder keg theory that all escapes are inherently violent and may explode into violence at any given time. The vast majority of escapes takes place from minimum secure facilities and do not involve force at time of escape or recapture. Nevertheless, federal defendants often receive unduly harsh sentences based on prior escape convictions because courts assume that the majority of escapes are violent for purposes of sentencing enhancement. This study analyzed all 50 U.S. state escape statutes to determine which states classify escapes in a manner consistent with the powder keg theory. Results indicated that the majority of state statutes neither concurred with the powder keg theory nor favored a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between escapes and potential violence. Policy implications of these findings and potential pathways for future escape research are discussed. This article concludes that criminal acts of escape must be reconsidered for sentencing purposes in relation to their potential violence, risks, and intentions.In 1984, Congress enacted the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which requires a minimum 15-year sentence for individuals with three prior violent felony convictions who are subsequently convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. Federal courts often judge custodial escapes as categorically violent under the ACCA despite the lack of reliable evidence to substantiate this judgment. Misconceptions about the degree of violence in custodial escapes are largely due to popular culture and fear-based news