Exploring the Positive Punishment Effect Among Incarcerated Adult Offenders

Abstract

The vast majority of offenders released from prison will re-offend, about two-thirds will be re-arrested with three years, most current prison inmates have prior prison experience, and many repeat offenders are devoted to what has been termed a criminal lifestyle. Findings from a survey of over 700 incarcerated adult offenders explore the effect of different measures of past punishment on inmates' perceptions of the certainty and severity of future sanctions, and self-reported likelihood of reoffending after release. Results are mixed, with measures of current imprisonment being associated with a deterrent effect, while measures of past imprisonment (juvenile and adult) and experience with alternative sanctions being associated with a criminogenic effect. Recognizing that the data are not longitudinal and contain no measures of actual re-offending, the implied positive punishment effect is explained by applying social learning dynamics and insights from ethnographic studies. Specifically, a) non-social reinforcers-particularly affective costs and benefits experienced through offending, b) association with criminal reference groups in and out of prison, and c) a lack of legitimate, reintegrative opportunities upon reentry all serve to promote reoffending. Findings have implications for the study of offender decision-making processes, and speak to the efficacy of imprisonment as a deterrent to crime.

Deterrence and Deterrability*

“…The "preeminent empirical regularity" in deterrence research is that the perceived certainty of sanctions is more important in deterring crime than the celerity or severity of sanctions (Pogarsky, 2002: 431). Arguably, the most striking finding to emerge from this body of work is the counterintuitive "positive punishment effect" (Wood, 2007) in which persons who previously have been caught and sanctioned seem to be more likely to offend-not less. Albeit unexpected, the finding is understandable for four reasons.…”

Correcting the “Correctional” Component of the Corrections Officer Role: How Offender Custodians Can Contribute to Rehabilitation and Reintegration

“…There are a number of possible explanations for this association. First, emboldening effects suggest that prison serves to harden and reinforce criminal propensity (Camp & Gaes, 2004;Wood, 2007;Wood, Gove, Wilson, & Cochran, 1997). A second theme of research demonstrates that a failure to alter the known causes of criminal behavior will result in a return to crime for offenders released from prison (Andrews & Bonta, 2010;Cullen & Gendreau, 2000).…”

On the reinforcing nature of crime and punishment: An exploration of inmates’ self-reported likelihood of reoffending

“…Trained facilitators questioned offenders of varying demographics and criminal histories about criminogenic risks, and criminal persistence versus desistance. The information obtained was utilized to create a nearly 300-item survey that explored the causes and consequences of offending from the prisoners' perspectives, which was pretested among groups of inmates prior to full implementation (for further information on the construction, validity, and administration of this survey, see Wood, 2007). To collect the data, volunteers from eligible prison pods were solicited.…”

“…However, it remains unclear which mechanism is responsible for the positive relationship observed between imprisonment and crime, although several theories have been forwarded. First, an emboldening effect may be produced, whereby prison is viewed as a "crime school" in which antisocial propensities are hardened (Camp & Gaes, 2004;Wood, 2007). Similarly, a gambler's fallacy or resetting bias may become activated, such that the offender's perceived sanction risk is returned to a minimum, leaving them free to safely reoffend without fear of immediate detection (Horney & Marshall, 1992;Nieuwbeerta, Nagin, & Blokland, 2009;Pogarsky, 2007;Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003;Sitren & Applegate, 2006).…”

“…As is commonly referenced, structural barriers to successful reentry may also encourage recidivism (Immerwahr & Johnson, 2002;Petersilia, 2003;Travis, 2005). Finally, some research suggests that prison relieves status frustration and is psychosocially reinforcing, thereby making desistance improbable (Wood, 2007;Wood, Gove, Wilson, & Cochran, 1997).…”