Prison as a Criminal School: Peer Effects and Criminal Learning behind Bars

Abstract

We investigate peer effects on crime-specific recidivism using register data for the entire Danish prison population. We find that inmates do not acquire new criminal capital in prison (no introductory peer effects). For certain types of crimes, we find that inmates strengthen their criminal capital in prison because of exposure to offenders in their field of specialization (reinforcing peer effects). Our results accord with a theory of crime-specific knowledge transmission and network building: we find reinforcing peer effects for crimes that require specific capital, planning, and networks (for example, drug crimes, theft, burglary, and fencing) and/or are more effective when committed in groups (for example, threats and vandalism). Reinforcing peer effects are especially strong because of exposure to more experienced criminals. By contrast, we find that exposure to offenders in the same specialization deters inmates from recidivism for violent offenses, including sexual offenses and robbery.

Mathematical analysis of crime dynamics in and out of prisons

“…[18][19][20] On the contrary, in prisons, staying with many criminal peers in a limited facility makes minor criminals frequently contact with hard-core and skilled criminals and possibly deepens their illegal involvement. [21][22][23] The peer effect on crime recidivism is strongly supported by recent empirical research in many countries. [24][25][26] We are especially interested in the influence of overcrowded prison facilities on criminal transition.…”

“…This paper focuses on criminal transitions occurring inside and outside of prison, which respectively have been conceptualized in popular terms “broken windows effect” and “prison as a crime school”; the broken windows theory states that accumulation of low level offenses in a community, if not adequately controlled, acts as a social pressure that leads to more serious crimes 18‐20 . On the contrary, in prisons, staying with many criminal peers in a limited facility makes minor criminals frequently contact with hard‐core and skilled criminals and possibly deepens their illegal involvement 21‐23 . The peer effect on crime recidivism is strongly supported by recent empirical research in many countries 24‐26 …”

Social networks and gangs: moving research forward with low-cost data collection opportunities in school and prison settings

“…Studies linking the prison experience to criminal trajectories could also serve as inspiration for future work on gang networks. These studies treat the prison experience as a potential turning point in the criminal trajectories of offenders, either to examine against outcome measures like recidivism (Damm and Gorinas, 2020; Roxell, 2011), or even to investigate whether prison has had an impact on the social networks themselves (Volker et al , 2016). Although none of these studies focused on gang members specifically, incarceration periods may also act as important turning points in the career of gang members, who may or may not be interested in reintegrating their pre-incarceration gang network, after release.…”

A Revolving Door? A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Custodial Sanctions on Reoffending

“…While each of these hypotheses certainly has theoretical merit, their empirical grounding is in short supply. The schools of crime (Bayer et al, 2009;Harris et al, 2018;Damm & Gorinas, 2016;Ouss, 2011) and strain (Listwan et al, 2013;Morris et al, 2012;Zweig et al, 2015) hypotheses have each been tested only a handful of times. And while some studies have shown that being labeled as a felon or criminal justice processing in general leads to increased reoffending (e.g., Chiricos, Barrick, Bales, & Bontrager, 2007;Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009), the prediction of labeling theory that the stigma of an arrest or incarceration record leads to identity change and increased reoffending has never been adequately tested.…”

“…It is therefore incumbent upon criminologists and policymakers to understand precisely how incarceration can be made less criminogenic than it currently is. If it turns out, for example, that homophily in cell assignments has a substantive influence on the likelihood and type of reoffending (e.g., Damm & Gorinas, 2016;Ouss, 2011), knowledge on the logistics and impacts of inmates' assignments to specific types of prisons, units, and cells themselves would need to be expanded significantly.…”