The bluntness of incarceration: crime and punishment in Tallahassee neighborhoods, 1995 to 2002

Abstract

The relationship between crime and incarceration is vexed. Some scholars suggest that incarceration deters crime. Others suggest that incarceration can increase crime in certain situations by undermining the social fabric and making the environment more criminogenic. Most of the empirical work on the question is undertaken at an aggregate level (county, state, or national data). Yet, criminologists have long argued that the complex intertwining of crime and punishment is best understood at the neighborhood level, where the impacts of incarceration on social relationships are most closely felt. This paper examines the question using a panel of neighborhoods in Tallahassee, Florida for the period 1995 to 2002. I find evidence to support the contention that the high levels of prison admissions and prison cycling (admissions plus releases) is associated with increasing crime rates in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This effect is not found in other neighborhoods. Looking more closely at the issues of race and class, I find that while marginalized neighborhoods experience slightly higher crime rates, they are faced with much higher incarceration rates. In Black neighborhoods in particular, prison admissions are an order of magnitude higher in comparison with non-Black neighborhoods even though underlying crime rates are not very different.By employing incarceration-the bluntest of instruments-as the primary response to social disorder, policy makers have significantly missed the mark. The very laws intended to punish selfish behavior and to further common social interests have, in practice, strained and eroded the personal relationships vital to family and community life. Crime cannot go unpunished. But by draining the Crime Law Soc Change (2012) 57:521-538

Incarceration, Prisoner Reentry, and Communities

“…A series of studies conducted on data collected by Clear and colleagues on 80 neighborhoods in Tallahassee (Clear 2007, Clear et al 2003, Dhondt 2012) found that higher rates of prison admission and release in neighborhoods were associated with higher rates of crime, as predicted by coercive mobility theory. Another finding from these studies is that the association between rates of prison admission and crime was nonlinear: the relationship was not significant when the admissions rate was low, but once it reached a moderate level, additional increases to the admissions rate were significantly associated with higher crime rates, consistent with coercive mobility theory.…”

“… 11 In the Dhondt (2012) study, the relationship between incarceration and crime was nonlinear only when the former was measured with a scale combining rates of prison admissions and releases. …”

From Prison to the Community: Assessing the Direct, Reciprocal, and Indirect Effects of Parolees on Neighborhood Structure and Crime

“…A consequence of mass incarceration is large numbers of prisoners released back into the community. Although a handful of studies have examined the potential effects of parolees on neighborhood crime (Dhondt, 2012; Hipp & Yates, 2009) or parolee recidivism (Chamberlain & Wallace, 2016), these studies have failed to account for how parolees might affect changes in the broader neighborhood structure. The results from this study indicate that parolees can have a significant impact on neighborhoods beyond just increasing crime.…”

“…First, the relationship between parolees and neighborhood crime is cyclical. Prior research has found that parolees affect neighborhood crime, generally finding a positive association (Dhondt, 2012; Hipp & Yates, 2009; Kovandzic, Marvell, Vieraitis., & Moody, 2004; Raphael & Stoll, 2004). For example, some studies have found that parolees might increase crime directly by taking advantage of criminal opportunities in the neighborhood (Dhondt, 2012; Hipp & Yates, 2009), or increasing the pool of crime targets (Rosenfeld, Wallman, & Fornango, 2005).…”

“…Prior research has found that parolees affect neighborhood crime, generally finding a positive association (Dhondt, 2012; Hipp & Yates, 2009; Kovandzic, Marvell, Vieraitis., & Moody, 2004; Raphael & Stoll, 2004). For example, some studies have found that parolees might increase crime directly by taking advantage of criminal opportunities in the neighborhood (Dhondt, 2012; Hipp & Yates, 2009), or increasing the pool of crime targets (Rosenfeld, Wallman, & Fornango, 2005). Another perspective suggests that parolees reactivate old or establish new criminal networks, thereby increasing crime (Clear, Rose, Waring, & Scully, 2003; Dhondt, 2012; Drakulich et al, 2012).…”