The Criminogenic Effects of Imprisonment: Evidence From State Panel Data, 1974–2002

Abstract

Research Summary: The heavy reliance on the use of incarceration in an attempt to address the crime problem has resulted in a dramatic growth in the number of state prisoners over the past 30 years. In recent years, however, a growing concern has developed about the impact that large numbers of offenders released from prison will have on crime rates. Using a state panel data set for 46 states from 1974 to 2002, this study demonstrates that although prison population growth seems to be associated with statistically significant decreases in crime rates, increases in the number of prisoners released from prison seem to be significantly associated with increases in crime. Because we control for changes in prison population levels, we attribute the apparent positive influences on crime that seem to follow prison releases to the criminogenic effects of prison. Policy Implications: Policy makers should continue to serve the public interest by carefully considering policies that are designed to reduce incarceration rates and thus assuage the criminogenic effects of prison. These policies may include changes in sentencing, changes in probation and/or parole practices, or better funding of reentry services prerelease and postrelease.

Common Trends in the US State-Level Crime. What Do Panel Data Say?

“…More specifically, we estimate the following log-log model using annual data over the period 1978-2013(see Becsi, 1999Edmark, 2005;Vieraitis et al, 2007;Choe, 2008;Lin, 2009):…”

“…Since the seminal works of Becker (1968) and Ehrlich (1973), several studies have investigated how inequality, labor market conditions and deterrence activities may a↵ect crime rates in the US. Examples of this literature are: Marvell and Moody (1994), Levitt (1996), Doyle et al (1999), Becsi (1999), Kelly (2000), Raphael and Winter-Ebmer (2001), Gould et al (2002), Levitt (2002), Vieraitis et al (2007), Choe (2008), Lin (2009), Johnson and Raphael (2012), Chintrakarn and Herzer (2012), and Neal (2015). In general, empirical results point to deterrence as a valid instrument to reduce crime.…”

“…In general, empirical results point to deterrence as a valid instrument to reduce crime. In particular, higher incarceration rates are associated with lower crime rates (Marvell and Moody, 1994;Levitt, 1996;Becsi, 1999;Doyle et al, 1999;Raphael and Winter-Ebmer, 2001; Vieraitis et al, 2007), 1 and more intense police activities are accompanied by a reduction in crime (Kelly, 2000;Levitt, 2002;Evans and Owens, 2007;Lin, 2009). …”

“…The majority of above studies uses static panel regressions, with linear time trend (Raphael and Winter-Ebmer, 2001;Gould et al, 2002) and time fixed e↵ects (Vieraitis et al, 2007;Evans and Owens, 2007;Johnson and Raphael, 2012) to take trends and cross-section dependence in the data into account. However, while the trend deterministic component ignores the long-run movement of data, the specific time fixed e↵ects are likely to produce misleading inference unless the pair-wise cross-correlations are identical (see Blomquist and Westerlund, 2014).…”

Dilemmas in harm minimization

“…The risk of imprisonment may assist in keeping retail drug prices high, but imprisonment reduces substantially an individual's future legitimate employment and earnings prospects [13]. Evidence has emerged recently that it may also increase significantly the risk of further involvement in crime [14]. There are other problems as well.…”