The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending

McGrath, Andrew; Weatherburn, Don

doi:10.1177/0004865811432585

Cited by 9 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 55 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviewers' comment: McGrath and Weatherburn (2012) observe that the random process was somewhat disturbed because the judge overruled it in 3 per cent of cases assigned to the custodial and in 11 per cent of cases assigned to the restitution condition. Schneider (1986) analysed these cross‐overs in a first time “as assigned” and in a second time “as treated” and did not find a difference in outcome (pp.…”

Section: Description Of the Eligible Studies And Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

Villettaz

Gilliéron

Killias

2015

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Campbell systematic review compares effects of custodial and non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending. The authors found 14 high‐quality studies, including three randomised controlled trials and two natural experiments. Imprisonment is no more effective than community‐based sanctions in reducing re‐offending. Despite this evidence, almost all societies across the world continue to use custodial sentences as the main crime control strategy. In terms of rehabilitation, short confinement is not better or worse than “alternative” solutions. 1 Synopsis As part of a broad initiative of systematic reviews of experimental or quasi‐experimental evaluations of interventions in the field of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, our work consisted in searching through all available databases for evidence concerning the effects of custodial and non‐custodial sanctions on re‐offending. For this purpose, we examined, in 2006, more than 3,000 abstracts, and identified more than 300 possibly eligible studies. For the update, nearly 100 additional potentially eligible studies published or completed between 2003 and 2013 have been identified. For the update, 10 matched‐pair design studies and one RCT have been abstracted. One study (Bergman 1976) that, in 2006, had been classified as an RCT turned out, after closer examination, to have been quasi‐experimental with respect to the comparison of the custodial and the non‐custodial groups. As a result, it has been “downgraded” and included among the quasi‐experimental studies in this update. The findings of the update confirm one of the major results of the first report, namely that the rate of re‐offending after a non‐custodial sanction is lower than after a custodial sanction in most comparisons. However, this is true mostly for quasi‐experimental studies using weaker designs, whereas experimental evaluations and natural experiments yield results that are less favourable to non‐custodial sanctions. It can be concluded that results in favour of non‐custodial sanctions in the majority of quasi‐experimental studies may reflect insufficient control of pre‐intervention differences between prisoners and those serving “alternative” sanctions. 2 Abstract BACKGROUNDThroughout the Western World, community‐based sanctions have become a popular and widely used alternative to custodial sentences. There have been many comparisons of rates of reconviction among former prisoners and those who have served any kind of community sanction. So far, the comparative effects on re‐offending of custodial and non‐custodial sanctions are largely unknown, due to many uncontrolled variables. OBJECTIVEThe objective is to assess the relative effects of custodial sanctions (imprisonment) and non‐custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on re‐offending. By “custodial” we understand any sanction where offenders are deprived of freedom of movement, i.e. placed in a closed residential setting not their home, no matter whether they are allowed to leave these premises during the day or over weeke...

show abstract

Section: Description Of the Eligible Studies And Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

Villettaz

Gilliéron

Killias

2015

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, 82% of young Australians who were released from supervised detention in 2016--2017 returned within 12 months and 59% returned within 6 months (AIHW, 2018). Outcomes for young people with involvement in the criminal justice system include poor psychological well-being (McGrath & Weatherburn, 2012), low involvement in training or employment and problematic substance use following incarceration (Welty et al., 2017). Justice system involvement is associated with increased likelihood of future offending (Petitclerc, Gatti, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2013) and contact with the system can disrupt what is typically a ‘natural’ transition away from offending (McAra & McVie, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Police decision-making with young offenders: Examining barriers to the use of diversion options

Green¹,

Gray

Bryant

et al. 2019

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Youth justice policies in Australia feature an overall welfare-oriented approach and an emphasis on diverting young people away from the justice system. Nevertheless, some young people, particularly those with complex needs, are incarcerated at a young age and are at greater risk of poor outcomes. This paper explores barriers to the use of diversion options by police through analysis of in-depth interviews with 25 police staff. Consistent with the previous literature, role constraints, workload and lack of specialist knowledge were discussed. This paper explores the interplay of these factors with values, beliefs and expectations about young offenders – many of which were framed by experiences of adversarial encounters with young people and damaged faith in the system to rehabilitate. Naturalistic decision-making scholarship is drawn on to identify the potential role of ‘schemas’ in police use of discretion and of practical strategies that may support welfare and rehabilitation-oriented police practice with young people.

show abstract

“…Beyond the fiscal concerns of a predominantly retributive model of crime control, both criminological scholars and practitioners in the field have become increasingly skeptical of the model's practical efficacy. The popular political response to crime—harsher laws, longer sentences, and mandatory sentencing—does not seem to be effective in reducing many juvenile crimes, and does not address some of the core structural issues related to criminal activity, such as joblessness, poverty, lack of education, and training (or re‐training) opportunities (Abrams, ; Bushway & Reuter, ; McGrath & Weatherburn, ). Advocates of restorative justice view the retributive strategy for dealing with crime as largely ineffective because of another inherent weakness—it does not promote the repair of relationships.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

Laundra¹,

Rodgers²,

Zapp³

2013

Juvenile Family Court J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning of certain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparing matched, pre‐ and post‐survey responses to questions involving the adolescent's ability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their community, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding the efficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents are also examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.

show abstract

The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

The Effects on Re‐offending of Custodial vs. Non‐custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge

Police decision-making with young offenders: Examining barriers to the use of diversion options

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About