Does tougher sentencing deter crime?
One way to test this is to find if teenagers alter their criminal behavior when they turn 18 and tougher adult sentencing is applied.
It turns out that once they turn 18, they do more crime.
In Florida during the years in question, Lee and McCrary found, the probability of being sentenced to prison for an offense jumped from 3 percent to 17 percent at exactly age 18. This tees up the answer to the economists' main question: How does the tendency to commit crimes vary around the 18th birthday, when the odds of a prison-sentence punishment jump? The answer is, hardly at all. While the probability of being arrested each week falls steadily from age 17 to age 19, there is no sizeable decrease in the arrest rate that corresponds to the bump up to an adult penalty in the weeks before and after people turn 18. To an economist, this is odd. At the grocery store, in weeks that Coke is on sale and Pepsi is not, consumers respond immediately. Coke sells out while Pepsi languishes on the shelf.
Tough sentencing might not have a deterrent effect, but it does seem to have an "incapacitating" effect by keeping potential offenders off the street.
If the prospect of longer prison sentences does not deter young Floridians from committing crimes, prison still prevents some crime via the more mundane channel of locking them up—incapacitating rather than deterring them, in the lingo of criminal justice theory. Lee and McCrary see this in the re-arrest data they study. One-fifth of the people arrested the week before their 18th birthday were rearrested within a month. By contrast, only a tenth of the people arrested a week after their 18th birthday were rearrested within the same time period. The reason? The 18-year-old offenders spent more of the month behind bars (because they received longer sentences, on average) and therefore were not free to commit the crimes that would have gotten them re-arrested.
In Singapore, incapacitation is accomplished through military conscription for young men. It has a disciplining and maturing (civilizing) effect for the whole society. South Koreans likewise attribute much of the success of their country to the influence of mandatory military conscription.
One issue with the research above is that teenagers are not especially famous for being rational.
You may wonder why, if adolescents have such enhanced capacity for anxiety, they are such novelty seekers and risk takers. It would seem that the two traits are at odds. The answer, in part, is that the brain’s reward center, just like its fear circuit, matures earlier than the prefrontal cortex. That reward center drives much of teenagers’ risky behavior. This behavioral paradox also helps explain why adolescents are particularly prone to injury and trauma. The top three killers of teenagers are accidents, homicide and suicide.
The frontal lobes are the seat of what’s sometimes called the brain’s executive function. They’re responsible for planning, for self-awareness, and for judgment. Optimally, they act as a check on impulses originating in other parts of the brain. But in the teen years, Jensen points out, the brain is still busy building links between its different regions. This process involves adding myelin around the axons, which conduct electrical impulses. (Myelin insulates the axons, allowing impulses to travel faster.) It turns out that the links are built starting in the back of the brain, and the frontal lobes are one of the last regions to get connected. They are not fully myelinated until people are in their twenties, or even thirties.
The implications of this are that even "adults" in their twenties should not be sentenced as adults. In practical terms, sentencing them as adults simply does not work.
“People are not magically different on their 18th birthday,” says Elizabeth Scott, a professor of law at Columbia University whose work was cited in the seminal Roper case. “Their brains are still maturing, and the criminal justice system should find a way to take that into account.”
House’s case is the first to successfully apply the Supreme Court’s reasoning about juveniles to someone who committed a crime after age 18—and the decision could mark a turning point in American law. The 18-to-24 demographic makes up only 10 percent of the population but accounts for 27 percent of all criminal arrests . Leniency in this high-crime population, opponents argue, could compromise public safety. Yet it’s also clear that the current system does not work. Recidivism rates for offenders aged 18 to 24 are breathtakingly high: 78 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds released from prison are rearrested, and half return to prison again.
...
These results support previous brain-imaging studies and postmortem examinations. Brain areas involved in reasoning and self-control, such as the prefrontal cortex, are not fully developed until the mid-20s—a far later age than previously thought. Brain areas involved in emotions such as desire and fear, however, seem to be fully developed by 17. This pattern of brain development creates a perfect storm for crime: Around the ages of 18 to 21, people have the capacity for adult emotions yet a teenager’s ability to control them.
"Getting tough" with young offenders just does not work. But what to do? Mandatory military conscription? There is no history of that during peacetime in the US, and it would seem to run against the grain of American culture.
[Interestingly, this scientific research is being conducted during a period of cultural change in the US in which adulthood is increasingly deferred. In traditional societies, adulthood begins with a rite of passage around the age of 15; in modern societies, it is deferred until high school graduation, and, more recently, until college graduation. But it is being pushed off further into the 30s (for women) and 40s (for men). This reflects the needs of a more educated, creative society, but also the softness and self-indulgence of a prosperous society.]
Five things about deterrence:
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
Research shows clearly that the chance of being caught is a vastly more effective deterrent than even draconian punishment.
In terms of the distinction between law and order, order as policing would seem to be more important than law as sentencing. This shifts the focus of deterrence away from courts and prisons toward police work and police presence on the streets.
This would lend credence to what the police force in NYC does with heavy and publicized police presence on the streets (e.g., having 'flash mobs' of heavily armed officers suddenly show up on random locations). This might also suggest that the controversial NYPD practice of "stop, ask and frisk" is unnecessary: simply stopping and asking would be enough to remind the public of the police presence (looking for firearms or drugs would be largely unnecessary).
This would lend credence to what the police force in NYC does with heavy and publicized police presence on the streets (e.g., having 'flash mobs' of heavily armed officers suddenly show up on random locations). This might also suggest that the controversial NYPD practice of "stop, ask and frisk" is unnecessary: simply stopping and asking would be enough to remind the public of the police presence (looking for firearms or drugs would be largely unnecessary).
2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
See Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence for additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.
Prison is a poor deterrent, but it does take the proverbial "bad guy" off the street, and so serves an incapacitating effect. This might lend credence to capital punishment as the ultimate incapacitating effect. Also, prisons are "gladiator factories", graduate school for career criminals.
Viewing the findings of research on severity effects in their totality, there is evidence suggesting that short sentences may be a deterrent. However, a consistent finding is that increases in already lengthy sentences produce at best a very modest deterrent effect.
Okay, short(er) sentences might be just as effective a deterrent as long ones. But the onus then is on making sure that criminals get caught so they can serve those shorter sentences, rather than more expensively incapacitate them through longer sentences.
A very small fraction of individuals who commit crimes — about 2 to 5 percent — are responsible for 50 percent or more of crimes.[3] Locking up these individuals when they are young and early in their criminal careers could be an effective strategy to preventing crime if we could identify who they are. The problem is: we can’t. We have tried to identify the young people most likely to commit crimes in the future, but the science shows we can’t do it effectively.
It is important to recognize that many of these individuals who offend at higher rates may already be incarcerated because they put themselves at risk of apprehension so much more frequently than individuals who offend at lower rates.
Recidivism is perhaps the single biggest problem here; not being able to identify by scientific method who will become a career criminal is frustrating. Only through more rigorous policing -- that is, through consistently capturing felons when they do commit crimes -- will recidivists be identified and incapacitated.
3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective. A criminal’s behavior is more likely to be influenced by seeing a police officer with handcuffs and a radio than by a new law increasing penalties.
It's not what criminals know or hear about but what they physically see on the streets that deters them. So there might be a need for more police, as well as more surveillance cameras, etc.
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes.More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism.See Understanding the Relationship Between Sentencing and Deterrence for additional discussion on prison as an ineffective deterrent.
Criminals typically do not have formal legal training, so they are unfamiliar with the laws or the severity of the laws, nor do they seem to care when they do. So downsizing punishments might be in order, especially considering the enormous cost of incarceration.
More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes.
Some policymakers and practitioners believe that increasing the severity of the prison experience enhances the “chastening” effect, thereby making individuals convicted of an offense less likely to commit crimes in the future. In fact, scientists have found no evidence for the chastening effect. Prisons may exacerbate recidivism. Research has found evidence that prison can exacerbate, not reduce, recidivism. Prisons themselves may be schools for learning to commit crimes.
It is frustrating, but it tells us something about human nature: People generally do not think about consequences.
This is something that the former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara claimed in the documentary "The Fog of War". The prospect of nuclear war had virtually no deterrent effect in political decision making during geopolitical crises like the Cuban missile crisis. That is extremely sobering. That is, if leaders like John Kennedy or Fidel Castro had little concern for the effects of nuclear war during the heat of conflict, what does the average street thug on drugs think about tougher sentencing when he wants to score some action? Consequences have no influence on the best of us, least of all on him.
Perhaps we need to change the definition of 'getting tough' from long sentences to making sure people get caught and will face some punishment, if only nominally. That seems to be what works. (Long sentencing is not getting tough, it's getting stupid with precious limited resources.)
If it is true that capital punishment has no clear deterrent effect, then no other punishment probably has any real deterrent effect. This shifts deterrence to police efficiency, effectiveness and visibility.
Momentum for reform
An article from 2015 on the increasing momentum for reforming prison sentencing.
Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?
Certainty has a greater impact on deterrence than severity of punishment.
Severity refers to the length of a sentence. Studies show that for most individuals convicted of a crime, short to moderate prison sentences may be a deterrent but longer prison terms produce only a limited deterrent effect. In addition, the crime prevention benefit falls far short of the social and economic costs.
Certainty refers to the likelihood of being caught and punished for the commission of a crime. Research underscores the more significant role that certainty plays in deterrence than severity — it is the certainty of being caught that deters a person from committing crime, not the fear of being punished or the severity of the punishment. Effective policing that leads to swift and certain (but not necessarily severe) sanctions is a better deterrent than the threat of incarceration. In addition, there is no evidence that the deterrent effect increases when the likelihood of conviction increases. Nor is there any evidence that the deterrent effect increases when the likelihood of imprisonment increases.
Perhaps we need to change the definition of 'getting tough' from long sentences to making sure people get caught and will face some punishment, if only nominally. That seems to be what works. (Long sentencing is not getting tough, it's getting stupid with precious limited resources.)
A person’s age is a powerful factor in deterring crime.
Even those individuals who commit crimes at the highest rates begin to change their criminal behavior as they age. The data show a steep decline at about age 35.[5] A more severe (i.e., lengthy) prison sentence for convicted individuals who are naturally aging out of crime does achieve the goal of punishment and incapacitation. But that incapacitation is a costly way to deter future crimes by aging individuals who already are less likely to commit those crimes by virtue of age.
Locking up the "bad guys" and "throwing away the key" might be emotionally satisfying, but it's pointless. Prisons should be for young men. But we need to get tough and focus resources on catching those young men, not turning prisons into geriatric facilities.
5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, "Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is uninformative about whether capital punishment increases, decreases, or has no effect on homicide rates."
If it is true that capital punishment has no clear deterrent effect, then no other punishment probably has any real deterrent effect. This shifts deterrence to police efficiency, effectiveness and visibility.
Momentum for reform
An article from 2015 on the increasing momentum for reforming prison sentencing.
The article is phrased as 'prison reform', but it's really about sentencing.
The push for reform comes from all sides.
Why this push for change? Well, it depends whom you ask.Liberals say it's about fairness and creating job opportunities for ex-cons. Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey, says "hiring practices often trap people with records in a life sentence of unemployment. If we are ever to meaningfully reduce recidivism ... we must start by ensuring a fairer playing field for those looking to work."Conservatives have other reasons for supporting prison reform. "The fiscal argument is obvious -- the U.S. spends billions on courts, police and correctional facilities," Derek Cohen of the conservative think tank Right on Crime tells The Hill. "But you also have social conservatives concerned about what we're doing to our communities, and libertarians suspect of government overreach."
A new reform bill is up for debate.
- Remove the "three strikes" law that calls for mandatory life sentences
- Allow 6,500 crack cocaine offenders to challenge their sentences by retroactively applying a 2010 bill that leveled the penalties for crack and powder cocaine
- Reduce solitary confinement in juvenile facilities
- Empower judges to use more discretion by abandoning mandatory sentencing guidelines
Only the third item, on reducing solitary confinement for juveniles, is about prison reform. The rest is all about reforming sentencing.
A few facts:
"America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 5% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners. Nearly 2½ million Americans are in prison. Over 65 million people, or 20% of the country, have criminal records. Most disturbingly, nearly 40% of our country's prisoners are African-Americans, who only make up 13% of the general population."
Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet?
Criminal sentencing has long been based on the present crime and, sometimes, the defendant’s past criminal record. In Pennsylvania, judges could soon consider a new dimension: the future.Pennsylvania is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the country to base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes. As early as next year, judges there could receive statistically derived tools known as risk assessments to help them decide how much prison time — if any — to assign.
This is not exactly true. "Incapacitation" -- in layman's terms, taking "the bad guys off the street" -- has always been a central motive in sentencing, albeit implicitly. This law makes the process explicit and scientific.
Using a questionnaire “doesn’t guarantee a probation officer won’t give a kid a higher risk score because he thinks the kid wears his pants too low,” said Adam Gelb, director of the public safety performance project at the Pew Charitable Trusts. But, he said, risk assessment creates a record of how officials are making decisions. “A supervisor can question, ‘Why are we recommending that this kid with a minor record get locked up?’ Anything that’s on paper is more transparent than the system we had in the past. In many cases, you had no idea from probation officer to probation officer, let alone from judge to judge, what was in people’s heads. There was no transparency, and decisions could be based on just about any bias or prejudice.”
This is reminiscent of the movie "Moneyball", which illustrated how the traditional approach to hiring baseball players was based on irrelevant physical attributes rather than on statistical evidence of a player's ability.
Unfortunately, the article associates statistics-based sentencing with punishment rather than incapacitation, and compares it to the movie "Minority Report". Wrong movie.
There are all sorts of motives determining how prisoners are sentenced, among them:
-revenge, retribution
-justice
-punishment
-deterrence
-incapacitation
-rehabilitation
-penitence
(In the United States at one point, it was believed that if prisons were run as monasteries, where prisoners would work and meditate in silence on their crimes, they would become spiritually ennobled. The problem with these 'penitentiaries' is that because prisoners were not allowed to talk with one another, they had a high suicide rate. The word 'penitentiary' is still with us, but the system was dismantled long ago.)
