The specific deterrent effect of custodial penalties on juvenile re-offending (original) (raw)
Related papers
The effect of custodial penalties on juvenile reoffending
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2012
This study uses propensity score matching to test the proposition that imprisonment deters future criminal activity among juvenile offenders. Using data from all court appearances of juveniles in the NSW Children's Court (Australia) between 2003 and 2004 (N = 6,196), the reoffending of a group of young offenders sentenced to control (i.e. custodial) orders (N = 376) was compared to a matched group of offenders receiving community-based sanctions. No differences were observed between the two groups. The young offenders given detention orders had a slightly lower rate of reoffending, but this difference was not significant. The results of this study indicate that, over the time period examined in this study, the imposition of a custodial sentence had no effect on the risk of reoffending.
Psicothema
The authors have just finalised a systematic review on the effects on re-offending of custodial and non-custodial («alternative») sanctions (Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). Since the mid-19 th century, it was common knowledge, if not a dogma, that short-term imprisonment is «damaging» because, in the words first coined by Bonneville de Marsangy and later copied by von Liszt and many others, incarceration for shorter periods does not last long enough to «cure» criminal propensities (seen as a kind of a disease), but still too long to avoid first-time offenders to be exposed to the risk of contamination by hard-core criminals (Kuhn, 2000). Based on this quasi-medical theory of criminal contamination, von Liszt and many others ever since have stimulated the development of sanctions that do not imply custody, such as suspended sentences, probation, fines and later community work and electronic monitoring. Simultaneously and rather ironically, the same movement has also stimulated long-term incarceration and even incapacitation for offenders considered as sufficiently «sick» to warrant long-term «cures» in confinement. All these trends have been stimulated by the idea to offer better «alternatives» to custody, i.e. to reduce re-offending through more efficient «alternative» sanctions. Many such programs have been evaluated over the last decades worldwide , usually with results that confirmed the superiority of non-custodial over custodial sanctions. Keeping these backgrounds in mind, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group invited the authors to start a systematic review of the evidence on whether or not custodial or non-custodial sanctions are more effective in preventing reoffending. This essay will give a resume of the methods and results of this meta-analysis. We shall conclude with an overview on how future evaluations of new sanctions and programmes could be made more convincing.
The affects of custodial vs non-custodial sanctions on reoffending: lessons from a systematic review
Psicothema
The authors have just finalised a systematic review on the effects on re-offending of custodial and non-custodial («alternative») sanctions (Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). Since the mid-19 th century, it was common knowledge, if not a dogma, that short-term imprisonment is «damaging» because, in the words first coined by Bonneville de Marsangy and later copied by von Liszt and many others, incarceration for shorter periods does not last long enough to «cure» criminal propensities (seen as a kind of a disease), but still too long to avoid first-time offenders to be exposed to the risk of contamination by hard-core criminals (Kuhn, 2000). Based on this quasi-medical theory of criminal contamination, von Liszt and many others ever since have stimulated the development of sanctions that do not imply custody, such as suspended sentences, probation, fines and later community work and electronic monitoring. Simultaneously and rather ironically, the same movement has also stimulated long-term incarceration and even incapacitation for offenders considered as sufficiently «sick» to warrant long-term «cures» in confinement. All these trends have been stimulated by the idea to offer better «alternatives» to custody, i.e. to reduce re-offending through more efficient «alternative» sanctions. Many such programs have been evaluated over the last decades worldwide , usually with results that confirmed the superiority of non-custodial over custodial sanctions. Keeping these backgrounds in mind, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group invited the authors to start a systematic review of the evidence on whether or not custodial or non-custodial sanctions are more effective in preventing reoffending. This essay will give a resume of the methods and results of this meta-analysis. We shall conclude with an overview on how future evaluations of new sanctions and programmes could be made more convincing.
The concept of determinants to juvenile delinquency has been studied, mostly in Punjab’s context and with few studies focusing on Sindh and Karachi as well, nevertheless despite these valuable researches, linkages between socio-economic determinants of Juvenile Delinquency and effects of imprisonment and post-imprisonment on subsequent recidivism rate including their nature of future crimes, is still an area that has not been given any attention in social science research. The current study aimed at understanding and exploring the factors (if any) which may affect these juveniles during imprisonment to revert to their area of crime after release and will also evaluate the related recidivism trends in future.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 2010
Background There has been a lot of research on risk factors for recidivism among juvenile offenders, in general, and on individual risk factors, but less focus on subgroups of serious juvenile offenders and prediction of recidivism within these.Objective To find an optimal classification of risk items and to test the predictive value of the resultant factors with respect to severity of recidivism among serious juvenile offenders.Method Seventy static and dynamic risk factors in 1154 juvenile offenders were registered with the Juvenile Forensic Profile. Recidivism data were collected on 728 of these offenders with a time at risk of at least 2 years. After factor analysis, independent sample t-tests were used to indicate differences between recidivists and non-recidivists. Logistic multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the potential predictive value of the factors for violent or serious recidivism.Results A nine-factor solution best accounted for the data. The factors were: antisocial behaviour during treatment, sexual problems, family problems, axis-1 psychopathology, offence characteristics, conscience and empathy, intellectual and social capacities, social network, and substance abuse. Regression analysis showed that the factors antisocial behaviour during treatment, family problems and axis-1 psychopathology were associated with seriousness of recidivism.Conclusions and implications for practice The significance of family problems and antisocial behaviour during treatments suggest that specific attention to these factors may be important in reducing recidivism. The fact that antisocial behaviour during treatment consists mainly of dynamic risk factors is hopeful as these can be influenced by treatment. Consideration of young offenders by subgroup rather than as a homogenous population is likely to yield the best information about risk of serious re-offending and the management of that risk. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Current Issues in Criminal Justice
The purpose of this journal article is twofold. First, it provides a discussion of the use of recidivism as a measure of effectiveness of criminal justice interventions, and, secondly, there is discussion of an evaluation of a juvenile post-release support program. The article argues that there has been a significant growth in recidivist studies, particularly as a measure of effectiveness. However there has been less and less attention placed on the limitations of measures of recidivism, or the nature of extraneous factors that influence re-offending. We use an evaluation study we conducted of the Post Release Support Program (PRSP) for juvenile offenders in New South Wales to explore these issues further. One of the interesting points to the study was that, while the statistical results on re-offending were not conclusive, the qualitative interviews among staff and offenders were overwhelmingly positive about the program. For us this raises the question: what value do we place on recidivism in evaluating a program when qualitative outcome information appears more conclusive?