Less imprisonment is no doubt a good thing: more policing is not

If policy makers were to take account of evidence, as Steven N. Durlauf and Daniel S. Nagin (2011, this issue) argue, then American crime-control policies would look very different. Here is how and why. Prison sentences have few general deterrent effects, if any. The effects of imprisonment on individual deterrence are most likely perverse; people sent to prison tend to come out worse and more likely to reoffend than if they had received a lesser punishment. Some things police do, however, can reduce crime rates. American jurisdictions should reduce their use of imprisonment and increase their investment in policing, thereby lowering crime, victimization, and imprisonment rates as well as saving money simultaneously. Everybody—offenders, prospective victims, and taxpayers—wins. Yes, probably, concerning imprisonment and possibly concerning policing, but serious problems of unwanted unintended consequences would need to be overcome. The conclusions and proposals are based on in part on Nagin’s recently completed comprehensive reviews of the literatures on general deterrence (Apel and Nagin, 2011) and on the effects of imprisonment on released inmates’ subsequent offending (Nagin, Cullen, and Jonson, 2009). Durlauf and Nagin (2010) again surveyed the deterrence literature as well as the literatures on the effects of variations in police numbers, per capita spending, and crackdowns on crime. Durlauf and Nagin (2011) pull all that work together and add to it. The deterrence surveys conclude that credible evidence indicates that changes in sentencing laws sometimes produce deterrent effects but that the effects are highly contingent, depending on threat communication and patterns of implementation; are not easily replicable; and provide an insufficient basis on which to build sentencing policies. The prison effects survey concludes that no credible evidence suggests that imprisonment reduces reoffending by released offenders. To the contrary, tentative but not yet conclusive

[1]  P. Reuter,et al.  Economists’ Contribution to the Study of Crime and the Criminal Justice System , 2008, Crime and Justice.

[2]  A. Doob,et al.  Sentence Severity and Crime: Accepting the Null Hypothesis , 2003, Crime and Justice.

[3]  Cornelius Nestler Sentencing in Germany , 2003 .

[4]  M. Tonry The Mostly Unintended Effects of Mandatory Penalties: Two Centuries of Consistent Findings , 2009, Crime and Justice.

[5]  A. Tabarrok,et al.  Does Three Strikes Deter? , 2007, The Journal of Human Resources.

[6]  R. Coase,et al.  The Problem of Social Cost , 1960, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[7]  D. J. Harris,et al.  Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform , 1984 .

[8]  William M. Landes,et al.  An Economic Analysis of the Courts , 1971, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[9]  D. Nagin,et al.  Imprisonment and Reoffending , 2009, Crime and Justice.

[10]  Melissa Bowen,et al.  Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle , 2005 .

[11]  Steven N. Durlauf,et al.  Imprisonment and crime , 2011 .

[12]  R. Coase Economics and Contiguous Disciplines , 1978, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[13]  M. Tonry “Public criminology” and evidence‐based policy , 2010 .

[14]  Scott L. Feld,et al.  Deterrence , 1978 .

[15]  M. Tonry The costly consequences of populist posturing: ASBOs, victims, ‘rebalancing’ and diminution in support for civil liberties , 2010 .

[16]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Empirical Study of Criminal Punishment , 2007 .

[17]  Travis C. Pratt,et al.  The Empirical Status of Deterrence Theory: A Meta-Analysis , 2006 .

[18]  Roberto Galbiati,et al.  The Deterrent Effects of Prison: Evidence from a Natural Experiment , 2007, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Donald E. Lewis The General Deterrent Effect of Longer Sentences , 1986 .

[20]  M. Tonry Thinking about Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture , 2004 .

[21]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Using Sentence Enhancements to Distinguish between Deterrence and Incapacitation , 1998 .

[22]  S. Durlauf,et al.  The Deterrent Effect of Imprisonment , 2010 .

[23]  Michelle Alexander,et al.  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness A Case Study on the Role of Books in Leveraging Social Change , 2014 .

[24]  Steven N. Durlauf,et al.  Imprisonment and crime Can both be reduced ? , 2010 .

[25]  L. Sherman Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence , 1990, Crime and Justice.

[26]  A. Doob,et al.  PROPOSITION 8 AND CRIME RATES IN CALIFORNIA: THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING DETERRENT , 2006 .

[27]  J. Wolfers,et al.  The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence , 2006 .

[28]  Steven D. Levitt,et al.  Chapter 7 Empirical Study of Criminal Punishment , 2007 .

[29]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the Twenty-First Century , 1998, Crime and Justice.

[30]  Kevin R. Johnson How Racial Profiling in America Became the 'Law of the Land': United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the Need for Rebellious Lawyering , 2009 .

[31]  J. Ludwig,et al.  Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment , 2005 .

[32]  K. Beckett,et al.  RACE, DRUGS, AND POLICING: UNDERSTANDING DISPARITIES IN DRUG DELIVERY ARRESTS* , 2006 .

[33]  Robin S. Engel,et al.  Examining the influence of drivers' characteristics during traffic stops with police: Results from a national survey , 2004 .

[34]  A. Hirsch,et al.  Criminal deterrence and sentence severity : an analysis of recent research , 1999 .

[35]  Michael Tonry,et al.  Learning from the Limitations of Deterrence Research , 2008, Crime and Justice.