Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 4 Consequences and Control (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Incarceration and Violent Crime: 1965-1988
Incarceration and Violent Crime: 1965-1988
Pages 296-388
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 296... ...
This paper examines various aspects of the relationship between incarceration and levels of violent crime. We focus first on the nature of changes in the prison population from 1965 to 1988, particularly the role of incarceration for violent offenses in observed changes in the total prison population, and the relative contributions of sanction policies and levels of offending to changes in observed incarceration rates.
|
From page 297... ...
When referring to violent offenses, we include murder Which usually includes nonnegligent homicidel, aggravated assault, rape, and robbery. For purposes of comparison, we also analyze burglary and drug offenses, two nonviolent offenses that figure prominently in prison populations.
|
From page 298... ...
. The number of observations actually available was reduced to 723 after removing cases in which the data were obviously unreliable.4 PRISON POPULATIONS Between 1975 and 1989 the total annual prison population of the United States grew from 240,593 to 679,263 inmates in custody, an increase of 182 percent.
|
From page 299... ...
The increases during the 1980s also exceed what were generally regarded as unrealistically high projections of prison populations obtained by simply extrapolating prevailing linear trends
|
From page 300... ...
Increases in crime especially in violent crimes that are more likely to result in sentences to prison following conviction are among the factors that may account for the recent rise in prison populations. Figure 3 shows the percentage of inmates incarcerated for individual crime types.
|
From page 301... ...
vidual states, whereas rape and aggravated assault are the least prevalent of the crime types compared. When examined over time from 1975 to 1988, the crime mix of inmates in each of the six states does not display any general increases in violent offenses among either commitments to prison or resident inmates.
|
From page 302... ...
Only drug offenses {Figure 4-bottom) display widespread sharp increases as a percentage of total prison populations, especially after 1980.6 The proportional mix of crime types among inmates is a constrained relational measure: recent large increases in the proportion of inmates for drug offenses must be offset by corresponding declines in the proportions of inmates for other crime types.
|
From page 303... ...
Figure 5 presents crime-specific incarceration rates for New York. Because the different crime types are characterized by incarceration rates that differ markedly in scale, with rates as Tow as 1 inmate per 100,000 population for rape or aggravated assault and as high as 60 for robbery or burglary, annual incarceration rates for each crime type are adjusted to a common scale by using the 1977 rates as a base.
|
From page 304... ...
:965 1965 1965 19 65 Year by State _\ TX l -Commitments I Resident Inmates 40 35 30 25 20 ~D cat 10 CA i| FL ~ Ml 15 5 L ~- J~ o 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 Year by State NY PA TX llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1 965 -Commitments - I Resident Inmates FIGURE 4 Percent of prison population serving time for robbery or drug offenses each year from 1965-1988 in individual states.
|
From page 305... ...
recently began to stabilize or actually decline. Similar declines are also evident in incarceration rates for burglary and robbery in Texas.7 These declines for selected crime types occur in the two states in this study whose entire correctional systems are operating under court order to relieve overcrowding and improve other
|
From page 306... ...
Rates for individual crime types are resealed using a common base rate of 100 in 1977 {actual values for 1977 are in parentheses!
|
From page 307... ...
Such incarceration rates are themselves influenced by changes in the underlying crime rate and in sanction policies. The standard measure of the incarceration rate as the ratio of inmates to the general population reflects the combined effects of offending rates, arrests by the police, convictions and sentences to incarceration in the courts, and release and recommitment rates by parole authorities.
|
From page 308... ...
and for each of six crime types {murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, and drug offenses)
|
From page 309... ...
The modest 7.2 percent increase in the total index crime rate in the United States from 1975 to 1988 resulted from a 4.7 percent increase in the property crime rate and a much larger 32.3 percent increase in the violent crime rate.~° If robbery Which shares features of both violent and property crimes) is excluded, the rate per total population for the remaining violent offenses increased 58.0 percent between 1975 and 1988, refIecting increases in the rates of rapes and aggravated assaults that are reported by the police murder rates actually declined by 12.5 percent between 1975 and 1988.
|
From page 310... ...
The increases in crime rates from 1975 to 1988 were smaller in magnitude for both crime types, but only slightly more pronounced for violent offenses: increasing 38 percent for adult violent crimes and 24 percent for adult property crimes. Thus, much of the larger increase over time observed in violent crime rates per total population compared to the same rates for property crimes is removed when appropriate controls for aging of the population are included.
|
From page 311... ...
Increases in criminaTitywhether they result from increases in the size of the offender population or from higher frequencies of offending by individual offenders-can increase the incarceration rate independently of any changes in imprisonment policies.~5 The rise in adult crime rates illustrated in Figure 7 hints at the substantial underlying changes in criminality from 1965 to 1988 reported in Blumstein et al.
|
From page 312... ...
If adjustments for unreported crimes and multiple offenders per crime incident were taken into account, the actual arrest risk per crime would be reduced to a range of 5 to 10 arrests for every 100 crimes that offenders commit for the violent offenses of rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Some differences among states are also evident, notably, higher values of qa in Pennsylvania for most crime types.
|
From page 313... ...
The imprisonment risk for robbery is somewhat higher than for rape in Florida, Michigan, and New York. Qi generally falls to a range of 2 to 5 percent for aggravated assault, burglary, and drug offenses, although the imprisonment risk for burglary is three to four times higher in Florida and Texas.
|
From page 314... ...
has been increasing for all crime types, the average time served once in prison USE has declined for all crime types except the most serious violent offenses of murder and rape. This reflects the impact of special provisions for administrative reductions in minimum sentences in order to reduce seriously overcrowded prison populations in that state.
|
From page 315... ...
decreasing. During the latter period of growth in incarceration rates, continued growth in adult crime rates is often compounded by rises in QiS as well.
|
From page 316... ...
~ ~ AA ALA ~/ ~_ J ~ 250- . 200 o fill 150 a, 1 00 3 ~ 1 sot o l l l l 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 or _/ if__=-~ Year ~ INMATE I ACR ~ QS FIGURE 9 Role of crimes and imprisonment sanctions in changing incarceration rates for robbery in California {ACR = adult crimes per 100,000 population; QiS = expected man-years in prison per adult arrest [inmates/ adult arrest)
|
From page 317... ...
_ _ ~' a.,. r _ Or o ~1 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 Year ~ INMATE I ACR ~ QS FIGURE 11 Role of crimes and imprisonment sanctions in changing incarceration rates for drug offenses in New York {ACR = adult crimes per 100,000 total population; QiS = expected man-years in prison per adult arrest [inmates/adult arrests)
|
From page 318... ...
v , {Exceptions to this pattern in Florida and Texas, as well as for the crime of robbery, are discussed below.) Table 5 reports the average annual percentage change in adult crime rates and imprisonment sanctions for the period 1977 to 1988.
|
From page 319... ...
First, for all crime types except murder and rape in Florida, and for selected crime types in Texas notably robbery and burglary QiS decreased, while adult crime rates continued to rise {Figure 10 and Table 5~. These declines in QiS occur in the two states in this study whose state corrections systems are under court order to reduce prison crowding, and thus may reflect explicit changes in imprisonment policies intended to address the prison population problem.
|
From page 320... ...
The resulting increases in expected time served per adult arrest, QiS, combined with continuing increases in crime rates through the 1980s, contribute to the staggering increases in prison populations of the past decade. Robbery and drug offenses are distinctive among the crime types examined because they involve opposite changes in Qi and S
|
From page 321... ...
Thus, at any point in time, only a small fraction of offenders who engage in violent crimes are imprisoned and incapacitated from further victimizing individuals in the community. Yet, the reduction in violent crimes attributable to incapacitation need not be negligible, since a rela
|
From page 322... ...
Thus, I for violent offenses depends fundamentally on the number of crimes that incarcerated offenders would commit if they were to remain free in the community, which in turn rests on the mix of offense types that offenders commit, individual rates of committing violent crimes while offenders are free, and the length of time that offenders will continue to commit violent crimes.26 Assessing the crime control effects of incapacitation in reducing violent crimes thus requires that we inquire about the general characteristics of offending careers and the role of violent offenses in those careers. Although studies that focus exclusively on violent offenders are rare,27 empirical evidence about violent offending can be found in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of general offending careers.
|
From page 323... ...
The average value of ~ for robbery the violent crime most frequently anaTyzed among all offenders committing that crime has been estimated to be in the interval of 1 to 3 crimes committed per year free (Peterson and Braiker, 1981; Blumstein et al., 1993~. Although ~ estimates of comparable accuracy for other violent crimes committed by the overall offender population have seldom been computed, existing evidence points in the direction of rates even Tower than those for robbery, especially for rare offenses such as homicide and rape.28 Extrapolating from self-reported crime rates among California prison inmates surveyed in 1976, Chaiken {1980)
|
From page 324... ...
This ratio is further corrected for underreporting of crimes to the police, and for multiple offenders per crime incident. S is obtained from the ratio of resident inmates to the number of commitments to prison.
|
From page 325... ...
{1982:Table 4.91, in which 22.9 percent of violent offenders were responsible for 45.7 percent of all arrests for violent crimes. Such disparity in the shares of offenders and offenses reveals considerable heterogeneity in ~ within the offender population.
|
From page 326... ...
The Tow-\ subpopulation comprises about 90 percent of the total offender population who commit robberies at a mean rate of roughly 1 per year. By contrast, the high-\ group constitutes less than 1 percent of
|
From page 327... ...
Only half of incoming inmates come from the Tow-\ subpopulation, whereas members of the high-\ subpopulation represent 10 to 20 percent of incoming prisoners. Thus, high-rate offenders are overrepresented among inmates by 20 to 40 times their base rate in the total offender population.
|
From page 328... ...
Thus far, our discussion of incapacitation has ignored the possibility that some offenders in prison may have '`retired" from offending and would not continue to commit crimes if they were released early from their prison terms.34 Confinement beyond the end of offending careers for such offenders yields no incapacitation benefits to society. The duration of offending careers is thus a variable that critically affects the incapacitation returns of imprisonment.
|
From page 329... ...
Adult arrest history data for arresters in Washington, D.C., Michigan, and New York State show that individuals who are arrested at least once for a serious offense accumulate an average of five to six arrests per offender in these samples.37 Since only a small fraction of the crimes committed by offenders results in arrestsabout 5 percent for robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary the average number of crimes by these offenders is considerably higher. Similarly, recidivism studies suggest that offenders have long rather than short careers.
|
From page 330... ...
and of the offending parameters ~ and career length L The incapacitation index I is then computed as the ratio of the average number of crimes prevented to the average total crimes that would be expected if offenders were to remain free in the community.
|
From page 331... ...
If offender heterogeneity and the resulting selection bias toward highrate offenders among inmates are ignored, the Avi-Itzhak and Shinnar model seriously underestimates crime reduction from incapacitation. Once we account for offender heterogeneity, the reductions in robberies that result from incapacitation are anything but negligible: of every ten potential robberies, between three and four are prevented by the incarceration of some robbers.
|
From page 332... ...
of less than one month per robbery committed in the three states examined.42 The relationship between the composition of the offender population and incapacitation is also well illustrated by the variation in I across states. Texas has the highest sanction level {QS = 0.07761, but the lowest incapacitation effect.
|
From page 333... ...
Cohn {1986:Table B-25) estimates a similar differential in arrest risk per crime between high- and Tow-\ offenders in data from the National Youth Survey of a general population sample.
|
From page 334... ...
fraud. Although the label "violent offender" is inexact because few offenders engage exclusively in crimes of violence, it provides a useful way to distinguish offenders with some violent offenses from those who never commit violent crimes.
|
From page 335... ...
Offenders with five or more recorded police contacts of any type violent or nonviolent were responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes: 71.4 percent of all homicides, 72.7 percent of all rapes, 81.8 percent of all robberies, and 69.1 percent of all aggravated assaults Weiner, 1989:Table 2.16~. Although somewhat attenuated, the same pattern was also found for the 1958 Philadelphia cohort.44 the relationship between violent and nonviolent crimes is of paramount importance for incapacitation purposes.
|
From page 336... ...
They are less well suited, however, for analyzing the impacts of substantial long-term shifts in policy, such as those observed in recent decades in the United States. Deterrence effects that alter the size of the active offending population, the offending rates of active offenders, or the duration of offending careers will have important implications for the magnitude of crime reduction that derives from incapacitation.
|
From page 337... ...
In each case, the deterrence effects on individual offending will reduce the expected total volume of crime that is susceptible to incapacitation by depressing individual offending frequencies, reducing the number of active offenders, or both.46 As noted above, the smaller the total crime base is, the Tower the returns from incapacitation will be. Thus, large deterrent effects would reduce the opportunities for ~ncapac~rar~on and result in Tower incapacitation levels.
|
From page 338... ...
From an initial base level of sanctions and crimes with total offenders No' average individual offending rate \0, and expected time served per crime QoSo the potential number of crimes committed is Co = lo* No.50 An increase in imprisonment sanctions to Q2S~ is assumed to operate through deterrence to reduce both the size of the offender population and the average offending rate, and yields a new potential number of crimes, Cat = WN~.51 Incapacitation from Q2S~ then operates to reduce potential crimes Cat to the expected number of crimes actually committed, Or, where Of is estimated by using the model of incapacitation under offender heterogeneity and finite careers, I*
|
From page 339... ...
Imprisonment sanctions are based on the numbers of inmates and total crimes for serious violent offenses in the United States in 1975 and 1989.53
|
From page 340... ...
Imprisonment risk per crime Qo Q1 Average years server .1n prison 1.4 8.9 239.0 2.8 93.3 6.3 10.0 10.0 0.4 100.0 0.0 10.0 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0068 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 So 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 S1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Expected years served per crime Qoso QlSl 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 0.0492 NOTE: Offending rates are those estimated for robbery among all offenders in Michigan during the mid-1970s ITable 71. Imprisonment sanctions QoSo correspond to the year 1975, and QlSl to 1989.
|
From page 341... ...
Reductions are from the potential number of crimes C0 = koNo that prevail at initial sanction levels QoSo = 0.017 {i.e., after the base level of deterrence from sanctions QoSoJ. iThe deterrence effect from the base level of potential crimes is unknown and treated as zero.J D1 I1 1V Co - C CO C, - O
|
From page 342... ...
More substantial incremental crime reduction that is similar in magnitude to the almost tripling in imprisonment sanctions between 1975 and 1989 requires large deterrence effects an elasticity of -1.0-that apply broadly throughout the offender population.54 Whereas Table 11 presents the reduction in crimes relative to their potential level, we are also interested in how these crime control mechanisms affect the expected number of crimes that are actually committed. Along with observed changes in crimes and inmates, Table 12 shows the changes in crimes and inmates that would have been expected from the combination of deterrence and incapacitation, as modeled here, if observed changes in incarceration policies between 1975 and 1989 had been applied to offending levels that prevailed in the mid-1970s.
|
From page 343... ...
applied to total counts of inmates with sentences of one year or longer reported for state prisons in 1975 and 1989 {Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990a; Flanagan and Maguire, 19901. State prison inmates are combined with annual data on the crimetype mix of inmates held in federal prisons {Callahan, 1986; Flanagan and Maguire, 1990~.
|
From page 344... ...
The other deterrence scenarios explored in Table 12 would have resulted in substantially greater crime reduction. Under the most generous deterrence assumptions in which a deterrence elasticity of -1.0 reduces offending rates and offender numbers for most of the offending population ;i.e., deter Tow-\ or deter all offendersJ55 reductions in violent crimes of more than 65 percent from 1975 levels would have been accompanied by reductions in prison populations as fewer offenders remained active and their offending rates declined.
|
From page 345... ...
The original base level of offending averages \0 = 2.8 for No offenders iTable 101. The hypothesized new higher offending rates result from a shift to greater representation of high-\ offending and a higher average \0 for high-\ offenders at time t1.
|
From page 346... ...
I1* Total D1 +I2 New mean \0 = 7 5 Base level crime reduction at QoSo No deterrence at QlSl 0.0 69.8 69.8 Deter high-\ offenders, elasticity = 1.0 at QlS Deter low-\ offenders, elasticity = -0.2 at QlS New Mean \0 = 10.0 Base level crime reduction at QoSo 0.0 59 9 59 9 r59.9 :69.8 ,174.2 +9.9 60.9 13.3 33.9 +4.8 5.3 69.2 73.1 -74.6 0.0 69.0 69.0 r69.0 +8.1L =77.1 No deterrence at QlSl 0.0 77.1 77.1 Deter high-\ offenders, elasticity = -10 at QlS1 Deter low-\ offenders, 67.7 12.8 39.6 +3.6 elasticity = -0.2 at QlSl 4.0 76.7 79.9 +14.7 +1 1.7 80.5 -80.7 NOTE: Crime control effects are obtained from the sanction levels reported in Table 11 applied to hypothesized increased offending levels in 1989, represented by \0 .
|
From page 347... ...
Under both scenarios, even if imprisonment sanctions had remained at 1975 levels of QoSo, the crime reduction from the new potential level of crimes due to incapacitation would be substantial-60 to 69 percent. This reflects the increase in incapacita tion associated with higher crime rates.
|
From page 348... ...
When the same deterrence impact is restricted to Tow-\ offenders, the relative representation of high-\ offenders increases, as does incapacitation's share of total crime reduction. An alternative deterrence model might provide for greater heterogeneity, with the deterrence impact varying as a function of \.
|
From page 349... ...
Assessing incapacitation effects by analyzing the criminal histories of a sample of convictees in the Denver area, Petersilia and Greenwood t1978J found some evidence to suggest that a policy of short sentences applied to a large offender base is more efficient than a policy of Tong sentences applied to a small offender base. For example, they estimated that if all convictees in their sample hac3 been given prison terms of one year, regardless of their prior criminal records, the crimes generated by the cohort would have been reduced by 15 percent at a cost of a 50 percent increase in prison population.
|
From page 350... ...
Even if time served on each sentence is relatively short, high-\ offenders will nevertheless spend substantial portions of their careers incarcerated through the many more returns to prison that they experi ence. Considerations of likely deterrence effects also favor a policy of uniformly applied imprisonment sanctions.
|
From page 351... ...
we estimated the percentage changes in crime reduction through incapacitation and in the size of the prison population that would result from a 50 percent increase in either Q or S above the base levels prevailing for robbery in the late 1970s Iseparate deterrence effects are not addressed herel. The ~ distributions remained the same as those reported in Table 7, and average career lengths continued to be five years.
|
From page 352... ...
. , crime rec .uctlon trom Fir incapacitation, I 15 Percentage increase in pnson popu anon size, p 10 16 8 40 39 41 45 ~8 45 46 Cost-benefit ratio, P/I 2.6 3.9 2.6 5.6 9.0 5.8 NOTE: Estimates of the crime reduction and prison population increases arising from incapacitation {and ignoring deterrence)
|
From page 353... ...
The decline in ~ with increasing incarceration is illustrated in Table 16, which again relies on cases of 50 percent increases in either Q or S In addition to the mean offending rates for all offenders and for incoming inmates reported in Table 8, Table 16 includes mean Vs for a daily census of resident inmates and for the new inmates who would be added to the prison population from the increase in Q or S.60 We see that as the size of the prison population grows in Table 16, the average number of crimes prevented per inmate declines.
|
From page 354... ...
Analyses of annual offense and incarceration data for six states indicated that rising incarceration rates since the mid-1970s were due primarily to upward trends in imprisonment sanctions over that period. Among six states examined, increases were widespread both in the risk of being committed to prison following arrest {QiJ and in time served by those who enter prison USE, but increases in S were somewhat more likely.62 This was especially so in Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, where sentencing reforms to increase penalties for certain offenses were enacted.
|
From page 355... ...
In allowing for stochastic selectivity among offenders with heterogeneous offending rates, and the accompanying greater likelihood that high-rate offenders are in fact spending substantial portions of their lifetimes incarcerated, the incapacitation effect from the same size prison population is estimated to have been five times greater 41.3%; see Table 9J. Stochastic selectivity means that the incapacitation effects that prevailed during the period of Tow incarceration rates in the late 1970s are probably much greater than were previously estimated.
|
From page 356... ...
A combination of deterrence and incapacitation effects from rising incarceration levels would have reduced 1989 violent crimes more substantially below 1975 levels and would have resulted in much smaller increases in the prison population iTable 121. The observation of almost stable levels of violent crimes in 1975 and 1989, in the face of a near tripling of the inmate population, is not compatible with the existence of meaningful crime control effects from deterrence and incapacitation unless the underlying potential level of violent crimes actually increased between 1975 and 1989.
|
From page 357... ...
The effect of career termination in reducing the crime control effects of incapacitation has policy implications for the choice between increasing the certainty of incarceration following a crime {Ql and increasing the severity of prison terms IS)
|
From page 358... ...
3 Similar crime-type data are available annually for federal prisons, which represented only 8 percent of all inmates in prisons in the United States in 1988. National data on crime-type mix in state prisons are available only for the years when special surveys were conducted of national samples of state prison inmates in 1973,1979, and 1986.
|
From page 359... ...
7 The similarities in incarceration rates across states and crime types were evident in simple bivariate correlations among the yearly incarceration rates for state-by-crime subgroups.
|
From page 360... ...
10 The differences between crime types were similar between 1965 and 1975, with total population crime rates for violent offenses increasing by 161 percent, while property crime rates increased by 99 percent. 11 The UCR crime rate does not include all crimes actually committed.
|
From page 361... ...
By 1989 the police recording rate exceeded 100 percent for all crime types compared; for burglary the recording rate has continued to rise steadily above 100 percent since 1981. The trend in recent years is for UCR crime counts by police to exceed NCS counts from victims of crimes reported to the police.
|
From page 362... ...
Race is another population attribute of interest because much higher offense rates in violent crimes and robbery are typically found among blacks than among whites. The differences between black and white crime rates are sufficiently large that even small increases in the fraction of the population who are black can produce important increases in total population rates for violent crimes ;Blumstein et al., 19911.
|
From page 363... ...
Thus, it is not possible to apportion total time served between terms served following the original commitment and those served on recommitments for the same conviction. It is also not possible to trace the impact on the size of prison populations of changes in conditional release and recommitment policies.
|
From page 364... ...
Over this same period, parole releases declined modestly from 50 to 38 percent among total releases from prisons, but were a significantly declining fraction of conditional and unconditional releases, falling from 72 percent in 1977 to 40 percent in 1988 ;Langan, 1991~. Parole release usually involves discretionary early release from prison terms based on some assessment of the risk posed by the offender.
|
From page 365... ...
Policy changes whether arising from sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, or parole reforms are generally statewide and apply broadly across crime types within a state. 21 Recent analyses of time served by prison inmates in Pennsylvania indicate that more stringent parole release policies are an important factor in rising time served in that state.
|
From page 366... ...
26 Throughout this paper, the estimates of crime reduction from incapacitation assume that while they are incarcerated, the potential crimes of inmates are eliminated entirely. No adjustments are made for crimes that may continue in the community perhaps because the offender is replaced or offending persists by unincarcerated members of an offending group.
|
From page 367... ...
Robbery and aggravated assault accounted for 73 percent of total violent crimes, with homicide and rape each contributing almost equally to the remaining 27 percent. 29 The estimated robbery offending rates were 3.4 in Washington, D.C and 4.7 in Detroit Cohen, 1986~.
|
From page 368... ...
33 In Avi-Itzhak and Shinnar t1973J the incapacitative effectfraction of potential crimes that are prevented by incarcerationis estimated from I = ~QS/jl + ~QSJ. The variation in I across states results from the variation in sentencing parameters and in average offending rates.
|
From page 369... ...
do not necessarily imply Tow crime rates, and vice versa. Large deterrent effects may lead to Tow values of I*
|
From page 370... ...
By applying the crime-type distribution in 1974 to inmates in 1975, 100,082 inmates are estimated to have been incarcerated in 1975 for a serious violent crime homicide, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault. The crime-type distribution from the 1986 survey is applied to total state prison inmates in 1989 to yield an estimated total of 288,566 inmates incarcerated for a serious violent crime in 1989-an increase of 188 percent from 1975 to 1989.
|
From page 371... ...
Of loNo potential crimes at QoSo. Tripling imprisonment sanctions corresponds to a proportionate crime reduction when expected crimes are reduced to no more than one-third this level, or 22.4 percent of potential crimes I.e., a total crime reduction of D + I2*
|
From page 372... ...
58 At least with respect to the moclel of deterrence examined here, total crime reduction is reasonably well estimated even when the mix between deterrence and incapacitation effects is seriously in error. Since the assumptions of the present model are quite generous with respect to the range of possible deterrence effects, we are reasonably confident that this finding will also generalize to other formulations of deterrence.
|
From page 373... ...
1979 Estimation of individual crime rates from arrest records. [ournal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70:561-585.
|
From page 374... ...
1978 Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, Committee on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council.
|
From page 375... ...
Bureau of Justice Statistics 1979 Profile of State Prison Inmates: Sociodemographic Findings from the 1974 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
|
From page 376... ...
Cohen, and D Nagin, eds., Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates.
|
From page 377... ...
1990 Measuring Crime Rates in Colorado: 1988-89. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, Md., November.
|
From page 378... ...
Langan, P 1991 America's soaring prison population.
|
From page 379... ...
Reiss, A.~., Tr. 1980 Understanding changes in crime rates.
|
From page 380... ...
1987 Incapacitation and crime control: Does a "lock 'em up" strategy reduce crime? Tustice Quarterly 4`4~:514-543.
|
From page 381... ...
INCARCERATION AND VIOLENT CRIME / 381 TABLE A-1 Descriptive Statistics for Offending Variables Reported Crimes per 100,000 PopulationatCRT) Adult Fraction of Crimesb LADY Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Murder California 23 9.413 2.584 23 0.891 0.019 Florida 21 11.900 1.599 21 0.930 0.019 Michigan 20 9.551 2.384 20 0.901 0.022 New York 23 9.812 2.451 23 0.895 0.036 Pennsylvania 21 5.229 1.044 21 0.873 0.057 Texas 9 14.075 1.923 9 0.916 0.016 Rape California 24 41.658 9.696 24 0.859 0.034 Florida 23 37.293 15.026 23 0.817 0.050 Michigan 22 41.325 16.762 22 0.812 0.050 New York 23 24.819 7.237 23 0.824 0.046 Pennsylvania 21 17.776 5.878 21 0.790 0.047 Texas 9 46.696 3.545 9 0.889 0.020 Robbery California 24 271.505 78.001 24 0.754 0.055 Florida 23 235.886 85.813 23 0.753 0.052 Michigan 22 267.332 63.825 22 0.697 0.098 New York 23 462.591 141.094 23 0.649 0.102 Pennsylvania 21 129.545 41.438 21 0.642 0.057 Texas 9 206.934 22.719 9 0.839 0.029 Aggravated assault California 24 333.190 119.661 24 0.831 0.038 Florida 23 422.622 139.843 23 0.843 0.024 Michigan 22 276.383 93.965 22 0.774 0.076 New York 21 310.615 92.158 21 0.848 0.045 Pennsylvania 21 125.923 41.206 21 0.782 0.069 Texas 9 300.022 39.893 9 0.886 0.018 Burglary California 24 1841.936 310.668 24 0.564 0.081 Florida 23 1827.666 431.777 23 0.492 0.113 Michigan 22 1480.715 312.157 22 0.510 0.129 New York 23 1422.106 301.340 23 0.593 0.109 Pennsylvania 21 733.388 182.121 21 0.532 0.065 Texas 9 1879.704 186.837 9 0.636 0.060 Drug offensesC California 24 519.247 265.595 24 0.808 0.071 Florida 21 238.553 141.086 21 0.806 0.088 continued on next page
|
From page 382... ...
CIndependent data are not available on the number of crimes committed for drug offenses, and the "crime rate" reported here is the number of arrests per 100,000 population.
|
From page 383... ...
INCARCERATION AND VIOLENT CRIME / 383 TABLE A-2 Descriptive Statistics for Sanction Risk Variables Arrest Risk per Reported Crime, qua Incarceration Risk per Arrest, Qib Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Murder California 23 1.070 0.114 22 0.372 0.073 Florida 21 0.769 0.122 21 0.765 0.211 Michigan 20 0.915 0.156 20 0.433 0.070 New York 23 0.789 0.095 23 0.628 0.129 Pennsylvania 21 0.983 0.119 12 0.671 0.128 Texas 9 0.810 0.070 9 0.625 0.051 Rape California 24 0.356 0.033 23 0.107 0.043 Florida 23 0.351 0.065 21 0.261 0.091 Michigan 22 0.358 0.037 21 0.268 0.113 New York 23 0.454 0.060 23 0.097 0.039 Pennsylvania 21 0.613 0.085 12 0.152 0.021 Texas 9 0.278 0.028 9 0.341 0.097 Robbery California 24 0.340 0.062 23 0.116 0.031 Florida 23 0.254 0.039 23 0.336 0.071 Michigan 22 0.188 0.028 21 0.304 0.062 New York 23 0.241 0.033 23 0.186 0.043 Pennsylvania 21 0.404 0.039 12 0.135 0.020 Texas 9 0.213 0.021 9 0.322 0.051 Aggravated assault California 24 0.477 0.041 23 0.026 0.008 Florida 23 0.343 0.077 23 0.055 0.019 Michigan 22 0.291 0.035 21 0.059 0.010 New York 21 0.419 0.043 21 0.022 0.004 Pennsylvania 21 0.507 0.044 12 0.032 0.006 Texas 9 0.299 0.013 9 0.059 0.009 Burglary California 24 0.165 0.010 23 0.049 0.023 Florida 23 0.133 0.019 23 0.220 0.086 Michigan 22 0.116 0.024 21 0.139 0.027 New York 23 0.108 0.019 23 0.071 0.041 - Pennsylvania 21 0.182 0.022 12 0.073 0.012 Texas 9 0.108 0.009 9 0.237 0.019 Drug offensesC California 24 1.000 0.000 23 0.020 0.014 Florida 21 1.000 0.000 21 0.073 0.064 continued on next page
|
From page 384... ...
Arrest data by state were obtained from unpublished supplementary tables from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports program. The arrest risk per crime reported here overstates the actual risk of arrest per crime by about threefold for rape, fourfold for robbery, and fivefold for aggravated assault Isee discussion of qa in the main text.J Appropriate adjustments for crimes that are not reported to police and for multiple offenders per crime incident will have similar impacts in reducing qa for burglary and drug offenses.
|
From page 385... ...
Served per Prison Commitment, sb Crime Type and State n Mean SD Murder California 22 5.04 0.88 Florida 13 4.50 0.65 Michigan 12 5.70 1.23 New York 23 5.02 1.39 Pennsylvania 9 7.29 1.18 Texas 9 4.83 0.54 Rape California 23 4.18 1.22 Florida 13 3.89 0.48 Michigan 13 2.96 0.55 New York 23 4.57 1.35 Pennsylvania 9 5.36 0.68 Texas 9 3.76 1.00 Robbery California 23 3.95 1.39 Florida 15 2.83 0.56 Michigan 13 3.10 0.66 New York 23 2.88 0.76 Pennsylvania 9 4.24 1.17 Texas 9 3.92 0.43 Aggravated assault California 23 2.80 0.77 Florida 15 1.79 0.46 Michigan 13 2.22 0.35 New York 21 2.30 0.33 Pennsylvania 9 2.60 0.54 Texas 9 1.56 0.12 Burglary California 23 2.64 1.06 Florida 15 1.57 0.29 Michigan 13 1.89 0.39 New York 23 2.36 0.66 Pennsylvania 9 2.99 0.96 Texas 9 1.84 0.15 continued on next page
|
From page 386... ...
is obtained from the ratio of the number of resident inmates {available from a daily census of prison populations) to the number of new commitments to prison each year.
|
From page 387... ...
INCARCERATION AND VIOLENT CRIME / 38 7 TABLE A-4 Descriptive Statistics for Imprisonment Variables Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Populationa Crime Type and State Expected Time Served (person-years) per 100 Arrests,QiSb Mean SD n Mean SD Murder California 23 17.094 7.242 23193.16 59.89 Florida 13 34.053 6.965 12373.49 103.85 Michigan 12 23.294 6.334 12244.63 57.32 New York 23 21.841 10.355 23313.64 102.92 Pennsylvania 9 23.447 4.975 9509.34 153.12 Texas 9 30.951 2.047 9302.04 41.14 Rape California 24 5.423 2.520 2442.30 14.19 Florida 14 15.272 4.821 14113.26 28.41 Michigan 13 16.160 10.343 1398.50 38.13 New York 23 4.284 2.778 2343.20 19.27 Pennsylvania 9 8.770 2.709 981.20 20.69 Texas 9 14.399 5.564 9125.38 46.46 Robbery California 24 27.766 5.466 2442.89 10.08 Florida 15 49.109 6.670 1590.99 23.80 Michigan 13 36.597 7.178 1395.84 28.00 New York 23 37.749 18.131 2353.03 16.23 Pennsylvania 9 24.867 5.006 953.42 11.27 Texas 9 45.696 4.607 9125.15 17.07 Aggravated assault California 24 9.143 4.129 247.22 2.39 Florida 15 12.852 2.258 158.00 1.27 Michigan 13 9.506 3.891 1312.65 3.10 New York 21 5.326 1.436 215.06 1.45 Pennsylvania 9 6.184 2.336 98.61 2.31 Texas 9 7.297 1.450 99.13 0.99 Burglary California 24 20.704 11.496 2412.12 5.80 Florida 15 43.941 10.128 1527.30 4.10 Michigan 13 24.762 7.579 1326.71 7.65 New York 23 14.752 9.225 2316.12 8.44 Pennsylvania 9 17.597 3.581 921.60 5.88 Texas 9 55.826 4.581 943.79 5.46 continued on next page
|
From page 388... ...
aThe incarceration rate is obtained from the ratio of the number of resident inmates in a daily census of prison populations each year to the total population of each state. Inmate data were obtained from annual published reports of the corrections department in each state.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.