Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review

Abstract

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a "criminological fact." Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to

Recidivism Outcomes Under a Shifting Continuum of Control

“…The results of our analyses suggest policymakers in California and nationally should further investigate the efficacy and efficiency of longer and more costly prison sentences relative to shorter and less costly local sanctioning options for some offense types. These results are consistent with past research showing that custodial sanctions do not appear to have worse outcomes for similar offenders given community-based sanctions (Petrich et al, 2021) as well as more granular research by Cochran et al, (2014;Mears & Cochran, 2018) that shows that more severe sanctions do not reduce recidivism. In addition, this work aligns with research finding that prison downsizing in California has generally reduced reconviction rates among people convicted of lowerlevel felony offenses (Bird et al, 2017(Bird et al, , 2018.…”

“…Whether prison sentences reduce recidivism when compared to non-custodial community sentences is the subject of a small body literature that has slowly accumulated across several decades and that varies in quality and generalizability. However, over the last decade there have been three reviews of this literature (Cullen et al, 2011;Petrich et al, 2021;Villettaz et al, 2014). This work converges on the conclusions that "compared with noncustodial sanctions, custodial sanctions, including imprisonment, have no appreciable effect on reducing reoffending" (Petrich et al, 2021, p. 49).…”

“…There are multiple political and economic forces that have contributed to prison downsizing (Phelps, 2016;Pickett, 2016;Turner et al, 2015). A key argument of advocates of decarceration-backed by a growing research literature-is that prisons are not particularly effective at reducing recidivism relative to community-based supervision (Cullen et al, 2011;Petrich et al, 2021;Villettaz et al, 2014). However, this body of research seldom considers that approaches to further downsize prisons are not reducible to a binary choice between prison and community supervision, but instead are comprised of a range of strategies that shorten or eliminate custodial sanction time or that hybridize incarceration and community supervision and/or no supervision at all.…”

Macrocriminology and Freedom

“…Even so, it is reckless to fail to develop a view of the constructive role deterrence must have in crime prevention. The data on the limited effectiveness of deterrence and the cost of prisons (Nagin 2013;Nagin 2011a, 2011b;Travis et al 2014;Petrich et al 2021) demand disinvestment from locking up offenders. This is a cornerstone of 'justice reinvestment': disinvestment from prison and reinvestment in evidence-based social support pathways.…”

Trauma-informed sentencing in South Australian courts

“…Imprisonment does not reduce re-offending and may instead increase the risk of re-offending compared to non-custodial sanctions (Day et al, 2021a(Day et al, , 2021bPetrich et al, 2021). Consequently, in the US, UK and Australia, alternative sentencing approaches have emerged, including 'compassionate courts' (Hueston, 2021), 'humane justice' (Rowles & Haji, 2020), 'kindness in court' (Smith, 2019), and trauma-informed criminal justice (Bagaric et al, 2019;Bradley, 2017;Durr, 2020;Ellison & Munro, 2017;Jackson et al, 2021;Kezelman & Stavrolpoulos, 2016).…”