Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment

Abstract

Understanding whether, and in what situations, time spent in prison is criminogenic or preventive has proven challenging due to data availability and correlated unobservables. This paper overcomes these challenges in the context of Norway's criminal justice system, offering new insights into how incarceration affects subsequent crime and employment. We construct a panel dataset containing the criminal behavior and labor market outcomes of the entire population, and exploit the random assignment of criminal cases to judges who differ systematically in their stringency in sentencing defendants to prison. Using judge stringency as an instrumental variable, we find that imprisonment discourages further criminal behavior, and that the reduction extends beyond incapacitation. Incarceration decreases the probability an individual will reoffend within 5 years by 27 percentage points, and reduces the number of offenses over this same period by 10 criminal charges. In comparison, OLS shows positive associations between incarceration and subsequent criminal behavior. This sharp contrast suggests the high rates of recidivism among ex-convicts is due to selection, and not a consequence of the experience of being in prison. Exploring factors that may explain the preventive effect of incarceration, we find the decline in crime is driven by individuals who were not working prior to incarceration. Among these individuals, imprisonment increases participation in programs directed at improving employability and reducing recidivism, and ultimately, raises employment and earnings while discouraging further criminal behavior. Contrary to the widely embraced 'nothing works' doctrine, these findings demonstrate that time spent in prison with a focus on rehabilitation can indeed be preventive.

Job search requirements, effort provision and labor market outcomes

“…For instance, caseworkers who assign on average higher requirements may also enforce the compliance with rules more strictly. Similar issues are discussed in the empirical literature using judge stringency (in particular by Bhuller et al, 2017;Mueller-Smith, 2017), where judges not only decide on incarceration, but also on, e.g., fines, community service, probation, and guilt.…”

“…The approach is inspired by an increasing number of studies exploiting judge or caseworker leniency as an instrument for individual treatments (e.g. Aizer and Doyle, 2015;Autor et al, 2017;Bhuller et al, 2017;Dahl et al, 2014;French and Song, 2014;Kling, 2006;Maestas et al, 2013).…”

Job Displacement, Unemployment, and Crime: Evidence from Danish Microdata and Reforms

“…This paper contributes to four literatures. First, the paper contributes to the economics of crime (Grogger 1998, Machin & Meghir 2004, Kling et al 2005, Barbarino & Mastrobuoni 2014, Damm & Dustmann 2014, Aizer & Doyle 2015, Bindler 2015, Bhuller et al 2016, Doleac & Hansen 2016. The paper isolates the individual channel of the impact of layoffs on crime.…”

Deterring Illegal Entry: Migrant Sanctions and Recidivism in Border Apprehensions

“…4 Along the Southwestern border, these sectors are: San Diego and El Centro (CA); Yuma and Tucson (AZ); and El Paso, Big Bend, Del Rio, Laredo, and the Rio Grande Valley (TX). 5 For recent work on recidivism in criminal arrests, see Bhuller et al (2016); Heller et al (2016); Agan and Makowsky (2018). For a review of the previous literature, see Chaln and McCrary (2017).…”