2006
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00397.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scarlet Letters and Recidivism: Does an Old Criminal Record Predict Future Offending?*

Abstract: Research Summary: This research explores the issue of old prior records and their ability to predict future offending. In particular, we are interested in the question of whether, after a given period of time, the risk of recidivism for a person who has been arrested in the distant past is ever indistinguishable from that of a population of persons with no prior arrests. Two well‐documented empirical facts guide our investigation: (1) Individuals who have offended in the past are relatively more likely to offe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
182
1
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(189 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
5
182
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The use of a three-year window and felony reconviction ensures that our focus is on individuals who are most likely to fail within a year or two of release and who commit serious offenses (Langan & Levin 2002;Killias et al 2006;Kurlychek et al 2006). Although the bulk of research to date suggests, broadly, that males and females engage in similar kinds of offending and that the causes of offending are similar (Gartner 2011;Andrews et al 2012), some scholarship suggests otherwise (see, e.g., Van Voorhis 2012).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of a three-year window and felony reconviction ensures that our focus is on individuals who are most likely to fail within a year or two of release and who commit serious offenses (Langan & Levin 2002;Killias et al 2006;Kurlychek et al 2006). Although the bulk of research to date suggests, broadly, that males and females engage in similar kinds of offending and that the causes of offending are similar (Gartner 2011;Andrews et al 2012), some scholarship suggests otherwise (see, e.g., Van Voorhis 2012).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use a two-year follow-up period for each released prisoner because prior research indicates that recidivism is more likely to occur in the first 1-2 years after release (see, e.g. Kurlychek, Brame, & Bushway, 2006;Langan & Levin, 2002). There is little consistent evidence concerning the impact of employment on the type of reoffending.…”
Section: Dependent Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some cases, multiple measures of recidivism can be used (Maltz, 1984), but there is little evidence that recidivism studies produce substantially different predictive results when using different recidivism measures. A full three-year window after release is used to ensure that the analyses do not include only those individuals most likely to fail within a year or two of release (Kurlychek, Brame, & Bushway, 2006;Langan & Levin, 2002). Survival analyses can address this issue in part, but still do not well address the selection effects associated with including primarily those inmates who fail early in the postrelease period.…”
Section: Recidivismmentioning
confidence: 99%