Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism

The High Cost of Ignoring Science

Bibliographic Data

ID19607643
AuthorsFrancis T Cullen (0000-0003-4975-915X, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, corresponding author), Cheryl Lero Jonson (0000-0002-2278-7807, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY), Daniel S Nagin (0000-0003-0075-1851, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA)
Year2011
Volume91
Issue3_suppl
Pages48S-65S
Publication date2011-07-19
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Prison Journal (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-8855 • E-ISSN: 1552-7522
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/0032885511415224
OpenAlexW2138104182
LanguageEN
Citations received111
References cited30

One of the major justifications for the rise of mass incarceration in the United States is that placing offenders behind bars reduces recidivism by teaching them that “crime does not pay.” This rationale is based on the view that custodial sanctions are uniquely painful and thus exact a higher cost than noncustodial sanctions. An alternative position, developed mainly by criminologists, is that imprisonment is not simply a “cost” but also a social experience that deepens illegal involvement. Using an evidence-based approach, we conclude that there is little evidence that prisons reduce recidivism and at least some evidence to suggest that they have a criminogenic effect. The policy implications of this finding are significant, for it means that beyond crime saved through incapacitation, the use of custodial sanctions may have the unanticipated consequence of making society less safe

Criminology · Economics · Imprisonment · Mass incarceration · Political science · Position (finance) · Prison · Recidivism · Sanctions · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Finance · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub