Role of Prisons in Recidivism

Abstract

This research aims to find out if incarceration has any effect on reducing recidivism. Policymakers and the general public are deeply concerned about the high recidivism rates or the rate at which ex-offenders commit new crimes after being released from jail. Whether incarceration decreases recidivism rates remains open, even though it is a common form of punishment. This study will review the literature on jail and recidivism and then analyze recidivism rates for recently released inmates. This study intends to inform policies and actions for reducing crime and facilitating successful readmission into society by examining the efficacy of jail.

INTRODUCTION

With about twice the population of New Hampshire locked up in prisons, the United States has the highest imprisonment cases worldwide (Prison Policy Initiative, 2022). Concerns regarding recidivism rates among former convicts remain a serious barrier for policymakers and society despite the widespread use of jail as a form of punishment. An urgent problem with far-reaching ramifications for public safety, the criminal justice system, and society is the high recidivism rate or the risk of a former inmate committing another crime following release from prison (Butorac et al, 2017).

For many years, decreasing recidivism rates have been an important focus of criminal justice policy and practice (Zara et al., 2015). Incarceration is commonly used to attain this aim, as it is generally believed to discourage further criminal behavior. There is, however, a lively discussion in the academic literature over whether or not incarceration is successful in lowering recidivism rates. Research suggests incarceration can help prevent recidivism (Mears et al., 2016). Others argue that it can make offenders more likely to re-offend by exacerbating the problems that lead them to crime in the first place (Loeffler & Nagin, 2022).

The authors of this study hope to add to the conversation over whether or not prisons help reduce recidivism. Intending to inform policies and interventions to reduce crime and foster successful reentry into society, we review the current literature on the subject and conduct a new analysis of recidivism rates among a sample of former convicts. Understanding the effectiveness of jail in decreasing reoffending is crucial for policymakers and practitioners attempting to increase public safety and reduce crime in light of the substantial social and economic costs associated with recidivism (Eaglin, 2017).

Statement of the Problem

Although imprisonment is frequently employed as a deterrent, the literature is divided as to whether or not it is beneficial in lowering recidivism rates. Yet, there is growing evidence that incarceration may increase the likelihood of reoffending after release by exacerbating the underlying conditions that lead to criminal conduct in the first place (Bhuller et al., 2020). The complexity of the prison-recidivism connection is exacerbated by recidivism rates varying widely between groups and offending categories.

Although imprisonment is frequently employed as a deterrent, the literature is divided as to whether or not it is beneficial in lowering recidivism rates. Yet, there is growing evidence that incarceration may increase the likelihood of reoffending after release by exacerbating the underlying conditions that lead to criminal conduct in the first place (Bhuller et al., 2020). The complexity of the prison-recidivism connection is exacerbated by recidivism rates varying widely between groups and offending categories.

Research Question

Does prison help reduce recidivism?

The objective of the study

To improve policies and initiatives to decrease crime and facilitate effective reintroduction into society, this study aims to investigate the correlation between incarceration and recidivism rates. To be more specific, the study will:

1. Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence on the effectiveness of prison in lowering recidivism rates.
2. Conduct a new analysis of recidivism rates among a sample of former inmates, controlling for relevant individual and contextual factors.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

There is a growing body of research into prison’s ability to decrease recidivism rates. The effects of incarceration on recidivism, the efficacy of correctional programs, and the personal and environmental elements contributing to successful reintegration are all discussed in this section’s thematic overview of the extant research.

Impact of Prison on Recidivism Rates

The effects of incarceration on recidivism have been studied extensively, with conflicting findings. Overall, the prison had a minor but statistically significant deterrent effect on future criminal activity, lowering recidivism rates by about 10%, according to a meta-analysis by Cullen et al. (2011). But the result differed for each crime and each prisoner’s time behind bars. For property crimes, the deterrent effect of shorter prison sentences was greater.

Other studies have challenged the notion that prison reduces recidivism rates. A longitudinal study by Petersilia (2003) found that prison had no significant impact on recidivism rates and that offenders who received community-based sanctions had similar or better outcomes than those who were incarcerated. Similarly, a study by Shinkfield and Graffam (2009) found that participation in community-based programs, such as drug treatment and vocational training, was more effective in reducing recidivism than traditional custodial sentences.

Effectiveness of Prison Programs

Evidence shows that recidivism rates are related to the quality of prison programs like education and vocational training. Wilson et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis and showed that incarcerated individuals participating in educational programs had a 13% lower risk of recidivism. Similarly, Aos et al. (2006) found that offenders who took part in vocational training programs had a 14% lower risk of reoffending than those who did not.

But, prison programs’ success varies from one program to the next and from one criminal to the next. For instance, Lipsey’s (2009) research indicated that offenders with lower levels of education and those who had committed property offenses benefited more from vocational training programs than violent offenders. The presence or absence of resources like jobs and counseling in the neighborhood might also impact a program’s success.

Individual and Contextual Factors

Ultimately, recidivism rates among ex-offenders can be heavily influenced by both individual and contextual factors. A history of substance misuse, mental health issues, and prior criminal history are all characteristics linked to an increased likelihood of recidivism in studies (Andrews et al, 2010). Contextual factors, such as access to employment and social support, can also influence successful reintegration.

The evidence reveals that the correlation between incarceration and recidivism rates is nuanced, with different outcomes depending on factors such as criminal characteristics, the crime’s severity, and the sentence’s length. Recidivism rates could be affected by the quality of prison programs, such as educational and occupational training. To successfully reduce recidivism, policies, and treatments must account for these nuances and target the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

Hypothesis

Prison programs focusing on education and vocational training will be more effective in reducing recidivism rates than traditional custodial sentences, and their effectiveness will vary depending on individual and contextual factors. Specifically, this paper predicts that:

• Compared to ex-convicts who did not participate in educational programs while incarcerated, those who did so had significantly lower recidivism rates.
• The recidivism rate of ex-convicts is predicted to be lower among individuals who took part in vocational training programs while incarcerated.
• These programs’ success will depend on various circumstances, including participants’ backgrounds in criminal activity, substance misuse, and mental health issues.
• The availability of local resources like jobs and social networks will also play a role in the success of these initiatives.

DISCUSSION OF METHODS

This study will combine a quantitative analysis of recidivism rates among ex-offenders with a systematic assessment of the relevant literature.

Sample Selection/Rationale

A cross-section of people on parole during the last five years will be chosen for the research. This population was chosen because parolees are likely to be exposed to measures designed to reduce recidivism and hence paint a more accurate image of the success of jail in this regard. To further show that the sample is a vivid representative of the population of former convicts, the study will employ a stratified random sampling method to choose participants.

Systematic Review

To determine whether or not incarceration is beneficial in lowering recidivism rates, this study will systematically evaluate the relevant literature. This review will use PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in the last ten years. Articles will be chosen based on whether or not they meet a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria we’ve established in advance.

Quantitative Analysis

Our sample of ex-offenders will be used to compile numbers for a statistical examination of recidivism rates. We will employ logistic regression analysis to determine which variables are significantly linked to recidivism following incarceration. This method has the potential to produce a more accurate estimate of the impact of incarceration on recidivism rates since it allows us to account for potential confounding factors. Self-reported information has the potential for response bias, and the technique may not account for all aspects that contribute to recidivism.

This study’s use of a mixed-methods approach triangulates data from several different sources, yielding a richer picture of prison’s impact on recidivism. We can better inform policies and interventions to reduce crime and foster successful reentry into society by combining a systematic evaluation of the current literature with a quantitative analysis of recidivism rates among a sample of former convicts.

Implications of the Proposed Study

This research has the potential to shed light on whether or not jail is successful in lowering recidivism rates among ex-offenders. The findings of this study have the potential to inform policies and interventions targeted at reducing crime and fostering effective reentry into society, as well as contributing to the current debate over the role of correctional facilities in the criminal justice system.

The results of this research can also improve our knowledge of what drives repeat offending. This study has the potential to enrich future research on the topic and contribute to creating more effective interventions by evaluating ex-offenders experiences and identifying the important characteristics that influence their likelihood of reoffending.

The findings may have applications for prisoner treatment and rehabilitation policy and practice. Results that cast doubt on the efficacy of incarceration in lowering recidivism rates would indicate that policymakers look into alternatives, such as community-based services and programs that aim to address the root causes of criminal behavior.

Nonetheless, care must be taken when extrapolating from this study’s results. More research may be required to confirm and extend the results, as the study’s sample size and scope may restrict the findings’ generalizability. Most importantly, the study is meant to contribute to an ongoing discussion regarding the role of incarceration in the criminal justice system rather than providing a final response to whether prison improves recidivism rates.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Fed. Sent. R., 19, 275.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 48S-65S.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and offenders, 4(2), 124-147.

Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.

Shinkfield, A. J., & Graffam, J. (2009). The efficacy of offender reentry programs: A review of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(4), 459-475.

Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 37(4), 347-368.

Eaglin, J. M. (2017). Constructing recidivism risk. Emory LJ, 67, 59.

Bhuller, M., Dahl, G. B., Løken, K. V., & Mogstad, M. (2020). Incarceration, recidivism, and employment. Journal of Political Economy, 128(4), 1269-1324.

Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Criminal recidivism: Explanation, prediction and prevention. Routledge.

Butorac, K., Gracin, D., & Stanić, N. (2017). The challenges in reducing criminal recidivism.

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Bales, W. D., & Bhati, A. S. (2016). Recidivism and time served in prison. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 83-124.

Loeffler, C. E., & Nagin, D. S. (2022). The impact of incarceration on recidivism. Annual Review of Criminology, 5, 133-152.