1. The Impact of incarceration on the risk of violent recidivism
Jennifer Copp, Florida State University

2. Introduction The primary goal of incarceration is crime prevention
Incapacitation
General deterrence
Specific deterrence
Focusing on the goal of specific deterrence:
What is known about the effect of imprisonment on recidivism?
What is known about the effect of imprisonment of violent recidivism?

3. Theorizing on the Incarceration—Recidivism Link
Incarceration reduces recidivism:
Imprisonment as a specific deterrent
Rational choice approach to punishment: imprisonment increases the cost of offending
“Crime does not pay”
Incarceration increases recidivism:
Imprisonment as a social experience
Individuals are exposed to a broad range of criminogenic risk factors

4. Prior Research on the Impact of Incarceration
According to BJS’s Recidivism Study of State Prisoners Released in 2005:
68% rearrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years
Research on imprisonment and recidivism is limited, and varies considerably in methodological rigor
Taken together, existing research supports the following conclusion:
Prison is not more effective than non-custodial sanctions at reducing recidivism
The effect of prison is either null or slightly criminogenic

5. Recognizing the Potential for Effect Heterogeneity
What is the effect of imprisonment on recidivism?
Is this really the right question?
Recent work suggests that the effect of prison is likely heterogeneous
What is the nature of the prison experience?
Incarceration as compared to what?
What is the population of interest?
Along these lines, research has argued that the effects of imprisonment on recidivism may be positive, negative, or null

6. Incarceration and the Risk of Violent Recidivism
Violence is central to current debates around reducing our reliance on incarceration
Widespread support for use of non-custodial sanctions for non-violent offenses
Yet nearly half of US prisoners are incarcerated for a violent offense
Strategies to reduce prison population must address those convicted of non- violent and violent offenses
Public fear, and not scientific evidence, behind lack of support for alternatives for “violent offenders”
The best available scientific evidence suggests that imprisonment is no more effective than community alternatives at reducing violent recidivism

7. Conclusions
Empirical evidence regarding the impact of imprisonment on recidivism should feature centrally in sentencing policy
To date, prison policy has largely ignored research on imprisonment and reoffending
Despite the policy relevance of the effect of imprisonment, we actually don’t know as much as we need to know
The best available evidence suggests that the effect of prison is null (or has a minor adverse effect)
These findings hold for incarceration effects on violent recidivism

8. Implications for Theorizing and Future Research
Well-designed studies assessing the impact of incarceration, including research accounting for potential effect heterogeneity
Attention to mechanisms underlying the incarceration – recidivism link
Consider the utility of drawing distinctions
What is a violent offender? Is this a meaningful category?
Improve consistency of measurement

9. Policy Implications Draw on insights from the field
The evidence suggests that there is no need to treat violent offenders differently from a recidivism standpoint
Depoliticize the word “violent”
Avoid being dismissive of community supervision

10. Thank you
Jennifer Copp