Unintended consequences: experimental evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism
Unintended consequences: experimental evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11292-009-9070-z
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Camp, Scott D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gaes, Gerald G.;Camp, Scott D.
大多数监狱系统使用量化工具对囚犯进行分类，并将其分配到与其风险程度相称的监狱安全级别。Bench和艾伦（The Prison Journal 83（4）：367-382，2003）提供的证据表明，被分配到更高安全级别的监狱会导致不当行为的增加，而与个人的不当行为倾向无关。Chen和Shapiro（《美国法律与经济学评论》，2007年）证明，在具有相同分类分数的囚犯中，分配到更高的安全级别会增加释放后的累犯率。这两种说法的基础是监狱社会环境是犯罪成因的想法。在本文中，我们研究的理论前提，这种说法和目前的数据，从唯一的实验，已进行随机分配囚犯到监狱的安全水平，并评估监狱的不当行为和释放后的累犯。实验结果表明，在加州监狱系统中，被随机分配到安全等级为III级监狱的囚犯，其重返监狱的风险率比被随机分配到I级监狱的囚犯高出31%。因此，罪犯在入狱时的分类决定了他们返回监狱的可能性。这些囚犯的机构严重不当行为率没有差异。这些结果是矛盾的一个具体的威慑预测，更符合同伴影响和环境压力理论。这些结果也提出了重要的政策影响，挑战惩教管理人员将不得不考虑的成本和效益的基础上分类分数的囚犯分成同质池。
Most prison systems use quantitative instruments to classify and assign inmates to prison security levels commensurate to their level of risk. Bench and Allen (The Prison Journal 83(4): 367-382, 2003) offer evidence that the assignment to higher security prisons produces elevated levels of misconduct independent of the individual's propensity to commit misconduct. Chen and Shapiro (American Law and Economics Review, 2007) demonstrate that assignment to higher security level among inmates with the same classification scores increases post-release recidivism. Underlying both of these claims is the idea that the prison social environment is criminogenic. In this paper we examine the theoretical premises for this claim and present data from the only experiment that has been conducted that randomly assigns inmates to prison security levels and evaluates both prison misconduct and post-release recidivism. The experiment's results show that inmates with a level III security classification who were randomly assigned to a security level III prison in the California prison system had a hazard rate of returning to prison that was 31% higher than that of their randomly selected counterparts who were assigned to a level I prison. Thus, the offenders' classification assignments at admission determined their likelihood of returning to prison. There were no differences in the institutional serious misconduct rates of these same prisoners. These results are contradictory to a specific deterrence prediction and more consistent with peer influence and environmental strain theories. These results also raise important policy implications that challenge the way correctional administrators will have to think about the costs and benefits of separating inmates into homogeneous pools based on classification scores.