Intermediate Sanctions: A Comparative Analysis of the Probability and Severity of Recidivism |
| |
| Authors: | Jeffery T Ulmer |
| |
| Institution: | Associate professor of sociology and crime, law, and justice at Penn State University. His interests include courts and sentencing, the relationship between sanctions and hture deviance, theories of crime and deviance, and symbolic interactionism's general contributions to sociological theory and methodology. His recent projects include studies of community corrections and recidivism, fear of crime, sentencing practices under sentencing guidelines, and an exploratory study of crime and sentencing in southern Brazil. His recent articles have appeared in Social Problems, Criminology, The Sociological Quarterly, Theoretical Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Sociological Inquily, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography;, and Applied Behavioral Science Review. His book, Social Worlds of Sentencing, was published in 1997 by SUNY Press. He is also editor of Sociology of Crime, Law, and Deviance, a bi-annual series published by Elsevier Sciences. |
| |
| Abstract: | Social scientists have a longstanding concern with the relationship between criminal sanctions and offenders'future behavior. This paper uses data from a sample of 528 adult felony offenders to compare the relative probability of rearrest, the severity of rearrest, and the likelihood of probation revocation for offenders with a sentence of incarceration, work release, house arrest, and traditional probation—or a combination of these sentences. Consistent with previous research, prior record, gender, offense type, and education were significantly related to the probability and severity of rearrest. Furthermore, no matter which other sanction it was paired with, house arrest was associated with reduced chances of rearrest and lower rearrest severity. The influence of one of these sanction combinations was gender-specific: incarceration followed by house arrest was associated with reduced odds of rearrest for women but not for men. However, house arrest was associated with the considerably increased likelihood of probation revocation. In addition, these effects remain after controlling for potential selection bias stemming from the sentencing decision. This paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and correctional implications of these findings and directions for future research. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
