Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 303–326 | Cite as

Incapacitation: Revisiting an Old Question with a New Method and New Data

  • Gary SweetenEmail author
  • Robert Apel
Original Paper


We use the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 to obtain estimates of the number of crimes avoided through incapacitation of individual offenders. Incarcerated individuals are matched to comparable non-incarcerated counterparts using propensity score matching. Propensity scores for incarceration are calculated using a wide variety of time-stable and time-varying confounding variables. We separately analyze juvenile (age 16 or 17) and adult (age 18 or 19) incapacitation effects. Our best estimate is that between 6.2 and 14.1 offenses are prevented per year of juvenile incarceration, and 4.9 to 8.4 offenses are prevented per year of adult incarceration.


Incapacitation Incarceration Propensity score matching Juvenile justice Prison 


  1. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB (1996) Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 91:444–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashenfelter O (1978) Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. Rev Econ Stat 60:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avi-Itzhak B, Shinnar R (1973) Quantitative models in crime control. J Crim Justice 1:185–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein A, Canela-Cacho JA, Cohen J (1993) Filtered sampling from populations with heterogeneous event frequencies. Manage Sci 39:886–899Google Scholar
  5. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher CA (eds) (1986) Criminal careers and “career criminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Brame R, Piquero A (2003) Selective attrition and the age-crime relationship. J Quant Criminol 19:107–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell DT, Erlebacher A (1970) How regression artifacts in quasi experimental evaluations can mistakenly make compensatory education look bad. In: Hellmuth J (ed) The disadvantaged child, vol 3. Brumner/Mazel, New York, pp 185–210Google Scholar
  8. Canela-Cacho JA, Blumstein A, Cohen J (1997) Relationship between the offending frequency (λ) of imprisoned and free offenders. Criminology 35:133–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken JM, Chaiken MR (1982) Varieties of criminal behavior. Rand, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrlich I (1973) Participation in illegitimate activities: a theoretical and empirical investigation. J Polit Econ 81:521–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Epanechnikov VA (1969) Non-parametric estimation of a multivariate probability density. Theory Prob Appl 14:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibbs JP (1968) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Southwestern Social Sci Quart 48:515–530Google Scholar
  13. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood P, Abrahamse A (1982). Selective incapacitation (Report R-2815-NIJ). Rand, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood P, Turner S (1987). Selective incapacitation revisited (Report R-3397-NIJ). Rand, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison PM, Beck AJ (2006) Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005 (NCJ 213133). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84:862–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckman JJ, Smith JA (1999) The pre-programme earnings dip and the determinants of participation in a social programme: implications for simple programme evaluation strategies. Econ J 109:313–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirschi T, Gottfredson M (1983) Age and the explanation of crime. Am J Sociol 89:552–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horney J, Marshall IH (1991) Measuring lambda through self-reports. Criminology 29:471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kovandzic TV, Vieraitis LM (2006) The effect of county-level prison population growth on crime rates. Crim Public Policy 5:213–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Version 3.0.0Google Scholar
  23. Levitt SD (1996) The effect of prison population size on crime rates: evidence from prison overcrowding legislation. Quart J Econ 111:319–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maltz MD, Pollock SM (1980) Artificial inflation of a delinquency rate by a selection artifact. Oper Res 28:547–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marvell TB, Moody CE (1994) Prison population growth and crime reduction. J Quant Crim 10:109–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagin D (1978) General deterrence: a review of the empirical evidence. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 95–139Google Scholar
  27. Nagin DS, Land KC (1993) Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity: specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poisson model. Criminology 31:327–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peterson MA, Braiker HB, Polich SM (1980) Doing crime: a survey of California prison inmates (Report R-220-DOJ). Rand, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  29. Rolph JE, Chaiken JM (1987). Identifying high-rate serious criminals from official records (Report R-3433-NIJ). Rand, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Rolph JE, Chaiken JM, Houchens RL (1981). Methods for estimating crime rates of individuals (Report R-2730-NIJ). Rand, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79:516–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shinnar S, Shinnar R (1975) The effects of the criminal justice system on the control of crime: a quantitative approach. Law Soc Rev 9:581–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith JA, Todd P (2005) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of non-experimental methods? J Economet 125:305–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spelman W (1994) Criminal incapacitation. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Spelman W (2000) What recent studies do (and don’t) tell us about imprisonment and crime. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 27. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 419–494Google Scholar
  38. Tittle CR (1969) Crime rates and legal sanctions. Social Problems 16:409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimring FE, Hawkins G (1995) Incapacitation: penal confinement and the restraint of crime. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at Albany-SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations