Prior Record and Recidivism Risk
An individual’s prior record can have a pronounced impact on the punishment he or she receives for a new offense, substantially increasing the likelihood and duration of an incarceration sentence. Not only does prior record contribute to mass incarceration, but prior research has consistently shown that criminal history mediates race effects and exacerbates disparities. In guidelines jurisdictions, criminal history enhancements are partially or primarily employed as proxies for risk prevention. But for the most part these scores were not developed empirically, and, to date, whether scores are valid predictors of risk has gone unexplored. This paper uses survival analysis and area under the curve analysis to examine the predictive efficacy of the Pennsylvania Prior Record Score using a sample of offenders sentenced in Pennsylvania and followed-up for 3 years after release (n = 130,758). The results show that some of the Pennsylvania PRS categories fail to accurately distinguish among offenders based on their likelihood of recidivism. Further, some of the key score components that increase the PRS (and the punishment imposed) have marginal effects on the predictive efficacy of the score, often only increasing the prediction accuracy by a single percentage point. By re-engineering the PRS categories and sub-components, this jurisdiction could recommend less punishment in some cases without any apparent increase in risk to public safety.
KeywordsSentencing Criminal history Recidivism Punishment theories
My thanks to Richard Frase and Julian Roberts for comments on an earlier draft. I’m also grateful to Mark Bergstrom, Leigh Tinik, and the other staff and affiliates of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing for use of the data and for feedback on this project. I served as Deputy Director of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing during much of the research and writing of this project; any views expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission, its members, or staff.
- Abrams, D. S. (2013). The imprisoner’s dilemma: A cost-benefit approach to incarceration. Iowa Law Review, 98(2013), 905–2141.Google Scholar
- American Law Institute. (2017). Model penal code: Sentencing, tentative draft no. 5. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
- Bagaric, M. (2014). The punishment should fit the crime- not the prior convictions of the person that committed the crime: An argument for less impact being accorded to previous convictions in sentencing. San Diego Law Review, 51, 343–418.Google Scholar
- Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2017). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: the state of the art. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.09207.Google Scholar
- Brame, R. (2017). Static risk factors and criminal recidivism. In F. Taxman (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Cleves, M., Gould, W. W., & Marchenko, Y. V. (2016). An introduction to survival analysis using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
- Davis, M. (1992). Just deserts for recidivists. In To make the punishment fit the crime: Essays in the theory of criminal justice. Boulder, CO. Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Durlauf, S. F., & Nagin, D. S. (2009). The deterrent effect of imprisonment. In P. J. Cook, J. Ludwig, & J. McCrary (Eds.), Controlling crime: Strategies and tradeoffs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, G. (1978). Rethinking criminal law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co..Google Scholar
- Frase, R. S. (2009). What explains persistent racial disproportionality in Minnesota’s prison and jail populations? In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Frase, R. S. (2013). Just sentencing: Principles and procedures for a workable system. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Frase, R. S., Roberts, J. V., Hester, R., & Mitchell, K. L. (2015). Criminal history enhancements sourcebook. Minneapolis: Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, S. D., & Gottfredson, D. M. (1990). Classification, prediction and criminal justice policy: Final report to the National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Hester, R., Frase, R. S., Laskorunsky, J. A., & Mitchell, K. L. (2018a). Rethinking the role of criminal history in sentencing.Google Scholar
- Jacobs, J. B. (2015). The eternal criminal record. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kramer, J. H., & Ulmer, J. T. (2009). Sentencing guidelines: Lessons from Pennsylvania. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
- Lee, Y. (2009). Recidivism as omission: A relational account. Texas Law Review, 87, 571–622.Google Scholar
- Lee, Y. (2010). Repeat offenders and the question of desert. In J. V. Roberts & A. von Hirsch (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lippke, R. (2015). The ethics of recidivist premiums. In J. Jackson and J. Jacobs (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of criminal justice ethics (pp. 17–27). Routledge 2016.Google Scholar
- Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mitchell, O., Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2016). Examining prison effects on recidivism: A regression discontinuity approach. Justice Quarterly, 1–26.Google Scholar
- Monahan, J, Skeem, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2017). Age, risk assessment, and sanctioning: Overestimating the old, underestimating the young. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000233.
- Nagin, D. (2013). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2011). Interim Report 1: Review of Factors used in Risk Assessment Instruments. http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interim-report-1-review-of-factors-used-in-risk-assessment-instruments/view. Accessed 17 May 2018.
- Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2013). Interim Report 7: Validation of Risk Scale. http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-i-reports/interim-report-7-validation-of-risk-scale/view. Accessed 17 May 2018.
- Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing. (2016). Risk Assessment Project, Phase 2. Interim Report 2: Validation of a Risk Assessment Instrument By Offense Gravity Score For All Offenders. http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/risk-assessment/phase-ii-reports/interim-report-2-validation-of-risk-assessment-instrument-by-ogs-for-all-offenses-february-2016/view. Accessed 17 May 2018.
- Petersen, T. S. (2012). Less for recidivists? Why retributivists have a reason to punish repeat offenders less harshly than first-time offenders. In C. Tamburrini & J. Ryberg (Eds.), Recidivist punishments: The philosopher’s view. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Reitz, K. R. (2017). American exceptionalism in crime and punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Roberts, J. V. (2010). First offender sentencing discounts: Exploring the justifications. In J. V. Roberts & A. von Hirsch (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Singer, R. (1979). Just deserts: Sentencing based on equality and desert. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co..Google Scholar
- Starr, S. B. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66, 803–872.Google Scholar
- Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. T., & Painter-Davis, N. (2016). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60(4), 810–833.Google Scholar
- Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Tonry, M. (2010). The questionable relevance of previous convictions to punishments for later crimes. In J. V. Roberts & A. von Hirsch (Eds.), Previous convictions at sentencing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
- Tonry, M. (2016). Sentencing fragments. Penal reform in America, 1975–2025. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Research Council Committee on Law and Justice. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- U.S. Sentencing Commission. (2004). Release 1: Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. http://www.ussc.gov/Research/Research_Publications/Recidivism/200405_Recidivism_Criminal_History.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2018.
- Ulmer, J. T. & Laskorunsky, J. A. (2015). Sentencing policies and practices in Pennsylvania. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Oxford Handbooks Online in Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.013.150.
- Ulmer, J., Painter-Davis, N., & Tinik, L. (2016). Disproportional imprisonment of black and hispanic males: Sentencing discretion, processing outcomes, and policy structures. Justice Quarterly, 33(4), 642–681.Google Scholar
- von Hirsch, A. (1991). Criminal record rides again. Criminal Justice Ethics, 10, 55–57.Google Scholar
- Zatz, M. S (2016). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(1), 69–92.Google Scholar