Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revisiting Incapacitation: Can We Generate New Estimates?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A substantial body of empirical research examines how the huge expansion in incarceration in the United States since the early 1970s has influenced crime. These studies merge the effects of three conceptually distinct paths by which incarceration might reduce crime: general deterrence, specific deterrence and incapacitation. This issue of the Journal focuses specifically on the incapacitation path. This Introduction reviews the individual papers and offers the editors’ judgment as to the plausibility of progress using different research strategies. It emphasizes the potential for using individual level data to take advantage of natural experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The Maryland Sentencing Commission made the change because it felt that the difference between Maryland and surrounding states was unfair; in other states the juvenile record did not count after age 22.

  2. Small scale efforts at replication include DiIulio (1990), covering Wisconsin prisoners, and Piehl and DiIulio (1995) on a sample of New Jersey offenders.

References

  • Auerhahn K (1999) Selective incapacitation and the problem of prediction. Criminology 37(4):703–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiIulio J Jr (1990) Crime and punishment in Wisconsin: a survey of prisoners and an analysis of the net benefit of imprisonment, vol 3, no 7. Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Reports

  • Johnson R, Raphael S (2007) How much crime reduction does the marginal prisoner buy? Working Paper. Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley

  • Kuziemko I (2006) From parole to fixed sentences: an empirical investigation of rules and discretion in U.S. Prisons Harvard University Economics Working Paper

  • Kuziemko I, Levitt S (2004) An empirical analysis of imprisoning drug offenders. J Public Econ 88(9–10):2043–2066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt S (2004) Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. J Econ Perspect 18(1):163–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens E (2007) More time, less crime? Estimating the incapacitative effect of sentence enhancement (unpublished paper). Department of Economics, University of Maryland

  • Piehl A, Liedka RV, Useem B (2006) The crime-control effect of incarceration: does scale matter? Criminol Public Policy 5(2):245–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spelman W (2000) What recent studies do (and don’t) tell us about imprisonment and crime. Crime and Justice 27

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Peter Reuter

  2. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Shawn D. Bushway

Authors
  1. Peter Reuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shawn D. Bushway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Reuter.

Additional information

This research was supported by Grant # 0510259274 from the National Institute of Justice.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reuter, P., Bushway, S.D. Revisiting Incapacitation: Can We Generate New Estimates?. J Quant Criminol 23, 259–265 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9029-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-007-9029-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation