Summary and Discussion

Abstract

This study was undertaken to assess the resonableness of certain major assumptions underlying the concept of selective incapacitation and recent research on that topic, particularly the research that relies on statistical models of crime and the criminal justice system. The main assumption, in this regard, was that criminal careers are characterized by a reasonably constant rate of criminal behavior¹. High-volume offenders, who are the primary targets of hypothetical selective sentencing policies, are assumed to contribute their disproportionate share of crimes by maintaining a relatively high rate of criminal activity throughout their active adult criminal careers. Other offenders, in the meantime, plod along at lower, but constant, rates of criminal behavior throughout their careers as well. This primary assumption has several important corollaries: that offense rates do not decline with age; that interventions, such as probation, prison, or any form of treatment, will not affect offense rates appreciably; and that these rates will not change as a result of other offenders being treated in one way or another by the criminal justice system. Under these assumptions, selective incapacitation appears not only to have potential for reducing crime, but appears to be the onlyway of coping with the crime problem.