Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sentencing and Deterrence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Part of the book series: Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy ((SSEBCP))

  • 2217 Accesses

Abstract

The impact of sentencing choice and deterrence strategies has important implications for public safety and cost to the criminal justice system (CJS) and its victims. Evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies provides valuable information about the relative effectiveness of these strategies. In this chapter, we use systematic principles to identify systematic reviews and meta-analytical studies of sentencing options and deterrence strategies. Five databases and two websites were searched between the date of database inception up until February 2012. Abstracts and papers were screened for inclusion and data extracted resulting in 22 publications (reporting on 16 reviews). The findings revealed 12 different sentencing reviews and four reviews using or applying deterrence theory. The results were categorized into “What Works”, “What’s Promising”, what showed “No evidence of any effect”, “Harmful interventions”, and interventions where the conclusions were “Uncertain”. Those that were classified as “what works” included adult drug courts where the majority (n = 8) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted. The largest body of evidence showed some promising findings but require additional research to ascertain firm conclusions. Interventions that were classified as promising included mental health courts (MHCs), post-booking schemes, FACT, jail-based courts, mental health and probation and parole schemes, and driving while intoxicated (DWI) initiatives. We remain “uncertain” about the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts and courts assessing DWI offenders, court-mandated domestic violence schemes, and use of the death penalty. The broad category of sentencing and deterrence, specifically in relation to sentence severity and boot camps, was found to have “no evidence of any effect”. Limitations of the literature included the external generalizability of the results beyond interventions in the USA.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    PsychINFO (OVID), Social Policy and Practice, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), Social Science Citation Index and Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS).

  2. 2.

    Campbell Collaboration (see www.campbellcollaboration.org) and the The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI Centre).

  3. 3.

    Quasi-experimental studies also included those studies using a prospective design.

References

  • Beck, K. H., Rauch, W. J., & Baker, E. A. (1997). The effects of alcohol ignition interlock license restrictions on multiple alcohol offenders: A randomized trial in Maryland. College Park, MD: Department of Psychology: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drugs courts: A critical review, 2001 update. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse: Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coben, J. H., & Larkin, G. L. (1999). Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing drunk driving recidivism. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 16(1 Suppl), 81‑87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, T. P., Walsh, W. A., Simone, M., & Jones, L. M. (2003). Prosecution of child abuse: A meta-analysis of rates of criminal justice decisions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(4), 323‑340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazel, S., & Danesh, J. (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23 000 prisoners: A systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet, 359, 545‑550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 239‑262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finfgeld-Connett, D., & Johnson, E. (2011). Substance abuse treatment for women who are under correctional supervision in the community: A systematic review of qualitative findings. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(10), 640‑648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B. (2003). Doing good with venegeance: A critical assessment of the practices, effects and implications of drug treatment courts in North America. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 3(3), 227‑248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. A., & Clum, G. A. (1993). A meta-analysis of self-help treatment approaches. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(2), 169‑186. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(93)90039-o.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, E., & Mosher, C. (2006). Adult drug courts: Emergence, growth, outcome evaluations and the need for a continuum of care. Idaho Law Review, 42(2), 443‑470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, S., Rehm, J., & Popova, S. (2011). The effectiveness of criminal justice diversion initiatives in North America: A systematic literature review. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(3), 200‑214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2005). Are drug courts effective: A meta analytic review. Journal of Community Corrections, Fall, 5‑10, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77‑93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, K., Fox, C., & Sarmah, R. (2009). Is custody an effective sentencing option for the UK? Evidence from a meta-analysis of existing studies. Probation Journal, 56(2), 129‑151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, C., Cohen, M. A., Swaray, R., & Perry, A. (2003). The costs and benefits of sentencing: A systematic review. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 160‑177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Drug courts’ effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(4). doi:10.4073.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D., & Pepper, D. S. (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4), 865‑892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 41‑62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2005). Brief report: The effects of scared straight and similar programs on delinquency: A systematic review. Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 4(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarteschi, C. M., Vaughn, M. G., & Kim, K. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of mental health courts: A quantitative review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 12‑20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 12(3), 759‑772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. P. (2001). Criminal deterrence as a public health strategy. The Lancet, 358(9294), 1717‑1722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, J., & Simes, J. (1997). Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315, 640‑645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2005). Adult drug courts: Evidence indicates recidivism reductions and mixed results for other outcomes. GAO-05-219, February 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E., & Wikstrom, P. O. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. R., Gibbs, J. P., Erickson, M. L. (1980). Public knowledge of statutory penalities: The extent and basis of accurate perception. Pacific Sociological Review, 23(1). 105‑128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2005). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(6), 1‑45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Mitchell, O., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(4), 459‑487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2008). The deterrent effect of executions: A meta-analysis thirty years after Ehrlich. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(5), 453‑460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The author thanks Kate Light, Information Specialist, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, for her assistance with developing the search strategies and conducting the searches. The author also thanks Catherine Hewitt, The Trials Unit, University of York, UK and Alese Wooditch, Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, University of George Mason, USA, for their help in converting effect sizes into ORs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Heslington, UK

    Amanda E. Perry

Authors
  1. Amanda E. Perry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda E. Perry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    David Weisburd

  2. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    David P. Farrington

  3. Department of Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    Charlotte Gill

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Perry, A.E. (2016). Sentencing and Deterrence. In: Weisburd, D., Farrington, D., Gill, C. (eds) What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation. Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3475-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3477-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation