Incarceration and Violent Crime: 1965-1988

Jacqueline Cohen and José A. Canela-Cacho

Imprisonment rates in the United States changed dramatically from 1965 to 1988. Offenders in prison and incarceration rates per population first decreased during the late 1960s and have increased to record levels since the mid-1970s. Recent increases have continued unabated despite the severe pressures they have placed on strained prison capacities. For retributive as well as public protection reasons, the tendency in recent sentencing reforms has been to rely increasingly on longer and/or more certain incarceration terms.

This paper examines various aspects of the relationship between incarceration and levels of violent crime. We focus first on the nature of changes in the prison population from 1965 to 1988, particularly the role of incarceration for violent offenses in observed changes in the total prison population, and the relative contributions of sanction policies and levels of offending to changes in observed incarceration rates. We then explore the likely crime control effects of incarceration on levels of violent crime, especially

Jacqueline Cohen is at the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University. José Canela-Cacho is at the Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control Incarceration and Violent Crime: 1965-1988 Jacqueline Cohen and José A. Canela-Cacho Imprisonment rates in the United States changed dramatically from 1965 to 1988. Offenders in prison and incarceration rates per population first decreased during the late 1960s and have increased to record levels since the mid-1970s. Recent increases have continued unabated despite the severe pressures they have placed on strained prison capacities. For retributive as well as public protection reasons, the tendency in recent sentencing reforms has been to rely increasingly on longer and/or more certain incarceration terms. This paper examines various aspects of the relationship between incarceration and levels of violent crime. We focus first on the nature of changes in the prison population from 1965 to 1988, particularly the role of incarceration for violent offenses in observed changes in the total prison population, and the relative contributions of sanction policies and levels of offending to changes in observed incarceration rates. We then explore the likely crime control effects of incarceration on levels of violent crime, especially Jacqueline Cohen is at the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University. José Canela-Cacho is at the Graduate School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control the appropriateness of deterrence and incapacitation strategies as means for reducing violent offending. Throughout the analysis, we limit consideration to incarceration in state prisons—the primary site for long-term institutionalization of violent offenders—and exclude local prisons and jails. When referring to violent offenses, we include murder (which usually includes nonnegligent homicide), aggravated assault, rape, and robbery. For purposes of comparison, we also analyze burglary and drug offenses, two nonviolent offenses that figure prominently in prison populations.1 We rely primarily on annual data from 1965 to 1988 for selected states. State-level data are especially useful because they provide annual counts of both admissions to prison and resident populations disaggregated by crime type. The analyses of prison populations are designed to answer three main questions: What is the contribution of incarceration for violent crimes to the changes over time in the total prison population? How have sanction policies regarding the certainty and severity of imprisonment for violent crimes changed over time? What is the contribution of changing sanction policies for violent crimes to changes in the size of the prison population? With regard to the crime control effects of incarceration, we are especially concerned with examining whether incarceration is an effective strategy for controlling violent crimes and the merits of pursuing alternative incarceration policies. DATA In addition to national data, we obtained corrections data from the following states: California, Florida, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas.2 These states were selected because they are geographically distributed in various regions of the United States, and together they comprised 38.5 percent of total prisoners under jurisdiction in state and federal institutions in 1988 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990a). All of the states provided annual data on commitments to prison and average daily population (typically a one-day census of the resident inmate population) disaggregated by crime type and for the total over all crime types.3 The data for each state vary somewhat in the years covered. New York and California are the most complete, and cover the entire period from 1965 to 1988; the data for the remaining states

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE 1 State Corrections Data, 1965-1988: Earliest Year Available for Residents and Commitments to Prison by Crime Type State Residents Commitments California 1965 1965 Florida 1973 1965 Michigan 1973 1965 New York 1965 1965 Pennsylvania 1980 1974 Texas 1977 1977 NOTE: Corrections data end in 1987 for Michigan. Commitment data for drug offenses are not regarded as reliable for 1987 and 1988 in Florida (see note 4). begin sometime during the 1970s and are usually more complete for commitments (see Table 1). The data on inmates have been augmented by data on crimes reported to the police for each state available from the annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). We supplemented the regularly published crime data with state-level data obtained from the FBI on the numbers of total arrests and arrests of adults (age 18 or over) for each crime type for 1965 to 1988. The full data set potentially includes a maximum of 864 observations (6 states × 6 crimes × 24 years). The number of observations actually available was reduced to 723 after removing cases in which the data were obviously unreliable.4 PRISON POPULATIONS Between 1975 and 1989 the total annual prison population of the United States grew from 240,593 to 679,263 inmates in custody, an increase of 182 percent. Certainly, some of this increase is due to increases in the general population over this period, and more particularly to increases in the size of the adult population. Nevertheless, the annual incarceration rate adjusted for total population rose 146 percent from 111.7 inmates per 100,000 population to a historical high of 274.4 over this same period, and the incarceration rate adjusted by adult population (age 18 or over) rose by 128 percent from 162.2 to 369.7 inmates per 100,000 adult population (Figure 1).5 This increase is unprecedented in recent U.S. history,

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 1 Incarceration in state and federal institutions in the United States, 1965-1989. Top. Inmate population rescaled with year 1965 = 100 (actual values for 1965 are in parentheses). Bottom. Incarceration rates. and follows a period of relative stability in incarceration rates from 1945 to 1974 when the incarceration rate averaged 106 inmates per 100,000 total population, with a minimum rate of 93 in 1972 and a maximum rate of 119 in 1961 (Blumstein and Cohen, 1973). The increases during the 1980s also exceed what were generally regarded as unrealistically high projections of prison populations obtained by simply extrapolating prevailing linear trends

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control during the 1970s. The Abt Corporation's 1980 study of past prison populations in the United States (Mullen, 1980:96) was typical of a widely held view in its conclusion that although all prison population projections anticipate some further growth in the number of inmates in state custody, none call for continuation of the historically high rate of the mid-1970s. In fact, as Table 2 reveals, the average annual growth from 1975 to 1980 of 5.5 percent in the number of inmates (3.7 percent in inmates per 100,000 adult population) was exceeded from 1980 to 1988, when the annual growth in the number of inmates averaged 8.0 percent (6.6% for inmates per adult population). Moreover, the one-year increase of 12.5 percent in the number of inmates in 1989 (11.3% in the rate per 100,000 adult population) was the largest increase ever. These increases nationally are mirrored in individual states (Figure 2). By 1988 the incarceration rates, either per total population or per adult population, were close to or exceeded the corresponding national rates in five of the six states examined. Only Pennsylvania's rates remained less than 200 inmates per 100,000 population. The largest percentage increases from 1975 rates occurred in California (where the rate per total population increased more than 250%), New York (up 180%), and Pennsylvania (up 158% from 58 in 1975 to 149 in 1988). The increases in Florida and Texas were smaller, up about 60 percent from the already higher rates prevailing in those states in 1975. The six states examined are becoming more similar to one another in their incarceration rates: excluding Pennsylvania, the standard deviation in rates across the other five states drops from 33 percent of a mean rate of 120 in 1975 to only 6 percent of a mean rate of 257 in 1988. Increases in crime—especially in violent crimes that are more likely to result in sentences to prison following conviction—are among the factors that may account for the recent rise in prison populations. Figure 3 shows the percentage of inmates incarcerated for individual crime types. Total U.S rates from the most recent 1986 inmate survey are contrasted with the corresponding range of rates found in the same year in the six study states. Although differing somewhat in absolute magnitude, the six states displayed the same relative prevalence of different crime types found in periodic national surveys of inmates in state prisons. Robbery and burglary are the most prevalent convicted offenses among resident inmates both in the United States and in individual

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE 2 Prison Inmates in the United States, 1965 to 1989         Annual Change in Inmates (%) Year Number of Inmates Inmates per 100,000 Total Population Inmates per 100,000 Adult Population Number of Inmates Rate per Total Population Rate per Adult Population 1965 210,895 109.0 170.3 — — — 1966 199,654 102.1 158.9 -5.3 -6.3 -6.7 1967 194,896 98.7 152.8 -2.4 -3.3 -3.8 1968 187,914 94.2 145.1 -3.6 -4.5 -5.1 1969 196,007 97.3 148.9 4.3 3.3 2.6 1970 196,429 96.3 146.3 0.2 -1.1 -1.7 1971 198,061 95.8 144.5 0.8 -0.6 -1.2 1972 196,092 93.7 140.2 -1.0 -2.2 -3.0 1973 204,211 96.6 143.2 4.1 3.1 2.1 1974 218,466 102.4 150.3 7.0 6.0 4.9 1975 240,593 111.7 162.2 10.1 9.0 7.9 1976 262,833 120.8 173.7 9.2 8.2 7.1 1977 278,141 126.6 180.3 5.8 4.8 3.8 1977 285,456 129.9 185.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 1978 294,396 132.6 187.1 3.1 2.0 1.2 1979 301,470 134.2 187.9 2.4 1.3 0.4 1980 315,974 139.0 193.2 4.8 3.6 2.8 1981 353,167 153.8 212.3 11.8 10.6 9.9 1982 394,374 170.0 233.3 11.7 10.5 9.9 1983 419,820 179.2 244.8 6.5 5.4 4.9 1984 443,398 187.5 255.3 5.6 4.6 4.3 1985 480,568 201.3 273.5 8.4 7.4 7.1 1986 522,084 216.8 293.8 8.6 7.7 7.5 1987 560,812 230.7 312.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 1988 603,720 246.1 332.3 7.7 6.7 6.4 1989 679,263 274.5 369.8 12.5 11.5 11.3     1975-1980 Average 5.5 4.5 3.7     1980-1988 Average 8.0 7.0 6.6   SOURCES: Flanagan and Maguire (1990:Table 6.43); Bureau of Justice Statistics (1990a). Adjustments to form population rates use population data from Bureau of the Census (1974, 1982, 1984, and 1986). Both custody and jurisdiction counts are reported for 1977 to facilitate year-to-year comparisons. states, whereas rape and aggravated assault are the least prevalent of the crime types compared. When examined over time from 1975 to 1988, the crime mix of inmates in each of the six states does not display any general increases in violent offenses among either commitments to prison or resident inmates. With the exceptions of rape (which increases

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 2 Annual total incarceration rate in individual states: inmates per total population from 1965-1988. sharply from 4.6 to 13.8% among Michigan inmates, and more modestly in Florida from 5.0 to 9.1%) and assault (which exhibits slow but steady increases from 5.0 to 6.8% in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and from 2.1 to 4.0% in Texas), the contribution of violent offenses to the total is stable or, in the case of robbery (Figure 4-top), actually decreases during the 1980s. Only drug offenses (Figure 4-bottom) display widespread sharp increases as a percentage of total prison populations, especially after 1980.6 The proportional mix of crime types among inmates is a constrained relational measure: recent large increases in the proportion of inmates for drug offenses must be offset by corresponding declines in the proportions of inmates for other crime types. Such compensating changes in proportions could easily conceal real increases in incarceration for violent offenses. In order to better isolate patterns of incarceration for violent crimes, the crime-specific rate of resident inmates per 100,000 population is compared to the more commonly reported total incarceration rate.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 3 Crime mix among resident inmates in 1986: percent of total inmates by most serious convicted offense in the United States (represented by a dash), and in individual states with the lowest and highest percents among the six states in this study. SOURCE: For U.S. percents, Bureau of Justice Statistics (1988). Figure 5 presents crime-specific incarceration rates for New York. Because the different crime types are characterized by incarceration rates that differ markedly in scale, with rates as low as 1 inmate per 100,000 population for rape or aggravated assault and as high as 60 for robbery or burglary, annual incarceration rates for each crime type are adjusted to a common scale by using the 1977 rates as a base. Since 1977, across the six states, incarceration rates for the expressive, violent offenses of murder and aggravated assault (e.g., Figure 5-top) have increased at rates very similar to those observed for total incarceration rates in Figure 1. (The increase for aggravated assault is somewhat higher in Pennsylvania and Texas.) Similar increases in incarceration rates were also observed across the six states for the more instrumental offenses of robbery and burglary (e.g., Figure 5-bottom). The increases in total incarceration rates evident in Figures 1 and 2 thus reflect a general pattern of similar increases that occurred widely across different crime types and states. The incarceration rate for drug offenses is distinguished from other crime types by a rapid increase in the inmate population beginning in 1985. Some interesting exceptions to the general pattern do exist. It is evident from Figure 6-top that Florida experienced distinctive

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 4 Percent of prison population serving time for robbery or drug offenses each year from 1965-1988 in individual states. Top. Commitments and resident inmates for robbery. Bottom. Commitments and resident inmates for drug offenses. increases in incarceration rates for rape over the period under study. Similar increases in the incarceration rate of inmates serving time for rape were also observed in Michigan and Texas. Also in Florida, incarceration rates for aggravated assault, burglary, and robbery do not exhibit the same general increases observed in other states. Instead, incarceration rates for these offense types

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 5 Variation over time in crime-specific incarceration rates in New York. Rates for individual crime types are rescaled using a common base rate of 100 in 1977 (actual values for 1977 are in parentheses). Values represent percentage differences from rates in 1977. Top. Violent offenses of murder, rape, and aggravated assault. Bottom. Instrumental offenses of robbery, burglary, and drugs. recently began to stabilize or actually decline. Similar declines are also evident in incarceration rates for burglary and robbery in Texas.7 These declines for selected crime types occur in the two states in this study whose entire correctional systems are operating under court order to relieve overcrowding and improve other

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control FIGURE 6 Variation over time in crime-specific incarceration rates in Florida. Rates for individual crime types are rescaled using a common base rate of 100 in 1977 (actual values for 1977 are in parentheses). Values represent percentage changes from the rates in 1977. Top. Violent offenses of murder, rape, and aggravated assault. Bottom. Instrumental offenses of robbery, burglary, and drugs. conditions of confinement (American Correctional Association, 1989; National Conference of State Legislatures, 1989). In the face of continuing shortages of space and other resources, one strategy to alleviate overcrowding is to reduce the number of inmates, through either reductions in the length of stay or use of

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control Gibbs, J.P. 1975 Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier. 1986 Deterrence theory and research. In G.B. Melton, ed., The Law as a Behavioral Instrument: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gottfredson, D.M., and M. Tonry 1987 Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gottfredson, M.R., and T. Hirschi 1990 A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Greenberg, D. 1975 The incapacitative effect of imprisonment: Some estimates. Law and Society Review 9:541-580. Greene, M.A. 1977 The Incapacitative Effect of Imprisonment Policies on Crime. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University. Greenwood, P.W., and S. Turner 1987 Selective Incapacitation Revisited: Why the High-Rate Offenders are Hard to Predict. Report R-3397-NIJ. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation. Hamparian, D.N., R. Schuster, S. Dinitz, and J.P. Conrad 1978 The Violent Few. A Study of Dangerous Juvenile Offenders. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Horney, J., and I.H. Marshall 1991 Measuring lambda through self-reports. Criminology 29(3):471-496. Isikoff, M. 1990 Florida's crime crackdown is freeing felons early. Washington Post, December 28. Jencks, C. 1991 Is violent crime increasing? American Prospect (winter):98-109. Klepper, S., and D. Nagin 1989 The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology 27(4):721-746. Langan, P. 1991 America's soaring prison population. Science 25:1568-1573. Miller, S.J., S. Dinitz, and J.P. Conrad 1982 Careers of the Violent. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Miranne, A.C., and M.R. Geerken 1991 The New Orleans inmate survey: A test of Greenwood's predictive scale. Criminology 29(3):497-578. Mullen, J. (with K. Carlson and B. Smith) 1980 American Prisons and Jails, Vol I. National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control National Conference of State Legislatures 1989 State Legislatures and Corrections Policy: An Overview. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures. National Prisoner Statistics 1976 Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities, 1974. National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Paternoster, R. 1987 The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly 42:173-217. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency 1988 Trends and Issues in Pennsylvania's Criminal Justice System. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Petersilia, J., and P.W. Greenwood 1978 Mandatory prison sentences: Their projected effects on crime and prison population. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 69(4):604-615. Peterson, M.A., and H.B. Braiker (with S. Polich) 1981 Who Commits Crime. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain Publishers. (Also available in 1980 publication Doing Crime: A Survey of California Prison Inmates, Report R-2200-DOJ. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.) Piper, E.S. 1985 Violent recidivism and chronicity in the 1958 Philadelphia cohort. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1(4):319-344. Reiss, A.J., Jr. 1980 Understanding changes in crime rates. In S.E. Fienberg and A.J. Reiss, eds., Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Shane-Dubow, S., A.P. Brown, and E. Olsen 1985 Sentencing Reform in the United States: History, Content, and Effect. National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Shannon, L.W. 1982 Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers. Iowa City: Iowa Urban Community Research Center, University of Iowa. 1988 Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context. New York: Human Sciences Press. Shinnar, R., and S. Shinnar 1975 The effect of the criminal justice system on the control of crime: A quantitative approach . Law and Society Review 9:581-612.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control Tittle, C.R. 1980 Sanctions and Social Deviance: The Question of Deterrence. New York: Praeger. Tracy, P.E., M.E. Wolfgang, and R.M. Figlio 1990 Delinquency Careers in Two Birth Cohorts. New York: Plenum Press. Van Dine, S., J.P. Conrad, and S. Dinitz 1979 Restraining the Wicked. The Incapacitation of the Dangerous Criminal. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Visher, C.A. 1987 Incapacitation and crime control: Does a "lock `em up" strategy reduce crime? Justice Quarterly 4(4):514-543. Walker, L.E. 1979 The Battered Woman. New York: Harper and Row. Weiner, N.A. 1989 Violent criminal careers and "violent career criminals." In N.A. Weiner and M.E. Wolfgang, eds., Violent Crime, Violent Criminals . Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. White, S.O., and M.A. Strauss 1981 The implications of family violence for rehabilitation strategies. In S.E. Martin, L. Sechrest, and R. Redner, eds., New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Williams, K., and R. Hawkins 1986 Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society Review 20(4):545-572. Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, and T. Sellin 1972 Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zedlewski, D.W. 1987 Making Confinement Decisions. National Institute of Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Zimring, F.E., and G.J. Hawkins 1973 Deterrence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1988 The New Mathematics of Imprisonment. Working paper No. 8, Earl Warren Legal Institute, School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE A-1 Descriptive Statistics for Offending Variables   Reported Crimes per 100,000 Populationa (CRT) Adult Fraction of Crimesb (ADT) Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Murder             California 23 9.413 2.584 23 0.891 0.019 Florida 21 11.900 1.599 21 0.930 0.019 Michigan 20 9.551 2.384 20 0.901 0.022 New York 23 9.812 2.451 23 0.895 0.036 Pennsylvania 21 5.229 1.044 21 0.873 0.057 Texas 9 14.075 1.923 9 0.916 0.016 Rape             California 24 41.658 9.696 24 0.859 0.034 Florida 23 37.293 15.026 23 0.817 0.050 Michigan 22 41.325 16.762 22 0.812 0.050 New York 23 24.819 7.237 23 0.824 0.046 Pennsylvania 21 17.776 5.878 21 0.790 0.047 Texas 9 46.696 3.545 9 0.889 0.020 Robbery             California 24 271.505 78.001 24 0.754 0.055 Florida 23 235.886 85.813 23 0.753 0.052 Michigan 22 267.332 63.825 22 0.697 0.098 New York 23 462.591 141.094 23 0.649 0.102 Pennsylvania 21 129.545 41.438 21 0.642 0.057 Texas 9 206.934 22.719 9 0.839 0.029 Aggravated assault             California 24 333.190 119.661 24 0.831 0.038 Florida 23 422.622 139.843 23 0.843 0.024 Michigan 22 276.383 93.965 22 0.774 0.076 New York 21 310.615 92.158 21 0.848 0.045 Pennsylvania 21 125.923 41.206 21 0.782 0.069 Texas 9 300.022 39.893 9 0.886 0.018 Burglary             California 24 1841.936 310.668 24 0.564 0.081 Florida 23 1827.666 431.777 23 0.492 0.113 Michigan 22 1480.715 312.157 22 0.510 0.129 New York 23 1422.106 301.340 23 0.593 0.109 Pennsylvania 21 733.388 182.121 21 0.532 0.065 Texas 9 1879.704 186.837 9 0.636 0.060 Drug offensesc             California 24 519.247 265.595 24 0.808 0.071 Florida 21 238.553 141.086 21 0.806 0.088

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control   Reported Crimes per 100,000 Populationa (CRT) Adult Fraction of Crimesb (ADT) Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Michigan 22 175.690 105.093 22 0.807 0.085 New York 23 298.523 176.242 23 0.869 0.058 Pennsylvania 21 105.363 51.907 21 0.814 0.086 Texas 9 334.005 32.468 9 0.901 0.038 NOTE: SD = standard deviation. a The crime rate is estimated from the ration of the number of crimes reported by police to the total population in each state. Data on reported crimes in each state were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (annual) Uniform Crime Reports. Annual population estimates for each state were obtained from Bureau of the Census (1969, 1970, 1980, 1988, and 1989). b The adult fraction of crimes (adult %) is estimated from the adult fraction of arrests in each state obtained from unpublished supplementary tables of statewide arrest counts from the FBI annual Uniform Crime Reports program. c Independent data are not available on the number of crimes committed for drug offenses, and the "crime rate" reported here is the number of arrests per 100,000 population.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE A-2 Descriptive Statistics for Sanction Risk Variables   Arrest Risk per Reported Crime, qaa Incarceration Risk per Arrest, Qib Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Murder             California 23 1.070 0.114 22 0.372 0.073 Florida 21 0.769 0.122 21 0.765 0.211 Michigan 20 0.915 0.156 20 0.433 0.070 New York 23 0.789 0.095 23 0.628 0.129 Pennsylvania 21 0.983 0.119 12 0.671 0.128 Texas 9 0.810 0.070 9 0.625 0.051 Rape             California 24 0.356 0.033 23 0.107 0.043 Florida 23 0.351 0.065 21 0.261 0.091 Michigan 22 0.358 0.037 21 0.268 0.113 New York 23 0.454 0.060 23 0.097 0.039 Pennsylvania 21 0.613 0.085 12 0.152 0.021 Texas 9 0.278 0.028 9 0.341 0.097 Robbery             California 24 0.340 0.062 23 0.116 0.031 Florida 23 0.254 0.039 23 0.336 0.071 Michigan 22 0.188 0.028 21 0.304 0.062 New York 23 0.241 0.033 23 0.186 0.043 Pennsylvania 21 0.404 0.039 12 0.135 0.020 Texas 9 0.213 0.021 9 0.322 0.051 Aggravated assault             California 24 0.477 0.041 23 0.026 0.008 Florida 23 0.343 0.077 23 0.055 0.019 Michigan 22 0.291 0.035 21 0.059 0.010 New York 21 0.419 0.043 21 0.022 0.004 Pennsylvania 21 0.507 0.044 12 0.032 0.006 Texas 9 0.299 0.013 9 0.059 0.009 Burglary             California 24 0.165 0.010 23 0.049 0.023 Florida 23 0.133 0.019 23 0.220 0.086 Michigan 22 0.116 0.024 21 0.139 0.027 New York 23 0.108 0.019 23 0.071 0.041 Pennsylvania 21 0.182 0.022 12 0.073 0.012 Texas 9 0.108 0.009 9 0.237 0.019 Drug offensesc             California 24 1.000 0.000 23 0.020 0.014 Florida 21 1.000 0.000 21 0.073 0.064

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control   Arrest Risk per Reported Crime, qaa Incarceration Risk per Arrest, Qib Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Michigan 22 1.000 0.000 21 0.063 0.074 New York 23 1.000 0.000 23 0.028 0.011 Pennsylvania 21 1.000 0.000 12 0.025 0.003 Texas 9 1.000 0.000 9 0.050 0.021 NOTE: SD = standard deviation. a The arrest risk per crime (qa) is estimated from the ratio of adult arrests (>18 years of age) in each state to the estimated number of adult crimes reported by police. Adult crimes in each state are estimated from the product of adult % and crime rate (see Table A-1). Arrest data by state were obtained from unpublished supplementary tables from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports program. The arrest risk per crime reported here overstates the actual risk of arrest per crime by about threefold for rape, fourfold for robbery, and fivefold for aggravated assault (see discussion of qa in the main text.) Appropriate adjustments for crimes that are not reported to police and for multiple offenders per crime incident will have similar impacts in reducing qa for burglary and drug offenses. b The incarceration risk per arrest (Qi) is estimated from the ratio of annual commitments to prison on a new conviction to the number of adult arrests in each state. Arrest data for each state were obtained from unpublished supplementary tables from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports program, and data on the number of commitments to prison are from annual published reports of the corrections department in each state. c Separate crime and arrest data are not available for drug offenses. Annual arrest counts are used in the crime rate variable (Table A-1), and the arrest risk per crime is set to 1.0.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE A-3 Descriptive Statistics for Average Time (years) Served in Prisona   Mean Time (years) Served per Prison Commitment, Sb Crime Type and State n Mean SD Murder       California 22 5.04 0.88 Florida 13 4.50 0.65 Michigan 12 5.70 1.23 New York 23 5.02 1.39 Pennsylvania 9 7.29 1.18 Texas 9 4.83 0.54 Rape       California 23 4.18 1.22 Florida 13 3.89 0.48 Michigan 13 2.96 0.55 New York 23 4.57 1.35 Pennsylvania 9 5.36 0.68 Texas 9 3.76 1.00 Robbery       California 23 3.95 1.39 Florida 15 2.83 0.56 Michigan 13 3.10 0.66 New York 23 2.88 0.76 Pennsylvania 9 4.24 1.17 Texas 9 3.92 0.43 Aggravated assault       California 23 2.80 0.77 Florida 15 1.79 0.46 Michigan 13 2.22 0.35 New York 21 2.30 0.33 Pennsylvania 9 2.60 0.54 Texas 9 1.56 0.12 Burglary       California 23 2.64 1.06 Florida 15 1.57 0.29 Michigan 13 1.89 0.39 New York 23 2.36 0.66 Pennsylvania 9 2.99 0.96 Texas 9 1.84 0.15

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control   Mean Time (years) Served per Prison Commitment, Sb Crime Type and State n Mean SD Drug offenses       California 22 2.71 1.30 Florida 13 1.36 0.21 Michigan 13 1.51 0.28 New York 23 2.13 0.36 Pennsylvania 9 1.72 0.17 Texas 9 1.27 0.37 NOTE: SD = standard deviation. a Average time served in prison (years) is the total time served from the original commitment from court on a new conviction until an inmate is unconditionally released, including time served until first release from prison and any time served following parole revocation. Data on commitments to prison and resident inmates were obtained from annual published reports of the corrections department in each state. b The measure of time served (S) is obtained from the ratio of the number of resident inmates (available from a daily census of prison populations) to the number of new commitments to prison each year. This stock-over-flow measure is reasonable when commitments to prison and time served are stable over time, but is vulnerable to error when there are large variations in these data from year to year. An alternative measure of time served, S*, incorporates data from several years on the number of inmates remaining in prison at the end of a year, thus smoothing unusual changes in the annual number of commitments to prison (Canela-Cacho and Cohen, 1991). Although differing somewhat in magnitude—with S generally lower than S* due to unusually large increases in commitments to prison in some years—the two estimates nevertheless change similarly over time.

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control TABLE A-4 Descriptive Statistics for Imprisonment Variables   Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Populationa Expected Time Served (person-years) per 100 Arrests, QiSb Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Murder             California 23 17.094 7.242 23 193.16 59.89 Florida 13 34.053 6.965 12 373.49 103.85 Michigan 12 23.294 6.334 12 244.63 57.32 New York 23 21.841 10.355 23 313.64 102.92 Pennsylvania 9 23.447 4.975 9 509.34 153.12 Texas 9 30.951 2.047 9 302.04 41.14 Rape             California 24 5.423 2.520 24 42.30 14.19 Florida 14 15.272 4.821 14 113.26 28.41 Michigan 13 16.160 10.343 13 98.50 38.13 New York 23 4.284 2.778 23 43.20 19.27 Pennsylvania 9 8.770 2.709 9 81.20 20.69 Texas 9 14.399 5.564 9 125.38 46.46 Robbery             California 24 27.766 5.466 24 42.89 10.08 Florida 15 49.109 6.670 15 90.99 23.80 Michigan 13 36.597 7.178 13 95.84 28.00 New York 23 37.749 18.131 23 53.03 16.23 Pennsylvania 9 24.867 5.006 9 53.42 11.27 Texas 9 45.696 4.607 9 125.15 17.07 Aggravated assault             California 24 9.143 4.129 24 7.22 2.39 Florida 15 12.852 2.258 15 8.00 1.27 Michigan 13 9.506 3.891 13 12.65 3.10 New York 21 5.326 1.436 21 5.06 1.45 Pennsylvania 9 6.184 2.336 9 8.61 2.31 Texas 9 7.297 1.450 9 9.13 0.99 Burglary             California 24 20.704 11.496 24 12.12 5.80 Florida 15 43.941 10.128 15 27.30 4.10 Michigan 13 24.762 7.579 13 26.71 7.65 New York 23 14.752 9.225 23 16.12 8.44 Pennsylvania 9 17.597 3.581 9 21.60 5.88 Texas 9 55.826 4.581 9 43.79 5.46

OCR for page 296
Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4 - Consequences and Control   Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Populationa Expected Time Served (person-years) per 100 Arrests, QiSb Crime Type and State n Mean SD n Mean SD Drug offenses             California 24 17.132 11.840 24 6.00 7.32 Florida 13 16.671 3.588 13 6.09 0.88 Michigan 13 8.788 3.566 13 5.15 2.26 New York 23 15.835 14.446 23 5.90 2.02 Pennsylvania 9 5.089 2.354 9 4.20 0.60 Texas 9 17.717 4.649 9 5.82 0.94 NOTE: SD = standard deviation. a The incarceration rate is obtained from the ratio of the number of resident inmates in a daily census of prison populations each year to the total population of each state. Inmate data were obtained from annual published reports of the corrections department in each state. Annual population estimates for each state were obtained from Bureau of Census (1969, 1970, 1980, 1988, and 1989). b The expected time served per arrest (QiS) reflects the number of person-years served in prison per 100 adult arrests in a year. It is obtained from the ratio of the number of resident inmates from a daily census of prison populations to the number of arrests of adults. Inmate data were obtained from annual published reports of the corrections department in each state. Arrest data by state were obtained from unpublished supplementary tables from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports program.