The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
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.
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 297
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 298
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 299
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 300
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 301
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 302
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 303
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 304
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 305
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 306
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 378
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 379
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 380
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 381
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 382
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 383
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 384
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 385
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 386
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 387
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 388
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.
Items in cart [0]
