The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
(p ≤ .008), 24 and it was retained in this model. It would appear that for drug <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending,<br />
more time in jail may lead to a reduced likelihood <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending to some degree. Since<br />
we <strong>on</strong>ly have <strong>on</strong>e year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> jail data, it could be the case that the odds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> drug <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending<br />
decline as jail time increases, but increase again when all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders are ‘returned to the<br />
risk set’ in the sec<strong>on</strong>d year. However, because our outcome data extend bey<strong>on</strong>d the<br />
range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the jail data, these coefficients should be interpreted with cauti<strong>on</strong>.<br />
We used a zero-inflated negative binomial model to assess the frequency <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> drug<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending (Table 2.14). 25<br />
Although it does not reach statistical significance, there is a<br />
notable 22 per cent decline in the drug re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending rate for the treatment group compared<br />
to the c<strong>on</strong>trol group (IRR = .78, p ≤ .169). Increased age was also associated with a<br />
decline in the rate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> drug <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2 per cent per additi<strong>on</strong>al year (IRR = .98, p ≤<br />
.045). As before, males re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fended at a higher rate than females and increased SES was<br />
associated with reduced re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending, but these relati<strong>on</strong>ships were not as str<strong>on</strong>g as in<br />
previous models.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for drug <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending are shown in Figure 2.7.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> pattern <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> survival probability is very similar to the patterns for overall and violent<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending, with the c<strong>on</strong>trol group at slightly greater risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> failure by the end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the twoyear<br />
follow-up period (log-rank test for equality: χ 2 (1 d.f.) = .72, p ≤ .395). Table 2.15<br />
and Figure 2.8 present the hazard ratios and graphical representati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the estimated<br />
survivor functi<strong>on</strong>s from the Cox regressi<strong>on</strong> model. 26<br />
Again, no difference is evident in<br />
the risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> failure over time between the treatment and c<strong>on</strong>trol groups (HR = .93, p ≤<br />
.673). Gender is again associated with a significantly higher risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> failure, with males at<br />
97