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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
age is based <strong>on</strong> this date regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> whether or not the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender participated in the<br />
experiment. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> proporti<strong>on</strong>s and means <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> charged <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses are based <strong>on</strong> the full range<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending data from the <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender’s first recorded charge until September 30, 2009. For<br />
the full sample, data were available <strong>on</strong> a total <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 81,643 charged <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses committed<br />
between 1967 and 2009. Our analyses are based <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses committed after<br />
the date <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the risk assessment (July 27, 2007; N = 6,808), because prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending<br />
history variables were used in the predictive model. For the experimental sample we had<br />
data <strong>on</strong> 34,777 charged <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses over the same timeframe. Of this number, around 6 per<br />
cent (N = 2,147) were committed post-random assignment.<br />
As we might expect, the low risk and n<strong>on</strong>-low risk groups in the full sample look<br />
very different (Table 3.1). <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-low risk group is much more likely to be male<br />
(87.4% vs. 66.9%, p < .001), n<strong>on</strong>white (75.6% vs. 60.4%, p < .001), and younger (31<br />
years old vs. 40.7, p < .001). <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-low risk group has also been charged with more<br />
than twice as many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses overall as the low risk group (45 vs. 22.4, p < .001).<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> characteristics <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the treatment and c<strong>on</strong>trol groups in the experimental sample<br />
are very similar, indicating successful random assignment. 66.5 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the treatment<br />
group and 67.6 per cent <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the c<strong>on</strong>trol group are male. Slightly more treatment group<br />
members than c<strong>on</strong>trol group members are white (41.8% vs. 38.0%, p ≤ .125).<br />
Participants in both groups were, <strong>on</strong> average, just under 41 years old <strong>on</strong> the date <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
random assignment, and members <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> both groups have been charged with an <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense <strong>on</strong><br />
average 22.3 times as adults up to two years post-random assignment.<br />
154