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.
All the risk ratios in Table 3.9 indicate that treatment group participants were less<br />
likely to commit a serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense post-RA than the c<strong>on</strong>trol group, although <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e is<br />
statistically significant. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is also a notable difference between the risk ratios <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
probati<strong>on</strong>ers who had and had not committed a serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense pre-RA. For modeldefined<br />
severity, treatment group participants who had not committed a prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense<br />
were 51 per cent less likely to have been charged post-RA than similarly-situated c<strong>on</strong>trol<br />
group members (2.0% vs. 4.0%, stratum-specific RR = .49, p ≤ .042). However, there<br />
was little difference between treatment and c<strong>on</strong>trol group participants who had<br />
committed a prior serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense (3.8% vs. 4.2%, stratum-specific RR = .90, p ≤ .816).<br />
We see the same pattern with UCR and victim/damage crimes. For UCR <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses,<br />
treatment group participants without a prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense were 44 per cent less likely to be<br />
charged than c<strong>on</strong>trol group participants without a prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense, but there was no<br />
difference between treatment and c<strong>on</strong>trol group participants with a prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense (no<br />
prior: 3.7% vs. 6.5%, RR = .56, p ≤ .136; prior: 10.2% vs. 11.1%, RR = .92, p ≤ .660).<br />
For victim/damage crimes, the risk ratio was .58 for n<strong>on</strong>-serious prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders<br />
compared to .87 for serious prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders (no prior: 3.9% vs. 6.8%, p ≤ ..134; prior:<br />
8.4% vs. 9.7%, p ≤ .494).<br />
Despite the magnitude <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> some <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> these results, the Mantel-Haenszel adjusted risk<br />
ratios show no evidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> an interacti<strong>on</strong> effect between prior serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending and<br />
treatment. For all outcome measures they are identical to the unadjusted risk ratios, and<br />
we were unable to reject the null hypothesis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> homogeneity in any case (model defined:<br />
p ≤ .294; UCR: p ≤ .248; victim/damage: p ≤ .326), meaning that the stratum-specific risk<br />
ratios do not differ enough statistically to suggest a str<strong>on</strong>g interacti<strong>on</strong>. N<strong>on</strong>etheless,<br />
162