skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 179278   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Choosing Punishments: Crime Control Effects of Sentences
  Document URL: PDF 
  Dataset URL: DATASET 1
Author(s): Don M. Gottfredson
Corporate Author: Justice Policy Research Corporation
United States of America
Date Published: 05/1998
Page Count: 90
  Annotation: Data from 962 felony offenders sentenced by 18 judges in Essex County (N.J.) between May 1976 and June 1977 were used to study the effects of various sentences on later criminal careers, as well as the selection of various sanctions by judges, and the validity of subjective and objective predictions of risk and time in the community at risk.
Abstract: Follow-up data from computerized criminal history records were collected between October 1995 and February 1997. Thirty-seven percent of the offenders had been convicted of crimes against persons, 24 percent of drug law offenses, 23 percent of property times, and 10 percent of weapons offenses. The offenders' average age was 29 years. Most were black males. About half had prior jail terms; 16 percent had been in prison. Forty-two percent received noncustodial sentences. Judges' purposes for sentences focused mainly on crime control. About one-fourth of the offenders were never again arrested; more than half of the others were rearrested in the first 5 years. Judges' predictions of any new crimes, or property crimes, and of person crimes were valid, but modestly so. Except for the effect of incapacitation, whether or not the offender was confined made no difference to crime control. Where the offender was confined and the length of maximum sentence imposed also made no difference. The length of time actually confined made a slight difference. Fines, restitution, or imposing jail along with probation made no difference. Findings suggested that confinement or increased length of incarceration served the crime control purpose of incapacitation but had little or no effect as a treatment with rehabilitative or specific deterrent effects. Figures, tables, and footnotes
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Recidivism ; Sentencing/Sanctions ; Felony ; Services effectiveness ; Sentencing factors ; Crime control policies ; Recidivism prediction ; New Jersey
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 82-IJ-CX-0054; 95-IJ-CX-0118
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.