The article is divided into six parts: (1) recidivism and common sense; (2) the research perspective; (3) an example from one jurisdiction; (4) recidivism as a moral issue; (5) procedures that can be applied to maximize recidivism study effectiveness; and (6) conclusions. Jurisdictions apply different definitions to the term “recidivism” and have different interpretations of what recidivism measures. There is no accepted method for collecting data and no repository for the data. Recidivism can be used to provide disinformation, as some States adjust data treatment procedures without notice; many use different definitions for different results. As currently conceived and implemented, recidivism is a flawed measure of correctional success. Recidivism is an unsophisticated, dichotomous, terminal variable that cannot measure incremental progress toward post-release success. Public attention has focused on the common sense element of the issue, neglecting the research-oriented and moral elements. Figures, references