1
Is Imprisonment Criminogenic?
A Comparative Study of Recidivism Rates Associated with Terms of
Imprisonment and Suspended Prison Sentences
1
José Cid
Criminologia Aplicada a la Penologia
Department of Political Science and Public Law
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
e-mail: Josep.Cid@uab.es
The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in European Journal of
Criminology, 6(6): 459-480, 2009, by SAGE Publications Ltd.
Available at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/1477370809341128
2
ABSTRACT
This article examines the effects of custodial versus non-custodial sentences on
recidivism. An 8-year follow-up study was conducted to track and compare rates of
recidivism between
former prisoners and offenders who had served a suspended prison
sentence. Drawing upon a representative sample of 483 offenders sentenced in 1998 by
the Criminal Courts of Barcelona, two subpopulations of offenders were selected.
The
first group consisted of offenders who were sentenced to prison (n=179) while the
comparison group was composed of those who were given a suspended prison sentence
(n=304). After controlling for other risk factors predictive of recidivism, logistic
regression techniques were used to examine whether the variable “type of sanction”
(prison or suspended prison sentence) predicts reconviction rates. The analysis revealed
that the offenders given suspended sentences had a lower risk of reconviction than those
given custodial sentences. The findings provide evidence that alternatives to custody are
more effective than imprisonment in reducing recidivism. Finally, the article discusses
how these findings relate to labelling and specific deterrence theories that make
contradictory claims regarding the effects of imprisonment on recidivism.
3
INTRODUCTION
In the debate regarding criminal policies that may reduce recidivism, the starting point
should be an evaluation of the effectiveness of different sentencing options that are
more likely to achieve this penal aim. Two main theories concerning the effects of
imprisonment on rates of recidivism are particularly relevant: specific deterrence and
labelling theory. This article provides a test of these two theories drawing upon
recidivism statistics. According to specific deterrence, prison sentences are more
effective than non-custodial sentences in reducing future criminal behaviour. In
contrast, the labelling perspective suggests that non-custodial sentences will produce
better results than imprisonment in reducing recidivism. Several studies have examined
the effects of imprisonment on recidivism in comparison to alternative or non-custodial
sanctions. Given that their results are inconclusive (see below), this research extends the
literature by empirically testing both theories and comparing the recidivism of offenders
who were sentenced to prison with recidivism among a matched control group of
offenders who were given a suspended sentence.
PRISON VERSUS SUSPENDED SENTENCES
The two sanctions compared in this research are prison and suspended sentences. The
Spanish sentencing system is based on a determinate model –between a minimum and a
maximum term- for every offence. For most offences, the only available sentence is
prison; for some less serious offences, however, the law gives the judge the power to
decide between prison and a non-custodial sentence. The sentencing process consists of
two stages: in the first, the judge has to decide upon the sentence, choosing between the
minimum and the maximum term established by the law. If at this stage the sanction
imposed is prison up to two years, a second stage commences in which the judge has to
4
come to a decision as to whether this prison sentence may be suspended or replaced by a
non-custodial sentence, or whether the offender should be imprisoned.
In this research, I use the term ‘prison’ or ‘imprisonment’ to describe a prison
sentence that has been executed, since in the second stage the convicted offender has
been denied suspension of the prison sentence or its replacement with a non-custodial
sentence. During their imprisonment, offenders may benefit from programmes aimed at
rehabilitation, in particular resettlement programs based on leave, open prison—with
work outside prison—and parole (Cid 2005). However, these programmes are not
universal and at least half of the prisoners in the Spanish penitentiary system do not take
part in this process of transition from the deprivation of freedom to unconditional
release (Cid and Tébar, forthcoming). The prisoners in the sample analyzed in this study
belong mostly to the category of prisoners excluded from such rehabilitation
programmes.
The term ‘suspended sentence’ is used to define a prison sentence that is
suspended provided that the offender does not commit any other offences in a fixed
period of time (usually two years). There are two forms of suspended sentence available
to judges: ‘suspended sentence’ (in which the only requirement of the offender is not to
re-offend during the established period) and ‘suspended sentence plus probation’, in
which offenders have the additional obligation of following treatment or an educational
program to deal with their criminogenic needs. Given that the suspended sentence plus
probation is very rarely used by Spanish judges, almost all the offenders in our research
who benefited from the suspended sentence had no other requirement than not to
commit a new offence. Only 6% of the offenders who received suspended sentences
were required to follow a rehabilitation programme (consisting in all cases of drug-
addiction treatment).
5
Theories explaining the relationship between type of penal sanction and recidivism
According to specific deterrence theory, a custodial sentence will produce less
recidivism than alternatives to prison because imprisonment has a “suppression effect”
defined as “…a tendency of the first experience of imprisonment to reduce the rate of
offending” (Wilson 1983: 130). One possible explanation for the “suppression effect”
could be that offenders sentenced to prison perceive imprisonment as more aversive
than less serious penalties (Windzio 2006). According to this interpretation, specific
deterrence theory may be linked to rational choice theory in that, when considering the
balance of costs and benefits prior to committing an offence, offenders with a previous
experience of imprisonment will raise the cost of every crime that could be attributed to
a prison sentence (Windzio 2006).
In contrast to specific deterrence theory, labelling theory claims that a prison
sentence will generate more recidivism than non-custodial sanctions due to its
criminogenic effect. The theory predicts that offenders sentenced to prison will
recidivate to a greater degree than offenders who received a non-custodial sanction. The
criminogenic effect of prison is based on two different processes: first, some prisoners
may accept the self-image of a deviant given by the institution (Lemert 1972). Second,
prison has an indirect effect on recidivism since ex-convicts experience greater
difficulties in obtaining employment and maintaining social and personal relations than
people sentenced to non-custodial sanctions (Sampson and Laub 1993)
2
3
Methods used to compare rates of recidivism
Research into the deterrent or labelling effects of imprisonment usually compares rates
of recidivism for offenders sentenced to prison with those for offenders sentenced to
non-custodial penalties. According to the “Scientific Methods Scale adapted for
