Abstract
Conflicting evidence exists on how criminal propensity moderates deterrent effects, and there is little empirical evidence on this issue from relatively experienced offenders. This study tested how variation in criminal propensity (operationalized as “low self-control”) moderates deterrent effects in a sample of convicted offenders in New Jersey’s Intensive Supervision Program in 1989 and 1990. Offenders’ perceptions of the risks and consequences from violating ISP were associated with whether they successfully completed ISP. Moreover, lower self-control did not diminish, and if anything, enhanced these deterrent effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Tittle and Botchkovar (2005) distinguished “propensity” from “low self-control,” but recognized the two are correlated with one another.
In this view, highly conformist individuals do not offend, irrespective of instrumental concerns, because they are morally or extralegally restrained. Highly criminally prone individuals are also unresponsive to instrumental considerations because their commitment to nonconformity supercedes the consideration of sanction threats. A similar typology was elaborated by Pogarsky (2002).
Individuals convicted of murder, robbery, and sexual offenses are ineligible.
A large number, approximately 5–10% of adult parolees and probationers, participate in ISP (Petersilia 1998).
A partial exception is Maxwell and Gray (2000). Their study only examined the deterrent effect of the perceived certainty of punishment in ISP. The present study investigates a more extensive set of issues, including the deterrent effect of the perceived severity of punishment and the moderating impacts of self-control.
Missing data reduced the available sample from approximately 512 to 434. There was no evidence of differential attrition. That is, some excluded respondents nevertheless had intact information for one or more study variables. There were no statistically discernible differences between included and excluded respondents on any of the key measures.
Each active participant had served at least 505 days in ISP when data collection terminated. The vast majority of program failures occurred during the offender’s first year in ISP. Among offenders with known outcomes who served at least 505 days in the program, 83% successfully completed ISP. Therefore, the 76 active participants were treated as successes in later analyses. The findings were fundamentally unchanged when these 76 respondents were excluded.
Some participants may not necessarily believe they will serve their entire remaining prison term if they violate ISP. The length of the suspended prison sentence was intended to reflect nominal “jail exposure.”
Several measures that were unused in the present analyses support this assumption. Respondents rated on an 11-point Likert scale (from “hate it” to “love it”) their feelings about the curfew, counseling, and job requirements in ISP. The perceived certainty measure was positively related to all three measures, although the relationship was only significant at P < 0.05 for the first two. This provides some indication that respondents’ views about different aspects of ISP supervision were intercorrelated. In any case, comparable findings were produced with both outcomes. The second outcome was whether or not drug use was detected in ISP and, therefore, more closely “matched” the perceived certainty measure.
Thought was given to using survival analysis to model the time before exiting ISP (if at all). Although a similar pattern of findings was obtained with survival models, this modeling strategy seemed inappropriate. In addition to determining who is admitted into ISP, the judicial panel also periodically reviews each case and either discharges the offender from custody, continues supervision, or violates the offender back to prison. Thus, after the 18-month minimum for successful discharge, ISP can end for one of two opposite reasons: either the offender is successfully discharged or violated. Earlier it was observed that a majority of offenders who remain in ISP beyond the minimum 18-month period successfully complete the program. Still, some offenders were violated after a long but ultimately unsuccessful period of supervision. For each active case then, it is unclear whether a longer time in ISP is positive because the offender has not yet violated ISP, or negative because the offender has not yet persuaded the judicial panel to discharge him or her from custody. This makes “time to failure” a conceptually ambiguous reflection of ISP outcome.
There was no interaction between the two.
This percentage is high because violent offenders are ineligible for ISP and property offending is often related to drug use.
Since past drug use is so explicit a criterion for this subsample, the variable is excluded from Model (5).
Although in the latter model, the coefficient is not statistically distinguishable from zero (P < 0.065).
Logistic regressions take the form, ln \(\left[ {\frac{P} {{1 - P}}} \right]\, = \,\alpha \, + \,{{\bf {\beta}}}\,{{\bf X}}{\hbox{,}}\) where P is the probability of success, and β and X are vectors of regression coefficients and variables, respectively. Solving for P yields \( P\, = \,\frac{1} {{1\, + \,{\hbox{e}}^{ - ({\hbox{ $ \alpha $ }}\, + \,{\hbox{ $ \beta $ X}})} }}, \) thus permitting the calculations in Fig. 1.
An alternative interpretation of the findings merits brief discussion. If the perceived certainty measure actually captured the respondents’ perceived skill at avoiding detection for drug use in ISP, the present deterrent effects might be somewhat spurious. Yet all models controlled for both the respondents’ and their friends’ prior drug use, factors that are likely to be correlated with perceived skill at avoiding detection for drug use. This counsels against this possible alternative interpretation.
The distribution of low self-control was split at its median.
The certainty coefficients are in the expected positive direction.
According to Allison (1999), the more conservative coefficient comparison test is only warranted if the residual variation in fact differs across groups. Using stata macros developed by Hoetker (2004), the null hypothesis of equal residual variation across groups is only rejected at P < 0.05 for detected drug use (models 6 and 7), but not for success in ISP (models 8 and 9). Nevertheless, Allison’s more conservative coefficient comparison test is used in both cases.
References
Allison PD (1999) Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociol Methods Res 28:186–208
Andenaes J (1974) Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press
Arneklev BJ, Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ Jr (1993) Low self-control and imprudent behavior. J Quant Criminol 9:225–247
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004) Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Clear TR, Braga AA (1995) Community corrections. In Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds), Crime, Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco, CA, pp 421–444
Cullen FT, Wright JP, Applegate BK (1995) Control in the community: the limits of reform? In Harland AT (eds), Choosing correctional options that work, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 69–116
Decker S, Wright R, Logie R (1993) Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: a research note. Criminology 31:135–147
Etzioni A (1988) The moral dimension: toward new economics. The Free Press, New York, NY
Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY
Grasmick HG, Bryjak G (1980) The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 59:471–491
Hoetker G (2004) Confounded coefficients: extending recent advances in the accurate comparison of logit and probit coefficients across groups. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business, working paper
Klepper S, Nagin DS (1989) Certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology 27:721–746
Longshore D, Turner S, Stein JA (1996) Self-control in a criminal sample: an examination of construct validity. Criminology 34:209–228
Maruna S, Copes H (2004) What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? In Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research. University of Chicago Press, pp 221–320
Maxwell SR, Gray MK (2000) Deterrence: testing the effects of perceived sanction certainty on probation violations. Sociol Inq 70:117–136
Morgan KD (1993) Factors influencing probation outcome: a review of the literature. Fed Probat 57:23–30
Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581–604
Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467–496
Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1991) On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology 29:163–189
Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2004) Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol 20:295–317
Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:404–430
Parsons T (1937) The structure of social action. The Free Press, New York
Paternoster R (1989) Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law Soc Rev 23:7–40
Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217
Paternoster R, Iovanni L (1986) The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc Forces 64:751–777
Pearson FS (2002) Deterring drug use with intensive probation in New Jersey, 1989–1990 [computer file]. ICPSR version. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Department of Sociology, Institute for Criminological research [producer], 1990. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002
Pearson FS (1988) Evaluation of New Jersey’s intensive supervision program. Crime Delinq 34:437–448
Pearson FS, Harper AG (1990) Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey’s intensive supervision program, Crime Delinq 36:75–86
Petersilia J (1990) When probation becomes more dreaded than prison. Fed Probat 54:23–27
Petersilia J (1998) Community corrections: probation, parole and intermediate sanctions. Oxford University Press, New York
Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and parole. Crim Justice 17:281–335
Pilliavin I, Thornton C, Gartner R, Matsueda R (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119
Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39:153–186
Piquero AR, Rengert GF (1999) Studying deterrence with active residential Burglars. Justice Q 16(2):451–471
Piquero AR, Rosay AB (1998) The reliability and validity of Grasmick et al.’s self-control scale: a comment on Longshore et al. Criminology 36:157–174
Piquero AR, Tibbetts S (1996) Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Q 13:481–510
Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–452
Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005) Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: an investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology 43:307–353
Tittle CR, Rowe AR (1973) Moral appeal, sanction threat and deviance; an experimental test. Soc Probl 20: 488–498
Tittle CR, Ward DA, Grasmick HG (2004) Capacity for self-control and individuals’ interest in exercising self-control. J Quant Criminol 20:143–172
Williams K, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptual research on general deterrence: a critical overview. Law Soc Rev 20: 545–572
Wood P, Grasmick H (1999) Toward the development of punishment equivalencies: male and female inmates rate the severity of alternative sanctions compared to prison. Justice Q 16:19–50
Wood P, May DC (2003) Racial differences in perceptions of the severity of sanctions: a comparison of prison with alternatives. Justice Q 20:605–632
Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Paternoster R (2004) Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally-prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. J Res Crime Delinq 41:180–213
Zimring FE, Hawkins GJ (1968) Deterrence and marginal groups. J Res Crime Delinq 2:110–114
Acknowledgments
Valuable input into this manuscript is acknowledged from Shawn Bushway, Bill McCarthy, Daniel Nagin, Alex Piquero, Min Xie, and participants at the 2005 Criminology and Economics Summer Workshop organized by the Population Research Center at the University of Maryland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pogarsky, G. Deterrence and Individual Differences Among Convicted Offenders. J Quant Criminol 23, 59–74 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6