Crime Control Effects of Sentencing in Essex County, New Jersey, 1976-1997 (ICPSR 2857)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

Typically, sentencing reform policies aimed at crime control, as well as arguments for and against the use of various alternative punishments, have been developed without rigorous analyses or careful examination of the results of sanctioning practices. Experimental design is generally not feasible in making sound comparisons of results regarding various punishments, because achieving equivalence among the groups compared is rarely possible at sentencing. Thus, complete results on the impact of sentencing and sanctioning practices are not available. Punishment policies have, therefore, been developed without full information about how sanctioning modifies, controls, or enhances the likelihood of future criminal behavior by a convicted offender. By relying on a rigorous quasiexperimental design based on multivariate models of judicial sentencing behavior, this study sought to examine the ways in which different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony offenders. This study attempted to determine whether the following made a difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines, restitution, or other alternative sanctions.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Data were first collected from two sources: questionnaires completed by 18 judges in Essex County, New Jersey, courts, and reports by probation staff. Follow-up data were extracted from official records in two waves -- first, from probation, jail, prison, and parole files, and second, from several databases and additional sources. Judges completed questionnaires for a sample of offenders sentenced between May 1976 and June 1977. The questionnaires, designed with the help of the judges, provided data on their perceptions and judgments of the offense, offender, and sentencing decision. Each judge specifically provided a description of the actual sentence imposed, assessments of the seriousness of the offense, an estimate of the propensity of the offender to commit future crimes, a judgment of the lengths of the prior arrest and conviction records, a rating of the seriousness of prior records, an assessment of the social stability of the offender, and a listing of the mitigating or aggravating factors affecting the choice of sentence. All judges in the Essex County courts with assignments to criminal cases participated. One judge experienced lengthy trials, and so his few cases were excluded. All other judges (including those assigned only welfare fraud cases) were excluded. Users of the data should note the following: (1) There is the possibility of selection bias by the judges in regard to the choice of one sentence alternative over another. (2) There is no assurance that the judges had equivalent cases. Comparisons of judges' cases were made by analysis of variance of selected variables, and results suggest that caution be used in assuming that the 18 judges had cases that could be considered equivalent in all respects. The second source of data came from probation staff, who provided objective items extracted from criminal case files, which included charged and convicted offenses, the number of prior probations, probation revocations, jail terms, prison terms, sentence recommendations of the prosecutor and of the probation department, and information on previous sentences being served by the offender at the time of the sentencing. These data were collected after sentencing and were not systematically provided to the judges, but usually were included in the presentence report. After approximately one year, the first wave of follow-up data was initiated to determine how the sentences were actually carried out by the correctional system. These data were collected from probation, jail, prison, and parole files and included detailed data about offenders who were in community programs during the first few years after sentencing. The second wave of follow-up data began in October 1995 and ended in February 1997. In order to assess the impact of sentencing on subsequent criminal behavior, data were extracted from the following sources: (a) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction System Computerized Criminal History, which included New Jersey arrest records, with arrest and conviction data dating from 1972 to the present, (b) the New Jersey Department of Corrections Offender-Based Correctional Information System, which included correctional history data on admissions, departures, and status of state prisoners dating back to 1976, (c) the United States Department of Justice Interstate Identification Index, which included out-of-state records of arrests and convictions from the date of entry into the criminal justice system, (d) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File, which provided current outstanding warrants from New Jersey and other state law enforcement agencies, (e) the New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Prosecutors Case Tracking System, used on a selective basis, which included pending or open New Jersey charges, and (f) administrative record files of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, also used on a selective basis, which included data on entry, transfer, and exits from the New Jersey prisons.

Sample View help for Sample

Originally, researchers received questionnaires completed for 982 cases. Further examination showed that 6 records were duplicates, and 14 offenders were returned to court during the data collection period and were sentenced a second time. In these cases, only the first sentencing was included. Therefore, the total sample was reduced from the original 982 questionnaires completed by the judges to the 962 cases used in the full sample.

Universe View help for Universe

All offenders sentenced by 18 judges handling criminal cases in the Essex County, New Jersey, courts between May 1976 and June 1977.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

Variables include the most serious offense charge, most serious offense of conviction, dimension of conviction, offense type (person, property, social order, fraud, or drug offense), number of prior probations, number of probation revocations, number of prior jail and prison terms, mitigating and aggravating factors affecting the sentence, type of sentence, special conditions of probation, fines and restitutions imposed, minimum and maximum incarceration terms (in months), history of drug offenses, type of drugs used, probation and parole violations, total number of prior arrests and prior convictions, and longest arrest-free period after first arrest. The type of offense, dimension, disposition charge, sentence, and date of arrest are provided for arresting events and charge episodes 1 through 108 for any offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender), the date of lockup and date of exit from confinement are provided. The file also includes recommendations made by prosecutors and probation officers, and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to nine) with respect to the likelihood of an offender committing future property crimes, crimes against persons, or any crime. Judges also rated the arrest record length, conviction record length, and social stability of each offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points, and specific deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each convicted offender, and age of offender at first conviction.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

None

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2001-03-15

Version History View help for Version History

Hide