IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v90y2024ics0047235223001186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prosecutors and crime deterrence: Evidence from a difference-in-differences analysis with staggered treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Bielen, Samantha

Abstract

This paper exploits detailed offender-level data from the public prosecutor service to analyze whether a reform aimed at reducing recidivism was effective. The objective of this reform was to enhance deterrence by improving the certainty and celerity of punishment. More specifically, it (1) stimulated prosecutors to intensify the use of alternative dispositions (such as imposing settlements) in criminal cases that would otherwise have been dismissed, (2) reduced processing times by improving the collaboration between police and prosecutors, and (3) encouraged tailored decisions. Using a difference-in-differences approach, I exploit variation in when and where the district attorney reform was introduced to quantify its effect on recidivism rates. In doing so, I am able to compare otherwise similar individuals, who committed similar crimes, but who underwent different procedures. I further use an event study to assess the evolution of relative recidivism rates, and explore possible mechanisms including immediacy and certainty of punishment. The data reveal that after the reform, the prospects of recidivism linked to local crimes targeted by the reform decreased by 5 percentage points, a 26% reduction over the sample mean.

Suggested Citation

  • Bielen, Samantha, 2024. "Prosecutors and crime deterrence: Evidence from a difference-in-differences analysis with staggered treatment," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:90:y:2024:i:c:s0047235223001186
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235223001186
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:90:y:2024:i:c:s0047235223001186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.