IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jleorg/v30y2014i3p558-586..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform

Author

Listed:
  • Richard T. Boylan
  • Naci Mocan

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court ruled in May 2011 that prison overcrowding in California constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This decision revived a long-standing debate among scholars and policy makers as to whether courts should intervene to protect the well-being of the disfranchised, by forcing states to improve schools, prisons, and mental institutions. We use data that span 1951–2006 to examine the impact of federal court orders condemning prison crowding, and the impact of states’ releases from these court orders. We find that these interventions are associated with lower inmate mortality rates and fewer prisoners per capita. Correctional expenditures increase and welfare cash expenditures decrease while states are under court order, suggesting that the burden of improved prison conditions is borne by welfare recipients. Furthermore, states do not alter correctional spending and welfare cash payments spending after their release from court order, making the original changes in spending permanent. (JEL H7, I38, K4)

Suggested Citation

  • Richard T. Boylan & Naci Mocan, 2014. "Intended and Unintended Consequences of Prison Reform," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 558-586.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jleorg:v:30:y:2014:i:3:p:558-586.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jleo/ewt006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Randi Hjalmarsson & Matthew J. Lindquist, 2022. "The Health Effects of Prison," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 234-270, October.
    2. Anna Gunderson, 2021. "Ideology, Disadvantage, and Federal District Court Inmate Civil Rights Filings: The Troubling Effects of Pro Se Status," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 603-628, September.
    3. Giraldo Paez, Daniel & Liscow, Zachary, 2024. "Inequality snowballing," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • H7 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:jleorg:v:30:y:2014:i:3:p:558-586.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jleo .

    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.