IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v587y2003i1p160-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Costs and Benefits of Sentencing: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia McDougall

    (Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology, University of York, United Kingdom)

  • Mark A. Cohen

    (Owen Graduate School of Management,Vanderbilt University; Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies; Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology, University of York, United Kingdom)

  • Raymond Swaray

    (Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology, University of York, United Kingdom)

  • Amanda Perry

    (Centre for Criminal Justice Economics and Psychology, University of York, United Kingdom)

Abstract

It is increasingly being recognized that it is essential to know not only what is effective in reducing criminal behavior but also the relative costs and benefits of criminal justice interventions. While a number of studies now include such costs and benefits, the evidence is difficult to compare because of differing research designs and cost-benefit methodologies. This article systematically reviews the current evidence on the costs and benefits of different sentencing options. A cost-benefit validity scale is proposed as a mechanism to evaluate systematically the quality of costs and benefits data. A systematic review of the literature revealed only nine published studies that fit the criteria of the review. Many were of poor methodological quality, and the authors recommend the development of standardized methodologies for assessing the costs and benefits of criminal justice programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia McDougall & Mark A. Cohen & Raymond Swaray & Amanda Perry, 2003. "The Costs and Benefits of Sentencing: A Systematic Review," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 160-177, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:587:y:2003:i:1:p:160-177
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716202250807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716202250807
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716202250807?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David P. Farrington, 2003. "Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 49-68, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David P. Farrington, 2003. "British Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 150-167, September.
    2. David Weisburd & Cynthia M. Lum & Sue-Ming Yang, 2003. "When can we Conclude that Treatments or Programs “Don’t Work†?," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 31-48, May.
    3. Anthony Petrosino, 2003. "Standards for Evidence and Evidence for Standards: The Case of School-Based Drug Prevention," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 587(1), pages 180-207, May.
    4. Ciula, Raffaele, 2022. "The effects of Bolsa Familia on human development: systematic review approach," MPRA Paper 116768, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sae:anname:v:587:y:2003:i:1:p:160-177. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.