IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idg/wpaper/awgyk8izxmqcvuzmm6p-.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beneficial effect of adjusted sentences on recidivism in France: investigating the hidden role of the judge

Author

Listed:
  • Aline Désesquelles
  • Annie Kensey
  • Laurent Toulemon

Abstract

Adjusted sentences may be considered as detrimental or favorable to former offenders' re-entry. According to the "labelling theory", alternative-to-incarceration sentences reduce recidivism because they are less stigmatizing than prison. The defenders of the "deterrence theory" consider that they are too soft to prevent people from reoffending. Results from the most recent study conducted in France, show that, after controlling for several characteristics of the former inmates, recidivism is significantly higher among those who had fully served a prison sentence than among those who benefited from an adjusted sentence. However, this does not prove a direct effect of these measures. Beneficiaries may be selected among offenders with lower risks of recidivism. Judges in charge of sentences execution also take into account the socioeconomic environment the inmates will find upon release. In this study, we use a cohort built by the French Ministry of Justice (6,869 inmates followed over 5 years after release) to further investigate this issue. The database includes the information on the court in charge of the inmate's execution of sentence. We use the inter-court disparity in granting adjusted sentences to capture part of the unobserved heterogeneity between inmates and examine how it impacts on the link with recidivism.

Suggested Citation

  • Aline Désesquelles & Annie Kensey & Laurent Toulemon, 2019. "Beneficial effect of adjusted sentences on recidivism in France: investigating the hidden role of the judge," Working Papers 248, French Institute for Demographic Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:idg:wpaper:awgyk8izxmqcvuzmm6p-
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archined.ined.fr/download/publication/AWgyK8izXMQCvuZmm6p-/0ac169344dbe4ce0e34e552fb3b4c9161549970615746.pdf
    File Function: Deposited file
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesco Drago & Roberto Galbiati & Pietro Vertova, 2011. "Prison Conditions and Recidivism," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 13(1), pages 103-130.
    2. Anaïs Henneguelle & Benjamin Monnery & Annie Kensey, 2016. "Better at Home than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 629-667.
    3. Anaïs Henneguelle & Benjamin Monnery & Annie Kensey, 2016. "Better at Home than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 629-667.
    4. Ilyana Kuziemko, 2013. "How should inmates be released from prison? An assessment of parole versus fixed-sentence regimes," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 128(1), pages 371-424.
    5. Jeffrey R. Kling, 2006. "Incarceration Length, Employment, and Earnings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(3), pages 863-876, June.
    6. Patrice Villettaz & Martin Killias & Isabel Zoder, 2006. "The Effects of Custodial vs. Non‐Custodial Sentences on Re‐Offending: A Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), pages 1-69.
    7. Jesse M. Shapiro, 2007. "Do Harsher Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuity-based Approach," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29.
    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. Bastien Michel & Camille Hémet, 2022. "Custodial versus non-custodial sentences: Long-run evidence from an anticipated reform," PSE Working Papers halshs-03899897, HAL.
    2. Meier, Armando N. & Levav, Jonathan & Meier, Stephan, 2020. "Early Release and Recidivism," IZA Discussion Papers 13035, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Giovanni Mastrobuoni & Daniele Terlizzese, 2021. "Cash: Leave the Door Open? Prison Conditions and Recidivism," EIEF Working Papers Series 2111, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised Jun 2021.
    4. Anaïs Henneguelle & Benjamin Monnery & Annie Kensey, 2016. "Better at Home than in Prison? The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Recidivism in France," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 629-667.
    5. Roberto Galbiati & Aurélie Ouss & Arnaud Philippe, 2021. "Jobs, News and Reoffending after Incarceration [Examining the generality of the unemployment–crime association]," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(633), pages 247-270.
    6. Giovanni Mastrobuoni & Daniele Terlizzese, 2022. "Leave the Door Open? Prison Conditions and Recidivism," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(4), pages 200-233, October.
    7. Steeve Marchand & Guy Lacroix & William Arbour, 2023. "Prison rehabilitation programs and recidivism: evidence from variations in availability," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2023n07, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    8. William Arbour & Steeve Marchand, 2022. "Parole, Recidivism, and the Role of Supervised Transition," Working Papers tecipa-725, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    9. Grenet, Julien & Grönqvist, Hans & Niknami, Susan, 2024. "The effects of electronic monitoring on offenders and their families," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    10. Alain Cohn & Michel André Maréchal & Thomas Noll, 2015. "Bad Boys: How Criminal Identity Salience Affects Rule Violation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1289-1308.
    11. Zanella, Giulio, 2020. "Prison Work and Convict Rehabilitation," IZA Discussion Papers 13446, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Joshua Hall & Kaitlyn Harger & Dean Stansel, 2015. "Economic Freedom and Recidivism: Evidence from US States," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 21(2), pages 155-165, May.
    13. Arbour, William & Lacroix, Guy & Marchand, Steeve, 2021. "Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting," IZA Discussion Papers 14022, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Jenny Williams & Don Weatherburn, 2022. "Can Electronic Monitoring Reduce Reoffending?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 232-245, May.
    15. Ramos Maqueda,Manuel & Chen,Daniel Li, 2021. "The Role of Justice in Development : The Data Revolution," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9720, The World Bank.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6lb0bbni2p86t8ib82gjce1ok1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Santiago Tobón Zapata & Maria Antonia Escobar Bernal & Martin Vanegas Arias, 2021. "Criminal capital persistence: Evidence from 90,000 inmates’ releases," Documentos de Trabajo de Valor Público 19297, Universidad EAFIT.
    18. Petrich, Damon M. & Pratt, Travis C. & Jonson, Cheryl Lero & Cullen, Francis T., 2020. "A Revolving Door? A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Custodial Sanctions on Reoffending," SocArXiv f6uwm, Center for Open Science.
    19. Rafael Di Tella & Ernesto Schargrodsky, 2013. "Criminal Recidivism after Prison and Electronic Monitoring," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(1), pages 28-73.
    20. Giovanni Mastrobuoni & Daniele Terlizzese, 2014. "Harsh or Human? Detention Conditions and Recidivism," EIEF Working Papers Series 1413, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF), revised May 2018.
    21. Christoph Engel, 2016. "Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2016_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    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:idg:wpaper:awgyk8izxmqcvuzmm6p-. 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: Karin Sohler (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://archined.ined.fr .

    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.