LAW & ECONOMICS WORKSHOP SERIES
presents
Miguel de Figueiredo
University of Connecticut Law School
Throw Away the Jail or Throw Away the Key?
The Effect of Punishment on Recidivism and Social Cost
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
4:10 - 6:00
Solarium (room FA2) - Falconer Hall
84 Queen's Park
We jail too many people and it costs too much. Incarceration is not only expensive, it also is prone to “hardening” and negative peer learning effects that may increase recidivism. With local, state and federal budgets at a breaking point, politicians and regulators are increasingly considering alternative approaches to preventing crime. Yet they face a problem. Studies show that incapacitation is a successful way of reducing crime, yet most scholars and policymakers think that the only way to incapacitate is to incarcerate. This study demonstrates that this assumption is false. In fact, we should understand incapacitation along a continuum, with incarceration at one end. This understanding is important because it allows policy makers to think about new ways to avoid the significant social and fiscal costs of jail while at the same time reaping some of the benefits of incapacitation. This article explores the relationship between incapacitation and incarceration in the context of drunk driving. Policy makers have adopted a variety of incarceration alternatives to curb drunk driving, and this creates a kind of natural experiment. This article is the first to examine the effectiveness of the sanctions in curbing recidivism and vehicle crashes with some 200,000 alcohol tests. Four key results emerge from the study. First, it demonstrates that non-carceral sanctions can be effective. Second, the primary channel through which drunk driving sanctions are effective in reducing recidivism and crashes is incapacitation, rather than specific deterrence. Third, noncarceral sanctions have varied success based on what form they take and who they target. A law passed mandating victim panels, increasing the length of license suspensions, and stimulating the use of ignition interlock devices (IIDs) – which require the driver of a vehicle to take an alcohol test – reduced crashes during and after suspension of a driver’s license. The same law decreased recidivism during the suspension period, but these recidivism-reducing effects ended soon after the license suspension did. In addition, a license suspension enhancement targeting those with higher blood alcohol content levels neither reduced recidivism nor crashes. Fourth, the probability of recidivism and subsequent crashes for first-time offenders given at least 6 to 24 hours of jail, fines, and a license suspension had no statistically significant effect relative to those who had no sanctions. This suggests that drunk driving sanctions at the legal limit are ineffective. The article explains these results, discusses theoretical and legal reform implications, and also outlines a trajectory for improving causal inference in the study of criminal law. The article concludes by discussing the promise and limitations of generalizing from the results to other domains of crime and law.
Miguel de Figueiredo’s research is broadly focused on accountability and compliance in challenging institutional and behavioral settings. His writing and teaching focuses on the areas of law and development, comparative law, international law, corruption, voting behavior, election law, and criminal law. His current work (1) examines the effects of sentencing for drunk driving; (2) probes the effects of expungement on recidivism and employment; (3) analyzes the impact of corruption and information on voting behavior; and (4) explores the effects of policies designed to curb tax evasion by firms.
For more workshop information, please contact Nadia Gulezko at n.gulezko@utoronto.ca.
