How to Increase the Effectiveness of Treatment

In an earlier blog entry, I discussed research that showed cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to be effective in reducing criminal recidivism. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Reduces Recidivism I will discuss factors impacting the effectiveness of CBT in this entry. If you follow the literature on the effectiveness of various treatment modalities for criminality, you will see that some studies show that a treatment modality is effective and some studies show that the same treatment modality is ineffective in reducing further criminal acts. (Occasionally, one sees that a treatment actually causes additional criminality.)

One of the reasons for these differences is that treatment modalities for criminality are not homogeneous like for example, a specific medication. If researchers study the effect of 81 mg of aspirin, we can be relatively assured that the treatment group received 81 mg of acetylsalicylic acid in each and every study. However, researchers testing, for example, CBT may be testing a different technique of CBT, a different topic for the CBT such as domestic violence, sex offending, or general criminality, and these programs will be delivered by different service providers at differing skill levels. Each CBT program is in many ways sui generis.

A recent study took a closer look at this issue as it relates to CBT.[i] First, these researchers performed a meta-analysis on 58 different studies of CBT. This research showed that CBT resulted in a reduction of the mean recidivism rate by about 25%.[ii] The researchers also determined that the most effect CBT programs were twice as effective as the average program resulting in a decrease in recidivism of about 50% over those individuals who were not treated.[iii]

The researchers then attempted to ascertain what factors made a CBT program more or less effective. The researchers made these conclusions:

1. The most important factor in making CBT effective was high quality implementation, which was associated with low treatment dropout, close monitoring of program quality and implementation, and adequately trained CBT providers.

2. There were no significant benefits of using “brand-name” CBT programs and that it was the general technique of CBT that was effective.

3. An anger control component and an interpersonal problem solving and peer pressure component within a CBT program enhance its effectiveness.

4. A victim impact component (getting offenders to consider the impact of their behavior on victims) and a behavioral modification component (behavioral contracts and rewards/punishment schemes) appear to reduce CBT’s effectiveness.

5. That treatment effects were greater for higher risk offenders than for low risk offenders. (Refuting the hypothesis that higher risk offenders are not amenable to treatment, and confirming the hypothesis that offenders need to first be assessed for risk, with the high risk offenders receiving the treatment)[iv]

6. CBT was as effective for juveniles as for adults.

7. The treatment setting had no effect on effectiveness. Treatment in prison was as effect as treatment in the community.[v]

---

[i] Lipsey, Mark W., Nana A. Landenberger, Sandra J. Wilson (2007), “Effects of Cognitive Behavioral Programs for Criminal Offenders”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, The Campbell Collection, pp. 1-27.

[ii] Ibid. p 12.

[iii] Ibid p. 21

[iv] The treatment of high risk offenders, because of their otherwise higher recidivism rates, has a greater potential for reducing recidivism compared to low risk offenders who may never recidivate even without treatment.

[v] Ibid. p. 22-23.

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

DV Treatment Efficacy Questioned

In my last blog entry, I discussed the dangers of potential “side-effects” of treating people convicted of crimes. The consideration of “side-effects” is especially important in domestic violence (DV) cases.

First, with domestic crimes, the victim and perpetrator are not independent of each other. The victim may continue to live with the perpetrator, or may at least intend to again live with the perpetrator. The victim and the perpetrator may remain a single economic unit, sharing income and expenses. Financial costs of interventions will not only fall upon the perpetrator, but also fall on the victim. We all know of situations where defendants lose their jobs because of incarceration or court appearances, and the victim of the crime, who is also dependant on the income from the defendant, suffers. If perpetrators are required to pay for probation and therapy, that money also comes out of the household of the victim.

Further, if the treatment, including jail time, probation, and counseling, antagonizes the defendant, the victim may experience the result of this antagonism, through verbal and even additional physical abuse. Even if the victim does not continue living with the perpetrator, if the victim has children with the perpetrator, she may be required to continue to interact regularly with him and be subject to his abuse.

Research shows that the most informing predictor of whether a domestic violence victim returns to an abusing spouse is whether the perpetrator received counseling.[i] Victims believe that the counseling will result in a reduction of the abuse, and rely on that belief.

Unfortunately, the research on the efficacy of domestic violence treatment is mixed at best. Researchers have voiced a concern: “If treatment is essentially ineffective in decreasing recidivism, then continuing to mandate treatment may be inadvertently providing these victims with a false sense of security that, in the end, may lead to a higher likelihood of future injury.”[ii]

I have examined the research on domestic violence treatment and will present it here. I use analytic and systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses as these research techniques combine multiple smaller studies into a larger study in an attempt to increase accuracy of estimates of effectiveness.

A 2008 meta-analysis identified fifty-seven studies of domestic violence counseling studies.[iii] The researchers identified four experimental studies and six quasi-experimental studies that met their predetermined eligibility criteria for research rigor. The studies involved evaluations of psycho-educational or cognitive behavioral approaches to treatment. The treatment ranged from a minimum of 8 two-hour sessions to the maximum of 32 sessions.[iv]

These researchers found an average reduction in the recidivism rates of 26%, which was statistically significant, but with great variation among the studies. These researchers were concerned that official arrest rates did not accurately reflect the amount of repeat domestic violence actually experienced by the victims as reported domestic violence is a small fraction of the actual domestic violence that occurs.[v]

The researchers looked at seven studies that included information regarding victims’ reports of continued domestic abuse. The result of their research, using victims’ reports as a measure of recidivism, showed that the treatment had no effect on recidivism. These researchers concluded as follows:

“The findings from this meta-analysis combined with the caveats above raise questions as to the value of these programs. While additional research is needed, the meta-analysis does not offer strong support that court-mandating treatment to misdemeanor domestic violence offenders reduces the likelihood of further re-assault.”[vi]

A 2006 systematic review of the literature conducted by researchers in the State of Washington reviewed nine rigorous evaluations of educative/cognitive behavioral treatment of domestic violence offenders. They concluded: “Based on our review of nine rigorous evaluations, domestic violence treatment programs have yet, on average, to demonstrate reductions in recidivism.[vii]

Another 2006 systematic review of six studies of feminist interventions (involving education regarding sexist attitudes) and six studies of cognitive behavioral interventions was completed in Maryland. The investigators concluded: “Using the Maryland criteria, none of the interventions examined in this analysis show strong evidence that they work to reduce domestic violence. Neither of the two types of treatment programs, feminist or cognitive-behavioral, produced two studies with clear significant results favoring the treatment group over the control group.”[viii] However, the researchers concluded that both the feminist and cognitive behavior interventions were classified as promising as the results of the studies showed a positive effect of the interventions in reducing recidivism, however the reductions were not statistically significant.[ix]

In most of the reported studies, the researchers reported the percent reduction in the recidivism rate without reporting the actual recidivism rate. Feder et al (2002) did report that 24% of the offenders in both the treatment group and control group were rearrested during the one year of probation following conviction. [x]

Feder et al (2002) raised an interesting point that although domestic abuse counseling itself did not appear to be effective, perpetrators failing to complete the counseling sessions had constellations of personality traits that also made them more likely to re-offend. Therefore, failure to attend the counseling sessions was a marker that could be used to identify those perpetrators who were more likely to re-offend. Victims apparently can rely on the successful completion of counseling as being an indicator of their future safety from the perpetrator.

---

[i] Gondolf, E. 1987, “Seeing through smoke and mirrors, a guide to batters program evaluations”, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 83-98.

[ii] Feder, Lynetter and Laura Dugan, 2002, “A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2.

[iii] Feder, Lynette, David B. Wilson, and Sabrina Austin, 2008, “Court-Mandated Interventions for Individuals Convicted of Domestic Violence”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008:12. Pp 1-46

[iv] Ibid p. 11

[v] Ibid. p. 14

[vi] Ibid. p. 18.

[vii] Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, (2006). “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.” Olympia:Washington State Institute for Public Policy. P. 5.

[viii] MacKenzie, Doris Layton (2006), What works in Corrections-Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents, New York, Cambridge University Press, p . 212

[ix] Ibid. p. 212.

[x] Feder, Lynetter and Laura Dugan, 2002, “A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward Experiment”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 366.

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

First Do No Harm

We all know that part of the Hippocratic Oath of medical practitioners includes the promise to “first do no harm”. We also know of many drugs used to effectively treat various maladies were later taken off the market because of detrimental side-effects. We expect drug companies to research the side-effects of any drugs before they are widely used on humans. Do practitioners in the people “rehabilitation” business concern themselves with potential side effects and risks of the treatment they prescribe? The answer is not usually.

In an interesting article, “Cures that Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs”, researcher Joan McCord argues that evaluating programs that attempt to reduce crime for effectiveness alone, is insufficient as some treatments cause other harm—sometimes even when they are effective in reducing recidivism.[i] McCord states: “Unless social programs are evaluated for potential harm as well as benefit, safety as well as efficacy, the choice of which social programs to use will remain a dangerous guess.” She continues, “Reluctance to recognize that good intentions can result in harm can be found in biased investigating and reporting. Many investigators fail to ask whether an intervention has had adverse effects, and many research summaries lack systematic reporting of such effects.”[ii]

McCord describes several well-designed, carefully implemented studies that resulted in harmful side-effects. The first was the Cambridge-Sommerville Youth Study, which “was a carefully designed, adequately funded, and well-executed intervention program.”[iii] That study was based on the theory that criminal conduct was related to the family in which the person grew-up. In the treatment homes, a social worker visited the family, sometimes once each week, providing friendly guidance for the children and family including referring the children to needed specialists. The control homes were identical to the treatment homes, but did not receive the treatment. All program participants reported that they thought the program had a very positive effect on them.[iv]

McCord followed these children for about 35 to 40 years. Her results showed that those children who were in the program, as adults, were more likely to have been convicted of a crime. She ultimately isolated the one factor, multiple attendance at summer camp, that increased the odds of a child being convicted of a crime as an adult by a factor of ten.[v] McCord applauds this study as having been designed properly from the start with an appropriate control group to allow researchers to discern the effects of the treatment.[vi]

McCord discusses another well-thought out and well-designed program that resulted in harm called “Volunteers in Probation”. In this program juvenile delinquents were assigned a volunteer who provided tutoring services for the youth. The program participants committed more crimes than the control group. The evaluator of that program wrote:

“To those who may feel that other such programs, perhaps their own, are so much superior or so different from this program and that our findings and recommendations are irrelevant to them, we urge caution. The staff responsible for this program has reasons good enough for them to feel that their program was effective when this study began, and without this study might still have no reason to feel otherwise. If there is anything that such a study as this one demonstrates, it is the danger of relying exclusively on faith in good works in the absences of systematic data”. [vii]

McCord discusses other programs designed to reduce criminal recidivism rates that ultimate turned out to increase them. One of these programs was the “Scared Straight” program where juvenile delinquents were exposed to tough prison inmates in an attempt to scare the delinquents into becoming law abiding. The program resulted in an increase in criminal activity for those who participated in the program. It was opined that the juveniles committed more crimes to prove that they were not scared. [viii]

Another actual side-effect case, not related to program efficacy, involved the use of citizen volunteers visiting with prisoners in an attempt to change the prisoners’ anti-social thinking by interacting with and learning from volunteers who had pro-social thinking. An evaluation of the program showed that it was effective in reducing prisoners’ antisocial thinking. However, this program had a negative side-effect. The researchers found that the citizen volunteers had increased antisocial thinking. Although the prisoners were learning from the volunteers, the volunteers were also learning from the prisoners.[ix]

McCord concludes that studies which provide evidence of harmful effects are often not published as there is a strong bias against reporting adverse effects of social programs. How often do we hear someone discussing a program that they found probably didn’t work? Rarely, if ever, do we hear of negative results.

McCord writes:

“ Many people seem to be willing to believe favorable results of inadequate evaluation designs. Some accept testimonials from clients who express their appreciation of a program. Against the claim that these provide valid evidence of effect, it should be noted that each of the programs (that she describes) would have been counted as successful by this criterion. Yet the clients would have better off had they not participated in the program.”

Those of us in the people rehabilitation business are advised to keep the admonitions of “first do no harm” and “the path to hell is paved with good intentions” in mind when we embark on a new idea to reform peoples’ behaviors. While it is important to not throw our hands up in despair and falsely claim that “nothing works”, we should always be realistic, guided by sound theory and ultimately empirical research, to ensure what we do, does not result in harm to the program participants, their families, and society.

---

[i] McCord, Joan (2003), Cures that Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs, 587 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science pp 16-29.

[ii] Ibid, p. 17.

[iii] Ibid p. 17.

[iv] Ibid pp 18-23.

[v] Ibid. pp. 21-22.

[vi] Ibid. pp. 23.

[vii] Ibid. p. 24, quoting Berger, R.J. et al, 1975, Experiment in a juvenile court: A study of a program of volunteers working with juvenile probationers. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan

[viii] Ibid. p. 26.

[ix] Andrews, D.A and James Bonta, 2010, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5^th Ed. New Jersey, Mathew Bender, P. 128

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Reduces Recidivism

Cognitive behavioral therapy has become the principal method of treating humans with behavioral issues.[i] Cognitive behavioral therapy is based on the premise that human thought processes affect behavior, that people can become more aware of their thought processes, that they can change their thought processes, and that these changes in thought processes result in changes in behavior. These programs include such programs as errors in criminal thinking. Therapy based on the cognitive-behavioral model has been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism.

MacKenzie (2006) and her colleagues conducted a literature review and a meta-analysis of the literature and concluded that “cognitive-behavioral programs appear to be effective in reducing future criminal activities of offenders.”[ii] Aos et al. (2006) and Drake et al (2009) completed a meta-analysis of 545 studies of correctional programs.[iii] They concluded that the following cognitive-behavior programs were effective in reducing recidivism (followed by the percentage reduction in the recidivism rate); Cognitive-behavior drug treatment in prison (-6.8%), general and specific cognitive-behavioral treatment programs for the general offender population (-8.2%), sex offender cognitive-behavioral treatment in prison (-14.9%), and cognitive-behavioral treatment for low risk sex offenders on probation (-31.2%). [iv] Drake et al (2009) found that cognitive-behavioral therapy in prison or the community had one of the highest cost-benefit ratios of the treatment regimes they evaluated.[v]

Andrews and Bonta (2010) argue that the majority of criminal offenders learn through doing rather than through didactic teaching, and therefore cognitive-behavioral therapies match the offenders’ learning style making it far more effective than other types of therapy.[vi]

Andrews and Bonta argue that the key to any successful treatment is to 1.) identify the risk level of offenders, and target the high and medium risk offenders for the more intensive treatment. (low risk offenders should not interact with high risk offenders), 2.) identify those criminological needs that have been associated with criminal offending, and 3.) develop a treatment program in a style and mode that reflects the individual ability and learning style of the offender.[vii] Again, Andrews and Bonta argue that programs based on the cognitive-behavioral method are the effective treatment programs to reduce recidivism.

Aos et al (2006) also found the following programs to be effective (program followed by percentage reduction in recidivism rate) : 1. drug treatment in the community (-12.6%) , drug treatment in jail (-6.0%), adult drug courts (-10.7), intensive probation supervision with treatment (-21.9%) (intensive probation supervision without treatment had no effect.); in-prison therapeutic communities with community aftercare (-6.9%), in-prison therapeutic communities without community aftercare (-5.3%).[viii]

Aos et al identified several programs that that require additional study, but may be effective as they show early promise. Those programs are therapeutic programs for mentally ill offenders, and a program called “Circles of Support and Accountability” where five volunteers visit or contact sex offenders each week.

These studies have identified many programs that don’t work. I will address those programs in another entry.

---

[i] MacKenzie, Doris Layton (2006), What works in Corrections-Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents, New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 112.

[ii] Ibid, p. 114.

[iii] Drake, Elizabeth K. Steve Aos and Marna G. Miller, 2009, “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State” Victims and Offenders, 4:170-196; Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, (2006). “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.” Olympia:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

[iv] Ibid Aos et al (2006), p. 3

[v] Ibid Drake et al (2009) p. 184.

[vi] Andrews, D.A. and James Bonta, 2010, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct 5^th Ed., New Jersey, Matthew Bender, p. 539.

[vii] Ibid, pp 44-52.

[viii] Ibid Aos et al (2006) p. 3.

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

"Nothing Works" in Reducing Recidivism is False

In the mid 1970’s, a summary of 231 studies of correctional programs were reviewed and evaluated based on their effectiveness in reducing criminal recidivism. The ultimate conclusion of the researchers was that “nothing works” in reducing recidivism of offenders.[i] Other researchers have criticized these reviews and conclusions. The conclusion that “nothing works” to reduce recidivism probably wasn’t true back in the 1975, and is certainly not true today.

One group of researchers argued that the Martinson review cited above, demonstrated knowledge destruction as the conclusions were simply not empirically based. However, at the time, the Martinson conclusions were politically acceptable from both ends of the political spectrum. Researchers now argue that the empirical research had identified programs that work to reduce recidivism then, and the research has identified programs that work now.[ii]

Recently, there have been several comprehensive meta-analyses and analytical reviews of the literature to attempt to identify correctional programs that are effective in reducing recidivism and those that are cost effective. Of course, the goal is to use the effective programs and eliminate the ineffective programs.[iii]

I will discuss some of the findings of what works in corrections to reduce recidivism. I will warn anyone that is looking for a silver bullet program that is going to reduce recidivism by close to 100%, that these programs don’t exist. Recidivism reduction in the 10% to 15% range compared to control groups is on the high end. The question is do the benefits of the programs outweigh the costs.

Throughout the treatment literature, one principal stands out. To increase the efficacy of any treatment modality, one first needs to identify the group of offenders at highest risk to re-offend, identify the criminologic factors of those high-risk offenders that contribute to their offending, and then design treatment to address those factors. Treatment resources should not be wasted on offenders with a low risk to re-offend or those lacking the problems that the treatment modality is designed to meet.[iv]

Vocational education of offenders with job placement was shown by all three groups of researchers to reduce recidivism. According to Drake et al (2009), recidivism is reduced about 10% with vocational education in prison, and it provides the greatest return on investment of any program. Job placement increases the effectiveness of vocational training by about three-fold.[v]

Adult basic education again has been shown to reduce recidivism. Andrews and Bonta (2010) and Drake et al (2009) both concluded that adult basic education reduced recidivism. MacKenzie (2006) found adult basic education to be promising. Drake (2009) estimated a reduction in recidivism by 8.6% from adult basic education.

Working in correctional industries in prison has also been shown to have a positive effect on reducing recidivism. Andrews and Bonta (2010) did not address correctional industries. The other two research groups found that work in correctional industries was effective in reducing recidivism. Drake (2009) estimated that correctional industries reduced recidivism by 6.4% over nonparticipants.

The above examples show that educational programs and work programs have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism. I will discuss more structured correctional treatment in my next entry.

---

[i] Martinson, R. (1974). “What Works—Questions and Answers About Prison Reform.” The Public Interest, 35, 22-54; Lipton, D., R. Martinson & J. Wilks (1975) The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies.New York: Praeger.

[ii] Andrews, D.A. and James Bonta, 2010, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct 5^th Ed., New Jersey, Matthew Bender, p. 351-356.

[iii] Ibid; MacKenzie, Doris Layton (2006), What works in Corrections-Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents, New York, Cambridge University Press; Drake, Elizabeth K. Steve Aos and Marna G. Miller, 2009, “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State” Victims and Offenders, 4:170-196; Aos, Steve, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, (2006). “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.” Olympia:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

[iv] Ibid ii above, p. 111 and chapter 12.

[v] Ibid, p. 265.

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

Prison and the Tragedy of the Commons

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that, in Missouri, judges are now given estimates of the cost of potential sentences before they make their sentencing decisions. Missouri Tells Judges Cost of Sentences . As someone who was indoctrinated with economics for six of my formative years, looking at the cost of a decision seems not merely reasonable, but the only responsible way to make a thoughtful decision.

As trial judges in Wisconsin have tremendous discretion in setting the length of a sentence, and that discretion has broadened over the last approximately 20 years, the consideration of the cost of a sentence is especially important. First, sentences are reviewed under the most deferential appellate standard—the erroneous exercise of discretion—resulting in little appellate oversight of sentences.

Secondly, over the last twenty years the legislature has increased the maximum penalties for most crimes giving judges a wide range of penalties for most crimes. For example, at the extreme, for a class B felony, a judge can sentence someone to a period of initial confinement, without the possibility of parole review, somewhere between zero days and forty years. Based on my experience, in the past, the legislative maximum had more often provided the cap on sentences. I can remember when prosecutors were always concerned about getting convictions for multiple crimes so that the maximum possible penalty could be increased with consecutive sentences.

Now, obtaining multiple convictions is rarely a concern as a conviction for one crime, with the higher penalties, is often sufficient to provide an appropriate sentence range for a defendant. Judges are rarely constrained by legislative maximums, as they are sufficiently high. The effect of legislatively increasing the maximum penalties has been shifting the responsibility of setting the effective (as opposed to the legal) maximum penalty from the legislature to the judiciary. On top of the longer sentence potential, we also have truth-in-sentencing, where, with some exceptions, judges decide when a defendant can be released from prison at the time of sentence. All of which makes the judge’s initial sentencing decision all that more important and which argues for the use of consideration of the cost of a sentence.

Incentive and cost mismatches occur with our sentencing. A prison sentence, for example, has the indirect cost to the defendant in loss of freedom, lost wages, and lost contribution to family and society, along with the direct cost of incarceration (the cost being considered by Missouri judges). Those costs are considered against the benefits of locking someone up. When a judge sentences someone to prison, he or she has decided to spend somewhere in the range of $25,000 per year of state taxpayer’s money for each year of incarceration. A problem arises from mismatched economic incentives.

In Wisconsin, judges are elected by citizens of each county; whereas the costs are born by citizens of the State of Wisconsin as a whole—most who will never be able to vote for or against the judge. Only a very small portion of the costs of incarceration will be paid by the taxpayers of the judge’s county whereas most of the benefits of incarceration, in terms of community safety and retribution, will accrue to the residents of the judge’s county as it is likely that the defendant and the victims of the crime came from the judge’s county. Judge Richard Posner has written that elected judges, because they will be subject to a performance review in the form of a re-election requirement, have to be somewhat sensitive to the electorate when making decisions.[i] (The elected judges may also more closely match the values of the electorate than appointed judges and make decisions that are more in line with this common value system.)

While judges are electorally held responsible for considering the benefits and the indirect costs to the defendant and his/her family, because most of the direct cost of incarceration is not born by citizens of the judge’s county, judges are not electorally held responsible for considering or not considering the direct cost of incarceration.

This mismatch of the signals of the benefits and cost of incarceration create a negative economic externality—a cost born by someone other than the decision maker. Prisons become the commons—the place in the village where everyone’s cows can graze without cost to the individual cow herder resulting in the pasture being overgrazed. Everyone’s cows starve. We have the tragedy of the commons.[ii] By not even considering costs of incarceration at sentencing, and not being held electorally accountable for these costs, the prison system becomes the commons. Are our overcrowded prisons, partially the result of the tragedy of the commons?

Like many people, I am concerned about our society being able to provide needed government services at a cost the citizenry are willing and able to pay. Would the system be better if criminal sentencing would be handled like juvenile delinquencies, or mental commitments, where the county receives a block of money to spend on corrections, and when people are sent to prison, that money comes from the county coffers? Would sentences be different if judges would have to justify spending county dollars for incarceration? I think an explicit consideration of the costs of a sentence is appropriate.

Although a fair and just sentence is much more than a straight economic decision, economics will always provide a tether as to what a society can or cannot do. That maxim has held for all societies in all ages. We in the criminal justice system ignore it at our peril.

---

[i] Posner, Richard A., (2008) “How Judges Think”, Harvard University Press, p. 135.

[ii] See Hardin, Garrett (1968) "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 pp. 1243-1248

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.

Hedonics and Punishment

Defendants are sentenced to prison for either incapacitation purposes or for punishment. Theoretically, punishment serves the joint goals of retribution (just deserts), general deterrence of other potential offenders, and specific deterrence of the sentenced offender. Longer prison sentences are assumed to equate with increased punishment of the offender. Psychological research suggests that this assumption may not be correct.

Robinson and Darley discuss research on different aspects of the “hedonic treadmill.”[i] The hedonic treadmill theory posits that while an individual’s level of happiness is initially affected by a positive or negative change in life circumstances, with time, the individual’s level of happiness returns to its original state. A defendant sentenced to prison will initially experience his change of circumstances as a negative event. However, as time passes, he adapts to his situation, prison becomes his life, and his level of happiness returns to the level it was before he went to prison. Because of the hedonic treadmill, the prison sentence has lost its bite as punishment and, hence, as a negative reinforcement. [ii]

Furthermore, humans also have the ability to become desensitized to changes within their environment. When conditions in prison change for the better or the worse from one day to the next, prisoners adapt to these changed conditions and experience them as minor changes in their levels of contentment. The prisoners become hardened to prison life. [iii]

Recent psychological research also undermines the assumption that longer sentences imply more punishment. Robinson and Darley discuss research that shows that duration of a punishment has little effect on the amount of remembered pain. Research showed that after individuals experienced a short period of intense pain and the same short period of the same intense pain followed by a longer period of less pain, they remember the short period of the intense pain followed by a longer period of less pain as less unpleasant than just the short period of intense pain. This researcher opined that individuals remember a negative experience as an average of the most extreme pain during the experience and the pain at the end of the experience.[iv]

Robinson and Darley point out that a shorter sentence has a greater likelihood of being felt as aversive at its end as a longer sentence. They conclude as follows: “The startling realization is that this short sentence will be experienced as more aversive than a much longer sentence that is equally aversive at the beginning but less so at the end! There are two reasons for this. The first is that, under the duration neglect account, the much longer duration of the long sentence contributes little or nothing to the reconstructed negativity of the remembered sentence. The second reason is that the ‘end-point intensity’ of the short sentence comes before it has had an opportunity to decay, while the end point intensity of the longer sentence is reduced at the end. The point here is that lengthening sentences may actually reduce their recalled negative character if the end experiences are relatively less aversive!”[v]

Robinson and Darley point out that society is getting a diminished “punishment” bang for their buck with longer sentences. (Of course, incapacitation is still effective.) The cost of incarceration remains constant as the value of the incarceration in the currency of punishment declines. [vi] The marginal punishment declines with sentence length.

This body of research implies that a shorter period of incarceration may be remembered as more unpleasant than a longer sentence. If a negative reinforcement for specific deterrence purposes is what was intended by the sentence of incarceration, then a shorter sentence may be more effective. Further research is required to outline the contours of the relationship between the lengths of incarceration and the levels of punishment. The study of hedonics has alerted us to other reasons why deterrence through longer sentences has not been shown to be a very robust factor in reducing recidivism.

---

[i] Robinson, Paul H., and John H. Darley, 2004, “Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioral Science Investigation”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 24, No 2, p.187.

[ii] Ibid. p. 188.

[iii] Ibid p. 188

[iv] Ibid p. 190; D. Redelmeier and Daniel Kahneman, 1996, “Patients Memories of Painful Medical Treatments: Real Time and Retrospective Evaluations of Two Minimally Invasive Procedures”, 116 Pain 3.

[v] Robinson and Darley, Ibid p. 190.

[vi] Ibid, p. 189

The views expressed in this blog are solely the views of the author(s) and do not represent the views of any other public official or organization.