1 / 25

Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending

Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending. Does the length of the order matter?. Suzanne Poynton and Don Weatherburn. Background. 15% of all adult court penalties are good behaviour bonds (GBBs) or suspended sentences (SSs)

kuniko
Télécharger la présentation

Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bonds, suspended sentences and re-offending Does the length of the order matter? Suzanne Poynton and Don Weatherburn

  2. Background • 15% of all adult court penalties are good behaviour bonds (GBBs) or suspended sentences (SSs) • 2012: 77,940 offenders in Australia received either a GBB(n = 56,000) or a SS (n = 21,940) • Little difference between prison, SSs and GBBs in risk of re-offending • Weatherburn and Bartels 2009; Lulham, Weatherburn and Bartels (2009); Weatherburn & Trimboli (2008) • No research into whether the length of the SS or GBB matters

  3. Why might it matter? • Short periods of conditional release provide • little reason to seek treatment • little time for treatment to have an effect • little deterrent effect (particularly for low frequency offenders) • Easy to postpone or temporarily stop offending • On the other hand: long periods of surveillance might actually increase the risk of arrest

  4. Research questions • Are long bonds more effective than short bonds in reducing re-offending? • Does supervision make a difference to this effect? • Are long suspended sentences more effective than short suspended sentences in reducing re-offending? • Does supervision make a difference to this effect?

  5. Research strategy (PSM) • Conventional regression methods do not deal properly with selection bias • We use propensity score matching (PSM) • Divide offenders into short GBB and long GBB • Model probability of receiving a long GBB • Match offenders who had the same probability of a long GBB but who went in different directions • Compare re-offending among matched pairs • Same process for SSs • Matching rule: • One to one nearest neighbour matching with no replacement and a caliper of 0.05

  6. Data • Data Source: BOCSAR’s re-offending database (ROD) • Contains the criminal histories of everyone who appeared in a NSW court since 1994 (but no history prior to 1994) • Samples: • All 52,932 offenders given a GBB between 2006 and 2008 • All 15,129 offenders given a SS between 2006 and 2008 • One record per person • Cut off date for reoffending: 31st December, 2011

  7. IVs and DVs • Independent variables • Long suspended sentence = A suspended sentence 12 mths or longer (n = 5,906) • Long good behaviour bond = A bond that is 24 mths or longer (n = 13,877) • Dependent variables • Whether or not reconvicted of a further offence within three years of index court appearance • Time to reconviction adjusted for time spent in custody

  8. Controls • Age • Gender • SEIFA • ARIA • Finalisation year • Plea • # Concurrent offences • Legal representation • Offence seriousness • Bail status • Counts of principal off. • Offence type • # Prior convictions • Prior juvenile conviction • Prior penalty type • Prison, GBB, SS or PD • Prior offence type • Property, violent, drugs, PCA, Driving, Breach of order

  9. Reoffending Long versus short bonds

  10. Standardised Bias before matching

  11. Standardised Bias after matching

  12. Re-offending (overall) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

  13. Difference in reoffending risk

  14. Re-offending (by order type) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

  15. Differences in reoffending risk

  16. Reoffending: Long versus short suspended sentences

  17. StandardisedBias before matching

  18. StandardisedBias after matching

  19. Re-offending (overall) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

  20. Differences in re-offending risk

  21. Reoffending (by order type) 1 Standard errors have been adjusted to account for matched nature of the data 2 Adjusted for demographic, offence and prior offending variables

  22. Conclusion • Lower re-offending on long GBBs and SSs • Effect present for both supervised and unsupervised GBBs • Not present for supervised and unsupervised SSs (considered separately) • Effect small but small differences in reconviction can signal large differences in re-offending (Blumstein & Larson 1971) • Effect is consistent with ‘successful’ treatment programs for adult offenders

  23. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2006‘Reducing Crime with Evidence Based Options: What works?’

  24. Next Steps • Can’t rule out possibility of selection bias • Only three ways to conduct a stronger test • Randomised Control Trial • Find a variable that influences penalty selection but has no direct effect on reoffending • Change the law

  25. The end Questions?????????

More Related