Cited by 211Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisCriminal Justice and PenologyCrime Patterns and Interventions

USING RANDOM JUDGE ASSIGNMENTS TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF INCARCERATION AND PROBATION ON RECIDIVISM AMONG DRUG OFFENDERS*

Open access
GREEN, DONALD P., WINIK, DANIEL·2010·Criminology

Abstract

Most prior studies of recidivism have used observational data to estimate the causal effect of imprisonment or probation on the probability that a convicted individual is rearrested after release. Few studies have taken advantage of the fact that, in some jurisdictions, defendants are assigned randomly to judges who vary in sentencing tendencies. This study investigates whether defendants who are assigned randomly to more punitive judges have different recidivism probabilities than defendants who are assigned to relatively lenient judges. We track 1,003 defendants charged with drug‐related offenses who were assigned randomly to nine judicial calendars between June 1, 2002 and May 9, 2003. Judges on these calendars meted out sentences that varied substantially in terms of prison and probation time. We tracked defendants using court records across a 4‐year period after the disposition of their cases to determine whether they subsequently were rearrested. Our results indicate that randomly assigned variations in prison and probation time have no detectable effect on rates of rearrest. The findings suggest that, at least among those facing drug‐related charges, incarceration and supervision seem not to deter subsequent criminal behavior.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00189.x

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Green and Winik (2010), the estimation sample is small and the instrument is weak, which may lead to severe bias in the IV estimates.

    “In Green and Winik (2010), for instance, the estimation sample is small and the instrument is weak, which may lead to severe bias in the IV estimates.”

    From Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment (2020) · cites this paper as Green and Winik (2010)

  • Papers focusing on the United States and using randomly assigned judges find no effects of incarceration on economic outcomes or recidivism.

    “However, papers focusing on the United States and using randomly assigned judges find no effects of incarceration on economic outcomes (Kling, 2006) or on recidivism (Green and Winik, 2010).”

    From Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting (2021) · cites this paper as Green and Winik, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GREEN, D. P., & WINIK, D.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Criminology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
357-387
ISSN
  • 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-9125
OpenAlex
W2078990078
Cited by
211
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 6
FWCI
32.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Criminology (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
recidivism, drug offenders, incarceration, probation, sentencing, judicial discretion, rearrest, deterrence, drug offenses

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review