USING RANDOM JUDGE ASSIGNMENTS TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTS OF INCARCERATION AND PROBATION ON RECIDIVISM AMONG DRUG OFFENDERS*
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Specification Tests in Econometrics
Hausman, J. A. (1978) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913827 · Cited by 18,820 · see citing works
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467 · see citing works
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302 · see citing works
Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230 · see citing works
Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects
Imbens, G. W., & Angrist, J. D. (1994) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951620 · Cited by 4,101 · see citing works
Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression
Stock, J., & Yogo, M. (2002) · doi:10.3386/t0284 · Cited by 1,842 · see citing works
Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291055 · Cited by 1,018 · see citing works
Incarceration length, employment, and earnings
Kling, J. R. (2006) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.96.3.863 · Cited by 563 · see citing works
Randomized experiments in criminology: what have we learned in the last two decades?
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6460-0 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incarceration, Recidivism, and Employment
Bhuller, M., Dahl, G. B., Løken, K. V., & Mogstad, M. (2020) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/705330 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
DOES IMPRISONMENT ALTER THE LIFE COURSE? EVIDENCE ON CRIME AND EMPLOYMENT FROM A NATURAL EXPERIMENT
LOEFFLER, C. E. (2013) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12000 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Beyond the dichotomy: incarceration dosage and mental health
Porter, L. C., & DeMarco, L. M. (2019) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12199 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Prison Rehabilitation Programs: Efficiency and Targeting
Arbour, W., Lacroix, G., & Marchand, S. (2021) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3761992 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- GREEN, D. P., & WINIK, D.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- ORCID
- GREEN, DONALD P.
- 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
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- 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