|
Contents
Previous
Next
BJS home page
|
Crime and Justice in the United States
and in England and Wales, 1981-96
Is there a connection between trends in legal punishment and trends in crime in the two countries?
The two countries differ greatly in how their justice systems responded to crime throughout the 1980's and continuing into the 1990's. For example, during that time an offender's risk of conviction rose in the United States but fell in England (including Wales). Such differences in punishment trends might help explain why crime trends since 1981 differed between the two countries. In theory, raising the risk or severity of punishment might lead to crime decreases, and lowering the risk or severity of punishment might lead to crime increases.
To investigate these possibilities, correlations were computed between punishment trends and crime trends in the two countries. Negative correlations (for example, a falling conviction rate and a rising crime rate) were interpreted as possible support for the theory. Correlations dealt with two separate types of punishment trends: trends in the risk of punishment, and trends in the severity of punishment. Two measures of punishment risk are the conviction rate (defined as the number of convictions per 1,000 alleged offenders) and the incarceration rate (defined as the number of incarcerations per 1,000 alleged offenders). Four measures of punishment severity are the percent of convicted offenders sentenced to incarceration, sentence length, time served, and percent of sentence served. A fifth is "days of incarceration at risk of serving," although this measure actually combines elements of both risk and severity.
U.S. trends were based on data for seven points in time (1981, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994); English trends were based on six (1981, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1993, and 1995). Detecting a statistically significant relationship between crime and punishment trends is difficult when trends are based on so few points in time. Consequently, statistical significance was not given more weight than other criteria for evaluating results. Other criteria used were strength and direction of correlations between punishment trends and crime trends, and consistency of correlations across offense categories.
Major findings were:
- Negative correlations in England between trends in punishment risk and crime trends offer the strongest support for the theory that links falling risk of punishment to rising crime (table 2). Specifically, since 1981 the conviction rate fell in England, and English crime rates (both police-recorded crime rates and crime rates from victim surveys) rose (figures 1-10 and figures 25-30). Likewise, the incarceration rate fell, and English crime rates (both police-recorded rates and victim survey rates) rose (figures 1-10 and figures 43-48).
- In England, correlations between punishment severity and crime trends were mixed (table 2). Roughly half were positive and half were negative. The major exception was motor vehicle theft: correlations were fairly consistently strong and negative between trends in punishment severity (however measured) for motor vehicle theft and trends in the rate of vehicle theft (however measured) (figures 4, 10, 36, 54,60, 66, and 72). Specifically, the percent of convicted motor vehicle thieves sentenced to incarceration, their average sentence length, their average time served, the percent of sentence they served, and the number of days of incarceration they were at risk of serving all fell since 1981. At the same time, the motor vehicle theft rate, as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics, generally rose.
- In the United States, correlations between punishment risk and crime trends were mixed (table 2). About half were positive and half were negative. Moreover, negative correlations were often low. Furthermore, correlations between trends in punishment risk and trends in crime were predominantly negative when crime trends were measured with victim surveys but predominantly positive when measured with police statistics. In short, trends in punishment risk had an inconsistent relationship with trends in crime in the United States. The major exception is burglary, where there were consistent negative correlations: the risk of punishment (whether measured by the conviction rate or the incarceration rate) rose, and the burglary rate (whether measured in victim surveys or police statistics) fell (figures 3, 9, 29, and 48).
- In the United States, correlations between punishment severity
and crime trends were mixed (table 2). Approximately half were positive
and half were negative. Moreover, in instances where there were negative
correlations, they were often weak. Furthermore, unlike results from England,
correlations between punishment severity and survey crime rates
often had a different sign than correlations between severity and police-recorded
rates for the same crime. In short, trends in punishment severity had
an inconsistent relationship with trends in crime in the United States.
The major exception is burglary, where there were consistent negative
correlations: for most measures of severity (percent of convicted offenders
sentenced to incarceration; sentence length imposed; time served), increases
in severity of punishment for burglary were associated with decreases
in the burglary rate regardless of whether the burglary rate was measured
using victim surveys or police statistics (figures 3, 9, 35, 53, and 59).
To summarize, notable consistencies and notable inconsistencies both
characterized results relating punishment trends to crime trends. Notably
consistent was the close association in England, across the different
crime types, between falling risk of punishment (however measured) and
rising crime rates (however measured). Notable inconsistent results
were those between England and the United States; between trends in
punishment risk versus trends in punishment severity; between police
statistics and victim surveys; between different measures of punishment
severity; and between different offenses. The major exception was burglary,
where trends were fairly consistent irrespective of country, source
of crime-rate data, or type of punishment trend.
Possible explanations for the inconsistencies are:
- Victim surveys may provide a more reliable measure of crime trends
than police statistics. If so, that may explain inconsistencies between
victim surveys and police statistics.
- Changes in the risk of punishment are widely thought to have a
greater impact on crime rates than changes in punishment severity.
If so, that may explain why punishment risk trends and crime trends
were more consistently associated with one another than were punishment
severity trends and crime trends.
- Most U.S. crime rates fell in the early 1980's, increased until
the early 1990's, and then fell again. Yet linear correlation was
used to analyze these nonlinear trends. Perhaps nonlinear correlation
would show a closer association between punishment trends and crime
trends in the United States.
- The fact that all trends were based on a small number of points
in time (seven in the United States, six in England) suggests a more
general explanation for inconsistencies. That number of data points
may be adequate for documenting a relationship between punishment
trends and crime trends only if major changes occur in punishment
trends during the study period in both countries, which was
not the case here. English conviction rates, for example, declined
sharply during the study period. The increase in U.S. conviction rates
was modest by comparison. Consequently, the negative correlations
between rising U.S. conviction rates and falling crime rates were
relatively modest for most crime rates derived from victim surveys,
whereas the negative correlations between falling English conviction
rates and rising English crime rates were uniformly strong. The implication
is that punishment trends and crime trends should not always be expected
to have the same relationship in two countries over any period of
time.
- Some crimes (such as burglary) are more rationally motivated than
others (assault, for example). Consequently, in comparison with other
crimes, those that are committed by more rationally motivated offenders
-- by persons who, for example, plan their crime and weigh their chances
of being caught -- are probably more influenced by increases or decreases
in the likelihood or severity of punishment. The implication is that
punishment trends and crime trends should not always be expected to
have the same relationship irrespective of type of crime.
- A positive correlation between punishment and crime trends was
interpreted as possible evidence that increasing punitiveness does
not reduce crime. Such an interpretation may not always be justified.
For example, if the crime rate rose over some period of time but was
kept from soaring by increasingly punitive policies over that period,
it would be a mistake to interpret the observed positive correlation
between punishment and crime trends as evidence that increasing punitiveness
had no crime reduction benefit. Perhaps some of the inconsistent findings
described above stem from misinterpreting positive correlations. By
the same token, perhaps some of the inconsistencies stem from misinterpreting
negative correlations. Interpreting a negative correlation as possible
evidence that increasing punitiveness reduces crime may not always
be justified. For example, crime rates can fall for reasons having
nothing to do with increasing punitiveness. To illustrate, demographic
changes in the age and race composition of the U.S. population might
explain 41% of the drop in the U.S. murder rate from 1981 to 1996;
47% of the drop in the police-recorded U.S. robbery rate; and 19%
of the drop in the police-recorded U.S. burglary rate.
|
