Using Sentence Enhancements to Distinguish between Deterrence and Incapacitation
Daniel P Kessler and
Steven Levitt ()
Journal of Law and Economics, 1999, vol. 42, issue 1, 343-63
Differentiating empirically between deterrence and incapacitation is difficult since both are a function of expected punishment. In this article we demonstrate that the introduction of sentence enhancements provides a direct means of measuring deterrence. Because the criminal would have been sentenced to prison even without the law change, there is no additional incapacitation effect from the sentence enhancement in the short run. Therefore, any immediate decrease in crime must be due to deterrence. We test the model using California's Proposition 8, which imposed sentence enhancements for a selected group of crimes. Proposition 8 appears to reduce eligible crimes by 4 percent in the year following its passage and 8 percent 3 years after passage. These immediate effects are consistent with deterrence. The impact of the law continues to increase 5-7 years after its passage, suggesting that incapacitation may be important as well. Copyright 1999 by the University of Chicago.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (84) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
Working Paper: Using Sentence Enhancements to Distinguish between Deterrence and Incapacitation (1998)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlawec:v:42:y:1999:i:1:p:343-63
Access Statistics for this article
More articles in Journal of Law and Economics from University of Chicago Press
Series data maintained by Journals Division ().