000			01878nam a22002657a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20240312065851.0
008			240312b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a00222186
040			_aMSU _bEnglish _cMSU _erda
050	0	0	_aHB73 JOU
100	1		_aOwens, Emily G. _eauthor
245	1	0	_aMore Time, Less Crime? _bestimating the Incapacitative Effect of Sentence Enhancements _ccreated by Emily G. Owens
264			_aChicago: _bUniversity of Chicago Press; _c2009.
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_aJournal of Law and Economics _vVolume 52, number 3
520			_aSentence enhancements may reduce crime both by deterring potential criminals and by incapacitating previous offenders, removing these possible recidivists from society for longer periods. I estimate the incapacitative effect of longer sentences by exploiting a 2001 change in Maryland's sentencing guidelines that reduced the sentences of 23‐, 24‐, and 25‐year‐olds with juvenile delinquent records by a mean of 222 days. I find that, during this sentence disenhancement, offenders were, on average, arrested for 2.8 criminal acts and were involved in 1.4-1.6 serious crimes per person during the period when they would have otherwise been incarcerated. Although my findings are significantly lower than previous estimates of incapacitation, I find that, on the margin, the social benefit of the crimes averted by incapacitation is slightly higher than the marginal cost to the state of imposing a 1‐year sentence enhancement
650			_aArrest rates _vCriminal offenses _xCriminal punishment
650			_aCriminal sentencing _vCriminals _xLength of sentence
650			_aPrisoners _vPrisons _xSentenced offenders
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1086/593141
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c164257 _d164257