Pay prisons bonuses based on recidivism rates

[cyberianpan]

I'm not quite sure what other people intend prisons for, but personally I'd be very happy if they reduced recidivism

Thus I think it makes sense to measure prison's performances based on recidivism rates of their former prisoners. Obviously there'd have to be risk adjustment(as certain types of prisoners are more likely to re-offend) but overall this would be a very useful statistic. If bonuses were given based upon downstream recidivism rates I think we'd have much better long term outcomes.

To enable this we'd need more competition between prisons, indeed were the bonuses sufficiently high we might tempt in private prisons who'd house prisoners for free (hoping for good bonuses). Indeed a solid & sensible metric like this means that we can now more easily outsource prisons to the private sector.

I got this idea from the Sydney Morning Herald / Core Economics , where Andrew Leigh came up with the idea.

cYp

[skev]

I like the idea but would it work?

I think people get too caught up worrying how the bad guys are going to get punished when we should be worrying about how to make sure that bad things don't happen again.

You see this in the States all the time. They are so worried in Texas for example about making sure that the murderer gets fried that they are blind to the fact that murder rates are higher in states with the death penalty.

Anything that reduces crime on the street is good. Anything that makes it worse is bad.

If punishing criminals doesn't make the world safe then why are we doing it?

If education and rehabilitating criminals makes the world safer then why are we NOT doing it?

[A Voice]

I'm not quite sure what other people intend prisons for, but personally I'd be very happy if they reduced recidivism

Currently, the purpose of prison is to reduce offending, not to reduce reoffending. So measuring prisons against a new goal without changing them in whatever way is deemed necessary seems a non-runner.

[Baron von Biffo]

Currently, the purpose of prison is to reduce offending, not to reduce reoffending. So measuring prisons against a new goal without changing them in whatever way is deemed necessary seems a non-runner.

The Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on sentencing in 1993. It said that the traditional approach had four objectives, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. It went on to say that only the first three have been expressly favoured by the Irish courts. (LRC. 1993. Sentencing 1.45)

The notion of paying a bonus to prisons based on recidivism is simplistic and foolish as it presumes that prison is the only factor that impacts on recidivism rates.

[A Voice]

The Law Reform Commission published a consultation paper on sentencing in 1993. It said that the traditional approach had four objectives, retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence and incapacitation. It went on to say that only the first three have been expressly favoured by the Irish courts. (LRC. 1993. Sentencing 1.45)

The notion of paying a bonus to prisons based on recidivism is simplistic and foolish as it presumes that prison is the only factor that impacts on recidivism rates.

What's incapacitation in this context? Stopping people offending while they're locked up? And what do the Irish courts have against it??

[odie1kanobe]

Why pay any prison bonuses ?

They required to lock people up and keep them away from society, thats it.

[skev]

Why pay any prison bonuses ?

They required to lock people up and keep them away from society, thats it.

Because it might make the world a better place?

If it worked would you be against it?

[Harmonica]

They required to lock people up and keep them away from society, thats it.

True. Prisons are for punishment.

[Baron von Biffo]

What's incapacitation in this context? Stopping people offending while they're locked up? And what do the Irish courts have against it??

That's exactly what it means. The paper doesn't say the courts have anything against it merely that they haven't 'expressly favoured' it.

It's a good document for anyone with an interest in this area to read. It may be out of print now but your library will be able to get you a copy.

[A Voice]

That's exactly what it means. The paper doesn't say the courts have anything against it merely that they haven't 'expressly favoured' it.

It's a good document for anyone with an interest in this area to read. It may be out of print now but your library will be able to get you a copy.

Ok. Ta.