Under incapacitation theory, higher incarceration rates are expected to correlate with accelerated reductions in crime. California’s contemporary incarceration patterns offer an opportunity to analyze the validity of this theory, particularly as it applies to young people. This study focuses on California’s juvenile incarceration and crime trends during the past half century. The findings of this study fail to demonstrate reduced crime rates through higher levels of juvenile incarceration, calling deterrence and incapacitation theories into serious question as effective youth crime reduction strategies and demonstrating the urgent need for California policy makers and legislators to consider alternative theories in response to crime and sentencing.
Avi-Izhak, B., & Shinnar, R. ( 1973). Quantitative models in crime control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1, 185-217.
2.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. ( 2005). California prisoners and parolees. Sacramento, CA: Author.
3.
Criminal Justice Statistics Center (2006). Crime in California 2005. Sacramento: California Department of Justice, Bureau of Criminal Information and Analysis .
4.
Clear, T., & Cole, G. ( 2005). American corrections. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
5.
Division of Juvenile Justice (2002). Comparison of first admission characteristics, 1959-2001. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
6.
Division of Juvenile Justice. (2006). A comparison of first admission characteristics, 1993-2005. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
7.
Donziger, S. ( 1996). The real war on crime: The report of the National Criminal Justice Commission. New York: Harper Perennial.
8.
Doob, A., & Webster, C. ( 2003). Sentencing severity and crime: Accepting the null hypothesis . Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 143-195.
9.
Feldman, L., Males, M., & Schiraldi, V. ( 2001). A tale of two jurisdictions: Youth crime and detention rates in Maryland and the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth.
10.
Garland, D. ( 2001). The culture of control. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
11.
Geerken, M., & Gove, W. ( 1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law and Society Review, 9, 497-513.
12.
Grasmick, H., & Bryjak, G. ( 1980). The deterrent effect of the perceived severity of punishment . Social Forces, 59(2), 471-491.
13.
Greenwood, P. ( 1982). Selective incapacitation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14.
Kessler, D., & Levitt, K. ( 1999). Using sentencing enhancements to distinguish between deterrence and incapacitation. Journal of Law and Economics , 42, 343-363.
15.
Levitt, S. ( 1996). The effect of prison population size on crime rates: Evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 319-352.
16.
Liedka, R., Piehl, A., & Useem, B. ( 2006). The crime control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter? Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2), 245-276.
17.
Macallair, D. ( 2002). From classrooms to cell blocks: A national perspective . San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Available from http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/higher/highernational.html
18.
Martinson, R. ( 1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform . Public Interest, 35, 22-34.
19.
Marvell, T., & Moody, C. ( 1994). Prison population and crime reduction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 109-139.
20.
Mauer, M. ( 1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: New Press.
21.
Morris, N. ( 1966). Impediments to penal reform. University of Chicago Law Review, 33, 627-656.
22.
Nieto, M. ( 1996). Community correction punishments: An alternative to incarceration for non-violent offenders. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.
23.
Shinnar, R., & Shinnar, S. ( 1975). The effect of the criminal justice system on the control of crime: A quantitative approach. Law and Society Review , 9, 581-611.
24.
Skolnick, J. ( 1995). What not to do about crime: The American Society of Criminology presidential address. Criminology, 33(1), 1-15.
Von Hirsh, A., Bottoms, A., Burney, E., Wilkstrom, P.O. ( 1999). Criminal deterrence and sentencing severity: An analysis of recent research. Oxford, UK: Hart.
27.
Webster, C., Doob, A., & Zimring, F. ( 2006). Proposition 8 and crime rates in California: The case of the disappearing deterrent. Criminology and Public Policy , 5(3), 417-448.
28.
Wilson, J. ( 1975, March 9). Lock ’um up. The New York Times Magazine, p. 44-48.
29.
Wilson, J. ( 1977, November). Changing criminal sentences. Harpers Magazine, p. 16-20.
30.
Witt, R., & Witte, A. ( 2000). Crime, prison and female labor supply. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 69-85.
31.
Zedlewski, E. ( 1987). Making confinement decisions. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
32.
Zimring, F., Hawkins, G., & Kamin, S. ( 2001). Punishment and democracy: Three strikes and you’re out in California. New York: Oxford University Press.
