Recent scholarship suggests that detention may have differential effects depending on situational factors. This longitudinal study tests an integrative theoretical framework with the aim to identify conditions under which detention deters from subsequent rule-violating behavior. We examined whether effects of experienced sanction severity on subsequent misconduct and reoffending behavior are dependent on procedural justice perceptions among Dutch adults in detention (n = 763 and n = 765, respectively). The deterrent effect of sanction severity on misconduct was dependent on procedural justice. Increased sanction severity only deterred from subsequent misconduct when treatment was perceived as procedurally neutral to just. For individuals who were detained for the first time, a similar interaction effect was observed for reoffending behavior. The results support the added value of integrating deterrence theory with situational characteristics (i.e., procedural justice) to explain sanctioning effects and suggest that correctional staffs’ relationships with individuals in detention can contribute to order in prison and beyond.
AartenP. G. M.DenkersA.BorgersM. J.van der LaanP. H. (2014). Suspending re-offending? Comparing the effects of suspended prison sentences and short-term imprisonment on recidivism in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 702–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814523402
2.
AbbiatiM.PalixJ.GasserJ.MoulinV. (2019). Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 37(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2364
3.
AebiM. F.DelgrandeN. (2014). SPACE I—Council of Europe annual penal statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2012. Council of Europe.
4.
AntrobusE.ThompsonI.ArielB. (2019). Procedural justice training for police recruits: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9331-9
5.
ApelR.NaginD. S. (2017). Perceptual deterrence. In BernascoW.Van GelderJ.-L.ElffersH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbooks in criminology and criminal justice. The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 121–140). Oxford University Press.
6.
AugustynM. B.WardJ. T. (2015). Exploring the sanction-crime relationship through a lens of procedural justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.001
7.
BaidawiS.TrotterC.FlynnC. (2016). Prison experiences and psychological distress among older inmates. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 59(3), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1197353
8.
BeccariaC. B. M. (1819). An essay on crimes and punishments (2nd American ed.). Philip H. Nicklin.(Original work published 1764)
9.
BeijersbergenK. A.DirkzwagerA. J. E.MollemanT.Van Der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2015). Procedural justice in prison: The importance of staff characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(4), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13512767
10.
BeijersbergenK. A.DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP. (2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643
11.
BenthamJ. (1982). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation (BurnsJ. H.HartH. L. A., Eds.). Methuen & Co. (Original work published 1970)
12.
BhatiA. S.PiqueroA. R. (2007). Estimating the impact of incarceration on subsequent offending trajectories: Deterrent, criminogenic, or null effect. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98(1), 207–254.
13.
BosmaA. Q.EstherE. F. J.SentseM.PalmenH. (2020). Examining prisoner misconduct: A multilevel test using personal characteristics, prison climate, and prison environment. Crime & Delinquency, 66(4), 451–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719877347
14.
BottomsA. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205–281. https://doi.org/10.1086/449298
CaudyM. S.TillyerM. S.TillyerR. (2018). Jail versus probation: A gender-specific test of differential effectiveness and moderators of sanction effects. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(7), 949–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818766375
17.
ChalfinA.McCraryJ. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147
18.
CheesemanK. A.KimB.LambertE. G.HoganN. L. (2011). Correctional officer perceptions of inmates and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.580515
CrankB. R.BrezinaT. (2013). “Prison will either make ya or break ya”: Punishment, deterrence, and the criminal lifestyle. Deviant Behavior, 34(10), 782–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.781439
21.
CullenF. T.JonsonC. L.NaginD. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S–65S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415224
22.
DervanL. E. (2011). American prison culture in an international context: An examination of prisons in America, the Netherlands, and Israel. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22, 413–428.
23.
DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP.BeijersbergenK. A.BosmaA. Q.de CuyperR.DoekhieJ.EichelsheimV.de GoedeS.van der LaanP. H.LametW.PalmenH.RaaijmakersE.RamakersA.ReefJ.van der SteltS.WensveenM.WerminkH. (2018). Cohort profile: The prison project—A study of criminal behavior and life circumstances before, during, and after imprisonment in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0077-2
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
26.
FaganJ.PiqueroA. R. (2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 715–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x
27.
FarrallS. (2005). Officially recorded convictions for probationers: The relationship with self-report and supervisory observations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15367
GaesG. G.CampS. D. (2009). Unintended consequences: Experimental evidence for the criminogenic effect of prison security level placement on post-release recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9070-z
30.
GiffordB. (2019). Prison crime and the economics of incarceration. Stanford Law Review, 71(1), 71–135.
31.
HjalmarssonR. (2009). Juvenile jails: A path to the straight and narrow or to hardened criminality?Journal of Law and Economics, 52(4), 779–809. https://doi.org/10.1086/596039
32.
HuizingaD.HenryK. L. (2008). The effect of arrest and justice system sanctions on subsequent behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In LibermanA. M. (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (1st ed., pp. 220–254). Springer.
33.
JacksonJ.TylerT. R.BradfordB.TaylorD.ShinerM. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10.
34.
MaguireE. R.Atkin-PlunkC. A.WellsW. (2019). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753
35.
MeadeB.SteinerB.MakariosM.TravisL. (2013). Estimating a dose-response relationship between time served in prison and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(4), 525–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812458928
36.
NaginD. S.SnodgrassG. M. (2013). The effect of incarceration on re-offending: Evidence from a natural experiment in Pennsylvania. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 601–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9191-9
37.
PaternosterR. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 765–824. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25766109
38.
PaternosterR.BrameR.BachmanR.ShermanL. W.LawS.ReviewS.ShermanL. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter ? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31(1), 163–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054098
39.
PetersiliaJ. (2011). Beyond the prison bubble. The Wilson Quarterly, 35(1), 50–55.
40.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR.PogarskyG.LoughranT. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
41.
PogarskyG. (2007). Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-006-9019-6
42.
RaaijmakersE. A. C.LoughranT. A.de KeijserJ. W.NieuwbeertaP.DirkzwagerA. J. E. (2017). Exploring the relationship between subjectively experienced severity of imprisonment and recidivism: A neglected element in testing deterrence theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816660588
ScottD. (2007). The changing face of the English prison: A critical review of imprisonment. In JewkesY. (Ed.), Handbook on prisons (1st ed., pp. 49–72). Willan Publishing.
45.
ShermanL. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030004006
46.
SteinerB.WooldredgeJ. (2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814564463
47.
TomlinsonK. D. (2016). An examination of deterrence theory: Where do we stand. Federal Probation, 80(3), 33–38.
48.
TylerT. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563
49.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
50.
van GinnekenE. F. J. C.PalmenH.BosmaA. Q.NieuwbeertaP.BerghuisM. L. (2018). The Life in Custody study: The quality of prison life in Dutch prison regimes. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 4(4), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-07-2018-0020
51.
VerboonP.van DijkeM. (2011). When do severe sanctions enhance compliance? The role of procedural fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.09.007
52.
VerboonP.van DijkeM. (2012). The effect of perceived deterrence on compliance with authorities: The moderating influence of procedural justice. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 1, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2012.01.15
53.
WaltersG. D. (2021). Are the criminogenic effects of incarceration mediated by a change in criminal thinking or a change in perceived certainty?Prison Journal, 101(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520978374
54.
WerminkH.BloklandA.NieuwbeertaP.NaginD.TollenaarN. (2010). Comparing the effects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: A matched samples approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9097-1
55.
YukhnenkoD.SridharS.FazelS. (2019). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update [Version 3]. Wellcome Open Research, 4, Article 28. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14970.3
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
