Reoffense metrics

Utah currently uses a version of the PSA to determine likelihood of reoffense on pretrial release. Using this kind of assessment can be misleading to decision makers, who can perceive offenders as higher risk than they are. The PSA calculates that those in the highest risk category are only 53% likely to be re-arrested, which means that nearly half of defendants placed under the most stringent conditions are likely to go arrest-free if released (Advancing Pretrial Policy and Research, n.d.). 

A 2022 report requested by Arnold Ventures, the creators of the PSA, and conducted by the NAS found severe limitations in current recidivism metrics, which lack standardization and are ill-equipped to understand reoffending behavior. There is robust evidence that crime desistance occurs incrementally and can involve setbacks. Reoffense data should shift away from the binary yes/no metric to the more nuanced crime desistance metric. Crime desistance more accurately reflects the reality of declining criminal behavior by taking into account the time elapsed between offenses, the relative severity of the offense compared to past offenses, effects from collateral consequences, and the community and societal factors that influence recidivism (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022).

What works in deterring crime?

The accepted deterrence model is based on certainty, severity, and immediacy of sanctions, with more evidence existing for the deterrent effect of certainty over that of severity (Nagin, 2013). This suggests that raising penalties is not as effective at deterring crime than increasing an offender’s certainty that they will be caught.

General deterrence is aimed at the general public, and has been found to be less effective than specific deterrence, which is aimed at the population with prior experience in the criminal justice system (Nagin, 2013). This suggests that deterrence measures should be aimed toward re-offenders. The criminogenic factors found to have the highest impact on recidivism include antisocial behavior or activities, substance abuse and problems at home, school or work. Several pilot treatment programs have begun in Utah aiming to address these needs, with promising results (Prince & Sarver, REACH, 2023*).

The cost of increasing penalties

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 69% of felony convictions on the state level include incarceration as a sanction (Rosenmerkel, Durose, & Farole, 2009). The cost to house one inmate in a Utah prison is $114.81 a day, which is $41,905.65 a year. For the same inmate to be supervised on probation is $14.94 a day, which is $5,453.10 a year (Utah Department of Corrections, 2022).

While incarceration can be geared toward re-offenders, the use of incarceration as a deterrence measure is ineffective. A 2021 meta-analysis unequivocally found that incarceration has no effect on recidivism, and may slightly increase it when compared with noncustodial sanctions (Petrich, Pratt, Jonson, & Cullen, 2021). Incarceration encourages antisocial traits while weakening ties and investment in outside society, where incarceration records become a socioeconomic barrier (Nagin, 2013). Close-quarters cohabitation with and learning from other inmates, along with increased exposure to violence, can also increase the criminogenic effect of incarceration (Petrich, Pratt, Jonson, & Cullen, 2021).

This is particularly true for so-called “high-frequency” offenders. Although incarceration may be perceived as more severe to lawmakers, research demonstrates that an offender’s perceived severity of incarceration decreases over time the more they are incarcerated. Individuals released from prison for the first time recidivate at a lower rate compared to the significantly higher rates among those who have been in prison multiple times (Petrich, Pratt, Jonson, & Cullen, 2021). In fact, an offender’s exposure to inmates with the same conviction increases their likelihood of reoffending within that particular crime category, an effect that is more evident in nonviolent crimes like property and drug offenses (Petrich, Pratt, Jonson, & Cullen, 2021).

In the case of high-frequency drug offenders, significant cost savings can be found in sending these individuals through drug courts, which are better equipped to handle the unique risks and treatment needs for this group. While drug courts have been found to be equally effective for all levels of drug/narcotics offenders, the financial return is realized predominantly in the subset of offenders with the highest risk of re-offense. Nationally, drug courts have been found to save an average of $5,680-$6,208 per case, due to decreased recidivism rates (U.S. Department of Justice, 2023).

*Prince, K., and Sarver, C. M. (2023). Recovery, Engagement, Assessment, Career Development, and Housing (REACH): Final Outcome Report. Utah Criminal Justice Center. University of Utah.