DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02857
title: Crime Control Effects of Sentencing in Essex County, New Jersey, 1976-1997
title: Archival Version

description: This study was undertaken to examine the ways in which
 different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony
 offenders. The study sought to determine whether the following made a
 difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of
 confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and
 that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation
 combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines,
 restitution, or other alternative sanctions. Data were collected from
 questionnaires completed by 18 judges of the Essex County, New Jersey,
 courts and by probation staff. Follow-up data were collected from
 official records provided by probation, jail, prison, and parole case
 files. Follow-up data were also collected from the following official
 records: (1) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction System
 Computerized Criminal History, (2) the New Jersey Department of
 Corrections Offender-Based Correctional Information System, (3) the
 United States Department of Justice Interstate Identification Index,
 (4) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File, (5) the
 New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL Prosecutors Case Tracking System, and (6)
 administrative record files of the New Jersey Department of
 Corrections. Variables in the data file include the most serious
 offense charge, most serious offense of conviction, dimension of
 conviction, offense type (person, property, social order, fraud, or
 drug offense), number of prior probations, number of probation
 revocations, number of prior jail and prison terms, mitigating and
 aggravating factors affecting the sentence, type of sentence, special
 conditions of probation, fines and restitutions imposed, minimum and
 maximum incarceration terms (in months), history of drug offenses,
 type of drugs used, probation and parole violations, total number of
 prior arrests and prior convictions, and longest arrest-free period
 after first arrest. The type of post-sentence offense, dimension,
 disposition charge, sentence, and date of arrest are provided for
 arresting events and charge episodes 1 through 108 for any
 offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender), the date of
 lockup and date of exit from confinement are provided. The file also
 includes recommendations made by prosecutors and probation officers,
 and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to nine) with respect to the
 likelihood of an offender committing future property crimes, crimes
 against persons, or any crime. Judges also rated the arrest record
 length, conviction record length, and social stability of each
 offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points, and specific
 deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the
 file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each convicted
offender, and the age of the offender at first conviction.
description: Typically, sentencing reform policies aimed at
 crime control, as well as arguments for and against the use of various
 alternative punishments, have been developed without rigorous analyses
 or careful examination of the results of sanctioning
 practices. Experimental design is generally not feasible in making
 sound comparisons of results regarding various punishments, because
 achieving equivalence among the groups compared is rarely possible at
 sentencing. Thus, complete results on the impact of sentencing and
 sanctioning practices are not available. Punishment policies have,
 therefore, been developed without full information about how
 sanctioning modifies, controls, or enhances the likelihood of future
 criminal behavior by a convicted offender. By relying on a rigorous
 quasiexperimental design based on multivariate models of judicial
 sentencing behavior, this study sought to examine the ways in which
 different felony sanctions impact the future behavior of felony
 offenders. This study attempted to determine whether the following made
 a difference in subsequent criminal behavior: (1) sentences of
 confinement, (2) the length of sentence (both the sentence imposed and
 that which was actually served), and (3) sentences of probation
 combined with jail ("split" sentences), or combined with fines,
restitution, or other alternative sanctions.
description: Data were first collected from two sources:
 questionnaires completed by 18 judges in Essex County, New Jersey,
 courts, and reports by probation staff. Follow-up data were extracted
 from official records in two waves -- first, from probation, jail,
 prison, and parole files, and second, from several databases and
 additional sources. Judges completed questionnaires for a sample of
 offenders sentenced between May 1976 and June 1977. The
 questionnaires, designed with the help of the judges, provided data on
 their perceptions and judgments of the offense, offender, and
 sentencing decision. Each judge specifically provided a description of
 the actual sentence imposed, assessments of the seriousness of the
 offense, an estimate of the propensity of the offender to commit
 future crimes, a judgment of the lengths of the prior arrest and
 conviction records, a rating of the seriousness of prior records, an
 assessment of the social stability of the offender, and a listing of
 the mitigating or aggravating factors affecting the choice of
 sentence. All judges in the Essex County courts with assignments to
 criminal cases participated. One judge experienced lengthy trials, and
 so his few cases were excluded. All other judges (including those
 assigned only welfare fraud cases) were excluded. Users of the data
 should note the following: (1) There is the possibility of selection
 bias by the judges in regard to the choice of one sentence alternative
 over another. (2) There is no assurance that the judges had equivalent
 cases. Comparisons of judges' cases were made by analysis of variance
 of selected variables, and results suggest that caution be used in
 assuming that the 18 judges had cases that could be considered
 equivalent in all respects. The second source of data came from
 probation staff, who provided objective items extracted from criminal
 case files, which included charged and convicted offenses, the number
 of prior probations, probation revocations, jail terms, prison terms,
 sentence recommendations of the prosecutor and of the probation
 department, and information on previous sentences being served by the
 offender at the time of the sentencing. These data were collected
 after sentencing and were not systematically provided to the judges,
 but usually were included in the presentence report. After
 approximately one year, the first wave of follow-up data was initiated
 to determine how the sentences were actually carried out by the
 correctional system. These data were collected from probation, jail,
 prison, and parole files and included detailed data about offenders
 who were in community programs during the first few years after
 sentencing. The second wave of follow-up data began in October 1995
 and ended in February 1997. In order to assess the impact of
 sentencing on subsequent criminal behavior, data were extracted from
 the following sources: (a) the New Jersey Offender-Based Transaction
 System Computerized Criminal History, which included New Jersey arrest
 records, with arrest and conviction data dating from 1972 to the
 present, (b) the New Jersey Department of Corrections Offender-Based
 Correctional Information System, which included correctional history
 data on admissions, departures, and status of state prisoners dating
 back to 1976, (c) the United States Department of Justice Interstate
 Identification Index, which included out-of-state records of arrests
 and convictions from the date of entry into the criminal justice
 system, (d) the National Crime Information Center Wanted Persons File,
 which provided current outstanding warrants from New Jersey and other
 state law enforcement agencies, (e) the New Jersey PROMIS/GAVEL
 Prosecutors Case Tracking System, used on a selective basis, which
 included pending or open New Jersey charges, and (f) administrative
 record files of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, also used on
 a selective basis, which included data on entry, transfer, and exits
from the New Jersey prisons.
description: Variables include the most serious offense charge,
 most serious offense of conviction, dimension of conviction, offense
 type (person, property, social order, fraud, or drug offense), number
 of prior probations, number of probation revocations, number of prior
 jail and prison terms, mitigating and aggravating factors affecting
 the sentence, type of sentence, special conditions of probation, fines
 and restitutions imposed, minimum and maximum incarceration terms (in
 months), history of drug offenses, type of drugs used, probation and
 parole violations, total number of prior arrests and prior
 convictions, and longest arrest-free period after first arrest. The
 type of offense, dimension, disposition charge, sentence, and date of
 arrest are provided for arresting events and charge episodes 1 through
 108 for any offender. For up to 43 arrest events (for any offender),
 the date of lockup and date of exit from confinement are
 provided. The file also includes recommendations made by prosecutors
 and probation officers, and judges' ratings (on a scale of one to
 nine) with respect to the likelihood of an offender committing future
 property crimes, crimes against persons, or any crime. Judges also
 rated the arrest record length, conviction record length, and social
 stability of each offender. Retribution points, incapacitation points,
 and specific deterrence points assigned by the judges complete the
 file. Demographic variables include the race and sex of each
convicted offender, and age of offender at first conviction.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None
description: Originally, researchers received questionnaires completed
 for 982 cases. Further examination showed that 6 records were
 duplicates, and 14 offenders were returned to court during the data
 collection period and were sentenced a second time. In these cases,
 only the first sentencing was included. Therefore, the total sample
 was reduced from the original 982 questionnaires completed by the
judges to the 962 cases used in the full sample.
description: Datasets: 
DS1: Crime Control Effects of Sentencing in Essex County, New Jersey, 1976-1997
description: All offenders sentenced by 18 judges handling criminal
 cases in the Essex County, New Jersey, courts between May 1976 and June
1977.