IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-702474.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation

Author

Listed:
  • A. Mitchell Polinsky
  • Paul N. Riskind

Abstract

In this article we derive the mix of criminal sanctions--choosing among prison, parole, and probation--that achieves any target level of deterrence at lowest cost. We assume that prison has higher disutility and higher cost per unit of time than parole and probation and that potential offenders discount the future disutility of sanctions at a higher rate than the state discounts the future costs of sanctions. Our primary insight is that there is a front-loading advantage of imprisonment due to these differential discount rates. This advantage implies that whenever a sentence includes both a prison term and a parole term, the prison term should be imposed first, and that it may be optimal to employ a prison term even if prison has a higher cost per unit of disutility than parole and probation and even if prison is not needed to achieve the target level of deterrence.

Suggested Citation

  • A. Mitchell Polinsky & Paul N. Riskind, 2019. "Deterrence and the Optimal Use of Prison, Parole, and Probation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(2), pages 347-371.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/702474
    DOI: 10.1086/702474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/702474
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/702474
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/702474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/702474. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.