Reconviction rates after suspended sentences: comparison of the effects of different types of suspended sentences on reconviction in the Netherlands.

508929 research-article2013

IJO59210.1177/0306624X13508929International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyAarten et al.

Article

Reconviction Rates After Suspended Sentences: Comparison of the Effects of Different Types of Suspended Sentences on Reconviction in the Netherlands

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2015, Vol. 59(2) 143–158 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306624X13508929 ijo.sagepub.com

Pauline G. M. Aarten1,2, Adriaan Denkers1,2, Matthias J. Borgers2, and Peter H. van der Laan1,2

Abstract Previous research has focused mainly on determining the effectiveness of suspended sentences compared with other sentences, and seldom on understanding to what extent the different types of suspended sentences reduce recidivism rates. This study examined reconviction rates of offenders (N = 1,258) who received fully or partly suspended prison sentences, with or without special conditions, in 2006 in two of the largest court districts in the Netherlands. Cox proportional hazard models revealed no difference in reconviction rates between fully and partly suspended prison sentences, with and without special conditions. However, suspended sentences without special conditions had significantly lower reconviction rates compared with special conditions that were solely control-orientated. Although there are indications that certain types of suspended sentences reduced reconviction rates more than other types, more rigorous research is still required. Keywords suspended sentences, reconviction, offender rehabilitation, deterrence, Cox proportional hazard models

1Netherlands 2VU

Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Amsterdam, The Netherlands University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author: Pauline G. M. Aarten, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 71304, 1008 BH Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO on January 20, 2015

144

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 59(2)

Introduction Perhaps the main reason behind the implementation of suspended sentences in many Western countries was that they were, and still are, seen as more effective in reducing recidivism than (short-term) imprisonment (cf. Bartels, 2007; Directoraat-Generaal Preventie, Jeugd en Sancties, 2008; Wasik, 1994). Offenders avoid imprisonment as long as they show good behavior during a specified period of time. The threat of imprisonment is expected to achieve the necessary control over the offender’s behavior (Wasik, 1994), more so than actual incarceration. Although many Western countries have examined whether this is the case, the results are inconclusive. Studies either found lower rates (e.g., Bartels, 2009; Wartna & Tollenaar, 2006), higher rates (e.g., Walker, Farrington, & Tucker, 1981), or no difference in recidivism rates (e.g., Lulham, Weatherburn, & Bartels, 2009) between suspended sentences and imprisonment. Since their introduction, however, suspended sentences have developed into an intermediate sanction in the sentencing hierarchy rather than an alternative to shortterm imprisonment (Morris & Tonry, 1990; Van Bommel, 2009). Such sentences come in many different forms: They can be fully or partly suspended. Furthermore, conditions can be attached to suspended sentences that focus on the risks and criminogenic needs of offenders (e.g., Bartels, 2007; Tak, 2001; U.K. Sentencing Council, 2013). For example, offenders can be subjected to a supervision requirement, undergo treatment for substance abuse, or be subjected to a curfew order. These special conditions can be roughly divided into two types: conditions that control and/or restrict the behavior of the offender, and those focusing on changing behavior through interventions and therapy. To our knowledge, little research has focused on suspended sentences per se. Previous studies have largely examined whether offenders were given suspended sentences (e.g., Lulham et al., 2009; Walker et al., 1981). The present study examines recidivism rates between different types of suspended sentences and addresses the following research questions. First, to what extent do recidivism rates differ between (a) fully and partly suspended prison sentences, (b) suspended prison sentences with and without special conditions, and (c) fully and partly suspended prison sentences with and without special conditions? Second, to what extent do recidivism rates differ between (fully and partly) suspended prison sentences without special conditions, with control-orientated special conditions, and with behavior-orientated special conditions? To answer the research questions, we examined the criminal records of convicted offenders given suspended prison sentences in the court districts of Amsterdam and The Hague in 2006 (N = 1,258). Because various types of suspended sentences have been delineated in the Dutch penal code, data from the Netherlands alone are used to examine the effectiveness of different types of suspended sentences in reducing recidivism. The focus is on suspended prison sentences, as they are the most frequently imposed type of suspended sentences in the Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands Statline, 2013).


145

Aarten et al.

The current study not only contributes to existing knowledge by examining what actually “works” in reducing recidivism rates but also contributes to ongoing policy debates on suspended sentences. Although little is known about the effectiveness of suspended sentences in reducing recidivism, support for this type of sentence in different countries is high. For instance, in Germany 69% (reference year 2003), France 62% (reference year 2002), and in the Netherlands (reference year 2010) 56% of all prison sentences were fully or partly suspended (Jacobs, Van Kalmthout, & Von Bergh, 2006; Statistics Netherlands Statline, 2013). Furthermore, special conditions have become an important part of suspended sentences (Bleichrodt, 2009; U.K. Sentencing Council, 2013). Thus, given the popularity of suspended prison sentences, there is clearly a need for thorough research on their outcomes.

Suspended Sentences in the Netherlands In the Dutch criminal justice system, sanctions (such as imprisonment, fines, and community service) can be suspended. Sentences can be fully or partly suspended. More specifically, a prison sentence not exceeding 2 years may be fully or partly suspended. For a prison sentence exceeding 2 years but not 4 years, a maximum of 2 years of that sentence may be (partly) suspended. Prison sentences exceeding 4 years cannot be suspended. Suspended sentences are always subject to the general condition that the offender must not take part in any criminal activity during his or her probation period. It is the court’s discretion to determine whether one or more special conditions accompany the general condition. According to the Council for Penal Administration and Youth Protection (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing and Jeugdbescherming [hereafter RSJ], 2009), these special conditions can be roughly divided into three groups. The first group of conditions control or restrict the behavior of the offender, such as electronic monitoring, restraining orders, curfew orders, and substance-use prohibition. The second group focuses on influencing the behavior of the offender, such as behavioral skills training or drug treatment programs. The last group of conditions is specifically for aliens, whereby they are obliged to leave the country and not to return to the Netherlands. The possibility of imposing and combining special conditions allows the criminal justice system to give a tailored response to each individual. The probation service supervises 94% of the cases, where special conditions are imposed (Jacobs et al., 2006).

Suspended Sentences and Recidivism: Literature Review Fully and Partly Suspended Sentences Dignan (1984) theorized about the possible differences in effectiveness between fully and partly suspended sentences. He argued that partly suspended sentences were more effective than fully suspended sentences in at least three ways. First, the experience of incarceration, although short, is considered a more effective deterrent for offenders.


146


Second, besides specific deterrence, partly suspended sentences are also considered more generally deterrent and, unlike fully suspended sentences, are not perceived as a “let off.” Finally, there is an explicit element of denunciation in partly suspended sentences, which is much less pronounced in fully suspended sentences (Dignan, 1984). To our knowledge, only Bartels (2009) compared recidivism rates between fully and partly suspended sentences. She studied 588 criminal records of offenders sentenced to a non-custodial order or custodial sentence in Tasmania (Australia). When controlling for offender and offense characteristics, Bartels found that fully suspended sentences had slightly but not significantly lower reconviction rates (41.9%) compared with partly suspended sentences (44.4%).

Conditions Attached to Suspended Sentences The general condition, stating that the offender should not commit a new offense within a set period of time, has often been described as the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of offenders. Offenders are expected to refrain from committing new offenses due to the threat of prison (Bargaric, 1999; Bartels, 2009; Roberts & Gabor, 2004; Wasik, 1994). This general condition finds support in the deterrence theory. According to this theory, offending occurs when the benefits of offending outweigh the costs of punishment. The deterrent effect is expected to be the greatest when punishment is severe, certain, and swift (Geerken & Gove, 1975). In line with the deterrence theory, offenders would refrain from re-offending merely because of the threat of imprisonment. Previous research found little support for the deterrent effect of the general condition. Shoham and Sandberg (1964) compared offenders sentenced to suspended imprisonment with a control group of randomly chosen offenders convicted of sentences other than suspended sentences. As they found no significant differences in recidivism rates, the authors suggest that recidivism patterns were more related to the offender’s personality and type of offense than to sentencing disposition. Soothill (1981) examined the reconvictions of recidivists after suspended sentences. After 5 years, about 90% of the offenders were reconvicted allowing Soothill (1981) to conclude, “Any belief that the use of suspended sentences will often deter the recidivists from engaging in further criminal activity can soon be dismissed” (p. 822). Offender rehabilitation is an important purpose of the special conditions that can be attached to suspended sentences. Special conditions aim to change the risk and needs of offenders and are expected to reduce recidivism, more so than deterrence (the general condition). Ward and Brown (2004) put it as follows: “[ . . . ] the best way to reduce recidivism is to teach offenders how to manage aspects of their lives that elevate risk rather than simply presuming a deterrent value to punishment alone” (p. 243). Evidence for the effectiveness of sanctions in reducing recidivism has grown at an impressive rate.1 Petersilia (1999) found that control-oriented intermediate sanction programs do not reduce recidivism rates, unless some form of rehabilitation is present. Lipsey (1992) reported a 10% reduction in recidivism in programs that included treatment. This percentage is much higher when a differentiation is made between


147

Aarten et al.

community-based and prison programs, ranging from a 25% to 60% reduction in recidivism rates in favor of community-based programs that included treatment (Andrews et al., 1990). Two studies examined the recidivism rates of special conditions in Australia (Weatherburn & Bartels, 2008; Weatherburn & Trimboli, 2008). In Australia, these conditions are referred to as supervised bonds. Weatherburn and Bartels (2008) compared reconviction rates between suspended sentences (the effect on recidivism depending entirely on deterrence) and supervised bonds (focused on rehabilitating offenders). They examined criminal records of all offenders in New South Wales (Australia), and used propensity score matching to compare the effect of both sentences on recidivism. However, the results provided no support for either sentence, allowing the authors to suggest that neither sanction appeared to exert any effect on the risk of recidivism. Weatherburn and Trimboli (2008) focused on the effect of supervised bonds and unsupervised bonds on re-offending. They, too, used propensity score matching to control for possible selection bias. The results of their study indicated that offenders on supervised bonds are no less likely to get reconvicted than offenders placed on unsupervised bonds. A possible reason given by Weatherburn and Trimboli (2008) is that offenders placed on supervised bonds did not receive the level of supervision and support needed to reduce the risk of reconviction.

This Study To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine differences in recidivism rates between types of suspended sentences. Previous studies focused on certain types of suspended sentences (fully vs. partly suspended sentences, or special conditions vs. no special conditions), but none have extended their research to include the combination of fully or partly suspended sentences with or without special conditions. In addition, research on expected differences in recidivism rates between fully and partly suspended sentences is limited and lacks any direction that can help form hypotheses. Therefore, we present an explorative study which examines to what extent differences exist in recidivism rates between fully and partly suspended sentences with and without special conditions.

Method Sample and Sampling Procedure The present study used two data sources. First, we collected criminal records of all adult offenders convicted of a fully or partly suspended prison sentence with or without special conditions in 2006 in the court districts of Amsterdam and The Hague. These criminal records were provided by the Research and Policy Database for Judicial Documentation (Onderzoeks- en Beleidsdatabase Justitiële Documentatie [OBJD]) of the Research and Documentation Centre (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeks- en Documentatiecentrum [WODC]) of the Ministry of Security and Justice in the


148


Netherlands (for more information, see Wartna, Blom, & Tollenaar, 2011). To examine the relationship between suspended prison sentences and recidivism rates, some restrictions were placed on our sample. First, in practice, suspended prison sentences are often imposed in combination with other sentences, such as fines or community service. In our sample, of all suspended prison sentences 35% were imposed in combination with other sentences; we considered only those cases where solely suspended prison sentences were imposed. Second, 3% of the cases had missing values for one or more variables included in the analysis; these cases were, therefore, excluded from any further analysis. For the current study, our sample included the criminal records of 1,258 offenders given suspended prison sentences with or without special conditions. These criminal records were used to answer the first and second research questions. Second, we ran all cases where suspended sentences with special conditions were imposed through the operational system of the Probation Service in the Netherlands (Integraal Reclassering Informatiesysteem [Integral Probation Service Information system], hereafter IRIS). IRIS contains information on all adult offenders who have ever been, or currently are, in contact with the Probation Services. It describes the type of contact the offender has (had) with the Probation Service (e.g., supervision), the type of special conditions offenders have to comply with, the assistance received from probation officers, and whether offenders breached their conditions. It is the only operational system in the Netherlands which keeps detailed records of the type of special conditions offenders have to follow. Table 1 shows that 440 offenders were given suspended sentences with special conditions. Of the 440 offenders, 93% were found in IRIS (n = 408). The remaining 32 offenders were left out of the analysis, as we were unable to determine the type of special conditions imposed. Of the 408 offenders found in IRIS, in 42 cases we found no specific information on the type of special conditions. Therefore, in the current study, we examined 366 cases in detail regarding the type of special conditions that were attached to suspended prison sentences. These data were used to answer the second research question.

Variables Dependent variable. The outcome variable was the first offense that resulted in a new conviction and included all cases settled by the Public Prosecutor by means of dismissal or transaction, and guilty verdicts by the court.2 Acquittals, dismissal by reason of unlikelihood of conviction, clearance of charges by the court, minor offenses (in most cases these included traffic offenses), and cases that had not yet been settled in court were excluded (for more information, see Wartna et al., 2011). The data set contained all new convictions until July 2011, resulting in a follow-up period or period at risk of approximately 5 years (ranging from a 4.5 to 5.5 year observation period). Days when offenders were imprisoned (pre-trial detention and custody after trial) were subtracted from the follow-up period. Table 1 shows that 61% of the offenders were reconvicted during the follow-up period. Independent variables. To answer the first research question, three independent variables were constructed: (1) whether the prison sentence was fully or partly suspended


149

Aarten et al. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,258).

Age (years) Number of prior convictions Age at first contact with criminal justice system (years) Offense severity (years) Present sentence length (days)

Gender Male Female Race Native Non-native Previous imprisonment Yes No Previous suspended sentence Yes No Type of offense Violence Property Damage and public disorder Drugs Other Type of suspended sentence Fully Partly Special conditions Yes No Type of conditionsa Control-orientated conditions Combination control- and behavior-orientated conditions No special conditions District Amsterdam The Hague Reconviction Yes No aBased

M

SD

35.33 8.30 24.85 5.50 159.64

11.54 11.45 10.93 3.56 218.22

N

%

1,112 146

88.4 11.6

566 692

45.0 55.0

658 600

52.3 47.7

443 815

35.2 64.8

408 458 118 220 54

32.4 36.4 9.4 17.5 4.3

453 805

36.0 64.0

440 818

35.0 65.0

87 279 818

7.3 23.6 69.1

674 584

53.6 46.4

769 489

61.1 38.9

on 1,184 cases.


150


(0 = fully suspended, 1 = partly suspended); (2) whether special conditions were attached to suspended sentences (0 = only general condition, 1 = general and special conditions); and (3) whether fully or partly suspended prison sentences with or without special conditions were imposed. The descriptive statistics of these independent variables are shown in Table 1. Most prison sentences were partly suspended (64%) and special conditions were attached in approximately 35% of the cases. For the second research question, we used the broad categories described by RSJ (2009). As our study included only cases where the Probation Service supervises the offenders, all these cases automatically contained at least one control-orientated condition: offenders had a duty to report to the Probation Service once every few weeks. Furthermore, the third group of conditions—conditions for aliens—was not found in our sample. Therefore, our variable was comprised of the following two categories: control-orientated special conditions (0) and a combination of control- and behaviororientated special conditions (1). In 87 cases, only control-orientated special conditions were attached and in 279 cases a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions were attached to suspended prison sentences. Control variables. We statistically controlled for the following variables known to be associated with sentencing and recidivism: gender, age, race, number of previous convictions, age at first contact with the criminal justice system, and current offence type (Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009; Wartna & Tollenaar, 2006). As a control variable we also added severity of the offence for which offenders were convicted, as cases where partly suspended sentences are imposed are expected to be more severe than cases where fully suspended sentences are imposed. Offense severity is operationalized as the maximum penalty of imprisonment in years defined in the Dutch penal code for the crime of which offenders were convicted of. Also included was whether or not offenders in the sample were previously convicted of a sentence of imprisonment or suspended prison sentence. Finally, we controlled for sentence length and the district in which the sentence was imposed. Table 1 shows that 88% of the offenders were male, the mean age was 35.33 (SD = 11.54) years, and 55% were born outside the Netherlands. Regarding their criminal history, most offenders had one or more previous convictions (78.9%) with an average of 8.30 (SD = 11.45) prior convictions. The mean age at first contact with the criminal justice system was 24.85 (SD = 10.93) years, 52% had a history of imprisonment, and 35% had previously received a suspended sentence. With regard to the offense and type of conviction, most offenders were convicted of a property offense (36%), followed by a violent offense (32%). The mean offense severity was 5.50 (SD = 3.56) years. The mean length of the total sentence length (suspended and unsuspended together) was 159.64 (SD = 218.22) days. About half of the suspended prison sentences were imposed in Amsterdam (54%). Data analysis. We conducted survival analyses to examine the time until reconviction between the different types of suspended sentences—controlling for a number of variables—as the offenders in our sample were convicted at different times in 2006.


151

Aarten et al.

We preferred survival analysis, as this takes into account time to event (recidivism) and censored observations (Chung, Schmidt, & Witte, 1991). Specifically, we used the Cox proportional hazards model (Cox, 1972), a semi-parametric form of survival analysis, to compare survival distributions between the different types of suspended prison sentences. This model generates a hazard ratio (HR), which predicts the risk of being convicted of a new offense at any given point in time after sentence imposition. The HR can be interpreted as the change in the hazard (or risk) of being reconvicted as the result of a one-unit change in the independent or control variable.

Results Fully and Partly Suspended Sentences With and Without Special Conditions Two models were analyzed using Cox regression. The first model examined the influence of fully or partly suspended sentences, and suspended sentences with or without special conditions, on reconviction while accounting for a number of control variables (Table 2). Offenders given partly suspended prison sentences had a greater risk of reconviction than offenders given fully suspended prison sentences (26% or HR = 1.26). Offenders given special conditions had a greater risk of being reconvicted than offenders given only a general condition (33% or HR = 1.33). Regarding the control variables, females in our sample had a smaller risk of being reconvicted than males (HR = 0.72) and non-natives had a smaller risk of being reconvicted than natives (17% or HR = 0.83). Regarding the age of the offender, older offenders had a (small) reduced risk of reconviction (HR = 0.98). The number of prior convictions was associated with a 2% increase in the HR, suggesting that the greater the number of prior convictions, the greater the risk of being reconvicted. Whether offenders were previously incarcerated or previously given suspended sentences was also associated with an increased risk of reconviction (93% and 32%, respectively). Age at first contact with the criminal justice system was associated with a 2% decrease in the HR, suggesting that the younger the age when first coming into contact with the criminal justice system, the greater the risk of reconviction. Sentence length only minimally influenced the risk of reconviction. The remaining control variables (type of offense, offense severity, and district) had no significant effect on the risk of reconviction. As the independent variables in Model 1 had a direct effect on the risk of reconviction, the next step was to examine the combination of these two variables. Figure 1 allows a closer examination of the combination of fully or partly suspended prison sentences, with or without special conditions, on the time until reconviction, without controlling for a number of variables. On the survival curve, the x-axis shows the number of months and the y-axis the proportion of offenders that were not reconvicted past time t. The paths of fully suspended prison sentences with and without special conditions, and partly suspended prison sentences without special conditions, are very similar. Offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with special conditions


152


Table 2. Influence of Fully and Partly Suspended Prison Sentences With and Without Special Conditions on the Risk of Reconviction. Model 2 (n = 1,184)a

Model 1 (n = 1,258)

HR

Gender (1 = female) Age Ethnicity (1 = non-native) Number of prior convictions Age at first contact with criminal justice system Previous imprisonment (1 = yes) Previous suspended sentence (1 = yes) Type of offense Violence Property Damage and public disorder Drugs Other

SE

HR

Model 3 (n = 1,184)a SE

HR

SE

0.72* 0.98*** 0.83* 1.02*** 0.98*

0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01

0.69* 0.98** 0.84* 1.02*** 0.98**

0.10 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.01

0.68* 0.98** 0.84* 1.02*** 0.98**

0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.01

1.93*** 1.32**

0.20 0.13

1.91*** 1.30*

0.20 0.13

1.91*** 1.30*

0.21 0.13

ref. 1.09 0.99

ref. 0.11 0.15

ref. 1.05 0.96

ref. 0.11 0.14

ref. 1.05 0.96

ref. 0.11 0.14

0.83 1.13 1.03 0.99*** 1.10 1.26**

0.11 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.11

0.81 0.99 1.03 0.99*** 1.12 1.27**

0.11 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.91 0.12

0.81 0.99 1.03 0.99*** 1.12

0.11 0.23 0.02 0.00 0.09

Offense severity Sentence length District (1= Amsterdam) Type of suspended sentences (1 = partly suspended) Type of special conditions (1 = with 1.33*** 0.11 special conditions) Type of conditions Control-orientated special conditions ref. Combination of control- and behavior0.76 orientated special conditions No special conditions 0.63** Fully or partly suspended prison sentences with or without special conditions Partly suspended with controlorientated special conditions Partly suspended with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions Partly suspended without special conditions Fully suspended with controlorientated special conditions

ref. 0.12

0.09

Fully suspended with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions Fully suspended without special conditions

ref.

ref.

0.77

0.13

0.64**

0.11

0.83

0.28

0.61*

0.14

0.50***

0.09

Note. HR = hazard ratio; SE = standard error. aIncludes only those cases for which information was available on the type of special conditions attached to suspended sentences. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.


153

0.50 0.00

0.25

cumulative survival

0.75

1.00

Aarten et al.

0

20

40

60

months to reconviction fully suspended with special conditions partly suspended with special conditions fully suspended without special conditions partly suspended without special conditions

Figure 1. Survival curves for fully and partly suspended prison sentences with and without special conditions.

show the steepest curve toward reconviction, indicating a higher risk of reconviction at each time interval, starting at approximately 15 months. At the end of the observation period, 88% of offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with special conditions were reconvicted compared with 70% of offenders given fully suspended prison sentences with special conditions. The difference between these two types of suspended prison sentences was significant. In other words, compared with offenders given fully suspended prison sentences with special conditions, offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with special conditions had a significantly greater risk of being reconvicted (HR = 1.62). No significant differences in the risk of reconviction between fully suspended prison sentences with special conditions and the other two types were found. However, when the control variables were included, no significant difference in reconviction rates between fully and partly suspended prison sentences with special conditions was found.3 When criminal history was taken into account, there was no significant difference in the risk of reconviction between the two sentences.

Special Conditions In Model 2 of Table 2, we examined the influence of the type of conditions on the risk of reconviction while controlling for a number of variables. When the type of


154


conditions was added to the model, the direct effect of fully or partly suspended prison sentences on the risk of reconviction remained significant. Offenders given partly suspended prison sentences were more likely to be reconvicted during the observation period than offenders given fully suspended prison sentences. Regarding the type of conditions, compared to offenders given suspended prison sentences with solely control-orientated special conditions, offenders given suspended prison sentences with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions had a lower risk of being reconvicted during the observation period; this difference was only marginally significant (HR = 0.76, p = .073). However, offenders given suspended prison sentences without special conditions had a significantly lower risk of being reconvicted in the follow-up period than offenders given suspended prison sentences with solely control-orientated special conditions (HR = 0.63). No significant differences in the risk of reconviction were found between offenders given a combination of controland behavior orientated special conditions and offenders without special conditions. In Model 3, we combined the type of conditions with the type of suspended sentences. Partly suspended prison sentences with control-orientated special conditions were the reference category. Compared with this group, offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with only a general condition had a significantly lower risk of reconviction (HR = 0.64). In addition, offenders given fully suspended prison sentences with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions, and offenders given fully suspended sentences without special conditions, had a lower risk of being reconvicted than offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with control-orientated special conditions (HR = 0.61 and HR = 0.50, respectively).

Discussion The aim of this study was to compare recidivism rates between fully and partly suspended prison sentences, with and without special conditions, in a sample of Dutch offenders convicted in 2006. We found that offenders sentenced to fully suspended prison sentences had a significantly lower risk of being reconvicted than those sentenced to partly suspended prison sentences. There are two possible explanations for this finding. First, incarceration seems to influence the risk of reconviction, whereas suspension does not. Second, although we accounted for a number of key variables predicting recidivism, other important predictors of re-offending, such as employment status and drug abuse (Sampson & Laub, 1993), were not included, simply because we did not have this information. Both explanations seem plausible, and one does not exclude the other. However, to elucidate the influence of incarceration and suspension on recidivism, additional research that includes more offender and offense characteristics is needed. When controlling for a number of variables, our results show that offenders given suspended prison sentences with special conditions were at greater risk of being reconvicted than offenders given suspended prison sentences without special conditions. We assume that offenders given special conditions have greater criminogenic needs and are therefore at a greater risk of recidivating. For this reason, judges impose special


155

Aarten et al.

conditions that focus on changing or reducing their risks and criminogenic needs. However, we were unable to control for the risk of recidivating to check whether this explanation holds in the present study. The first Cox proportional hazard model examined the influence of the types of suspended prison sentences and types of conditions—separately—on the risk of reconviction. In practice, however, special conditions form an important part of suspended sentences and are frequently attached to fully and partly suspended sentences; therefore, a combination of the two variables was added to the Cox model. When controlling for a number of variables, our results revealed no significant differences in the risk of reconviction between fully and partly suspended prison sentences with and without special conditions. When taking criminal history into account, no difference in the risk of reconviction between partly and fully suspended sentences with special conditions was found. The above findings raise the question whether the “correct” special conditions were attached to suspended prison sentences, as 72% were reconvicted within the observation period compared with 56% without special conditions. However, the special conditions are very diverse, including restraining orders, substance abuse prohibition (control-orientated special conditions), and therapy or admittance to a care facility (behavior-orientated special conditions). To better understand the effectiveness of conditions attached to suspended prison sentences, we made a distinction between the different types of conditions. Our results show that offenders given a combination of control- and behavior-orientated conditions did not have a significantly lower risk of being reconvicted than offenders given solely control-orientated conditions. This finding is in contrast to others who found a relationship between programs that include some form of treatment or rehabilitation and a reduction in subsequent recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990; Petersilia, 1999). In our study, offenders given suspended prison sentences without special conditions had the lowest risk of being reconvicted. It seems that the sword of Damocles alone is “enough” to reduce reconviction rates. More control on the offenders’ behavior, by imposing solely control-orientated special conditions, can have the opposite effect on reconviction rates. However, analyses were performed on a small sample, and more research is needed to determine whether this is indeed the case. In the present study, additional analyses revealed that, compared with offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with control-orientated special conditions, offenders given fully or partly suspended prison sentences with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions had a smaller risk of being reconvicted. Not only did the risk of reconviction decrease when some form of treatment was attached to the sentence, but reconviction rates were lower in cases where fully suspended sentences with a combination of control- and behavior-orientated special conditions were imposed. Nonetheless, offenders given fully suspended prison sentences without special conditions had the lowest risk of being reconvicted compared with offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with control-orientated special conditions. Again, this highlights the importance of the sword of Damocles in reducing reconviction rates.


156


Some limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. The first limitation concerns the fact that we were unable to conduct an experiment in which offenders were randomly given a fully or partly suspended prison sentence with or without special conditions. For obvious ethical reasons this approach is not possible in a correctional setting and, therefore, we can not draw conclusions about the causality of our findings. The second limitation is that analyses were carried out on official registration data. Criminal records underestimate recidivism rates, as we were only able to take reconvictions into the analyses. Although reconviction is commonly used in many recidivism studies (e.g., Bartels, 2009; Weatherburn & Bartels, 2008), future research should include measures that go beyond reconviction, such as self-reported delinquency. In addition, criminal records have very limited information on the backgrounds of offenders. Our results could only be controlled for a few variables. When imposing a type of suspended sentence, it is expected that judges take other factors into account as well. For instance, when judges consider special conditions to be attached to the suspended sentence, they rely on the reports made by the Probation Service (Jacobs et al., 2006). However, these reports were not readily available in the operational system of the Probation Service (IRIS). A third limitation is that our analyses were conducted on data from only two court districts, implying that caution is required when generalizing our findings to other situations. In addition, although many Western countries have similar types of suspended sentences, the present results should be carefully interpreted and take into account the legal and cultural setting surrounding suspended sentences in each specific country. To conclude, our results suggest that offenders given partly suspended prison sentences with solely control-orientated special conditions were more likely to be reconvicted than offenders given any other type of suspended sentence. However, as this study was explorative, more research is required in this specific area of sentencing. To better inform future policy and practice, we need to establish which type of suspended sentence with which type of condition best reduces recidivism. In addition, we need to further elucidate the high recidivism rates found after suspended sentences with conditions. Acknowledgments We thank the Wetenschappelijk Onderzoeks- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC) for providing us a data set containing all criminal records needed for this study. Furthermore, we thank the Probation Service in the Netherlands for giving us access to their operational system.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


157

Aarten et al. Notes

1. The literature on offender rehabilitation offers two models that can aid in understanding how sanctions can reduce recidivism: the Risk-Needs-Responsivity model and the Good Lives model. A detailed explanation of both models is beyond the scope of this study. For more information on these models, see Ward and Maruna (2007). 2. The prosecutor can dismiss a case when there is enough evidence on paper for conviction but she or he decides not to prosecute due to mitigating circumstances. The prosecutor is expected to base his or her decision on a correct interpretation of the evidence, even though there is no conviction by a judge. 3. For this reason, the model was not included in Table 2.

References Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed metaanalysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. Bargaric, M. (1999). Suspended sentences and preventive sentences: Illusory evils and disproportionate punishments. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 22, 535-563. Bartels, L. (2007). The use of suspended sentences in Australia: Unsheathing the sword of Damocles. Criminal Law Journal, 31, 113-132. Bartels, L. (2009). The weight of the sword of Damocles: A reconviction analysis of suspended sentences in Tasmania. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 72-100. Bleichrodt, E. (2009). De herontdekking van de bijzondere voorwaarde [The rediscovery of the special condition]. Proces, 88, 304-313. Chung, C., Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1991). Survival analysis: A survey. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 59-98. Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life-tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 34, 187-220. Dignan, J. (1984). The sword of Damocles and the clang of the prison gates: Prospects on the inception of the partly suspended sentence. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 183-200. Directoraat-Generaal Preventie, Jeugd en Sancties. (2008). Maatregelen Recidivereductie, Nadruk op Nazorg [Recidivism reduction measures, emphasis on aftercare] (5549574/08/ DSP/29). The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Geerken, M., & Gove, W. R. (1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law & Society Review, 9, 497-513. Jacobs, M. J. G., Van Kalmthout, A. M., & Von Bergh, M. Y. W. (2006). Toepassing van Bijzondere Voorwaarden bij Voorwaardelijke Vrijheidsstraf en Schorsing van de Voorlopige Hechtenis bij Volwassenen [Applying special conditions to suspended sentences and suspension of pre-trial detention for adults]. Tilburg, The Netherlands: IVA Beleidsonderzoek & Advies. Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into viability of effects. In T. Cook et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanations: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Lulham, R., Weatherburn, D., & Bartels, L. (2009). The recidivism of offenders given suspended sentences: A comparison with full-time imprisonment (Crime & Justice Bulletin No. 36). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


158


Nagin, D. D., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 38, 115-200. Petersilia, J. (1999). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19-27. Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing and Jeugdbescherming. (2009). Wetsvoorstel voorwaardelijke veroordeling [Legislative proposal for suspended sentences]. Retrieved from http://www. rsj.nl/Images/rsj-bw-advies-voorwaardelijke-veroordeling_tcm60-484713.pdf Roberts, J. V., & Gabor, T. (2004). Living in the shadow of prison: Lessons from the Canadian experience in decarceration. British Journal of Criminology, 44, 92-112. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301-325. Shoham, S., & Sandberg, M. (1964). Suspended sentences in Israel: An evaluation of the preventive efficacy of prospective imprisonment. Crime & Delinquency, 10, 74-83. Soothill, K. (1981). The suspended sentence for ex-prisoners revisited. Criminal Law Review, 821-828. Statistics Netherlands Statline. (2013). Misdrijven; Opgelegde Straffen en Maatregelen [Serious offenses: Imposed sanctions and non-punitive measures]. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs. nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=03727&D1=4-6&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=(l10)-l&VW=T Tak, P. J. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in the Netherlands. In M. Tonry & R. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 151-187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. U.K. Sentencing Council. (2013). Suspended sentences. Retrieved from http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/sentencing/suspended-sentences.htm Van Bommel, A. (2009). Beginselen van legitimiteit en resocialisatie bij voorwaardelijke straffen [Principles of legitimacy and rehabilitation with suspended sentences]. Proces, 88, 356-362. Walker, N., Farrington, D. P., & Tucker, G. (1981). Reconviction rates of adult males after different sentences. British Journal of Criminology, 21, 357-360. Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 243-257. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. London, England: Routledge. Wartna, B. S. J., Blom, M., & Tollenaar, N. (2011). The Dutch recidivism monitor, 4th revised edition, memorandum 2011-3a. Den Haag, The Netherlands: WODC. Wartna, B. S. J., & Tollenaar, N. (2006). Voorwaardelijk voor Onvoorwaardelijk: Substitutie van Onvoorwaardelijke Vrijheidsstraffen bij Gering Recidivegevaar: Een Raming van de te Besparen Gevangeniscapaciteit [Suspended for unsuspended. Substituting unsuspended prison sentences in cases of low recidivism risk: An estimate of saved prison capacity]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: WODC. Wasik, M. (1994). Sentencing guidelines: The problems of conditional sentences. Criminal Justice Ethics, 50, 50-57. Weatherburn, D., & Bartels, L. (2008). The recidivism of offenders given suspended sentences in New South Wales, Australia. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 667-683. Weatherburn, D., & Trimboli, L. (2008). Community supervision and rehabilitation: Two studies of offenders on supervised bonds (Crime and Justice, number 112). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.


Effects of suspended sulfates on human health.

Framing sentences.

Memory for the intentions of sentences.

Memory for the pragmatic implications of sentences.

Effects of response requirements on the location of clicks superimposed on sentences.

Community DSPD pilot services in South London: rates of reconviction and impact of supported housing on reducing recidivism.

An fMRI study investigating effects of conceptually related sentences on the perception of degraded speech.

Semantic similarity between sentences.

Ethics and Sentences in Midwifery.

The effect of light direction and suspended cell concentrations on algal biofilm growth rates.

The abstraction of linguistic ideas in "meaningless" sentences.

Assessment of anomalous sentences repetition test.

Neural correlates of processing passive sentences.

Triazolam suspended.

Young children's comprehension of complex sentences.

France: prison sentences for doctors.

An eye-tracking paradigm for analyzing the processing time of sentences with different linguistic complexities.

The interaction of perceptual processes and ambiguous sentences.

The Syntax of Defection and Cooperation: The Effects of the Implicit Sentences Nice Act Versus Act Nice on Behavior Change.

Wettability of partially suspended graphene.

Reconviction following referral to a forensic clinic: the criminal justice outcome of diversion.

The influence of prosody on the recall of monaurally presented sentences.

Spatial distance effects on incremental semantic interpretation of abstract sentences: evidence from eye tracking.

The reduction of surface plasmon losses in quasi-suspended graphene.