Swift Certain Fair Resource Center

  • Programs
  • SCF Evaluations
  • Newsroom
  • About
Home
|
Newsroom
|
The Truth Limps After: Social Science and Advocacy in Chicago Gun Sentencing
Posted on May 31, 2019 by Kelly Smith

The Truth Limps After: Social Science and Advocacy in Chicago Gun Sentencing

Ludwig attempts to prove his point that longer sentences lead to more deterrence through his discussion of Project HOPE. Project HOPE was an experiment in Hawaii about reducing probationer recidivism. The theory behind Project HOPE was that punishment for probationers was too unreliable: probationers were rarely punished for violating the conditions of probation, but when they were, the punishment could be severe, up to months or years in prison. Project HOPE used swift, certain and very short (a few days or weeks in jail) punishments for probation violation[s]. The experiment was effective: probationers assigned to HOPE were significantly less likely to be revoked from probation.


However, Project HOPE did not prove anything about the effect of longer sentences. A very small, rapidly delivered, and certain punishment was all that was needed. Ludwig tries to link the two by saying that Chicago gun punishments are “variable” and “inconsistent.” But the analogy fails. The Project HOPE researchers wrote: “All too often probation practices effectively allow hard-drug-abusing criminals to continue using drugs with impunity … sanctions are too rare and too delayed. When sanctions are imposed, they tend to be too severe (months, or occasionally years, in prison.)” As the researchers go on to explain, Project HOPE is an experiment about how, so long as punishments are consistently given, they can be extremely effective even if they are quite minor. The results suggest that shorter sentences are just as good, if they are consistently applied.
Unlike the Hawaii drug probationers who committed violations but avoided punishment, all Chicagoans convicted of illegally carrying guns are punished. Almost all spend time in jail awaiting bond hearings, plea bargaining, or trial. As Ludwig describes in his own memorandum, 75% of illegal gun-possession defendants are imprisoned and 14% receive probation. A few receive very light punishments—four percent are sentenced only to community service—but no one who is convicted for illegal gun possession escapes punishment. And sentence enhancements do not increase the likelihood of punishment. Sentence enhancements are only an investment in imprisoning individuals, not finding and prosecuting gun carriers. Ludwig concludes this section by writing, “Any measure capable of reducing [variability in gun sentences] and increasing the consistency or certainty of sanctions would be expected to help reduce gun-carrying through deterrence.” But he rests on weak foundations, because the proposed bill does nothing to increase the certainty of sanctions.

Posted in Newsroom
Transferring 24/7 Sobriety from South Dakota to South London: The case of MOPAC’s Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement Pilot
24/7 Sobriety: Wyoming legislation updates fundamentals of alcohol compliance program

SIGN UP FOR UPDATES

Keep up with the latest from the Swift Certain Fair Resource Center. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Find us

Swift Certain Fair Resource Center New York University 370 Jay Street, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (646) 308-0508

E-mail: info@scfcenter.org

New York University Marron Institute of Urban Management
Web Site Notice of Federal Funding and Disclaimer:
This Web site is funded in whole or in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this Web site (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided). SCFCenter.org - Copyright © 2023. All rights reserved.