Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Impact of the Reform to Non-custodial Sanctions in Chile

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This paper assesses the impact of the new regime of non-custodial sanctions implemented in Chile in 2013. It aims to contribute to the evidence regarding structural changes in systems involving non-custodial sanctions.

Methods

To identify the causal effect of the new regime of non-custodial sanctions on recidivism, we perform three complementary estimations. First, a before and after regression model of recidivism was estimated. Second, in order to compare cohorts with non-custodial and custodial sanctions, we build a difference-in-difference estimation to control for time-invariant confounding factors. Additionally, we use controls to address potential differences across groups not related to the change in treatment status. Third, we estimate the yearly effect through difference-in-differences for multiple periods.

Results

The results suggest a small statistically significant increase of 1.54 percentage points in the recidivism rate, attributable to the reform of non-custodial sanctions during the first year of its implementation. After that, the reform impact on recidivism begins to stabilise at zero.

Conclusions

The results are consistent with a neutral scenario whereby the recidivism rate eventually remains stable after the reform was implemented despite the increase in the number of people sentenced. Considering that the reform helped to decongest prisons, a neutral scenario on recidivism seems favourable for the Chilean penal system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Conditional remission could be imposed if the offender had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a sanction up to three years and if the measure appeared suitable for the offender’s resettlement possibilities; probation could be imposed if the offender had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a sanction up to five years and if the measure appeared suitable for the offender’s resettlement possibilities; while night imprisonment could be imposed if the offender had no previous convictions, was sentenced to a sanction up to three years and if the measure appeared suitable for the offender’s resettlement possibilities and also in the case of offenders with previous convictions sentenced to a sanction up to two years and if the measure appeared suitable for the offender’s resettlement possibilities.

  2. This model relies on the basis of three main principles: Risk, that contends that the higher risk offenders should receive the greater dosage of treatment; Need, that states that treatment should target offenders’ criminogenic needs; and Responsivity, that proposes that treatment is more likely to be effective if it is a cognitive-behavioural treatment programme and if the style of service delivery matches with the offender’s learning style (Andrews et al. 1990; Andrews and Bonta 2016; Gendreau 1996).

  3. In the case of common offences, the sentenced person will have to attend a "Social Competencies Programme" (PCS), which is a cognitive behavioural programme implemented in 2014 for males that have committed common crimes. If the offender has been punished for sexual abuse, they will have to participate in the "Programme for Sexual Offenders" (PAS), which is a programme based on the RNR model combined with the “Good Life Model” for sex offenders (Ward 2002) implemented in 2014 for males that have committed sexual offences; while in case of offenders punished for domestic violence, they will have to attend the "Programme for Aggressors of a Partner" (PAP), which is a programme that combines the ecological model, gender approach and construction of new masculinities, cognitive-behavioural approach, transtheoretical model of change, and RNR for persons sentenced for committing domestic violence offences (ISUC 2017).

  4. Activities designed to ensure compliance with the conditions imposed.

  5. This regulation was implemented because more professionals, training and new technologies were required to provide the reform with a source of operational support.

References

  • Andersen L, Andersen S (2014) Effect of electronic monitoring on social welfare dependence. Criminol Public Policy 13(3):349–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews DA, Bonta J (2016) The psychology of criminal conduct, 6th edn. Anderson, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews D, Bonta J, Hoge R (1990) Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav 17(1):19–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor DH (2003) Outsourcing at will: the contribution of unjust dismissal doctrine to the growth of employment outsourcing. J Labor Econ 21:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional (BCN) (2012) Historia de la Ley N°20.603. https://www.bcn.cl/historiadelaley/historia-de-la-ley/vista-expandida/4505/

  • Bonta J, Wallace-Capretta S, Rooney J (2000) Can electronic monitoring make a difference? An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime Delinq 46(1):61–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard J, Wong J (2018) The new panopticon? Examining the effect of home confinement on criminal recidivism. Victims Offenders 13(5):589–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavadino M, Dignan J (2002) The penal system: an introduction, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear TR, Hardyman PL (1990) The new intensive supervision movement. Crime Delinq 36(1):42–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen FT, Pratt TC, Turanovic JJ, Butler L (2018) When bad news arrives: project HOPE in a post-factual world. J Contemp Crim Justice 34(1):13–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf SN, Nagin DS (2011) Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminol Public Policy 10(1):13–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin BS (1986) Turning up the heat on probationers in georgia. Fed Probat 50:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández J (2006) El Nuevo Código Penal: una lucha por el discurso de la criminalidad. Polít Crim 1-A5:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendarmería de Chile (2016) Monitoreo telemático: estado actual. Power Point presented to the Citizen Security Commission, National Congress. Unpublished

  • Gendreau P (1996) The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In: Harland AT (ed) Choosing correctional options that work: defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 117–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau P, Goggin C, Cullen F (1999) The effects of prison sentences on recidivism. A report to the Corrections Research and Development and Aboriginal Policy Branch, Solicitor General of Canada. Public Works & Government Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

  • Gies S, Gainey R, Healy E (2016) Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS. Crim Justice Stud 29:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper G, Chitty C (eds) (2005) The impact of corrections on reoffending: a review of ‘what works’, Home Office Research Study 291. Home Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawken A (2010) HOPE for probation: How Hawaii improved behavior with high-probability, low-severity sanctions. J Glob Drug Policy Pract 4(3):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawken A, Kleiman M (2009) Managing drug-involved probationers with swift and certain sanctions: Evaluating Hawaii’s HOPE: executive summary. National Criminal Justice Reference Services, Washington

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Howard P, Clark D, Garnham N (2006) An evaluation of the offender assessment system (OASys) in three pilots 1999–2000. Home Office, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hucklesby A (2008) Vehicles of desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew orders. Criminol Crim Just 8(1):51–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt J, Barnes G (2017) An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime Delinq 63(1):3–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Instituto de Sociología UC (ISUC) (2017) Antecedentes para la implementación de programas de intervención especializados en reinserción social para la población penal adulta. Reporte Final. Unpublished

  • Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos (2013) Estudio de las Condiciones Carcelarias en Chile 2011–2012: Diagnóstico del Cumplimiento de los Estándares Internacionales de Derechos Humanos. https://bibliotecadigital.indh.cl/handle/123456789/639

  • Jespersen JL, Albrechtslund A, Øhrstrøm P, Hasle PFV, Albretsen J (2007) Surveillance, persuasion, and panopticon. In: de Kort Y, Ijsselsteijn W, Midden C, Eggen B, Fogg BJ (eds) Persuasive technology. PERSUASIVE 2007. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4744. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Killias M, Gilliéron G, Villard F, Poglia C (2010) How damaging is imprisonment in the long-term? A controlled experiment comparing long-term effects of community service and short custodial sentences on reoffending and social integration. J Exp Criminol 6(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killias M, Aebi M, Ribeaud D (2000) Does community service rehabilitate better than shorter-term imprisonment? Results of a controlled experiment. Howard J Crim Justice 39(1):40–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattimore PK, MacKenzie DL, Zajac G, Dawes D, Arsenault E, Tueller S (2016) Outcome findings from the HOPE demonstration field experiment: is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy? Criminol Public Policy 15(4):1103–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey M, Cullen F (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 3:297–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lösel F (1995) Increasing consensus in the evaluation of offender rehabilitation? Lessons from recent research syntheses. Psychol Crime Law 2(1):19–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp CT, Flores AW, Holsinger AM, Makarios MD, Latessa EJ (2010) Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? J Crim Just 38(4):368–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie DL, Farrington DP (2015) Preventing future offending of delinquents and offenders: what have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses? J Exp Criminol 11(4):565–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May C, Sharma N, Stewart D (2009) Factors linked to reoffending. Ministry of Justice, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerio de Justicia (2012) Material para capacitación nueva Ley Nº 18.216. http://www.pensamientopenal.com.ar/system/files/2014/12/legislacion35894.pdf

  • Morales AM, Salinero S (2020) Fundamento político-criminal y naturaleza jurídica de las penas alternativas en Chile. Revista Chilena De Derecho 47(2):513–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nath SB, Clement DE, Sistrunk F (1976) Parole and probation caseload size variation: the Florida Intensive Supervision Project. Crim Justice Rev 1:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn T (2007) Tough on crime: penal policy in England and Wales. Crime Justice 36(1):425–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell D, Brent J, Visher C (2016) Decide your time. A randomised trial of a drug testing and graduated sanctions program for probationers. Criminol Public Policy 15(4):1073–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J (1999) A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: what have we learned? J Justice Res Stat Assoc 1(1):9–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia J, Turner S (1993) Intensive probation and parole. Crime Justice 17:281–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rambachan A, Roth J (2022) A more credible approach to parallel trends. https://jonathandroth.github.io/assets/files/HonestParallelTrends_Main.pdf

  • Redondo S, Sanchez-Meca J, Garrido V (1999) The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: an European meta-analytic review. Psychol Crime Law 5(3):251–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzema M, Mayo-Wilson E (2005) Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high risk offenders? J Exp Criminol 1:215–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riego C (2008) Oral proceedings in Latin America. Am Q 2(4):123–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson G, Ugwudike P (2012) Investing in ‘toughness’: probation. Enforc Legitimacy Howard J 51(3):300–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson G, McNeill F, Maruna S (2013) Punishment in society: the improbable persistence of probation and other community sanctions and measures. In: Simon J, Sparks R (eds) The SAGE handbook of punishment and society. Sage, London, pp 321–340

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomised and nonrandomised studies. J Educ Psychol 66(5):688–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu HS, Dodder RA, Mathur M (1993) House arrest: success and failure rates in residential and nonresidential community-based programs. J Offender

  • Turner S, Chamberlain AW, Jannetta J, Hess J (2015) Does GPS improve recidivism among high risk sex offenders? Outcomes for California’s GPS pilot for high risk sex offender parolees. Victims Offenders 10:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villettaz P, Killias M, Zoder I (2006) The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on reoffending: a systematic review of the state of knowledge. The Campbell Collaboration, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Villettaz P, Gilliéron G, Killias M (2015) The effects on reoffending of custodial vs. non-custodial sanctions: an updated systematic review of the state of knowledge. The Campbell Collaboration, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley R (2011) World prison population list, 9th edn. Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinrath M, Doerksen M, Watts J (2015) The impact of an intensive supervision program on high-risk offenders: Manitoba’s COHROU program. Can J Criminol Crim Justice 57(2):253–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall A, Hoy C (2005) Punishment in the community, 2nd edn. Willan, Cullompton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Policy Evaluation, Undersecretariat of Crime Prevention, 92 Teatinos, 8340521, Santiago, Chile

    Gabriel Moraga

  2. Justice and Resettlement Division, Fundación Paz Ciudadana, Santiago, Chile

    Ana María Morales

  3. Research Center for Social Complexity, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

    Jorge Fábrega

  4. School of Law and Social Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Santiago, Chile

    Sebastián Salinero

Authors
  1. Gabriel Moraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana María Morales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jorge Fábrega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sebastián Salinero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Moraga.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

General Exclusion Rules

Law N°20,603 contains an exclusion clause (Article N°1) which bans non-custodial sentences in the case of offenders sentenced as perpetrators for committing the following crimes established in the Chilean Criminal Code:

  • Aggravated kidnapping (Article 141.3; 141.4, 141.5)

  • Kidnapping of a minor (Article 142)

  • Rape (Article 361)

  • Aggravated rape (the victim was 13 years old or younger) (Article 362)

  • Rape with homicide (Article 372 bis).

  • Murder (Article 391 N°2).

  • Aggravated murder (the victim was a relative) (Article 390)

  • Aggravated murder (it was committed with malice; by reward or promise of remuneration; by means of poison; viciously, deliberately and inhumanly increasing the pain of the victim; with known premeditation) (Article 391, N° 1)

The law also contains an exclusion clause (Article N°1) which bans non-custodial sentences in the case of offenders sentenced as perpetrators of robbery (Criminal Code, Article 436.1) who had previous convictions for committing robbery, aggravated robbery Criminal Code, Article 433), mugging (Criminal Code, Article 436.2) and burglary (Criminal Code, Article 442).

Exclusion Rules for Granting Conditional Remission

Law N°20,603 bans conditional remission in the case of offenders sentenced as perpetrators for committing the following crimes (in these cases, the court must impose probation, intensive probation or partial confinement):

  • Petty drug dealing (Law N°20,000, Article 4) sentenced to at least 541 days but less than 3 years.

  • Murder or causing injuries due to a traffic accident under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Law N°18,290, Article 196.2 and 196.3), sentenced to at least 541 days but less than 3 years.

  • Domestic violence crimes (Law N°20,066 in relation to Criminal Code, Articles 296, 297, 390, 391, 395, 396, 397, 398 or 399), sentenced to at least 541 days but less than 5 years.

  • Sex crimes (Criminal Code, Articles 363, 365 bis, 366, 366 bis, 366 quáter, 366 quinquies, 367, 367 ter or 411 ter), for at least 541 days but less than 5 years.

Table 2 Parallel trend pseudo test
Full size table
Table 3 DID yearly progression estimations
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moraga, G., Morales, A.M., Fábrega, J. et al. Impact of the Reform to Non-custodial Sanctions in Chile. J Quant Criminol 39, 875–896 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-022-09552-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-022-09552-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation