PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending

• Main Authors: Patrice Villettaz, Martin Killias
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2005-01-01
• Series: Campbell Systematic Reviews
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.23

Abstract Reviewer Martin Killias and Patrice Villettaz, School of Forensic Science and Criminology, University of Lausanne, CH‐1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E‐mail: [e-mail]. Phone: (0041‐21) 692 46 40, Fax (0041‐21) 692 46 05 Objective To assess the relative effects of imprisonment and non custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on reoffending. Background Throughout the western world, community‐based sanctions have become a popular and widely used alternative to custodial sentences. There have been many comparisons of rates of reconviction among former prisoners and those who have served any kind of community sanction. So far, the comparative effects on reoffending of custodial and non custodial sanctions is unresolved, due to many uncontrolled variables. Search Strategy Relevant studies which meet the eligibility criteria (see below) will be identified through multiple sources, including abstracts, bibliographies, and contacts with experts in all possible countries. Eligibility Criteria Randomized or quasi‐randomized experiments, as well as non experimental comparisons between former prison inmates and those who served community sanctions will be included, provided that variables in addition to those found in registers have been controlled for (attitudes, personal or employment history etc.). Studies published in any language after 1960 will be considered for inclusion. Data Collection and Analysis A coding protocol will be prepared along the guidelines of the Campbell Collaboration. Sources of Support An application for funding of this review has been filed at the National Science Foundation of Switzerland. The decision is expected to arrive by March, 2003. Financial support by the National Science Foundation of Switzerland does not affect the independence of the reviewers.