Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a “criminological fact.” Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to reduce reoffending unless they can be transformed into people-changing institutions on the basis of available evidence on what works organizationally to reform offenders.

中文翻译：

---

羁押制裁和再犯罪：荟萃分析评论

从 1970 年代开始，美国开始了大规模监禁的实验。支持者认为，监禁等严厉惩罚通过阻止囚犯再次犯罪来减少犯罪。怀疑论者认为，监禁可能具有犯罪作用。怀疑论者是对的。先前的叙述性审查和荟萃分析得出结论，监禁的总体影响是无效的。基于对 116 项研究的更大规模的荟萃分析，目前的分析表明，与缓刑等非拘禁制裁的影响相比，拘禁制裁对再犯罪没有影响或略有增加。无论方法的严谨性、检查的制裁类型和样本的社会人口特征如何变化，这一发现都是可靠的。该研究的所有复杂评估都独立得出了相同的结论。与非拘禁制裁相比，拘禁的无效效果被认为是“犯罪事实”。不能以通过减少累犯来提供公共安全为由监禁是正当的。监狱不太可能减少再犯罪，除非它们可以根据现有证据转变为改变人的机构，这些证据表明在组织上可以改造罪犯。