Learning by doing time
The story is by now a familiar one. A government increases the sentences and penalties for certain crimes in the hope that it will reduce crime rates. But afterward, nothing happens. Crime rates don’t change at all. One could almost think those criminals never learn. Well, they do, or some of them do anyway.
In 2007 President Nicolas Sarkozy of France campaigned on the promise of harsher penalties for repeat offenders. His minimum sentencing law came into effect after his re-election success. It required minimum sentences for repeat offenders of one to three years depending on the crime they committed.
But as Arnaud Philippe shows the crime rate did not change at all after the law was passed even though the law was widely reported on in the media. Looking at the conviction rates did show something interesting, though. Criminals who had been convicted before the reform was passed committed just as many crimes after it was passed even though they knew they faced harsher penalties.
Only once the criminals were convicted and received longer sentences and minimum prison sentences did they internalise them. Once they were sentenced under the harsher law their repeat offences dropped by about 15%.
Unfortunately, while this reduced the number of serial offenders it had no effect on first-time offenders or on people who committed other crimes or were first-time offenders. The decline in serial offenders was matched by a rising number of first-time repeat offenders and criminals who were originally convicted of other felonies, which is why crime rates did not drop and the public felt no difference in safety.
This simply goes to show that harsher laws require two parties to be successful: the government willing to design and pass these laws and the criminals to change their behaviour. Unfortunately, those criminals are typically unwilling to play by the rules and change their behaviour because of the threat of tougher sentences. I know, one could almost think they don’t care about the law…
Effect of the reform on serial offenders for crimes targeted and not targeted by the justice reform
Source: Philippe (2024)
I think the aligns with research around what sort of policing policies reduce crime. Whilst increasing sentences may not reduce crime, the likelihood of being caught does.
So when someone who commits a crime (such as burglary) and doesn't get away with it and gets a longer minimum sentence, it almost makes sense that they stop committing that crime. They realise following sentencing that they aren't going to get away with it and the definite longer sentence is too much for them to commit the crime again.
So this all does make sense in light of that research.
People in prison are there because they've made bad choices, usually a whole string of them. Bad habit die hard they say, this is true of those who habitially make bad choices.
Also I wonder if there is a sort of filtering effect going on i.e. it's the less skilled, lower-IQ criminals who are most likely to get caught. This would mean that lots of prisoners are both ingrained with bad habits and also stupid. Thus the two most difficult-to-change categories are combined in the same person.
A Venn diagram overlap of recidivist misery.