Ensnarement During Imprisonment

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12397
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Author: Joseph L. Nedelec,Ian A. Silver
• Date: 01 November 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

WITHIN-PRISON SANCTIONING AND

RECIDIVISM

Ensnarement During Imprisonment

Re-Conceptualizing Theoretically Driven Policies to Address

the Association Between Within-Prison Sanctioning and

Recidivism

Ian A. Silver

Joseph L. Nedelec

University of Cincinnati

Research Summary

We used data collected during the Evaluation of Ohio’s Prison Programs. The analyt-

ical sample of N =63,772 inmates represents one of the largest samples used to assess

the association between within-prison sanctioning and recidivism. Latent class growth

analysis (LCGA) demonstrated that five guilty sanctioning clusters existed within the

data: Persistent (0.72%), Very High Decline (0.11%), High Decline (1.38%), Mod-

erate Decline (27.03%), and Abstainers (70.75%). The examination of sanctioning

cluster classification on post-release recidivism suggested that greater exposure to formal

sanctions during imprisonment predicted recidivism 1, 2, and 3 years post-release.

Policy Implications

The outcome of the empirical analysis suggested an association between within-prison

sanctioning clusters and recidivism. Furthermore, longitudinal sanctioning clusters

exposed to higher levels of within-prison sanctioning possessed a greater probability of

recidivism 1, 2, and 3 years post-release. If replicated, two policy implications could be

derived from the contextualization of these results within the ensnarement framework.

Additional supporting information can be found in the listing for this article in the Wiley Online Library at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capp.2018.17.issue-4/issuetoc.

This work was supported by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. All conclusions or

opinions expressed are those of the authors and not of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction. Direct correspondence to Ian A. Silver, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, TDC

560-O, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389 (e-mail: silveria@ucmail.uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12397 C2018 American Society of Criminology 1005

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4

Research Article Within-Prison Sanctioning and Recidivism

First, it is recommended that the frequency and severity of sanctions be reduced, to the

extent possible, during imprisonment. Second, increased access to prosocial opportunities

(e.g., rehabilitation programs) during sanctioning efforts is also encouraged based on

the analyses.

Keywords

prison sanctioning, sanctioning clusters, ensnarement, inmate recidivism,rehabilitation

during sanctioning, latent class growth analysis, within-prison antisocial behavior

For the past three decades life-course criminology has generated substantive advance-

ments in our understanding of antisocial continuity and discontinuity (e.g., DeLisi

and Piquero, 2011; Moffitt,1993; Sampson and Laub, 1995, 2003). At the forefront

of this endeavor has been Moffitt’sdevelopmental taxonomy (1993; DeLisi, 2013; Moffitt,

2006a, 2007). Although numerous key hypotheses existed within the original formulation

that are relevant to recidivism, of particular interest is Moffitt’s (1993) ensnarement hypoth-

esis. In essence, the ensnarement hypothesis argues that entrapment within the antisocial

lifestyle and variation in subsequent antisocial trajectories is a function of decreased access

to prosocial opportunities, resulting from the exposure to and the accumulation of negative

life events (Moffitt, 1993). As such, even though negative life events can refer to a vari-

ety of adverse environmental stimuli resulting from preceding antisocial actions, sanctions

implemented by the criminal justice system are generally considered the most detrimental

(Moffitt, 1993, 1997, 2006a).

Although criminal justice sanctions, in general, have been of interest in the corrections

literature, recent scholarship in this area has primarily focused on within-prison sanctions

(Clark and Rydberg, 2016; Kigerl and Hamilton, 2016; Labreque, 2016; Marquart and

Trulson, 2016; Matejkowski, 2017; Viglione, Lerch, Rudes, and Taxman, 2016). Specif-

ically, the focus has shifted toward assessing the link between disciplinary segregation,

security classification, or other punishments and subsequent antisocial tendencies (e.g.,

Cochran and Mears, 2017; Garcia et al., 2016; Marquart and Trulson, 2016; Mears and

Bales, 2010). Overall, findings have suggested a link between some within-prison sanctions

and recidivism (e.g., Cochran and Mears, 2017; Lovell, Johnson, and Cain, 2007). Nev-

ertheless, although the scholarship has been informative, the theoretical explanations and

policy implications have been generally limited, unclear, and primarily focused on reduc-

ing or removing practices that are perceived to deprive inmates of social freedoms (Mears,

2016). Furthermore, the policies generated from deprivation theory often disregard the

existence of alternative theoretical explanations for the association between within-prison

sanctioning and recidivism (e.g., Arrigo and Bullock, 2008; Browne, Cambier, and Agha,

2011; Henderson, 2015; Lucas and Jones, 2017). In an effort to address the limitations of

the prior literature, the current article offers a re-conceptualization and reexamination of

1006 Criminology & Public Policy