dc.contributor.author	Stephens, Robert M. Jr
dc.coverage.spatial	United States	en_US
dc.coverage.temporal	1980-2012	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2014-05-21T16:20:46Z
dc.date.available	2014-05-21T16:20:46Z
dc.date.issued	2014-05
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/1726
dc.description.abstract	Historically, populations have risen throughout the United States while crime trends have increased incrementally with the rising population rates. However, since 1994 population rates continue to steadily rise but overall crime rates have decreased. The debate over this crime reduction phenomenon is a hot button topic among academics and law enforcement professionals. Individual states craft specific sentencing guidelines and some states have chosen a more stringent path to offender recidivism in the form of selective incapacitation laws which have been titled, ―Three-Strikes Laws.‖ This study sought to ascertain if states that have enacted these selective incapacitation laws observed discernable differences in crime as opposed to those states without such laws. This study conducted a quantitative analysis of the aforementioned crime statistics employing an annual cross-sectional multiple time-series analysis with pre- and post-comparisons of statistical crime data from 1980-2012 by means of a one-sample t test to evaluate the mean rate of change for Total Crime, Violent Crime, and Property Crime within the sample states (n = 9) using UCR data obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This study also examined population rates within these sample states, both pre- and post-enactment periods using a linear regression model to determine the relationship between population and crime rates. Based on the results of this quantitative analysis, it appears that selective incapacitation laws or ―Three Strikes Laws‖ are ineffective in accomplishing the goal of reducing the overall crime rates. This study also provides substantial evidence that there is a strong relationship between population and crime rates.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1 Study Overview 1 Historical Perspective of Social Control Laws 5 Importance of Habitual Offender Laws 8 Summary 12 Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW 15 Crime Reduction 15 Crime Deterrence 20 Selective Incapacitation28 Summary 43 Chapter III: METHODOLOGY46 Case Study 46 Data Source 49 Sample State(s) Selection 51 Study M easures 56 Case Study Procedures and Statistical Analyses 56 Study Limitations 58 Chapter IV: FINDINGS 62 Overview 62 Population vs. Crime Rates 63 Three Strikes States........69 State of California 69 State of Florida 72 State of Pennsylvania 75 State of Washington 78 Non-Three Strikes States 82 State of Illinois 82 State of New York 85 State of Ohio 88 State of Oregon 91 Control Sample State 94 State of Texas 94 Summary 97 Chapter V: DISCUSSION 105 Overview 105 Interpretation of the Results 106 Policy Im plications......109 Policy Recommendations 116 Future Studies 118 Conclusion 121 REFERENCES 124 Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocol Exemption Report 129	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Stephens	en_US
dc.subject	Selective Incapacitation	en_US
dc.subject	Sentencing	en_US
dc.subject	Crime	en_US
dc.subject	Punishment	en_US
dc.title	An Analysis of Selective Incapacitation Laws in the United States	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	Public Administration	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Peterson, James W.
dc.description.committee	Ross, Darrell L.
dc.description.committee	Swicord, Leigh R.
dc.description.degree	D.P.A.	en_US