Punishment & Society

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frost, N. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Punishment & Society, Vol. 10, No. 3, 277-300 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1462474508090229

The mismeasure of punishment

Alternative measures of punitiveness and their (substantial) consequences

Natasha A. Frost

Northeastern University, USA

Over the past few decades, scholars of punishment and social control have increasingly lamented the punitive turn in criminal justice policy. The perpetually growing size of prison populations has typically been portrayed as the end result of (indeed evidence of) an increasingly punitive criminal justice response. Although many recognize that the size of prison populations ultimately depends upon both the flow into and out of prisons, the vast majority of empirical work has relied on imprisonment rates, based on one-day counts of prison populations, as the dependent variable indicative of increasing punitiveness in imprisonment. In this article, state-level variations in imprisonment rates and in the determinants of those rates — admissions and length of stay — are explored. The findings demonstrate that state punitiveness rankings shift substantially depending on the measure of punitiveness and that the use of imprisonment rates as the sole measure of punitiveness masks substantial state-level variations across the functional determinants of those rates. The empirical findings suggest that social scientists studying punitiveness theoretically or empirically should distinguish the propensity to imprison from penal intensity. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications for theoretical and empirical work.

Key Words: imprisonment propensity • imprisonment rates • penal intensity • punitiveness


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?