Recidivism: perceptions of the judge, the prosecutor, and the inmate

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure and determine the perceived reasons for recidivism as given by recidivists, District Judges, and prosecuting attorneys. Methods: Data for this study was collected from 642 Texas Department of Corrections' recidivists, 70 District Judges, and 53 prosecuting attorneys from Texas. The instrument used to collect data was a 70 item questionnaire designed by a team of researchers working through Sam Houston State University and the Texas Department of Corrections. From the responses obtained through mailed questionnaires, data was analyzed with frequency distribution comparisons and chi square analysis. Nine such comparisons were made in this study. Findings: 1. Recidivists tended to place more blame on factors relating to the criminal justice system and little on themselves. Prosecuting attorneys, on the other hand, tended to place little blame on the criminal justice system and much responsibility on the recidivists. District Judges, while agreeing somewhat with the prosecutors, tended to be less extreme in their opinions. 2. Older judges and prosecutors tended to be more extreme in their opinions of the recidivism issue. Younger judges and prosecutors, on the other hand, tended to respond in a manner that indicated a more moderate view of the problem. 3. Judges and prosecutors with less experience as judges and prosecutors tended to be more moderate in their responses than did those judges and prosecutors with more experience. That is to say, those judges and prosecutors with less experience tended to place less of the blame on the recidivists and more on the criminal justice system. 4. Rural judges and prosecutors tended to indicate more responsibility on the part of the recidivists for recidivism and less on the criminal justice system than did the urban judges and prosecutors.