Back to results
Bibliographic record · Consultation and access
Artículo

PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending

Patrice Villettaz et al · SAGE Publishing · 2005

Supplementary material available
Quick overview. Review the resource’s basic details, then access the content using the main button. This page shows only the information needed to identify, cite, and open the work.

Resource access

Open the content from the main option or choose another available source.

DOAJ DOAJ Articles
Entrar por DOAJ
Main access

Supplementary material available

El enlace apunta a material asociado, anexos, tablas, datos o página complementaria. No se marca como libro/texto completo.
Open material

Summary

Descripción general del contenido del recurso.

Abstract Reviewer Martin Killias and Patrice Villettaz, School of Forensic Science and Criminology, University of Lausanne, CH‐1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E‐mail: Martin.Killias@ipsc.unil.ch. Phone: (0041‐21) 692 46 40, Fax (0041‐21) 692 46 05 Objective To assess the relative effects of imprisonment and non custodial (“alternative” or “community”) sanctions on reoffending. Background Throughout the western world, community‐based sanctions have become a popular and widely used alternative to custodial sentences. There have been many comparisons of rates of reconviction among former prisoners and those who have served any kind of community sanction. So far, the comparative effects on reoffending of custodial and non custodial sanctions is unresolved, due to many uncontrolled variables. Search Strategy Relevant studies which meet the eligibility criteria (see below) will be identified through multiple sources, including abstracts, bibliographies, and contacts with experts in all possible countries. Eligibility Criteria Randomized or quasi‐randomized experiments, as well as non experimental comparisons between former prison inmates and those who served community sanctions will be included, provided that variables in addition to those found in registers have been controlled for (attitudes, personal or employment history etc.). Studies published in any language after 1960 will be considered for inclusion. Data Collection and Analysis A coding protocol will be prepared along the guidelines of the Campbell Collaboration. Sources of Support An application for funding of this review has been filed at the National Science Foundation of Switzerland. The decision is expected to arrive by March, 2003. Financial support by the National Science Foundation of Switzerland does not affect the independence of the reviewers.

How to cite

Elegí el formato que necesitás y copiá la referencia al portapapeles.

APA 7

al, P. V. E. (2005). PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.23

MLA

al, Patrice Villettaz et. "PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending." 2005. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.23.

Chicago

al, Patrice Villettaz et. 2005. "PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending.". https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.23.

Harvard

al, P. V. E. 2005, PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending, SAGE Publishing, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.23 [Accessed 7 Aug. 2026].

Share and print

Save the record, copy its permanent link, or print it as a PDF.

Export reference

You can export the record in common formats for use in a reference manager.

Resource details

Bibliographic information to help confirm that this is the correct material.

Title
PROTOCOL: Effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial sentences on re‐offending
Author / contributors
Patrice Villettaz et al
Publisher
SAGE Publishing
Publication year
2005
ISSN
1891-1803
ISSN
1891-1803
Language
English
Copied