We examine 70,581 felony court cases filed in Chicago, IL, from 1990–2007. We exploit case randomization to assess the impact of judge assignment and sentencing decisions on the arrival of new charges. We find that, in marginal cases, incarceration creates large and lasting reductions in recidivism among first offenders. Yet, among marginal repeat offenders, incarceration creates only short-run incapacitation effects and no lasting reductions in the incidence of new felony charges. These treatment-impact differences inform ongoing legal debates concerning the merits of sentencing rules that recommend leniency for first offenders while encouraging or mandating incarceration sentences for many repeat offenders. We show that methods that fail to estimate separate outcome equations for first versus repeat offenders or fail to model judge-specific sentencing tendencies separately for cases involving first versus repeat offenders produce misleading results for first offenders.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·May 5, 2026

Retrospective Versus Prospective Meritocracy

Steven Durlauf
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Mar 17, 2026

Quantum Bayesian Inference: An Exploration

Jon Frost, Carlos Madeira, Yash Rastogi, and Harald Uhlig
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Feb 23, 2026

Multidimensional Signaling and the Rise of Cultural Politics

Daron Acemoglu, Georgy Egorov, and Konstantin Sonin
Topics: Uncategorized