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·Aug 4, 2026

Two Selection Problems, One Bias Term: Experimental Sign-Up Is Treatment Choice in Disguise

John List
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jun 23, 2026

Misleading Estimates from Nonlinear Models with a Binary Outcome

Brian Curran, Bruce Meyer, and Derek Wu
Topics: Uncategorized
BFI Working Paper·Jun 15, 2026

Don’t Give Up on Lab Experiments: Why the Field Still Needs the Lab

John List
Topics: Uncategorized