Final answer:
The studies concluded that detention does reduce crime for high-risk offenders, but is not effective for less prolific or drug offenders and not prosecuting non-violent misdemeanors can reduce future crime. Randomized studies aim to eliminate bias from results to accurately assess the impact of detention policies.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the home detention studies referenced in the provided text, authors concluded that continued incarceration does reduce crime, but this approach is not universally optimal due to variability in the effectiveness based on the type of offender and the nature of the offense. Specifically, the studies found that while incarceration is an effective strategy for high-risk offenders, it is not as effective for less prolific offenders or drug offenses. Moreover, the choice not to prosecute non-violent misdemeanors has been shown to actually reduce subsequent crime, suggesting that alternative approaches to traditional incarceration might be more effective for certain types of crimes and offenders.
One of the emphasized points is the lack of a one-size-fits-all policy regarding detention and crime reduction. The text indicates that nuanced approaches are necessary to address the complexities of crime and punishment. This calls for policies tailored to the offender's risk level and the specific offense, rather than blanket incarceration policies. The example given of Scared Straight, a program purposed to deter youth from crime, illustrates the counterproductive outcomes that can result from interventions that are not evidence-based.
Additionally, randomized studies, such as those that employ randomized sentencing enhancements or evaluations of policing strategies, help to provide more reliable and unbiased insights into the true effects of criminal justice interventions on crime rates. The random assignment in these studies eliminates the concern of lurking variables that might otherwise skew the results.