Purchase Print Copy

Add to Cart Paperback19 pages Free

The legitimate and criminal earnings of mid-rate and high-rate burglars, robbers, auto thieves, swindlers, and mixed types (mostly drug dealers) among state prison inmates in California, Michigan, and Texas are estimated and compared to the inmates' perceptions of their earnings. Crime appears to pay less than legitimate work for most mid-rate offenders; the reverse is true for most high-rate offenders. Inmates believe that they receive from crime much more than they do in fact. The earnings from crime per day spent in prison decrease as the number of crimes increases, suggesting that high-rate offenders commit crimes with little regard to the net yield. The authors suggest that career criminals do not maximize the net benefits of crime because they are highly present-oriented and quite opportunistic.

Originally published in: Justice Quarterly, v. 9, no. 3, September 1992, pp. 359-377.

This report is part of the RAND reprint series. The Reprint was a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011 that represented previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see External Publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.