Pareto in Prison
- PMID: 39821969
- PMCID: PMC12171674
- DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2716
Pareto in Prison
Abstract
The Pareto principle is based on the concept that roughly 80% of outcomes are generated by 20% of inputs, efforts, or contributors within a group. Using a national sample of U.S. prison inmates, we examined various percentile rankings of self-reported institutional misconduct to determine how much disorder is created behind bars by the most prolific offenders. Findings revealed that, regardless of sex, the top 20% of inmates were responsible for approximately 90% of all rule violations and write-ups received. These general patterns remained similar even after adjusting infractions for time served in prison. Further analyses indicated that membership within these high-rate groups was often significantly predicted by those who were younger, black, had more extensive criminal histories, committed violent crimes, resided in state facilities, anticipated being released, used drugs prior to their arrest, were diagnosed with a personality disorder or ADHD, and exhibited worse negative affect. Some sex-specific effects were also observed. The disproportionate impact these chronic offenders have on the prison environment is detrimental to all individuals who live and work around them. Future research should investigate specific types of misconduct, distinct time intervals of incarceration, and facility effects such as management style, security levels, or offender composition.
Keywords: corrections; criminal behavior; officer safety; recidivism; rehabilitation; risk assessment.
© 2025 The Author(s). Behavioral Sciences & the Law published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures


Similar articles
-
Surveillance for Violent Deaths - National Violent Death Reporting System, 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2022.MMWR Surveill Summ. 2025 Jun 12;74(5):1-42. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss7405a1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2025. PMID: 40493548 Free PMC article.
-
Substance use disorder diagnoses as predictors of rule violations in a county detention center in the USA.Int J Prison Health (2024). 2025 Apr 29;21(2):233-240. doi: 10.1108/IJOPH-12-2023-0089. Int J Prison Health (2024). 2025. PMID: 40235030
-
Molecular feature-based classification of retroperitoneal liposarcoma: a prospective cohort study.Elife. 2025 May 23;14:RP100887. doi: 10.7554/eLife.100887. Elife. 2025. PMID: 40407808 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians.Respir Res. 2024 Dec 21;25(1):438. doi: 10.1186/s12931-024-03056-x. Respir Res. 2024. PMID: 39709425 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prevalence and odds of anxiety and depression in cutaneous malignant melanoma: a proportional meta-analysis and regression.Br J Dermatol. 2024 Jun 20;191(1):24-35. doi: 10.1093/bjd/ljae011. Br J Dermatol. 2024. PMID: 38197404
References
-
- Aguilar‐Cárceles, M. M. , and Farrington D. P.. 2020. “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Impulsivity, and Low Self‐Control: Which Is Most Useful in Understanding and Preventing Offending?” Reviewing Crime Psychology 3: 218–239. 10.4324/9780429346927-14. - DOI
-
- Austin, J. , and McGinnis K.. 2004. Classification of High‐Risk and Special Management Prisoners: A National Assessment of Current Practices. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
-
- Auty, K. M. , Cope A., and Liebling A.. 2017. “Psychoeducational Programs for Reducing Prison Violence: A Systematic Review.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 33: 126–143. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.018. - DOI
-
- Belbot, B. , and del Carmen R.. 1993. “Legal Issues in Classification.” In Classification: A Tool for Managing Today's Offenders, edited by American Correctional Association, 17–31. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources