  I investigate how political incentives affect the behavior of district
attorneys (DAs). I develop a theoretical model that predicts DAs will increase
sentencing intensity in an election period compared to the period prior. To
empirically test this prediction, I compile one of the most comprehensive
datasets to date on the political careers of all district attorneys in office
during the steepest rise in incarceration in U.S. history (roughly 1986-2006).
Using quasi-experimental methods, I find causal evidence that being in a DA
election year increases total admissions per capita and total months sentenced
per capita. I estimate that the election year effects on admissions are akin to
moving 0.85 standard deviations along the distribution of DA behavior within
state (e.g., going from the 50th to 80th percentile in sentencing intensity). I
find evidence that election effects are larger (1) when DA elections are
contested, (2) in Republican counties, and (3) in the southern United
States--all these factors are consistent with the perspective that election
effects arise from political incentives influencing DAs. Further, I find that
district attorney election effects decline over the period 1986-2006, in tandem
with U.S. public opinion softening regarding criminal punishment. These
findings suggest DA behavior may respond to voter preferences--in particular to
public sentiment regarding the harshness of the court system.
