Crime and risk: Contested territory for risk theorising

Conflicting rationalities of risk: disputing risk in social policy – reflecting on 35 years of researching risk

“…This will inevitably result in 'rationality mistakes' by policymakers and tensions between Health, Risk & Society 409 policy framed desirable risk decisions and those of individuals negotiating the uncertainty of their everyday lives. The connection between risk research and overall policy development has also been weak (Watts & Bessant, 2003), with a consequent under-utilisation of risk research in policymaking (Kemshall, 2010(Kemshall, , 2011. Arguably the recent uncritical uptake of behavioural economic approaches such as 'nudge' has not improved policy usage of risk research (Burgess, 2012), with contentions that a good idea has been corrupted by politicians (Charraborty, 2010), or that nudge is simply austerity nannying co-opted to predetermined ideological ends (Burgess, 2012).…”

Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques

“…A growing body of scholarship questions, challenges, and ultimately complicates this earlier body of research (e.g., the “new penology”) on both conceptual and empirical grounds. A number of authors caution against overemphasizing the extent to which risk technologies, logics, and goals have colonized and transformed penality (Cheliotis, ; Hannah‐Moffat, ; Hutchinson, ; Kemshall, ; Maurutto & Hannah‐Moffat, ; O'Malley, , , ; Robinson, ; Rose, ; Sparks, ; Werth, ; see also Coleman & Sim, ; Hallsworth, ; L. Miller, ). For instance, Pat O'Malley (, , , , ), whose work has been particularly influential, questions how different risk is from approaches that came before, problematizes the idea that risk is displacing other techniques of penal evaluation and management, and challenges the idea that risk is only—or even primarily—aligned with a project of incapacitation and the management of “risky” groups.…”

“…In some cases, the algorithms behind risk assessment tools are not publicly available for scrutiny. Further, even if the algorithm is open access, some suggest that risk assessments create an illusion of objectivity that invisibilizes or downplays their subjective elements (Hannah‐Moffat, ; Harcourt, ; Kemshall, ; Rose, ). For instance, prior criminal history, one of the most heavily weighted risk factors, is shaped by past decisions made by police and prosecutors of who to arrest and prosecute—decisions that involve subjective, moral judgments and considerable discretion.…”

“…In this way, although risk assessments are undergirded by a probabilistic logic that embraces uncertainty (Castel, ; Rose, ; Simon, ; cf. Douglas, ), they operate in a way that makes the risk/dangerousness of penal subjects an institutional “fact” and certainty (Werth, ; see also Hannah‐Moffat, , p. 139; Kemshall, , p. 223).…”

“…The term risk is also used more broadly by some to characterize a general mode of penal governance; for instance, risk management and risk-based governance are used to highlight the ways in which risk assessment increasingly informs and organizes many, if not most, aspects of penal practice (e.g., see Carlen, 2008;Cheliotis, 2006b;Feeley & Simon, 1992;Robinson, 2002). For instance, risk tools guide or even determine an array of criminal justice practices and decisions, such as pretrial detention, consideration for diversion programs, prison security level, the provision of correctional services, and case plans and supervision levels within probation and parole (Andrews et al, 2006;Desmaris & Singh, 2013;Goodman, 2008;Hannah-Moffat, 2010Hörnqvist, 2010;Kehl et al, 2017;Kemshall, 2011;Kerrison, 2018;R. J. Miller, 2014;O'Malley, 2010;Phelps, 2017;Quirouette, 2017;Rudes, Viglione, & Meyer, 2016;Taxman & Caudy, 2015).…”