Follow the Evidence: Integrate Risk Assessment into Sentencing

Bergstrom, Mark H.; Chanenson, Steven L.

doi:10.1525/fsr.2011.23.4.266

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The practice was widely used through 1970s until more determinate sentencing became the predominant ideology. Although many states still include some form of indeterminate sentencing, the shift towards determinate sentencing contributed substantially to the increase in incarceration rates (Heilbrun, Hart, & Green, 2009; Hyatt, Bergstrom, & Chanenson, 2011; Simon, 2005; Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014; Zimring, 2012).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

Metz

Monahan

Siebert

et al. 2020

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research largely has explored judicial perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing. Little is known about how other court actors, specifically, prosecutors and defense attorneys, perceive risk assessments in the sentencing process. Here, we report a qualitative study on the use of risk assessment by prosecutors and defense attorneys in Virginia. A prior survey (n = 70) pointed to a statistically significant difference in how prosecutors and defense attorneys view the role of recidivism risk in sentencing. On the basis of the results of this quantitative study, we collected follow‐up qualitative data via interview (n = 30) to explain this unexpected difference. Analysis confirmed the survey findings that prosecutors and defense attorneys differ in their perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing. Results suggest that court actor perceptions vary as a function of professional role in the service of the identified client (the community or the defendant) and their interests. Although perceptions diverged on utility risk assessment in sentencing, both prosecutors and defense attorneys were outspoken in their skepticism of the Nonviolent Risk Assessment instrument that is used to predict recidivism risk in Virginia. This latter finding identifies obstacles that may emerge as jurisdictions adopt a risk‐based approach to sentencing. We conclude with recommendations for addressing these barriers that may provide useful guidance on the implementation process.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

Metz

Monahan

Siebert

et al. 2020

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, however, in response both to a falling crime rate (Zimring, ) and to a surging—and unsustainable—rate of imprisonment (Travis, Western, & Redburn, ), there has been a resurgence of interest in risk assessment in sentencing (Heilbrun, Hart, & Green, ; Hyatt, Bergstrom, & Chanenson, ; Simon, ). Many have begun to argue that one way to begin dialing down “mass incarceration” without simultaneously jeopardizing the historically low crime rate is to put risk assessment back into sentencing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing

Monahan

Metz

Garrett

2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of an offender's risk of recidivism is emerging as a key consideration in sentencing policy in many US jurisdictions. However, little information is available on how actual sentencing judges view this development. This study surveys the views of a population sample of judges in Virginia, the state that has gone further than any other in legislatively mandating risk assessment for certain drug and property offenders. Results indicate that a strong majority of judges endorse the principle that sentencing eligible offenders should include a consideration of recidivism risk. However, a strong majority also report the availability of alternatives to imprisonment in their jurisdictions to be inadequate at best. Finally, most judges oppose the adoption of a policy requiring them to provide a written reason for declining to impose alternative interventions on “low‐risk” offenders.

show abstract

“…Much of the application appears to be at the discretion of the judge, which introduces greater variability in sentencing decisions and the possibility of racially disparate decisions. To date, there have been few investigations on judicial attitudes toward risk assessment or the use of risk assessment information in judicial decision-making (Cole, 2007; Hyatt & Chanenson, 2016). Additional research into how risk assessments are incorporated into correctional decision-making may help inform opportunities for further training or introduction of structured guidelines for use of risk assessment results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Racial Bias and LSI-R Assessments in Probation Sentencing and Outcomes

Lowder

Morrison

Kroner

et al. 2018

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Risk assessments are now implemented in correctional settings across the United States as an evidence-based strategy to inform sentencing and supervision decisions. Despite growing research examining racial bias in the predictive validity of risk assessments, few studies have investigated racial bias in the context of judicial decision-making. We investigated the interactive contributions of race and Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) risk assessments in predicting sentence length and probation outcomes in 11,792 Black and White probationers. Results showed White probationers at low-risk levels received longer sentences relative to Black probationers classified at the same risk levels. However, there were few differences at higher risk levels and no evidence of racial bias in the predictive accuracy of LSI-R assessments for other probation outcomes. Findings highlight the need for prospective and carefully controlled investigations into whether risk assessments improve the fairness and accuracy of sentencing and other risk management decisions.

show abstract

Follow the Evidence: Integrate Risk Assessment into Sentencing

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

Valid or voodoo? A qualitative study of attorney perceptions of risk assessment in sentencing and plea bargaining

Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing

Racial Bias and LSI-R Assessments in Probation Sentencing and Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About