What Do Criminal Justice Professionals Think About Risk Assessment at Pretrial?

DeMichele, Matthew; Baumgartner, Peter; Barrick, Kelle; Comfort, Megan; Scaggs, Samuel; Misra, Shilpi

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3168490

Cited by 22 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This specification adds to prior studies noting that justice actors may deploy new mandates strategically by favoring components that imply less effort and scrutiny (Hannah-Moffat et al, 2009) or imply less direct challenges to the emerging status quo (Miller & Maloney, 2013). The lack of circumvention behaviors by defense attorneys noted in our study is consistent with this model as it may be indicative of their fragile position in the courtroom and the view of bail reform as advancing their institutional goals (DeMichele et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In particular, studies of the implementation of new models remain scarce (Stevenson, 2018, p. 336), with adaptation to updated mandates remaining “sorely underexamined” (Koepke & Robinson, 2018, p. 1805). With some exceptions (DeMichele et al, 2018; Eckhouse et al, 2019), little is known about the dynamics of pretrial hearings across local actors and jurisdictions including the evolving influence of case-level legal factors—statutorily relevant information such as the seriousness of the charges—and extralegal factors—variables such as a defendant’s race or gender—that are excluded from legal decision-making. These “blind spots” are not specific to reforms of pretrial systems.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

Rengifo¹,

Flores

Jackson

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study documents the extent to which prosecutors and judges in New Jersey deviate from new case review protocols post-bail reform. We draw on a random sample of hearings observed in two courts ( N = 372) to (a) map prosecutorial requests to depart from risk-based recommendations for pretrial monitoring and (b) explore patterns in judicial review signaling more limited case processing. Findings show that in 16% of cases, prosecutors deviated from guidelines and most of these motions were adopted by judges to increase supervision. Deviations from process by judges were more frequent, with 39% of cases observed linked to one or more markers of reduced review. Multivariate results suggest that case-level factors influenced the patterning of these departures in different ways, with older defendants and most Latinx defendants receiving a more limited assessment of their cases. We discuss findings in connection to literature on corrections reform and smart decarceration initiatives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

Rengifo¹,

Flores

Jackson

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One limitation of this study is that the response rate (52.3 percent), while very high for a survey of judges, does not eliminate the possibility of sample bias. Future research on how courtroom actors view quantitative risk assessment might profitably consider a broader range of relevant professions (e.g., prosecutors and defense attorneys, in addition to judges) and a broader range of legal decision points (e.g., pretrial decision making, in addition to sentencing) (DeMichele et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…In a national survey of community corrections officers, noncompliance with risk assessment implementation protocol was attributed to negative attitudes about both the assessment and the amount of training available to the officers (Miller & Maloney, 2013). Prior investigation concerning the perceptions of pretrial risk assessments have described decision makers as perceiving the loss of discretion to be negative, as well as express concerns that its implementation may result in too many, or too few, defendants being released (DeMichele et al, 2019).…”

Section: Perception and Adherence To Pretrial Risk Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this study is not to make inferences about the value of pretrial risk assessment; rather, it fills a meaningful gap in the literature about perceptions of these decision-making tools. The existing literature on this topic addresses perceptions about important factors in predicting pretrial risk, the strengths and weaknesses of a specific assessment tool, its impact on communities of color, and how such tools influence one’s decision making (DeMichele et al, 2019). This study examines how criminal justice actors broadly perceive pretrial risk assessment of any kind and how these perceptions may differ across roles in carrying out this initial pretrial release decision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Pretrial Risk Assessment: An Examination Across Role in the Initial Pretrial Release Decision

Terranova¹,

Ward

Slepicka

et al. 2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pretrial risk assessments are used to inform pretrial release decisions by judicial officers and criminal justice entities. Existing research indicates that negative perceptions of risk assessment can interfere with adherence to the tool. Although perception plays an important role in the implementation of pretrial risk assessment, little is known about what those involved in the initial pretrial release decision—including pretrial officers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys—think about this practice. This study utilized a mixed-methods approach to examine the perceptions of pretrial risk assessment by practitioners and stakeholders across roles in the system. Furthermore, themes relevant to the perceived value of pretrial risk assessment are identified that pertain to the face validity of risk items and the reliability of self-reported information.

show abstract

What Do Criminal Justice Professionals Think About Risk Assessment at Pretrial?

Cited by 22 publications

References 50 publications

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

From Bright Plots to Blind Spots: Mapping Departures in Case Review Post-Bail Reform in Two New Jersey Courts

Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing

Perceptions of Pretrial Risk Assessment: An Examination Across Role in the Initial Pretrial Release Decision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About