1932

Abstract

The past several years have seen a surge of interest in using risk assessment in criminal sentencing, both to reduce recidivism by incapacitating or treating high-risk offenders and to reduce prison populations by diverting low-risk offenders from prison. We begin by sketching jurisprudential theories of sentencing, distinguishing those that rely on risk assessment from those that preclude it. We then characterize and illustrate the varying roles that risk assessment may play in the sentencing process. We clarify questions regarding the various meanings of “risk” in sentencing and the appropriate time to assess the risk of convicted offenders. We conclude by addressing four principal problems confronting risk assessment in sentencing: conflating risk and blame, barring individual inferences based on group data, failing adequately to distinguish risk assessment from risk reduction, and ignoring whether, and if so, how, the use of risk assessment in sentencing affects racial and economic disparities in imprisonment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945
2016-03-28
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/clinpsy/12/1/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abraham KS. 1986. Distributing Risk: Insurance, Legal Theory, and Public Policy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  2. Am. Law Inst 2011. Model Penal Code: Sentencing (Tentative Draft No. 2). Philadelphia: Am. Law Inst. [Google Scholar]
  3. Am. Law Inst 2014. Model Penal Code: Sentencing (Tentative Draft No. 3). Philadelphia: Am. Law Inst. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews DA, Bonta J. 1995. Levels of Service Inventory–Revised Toronto, ON: MHS Inc. [Google Scholar]
  5. Arnold J, Arnold L. 2015. Fixing justice in America. Politico Mag. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/criminal-justice-reform-coalition-for-public-safety-116057.html [Google Scholar]
  6. Berk R. 2009. The role of race in forecasts of violent crime. Race Soc. Probl. 1:231–42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blumstein A. 1993. Racial disproportionality of U.S. prison populations revisited. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 64:743–760 [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher CA. 1986. Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals.” Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonta J, Bourgon G, Rugge T, Scott TL, Yessine AK. et al. 2011. An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Crim. Justice Behav. 38:1127–48 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonta J, Law M, Hanson K. 1998. The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 123:123–42 [Google Scholar]
  11. Campbell MA, French S, Gendreau P. 2009. The prediction of violence in adult offenders: a meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Crim. Justice Behav. 36:567–90 [Google Scholar]
  12. Carson E. 2014. Prisoners in 2013 Washington, DC: Bur. Justice Stat. [Google Scholar]
  13. Casey PM, Warren RK, Elek JK. 2011. Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts http://www.ncsc.org/∼/media/Microsites/Files/CSI/RNA%20Guide%20Final.ashx [Google Scholar]
  14. Code of Virginia 2008. Involuntary temporary detention, §. 372–809 (B)
  15. Cohen TH, VanBenschoten SW. 2014. Does the risk of recidivism for supervised offenders improve over time? Examining changes in the dynamic risk characteristics for offenders under federal supervision. Fed. Probat. 78:41–54 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coid JW, Yang M, Ullrich S, Zhang T, Sizmur S. et al. 2011. Most items in structured risk assessment instruments do not predict violence. J. Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 22:3–21 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooke DJ, Michie C. 2010. Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: a challenge for forensic practice. Law Hum. Behav. 34:259–64 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Nagin DS. 2011. Prisons do not reduce recidivism: the high cost of ignoring science. Prison J. 91:48–65S [Google Scholar]
  19. Desmarais SL, Johnson KL, Singh JP. 2015. Performance of recidivism risk assessment instruments in U.S. correctional settings. Psychol. Serv In press [Google Scholar]
  20. Durose M, Cooper A, Snyder H. 2014. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 Washington, DC: Bur. Justice Stat. [Google Scholar]
  21. Dvoskin JA, Skeem JL, Novaco RW, Douglas KS. 2011. Using Social Science to Reduce Violent Offending New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Elbogen EB, Johnson SC, Wagner HR, Sullivan C, Taft CT, Beckham JC. 2014. Violent behaviour and post-traumatic stress disorder in US Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. Br. J. Psychiatry 204:368–75 [Google Scholar]
  23. Elek JK, Warren RK, Casey PM. 2015. Using Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Observations from Ten Jurisdictions Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts http://www.ncsc.org/∼/media/Microsites/Files/CSI/RNA%202015/Final%20PEW%20Report%20updated%2010-5-15.ashx [Google Scholar]
  24. Ernberg I. 2012. Cancer.. Handbook of Clinical Gender Medicine K Schenck-Gustaffsson, P DeCola, D Pfaff, D Pisetsky 238–51 Basel, Switz: Karger [Google Scholar]
  25. Faigman DL, Monahan J, Slobogin C. 2014. Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. Univ. Chic. Law Rev. 81:417–80 [Google Scholar]
  26. Faigman DL, Slobogin C, Monahan J. 2015. Gatekeeping science: using the structure of scientific research to distinguish between admissibility and weight in expert testimony. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. In press [Google Scholar]
  27. Farrar-Owens M. 2013. The evolution of sentencing guidelines in Virginia: an example of the importance of standardized and automated felony sentencing data. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 25:168–70 [Google Scholar]
  28. Farrington DP, Loeber R, Ttofi MM. 2012. Risk and protective factors for offending. The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention BC Welsh, DP Farrington 46–69 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Farrington DP, Ttofi MM. 2011. Protective and promotive factors in the development of offending. Antisocial Behavior and Crime: Contributions of Developmental and Evaluation Research to Prevention and Intervention T Bliesener, A Beelmann, M Stemmler 71–88 Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publ. [Google Scholar]
  30. FBI (Fed. Bur. Investig.) 2014. Crime in the United States 2013. Washington, DC: FBI [Google Scholar]
  31. Frase RS. 2002. Limiting retributivism. The Future of Imprisonment M. Tonry 83–119 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Frase RS. 2009. What explains persistent racial disproportionality in Minnesota's prison and jail populations?. Crime Justice 38:201–80 [Google Scholar]
  33. Frase RS. 2013. Just Sentencing: Principles and Procedures for a Workable System New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  34. Frase RS. 2014. Recurring policy issues of guidelines (and non-guidelines) sentencing: risk assessments, criminal history enhancements, and the enforcement of release conditions. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 26:145–57 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gottfredson SD, Moriarty LJ. 2006. Statistical risk assessment: old problems and new applications. Crime Delinq. 52:178–200 [Google Scholar]
  36. Greiner LE, Law MA, Brown SL. 2015. Using dynamic factors to predict recidivism among women: a four-wave prospective study. Crim. Justice Behav. 42:457–80 [Google Scholar]
  37. Guy LS, Kusaj C, Packer IK, Douglas KS. 2015. Influence of the HCR-20, LS/CMI, and PCL-R on decisions about parole suitability among lifers. Law Hum. Behav. 39:232–43 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamilton M. 2015a. Risk-needs assessment: constitutional and ethical challenges. Am. Crim. Law Rev. 52:231–91 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hamilton M. 2015b. Adventures in risk: predicting violent and sexual recidivism in sentencing law. Ariz. State Law J. 47:1–62 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hanson RK, Babchishin LM, Helmus L, Thornton D. 2013. Quantifying the relative risk of sex offenders: risk ratios for Static-99R. Sex. Abuse 25:482–515 [Google Scholar]
  41. Hanson RK, Howard PD. 2010. Individual confidence intervals do not inform decision-makers about the accuracy of risk assessment evaluations. Law Hum. Behav. 34:275–81 [Google Scholar]
  42. Harcourt BE. 2015. Risk as a proxy for race: the dangers of risk assessment. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 27:237–43 [Google Scholar]
  43. Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL. 2008. Shall evidence-based risk assessment be abandoned?. Br. J. Psychiatry 192:154 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hart SD, Cooke DJ. 2013. Another look at the (im-)precision of individual risk estimates made using actuarial risk assessment instruments. Behav. Sci. Law 31:81–102 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hart SD, Michie C, Cooke DJ. 2007. Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: evaluating the margins of error of group v. individual predictions of violence. Br. J. Psychiatry 190:s60–65 [Google Scholar]
  46. Heilbrun K, Hart A, Green H. 2009. Risk assessment in evidence-based sentencing: context and promising uses. Chapman J. Crim. Justice 1:127–43 [Google Scholar]
  47. Holder E. 2014. Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 57th Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-national-association-criminal-defense-lawyers-57th [Google Scholar]
  48. Howard PD, Dixon L. 2013. Identifying change in the likelihood of violent recidivism: causal dynamic risk factors in the OASys violence predictor. Law Hum. Behav. 37:163–74 [Google Scholar]
  49. Imrey PB, Dawid AP. 2015. A commentary on statistical assessment of violence recidivism risk. Stat. Public Policy 2:1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1029338 [Google Scholar]
  50. Int. Cent. Prison Stud 2013. World Prison Brief London: Int. Cent. Prison Stud http://www.prisonstudies.org/world-prison-brief [Google Scholar]
  51. Jones NJ, Brown SL, Robinson D, Frey D. 2015. Incorporating strengths into quantitative assessments of criminal risk for adult offenders: the Service Planning Instrument. Crim. Justice Behav. 42:321–38 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jones NJ, Brown SL, Zamble E. 2010. Predicting criminal recidivism in adult male offenders: researcher versus parole officer assessment of dynamic risk. Crim. Justice Behav. 3:860–82 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kans. Sentencing Comm 2015. Justice Reinvestment Initiative in Kansas. Topeka: Kans. Sentencing Comm http://www.sentencing.ks.gov/docs/default-source/publications-reports-and-presentations/ksc_jri_report.pdf?sfvrsn=2 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kraemer HC. 2003. Current concepts of risk in psychiatric disorders. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 16:421–30 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ. 1997. Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 54:337–43 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kraemer HC, Stice E, Kazdin A, Offord D, Kupfer D. 2001. How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. Am. J. Psychiatry 158:848–56 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kroner DG, Mills JF, Reddon JR. 2005. A coffee can, factor analysis, and prediction of antisocial behavior: the structure of criminal risk. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 28:360–74 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kroner DG, Yessine AK. 2013. Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: in search of mechanisms of change. Law Hum. Behav. 37:321–36 [Google Scholar]
  59. Larkin PJ. 2014. Managing prisons by the numbers: using the good-time laws and risk-needs assessments to manage the federal prison population. Harvard J. Law Public Policy 1:1–29 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lawrence A. 2009. Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned Time Policies for State Prisoners Denver: Natl. Conf. State Legis http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/earned_time_report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  61. Lawrence A. 2013. Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation Denver: Natl. Conf. State Legis http://www.ncsl.org/Documents/CJ/TrendsInSentencingAndCorrections.pdf [Google Scholar]
  62. Levin B, Hennessey K, Petrila J. 2010. Mental Health Services: A Public Health Perspective New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 3rd. ed. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ, Holsinger AM. 2006. The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?. Crime Delinq. 52:77–93 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa E, Smith P. 2006. Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Fed. Probat. 5:201–20 [Google Scholar]
  65. Masten AS. 2014. Ordinary Magic: Resilience in Development New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  66. Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, Slobogin C. 2007. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers New York: Guilford, 3rd. ed. [Google Scholar]
  67. Monahan J. 2006. A jurisprudence of risk assessment: forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Va. Law Rev. 92:391–435 [Google Scholar]
  68. Monahan J, Skeem JL. 2014. Risk redux: the resurgence of risk assessment in criminal sanctioning. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 26:158–66 [Google Scholar]
  69. Morris N. 1974. The Future of Imprisonment Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. Morse SJ. 2015. Genetics and criminal justice. The Oxford Handbook of Molecular Psychology T Canli 409–25 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Mossman D. 2015. From group data to useful probabilities: the relevance of actuarial risk assessment in individual instances. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 43:93–102 [Google Scholar]
  72. Natl. Conf. State Legis 2015. State Sentencing and Corrections Legislation. Denver: Natl. Conf. State Legis http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-sentencing-and-corrections-legislation.aspx [Google Scholar]
  73. Natl. Res. Counc 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  74. Offord DR, Kraemer HC. 2000. Risk factors and prevention. Evid.-Based Ment. Health 3:70–71 [Google Scholar]
  75. Pa. Comm. Sentencing 2011. Risk/Needs Assessment Project: Review of Factors Used in Risk Assessment Instruments. http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications-and-research/research-and-evaluation-reports/risk-assessment/interim-report-1-review-of-factors-used-in-risk-assessment-instruments/view [Google Scholar]
  76. Petersilia J. 2011. Parole and prisoner re-entry. The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice M Tonry 925–52 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Petersilia J, Weisberg R. 2010. The dangers of pyrrhic victories against mass incarceration. Daedelus 130:124–33 [Google Scholar]
  78. Porter v. McCollum 558 U.S. 30 2009.
  79. Reitz KR. 2011. Sentencing. Crime and Public Policy JQ Wilson, J Petersilia 467–98 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Reynolds CR. 2000. Methods for detecting and evaluating cultural bias in neuropsychological tests. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology E Fletcher-Janzen, T Strickland, CR Reynolds 249–85 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  81. Reynolds CR, Suzuki LA. 2012. Bias in psychological assessment: an empirical review and recommendations. Handbook of Psychology 10 Assessment Psychology IB Weiner, JR Graham, JA Naglieri 82–113 New York: Wiley, 2nd. ed. [Google Scholar]
  82. Rhine EE. 2012. The present status and future prospects of parole boards and parole supervision. The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections J Petersilia, KR Reitz 627–56 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  83. Rice ME, Harris GT. 2005. Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r. Law Hum. Behav. 29:615–20 [Google Scholar]
  84. Rice ME, Harris GT, Lang C. 2013. Validation of and revision to the VRAG and SORAG: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R). Psychol. Assess. 25:951–65 [Google Scholar]
  85. Roberts JV, von Hirsch A. 2010. Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives Portland, OR: Hart Publ. [Google Scholar]
  86. Roberts JV, Yalincak OH. 2014. Revisiting prior record enhancement provisions in state sentencing guidelines. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 26:177–90 [Google Scholar]
  87. Robinson P. 2013. Intuitions of Justice and the Utility of Desert New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Sabol WJ, West HC, Cooper M. 2009. Prisoners in 2008 Washington, DC: Bur. Justice Stat. [Google Scholar]
  89. Scurich N, Monahan J. 2015. Evidence-based sentencing: public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism. Law Hum. Behav. In press [Google Scholar]
  90. Serin R, Lloyd C, Hanby L. 2010. Enhancing offender re-entry: an integrated model for enhancing offender re-entry. Eur. J. Probat. 2:53–75 [Google Scholar]
  91. Simon J. 2007. Rise of the carceral state. Soc. Res. 74:471–508 [Google Scholar]
  92. Skeem JL, Lowenkamp C. 2015. Risk, race, and recidivism: predictive bias and disparate impact. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2687339
  93. Skeem JL, Monahan J. 2011. Current directions in violence risk assessment. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20:38–42 [Google Scholar]
  94. Skeem JL, Mulvey EP. 2002. Assessing the risk of violence posed by mentally disordered offenders being treated in the community. Care of the Mentally Disordered Offender in the Community A Buchanan 111–42 New York: Oxford [Google Scholar]
  95. Slobogin C. 2011. Prevention as the primary goal of sentencing: the modern case for indeterminate dispositions in criminal cases. San Diego Law Rev. 48:1127–72 [Google Scholar]
  96. Slobogin C, Brinkley-Rubinstein L. 2013. Putting desert in its place. Stanf. Law Rev. 65:77–135 [Google Scholar]
  97. Starr SB. 2014. Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanf. Law Rev. 66:803–72 [Google Scholar]
  98. Starr SB. 2015. The new profiling: why punishing based on poverty and identity is unconstitutional and wrong. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 27:229–36 [Google Scholar]
  99. State Wash. Dep. Correct 2015. Earned Release Time (Policy #350.100). http://www.doc.wa.gov/policies/showFile.aspx?name=350100 [Google Scholar]
  100. Subramanian R, Moreno R, Broomhead S. 2014. Recalibrating Justice: A Review of 2013 State Sentencing and Corrections Trends New York: Vera Inst. Justice http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/state-sentencing-and-corrections-trends-2013-v2.pdf [Google Scholar]
  101. Tanner-Smith E, Wilson S, Lipsey M. 2013. Risk factors and crime. The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory F Cullen, P Wilcox 89–111 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  102. Tonry M. 2013. Sentencing in America, 1975–2025. Crime and Justice in America, 1975–2025 M Tonry 141–98 Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press [Google Scholar]
  103. Tonry M. 2014. Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Fed. Sentencing Rep. 26:167–76 [Google Scholar]
  104. Travis J, Western B, Redburn S. 2014. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Turner S, Hess J, Jannetta J. 2009. Development of the California Static Risk Assessment Instrument (CSRA) UCI Cent. Evid.-Based Correct. Work Pap. http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2009/11/CSRA-Working-Paper.pdf [Google Scholar]
  106. Ullrich S, Coid J. 2011. Protective factors for violence among released prisoners—effects over time and interactions with static risk. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 79:381–90 [Google Scholar]
  107. Ulmer JT. 2012. Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Q. 29:1–40 [Google Scholar]
  108. US Sentencing Comm 2010. Sentencing Guidelines Washington, DC: US Sentencing Comm. [Google Scholar]
  109. Utah Sentencing Comm 2014a. 2014 Annual Report. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Sentencing Comm. http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/AnnualReports/Sentencing2014.pdf
  110. Utah Sentencing Comm 2014b. 2014 Adult Sentencing and Release Guidelines Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Sentencing Comm http://www.sentencing.utah.gov/Guidelines/Adult/2014%20Adult%20Sentencing%20and%20Release%20final.pdf [Google Scholar]
  111. Va. Crim. Sentencing Comm 2014. 2014 Annual Report. Richmond: Va. Crim. Sentencing Comm http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2014AnnualReport.pdf [Google Scholar]
  112. von Hirsch A. 1976. Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  113. Wroblewski J. 2014. 2014 US Department of Justice Criminal Division Annual Letter to US Sentencing Commission Washington, DC: US Dep. Justic http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal/legacy/2014/08/01/2014annual-letter-final-072814.pdf [Google Scholar]
  114. Yang M, Wong SC, Coid J. 2010. The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychol. Bull. 136:740–67 [Google Scholar]
  115. Zimring F. 2012. The City that Became Safe: New York's Lessons for Urban Crime and Its Control New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error