Prior Record and the Risk of Recidivism

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-59
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts

It is generally assumed that prior convictions provide a useful proxy for the offender’s risk of committing further crimes, and as a general proposition that assumption is well supported by research. But as this chapter shows, there is much less research on how well particular prior record formulas predict recidivism risk. This chapter identifies the elements of guidelines criminal history scores that appear to be designed to measure risk, reviews the limited research assessing the accuracy of criminal history scores and score components as predictors of subsequent offending, and examines the closeness of fit between predicted increases in risk, as the criminal history score rises, and the increments in sentence severity that are prescribed by grid-based guidelines systems. The chapter also argues against the use of rigid prior record enhancement formulas, and in favor of giving judges power to adjust sentences to take into account case-specific variations in recidivism risk.


2019 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts

If prior record enhancements are justified as a way to manage offender risk, policymakers need to consider other, non-record risk factors that may improve risk-prediction accuracy. This chapter examines the limited extent to which guidelines systems have incorporated such factors—usually as a ground for departure or other adjustment after the recommended sentence has been determined based on current offense and prior record. The chapter summarizes the offense factors and non-criminal-history offender factors, such as the offender’s current age and criminal thinking patterns, that criminological research has found to be good predictors of the risk of re-offending, and that are often included in widely used risk assessment instruments such as the Salient Factor Score, CSRA, and LSI-R. Very few of these non-record risk factors have been given a formal role in guidelines sentencing. The chapter argues that judges should be allowed to consider some of these factors, especially older age.



2019 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts

This chapter provides an overview of the book, including the following major topics: why this neglected topic is so important; the ubiquity of prior record enhancement in modern sentencing systems, and their particularly powerful roles in U.S. jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines; the wide variations in the criminal history scoring formulas used in guidelines, with respect to matters such as which prior crimes and other factors are included, the weight each receives, and the degree to which a high score increases recommended sentence severity; the unclear punishment rationales for such enhancements; and the numerous negative consequences of these enhancements— increasing the size and expense of prison populations, undermining the important goal of punishment in proportion to offense severity, increasing the need for prison beds to house property and other nonviolent offenders, generating large numbers of aging prison inmates, contributing to racial disproportionality in prison populations, and undermining offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into society.



2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 831-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cassidy ◽  
Jason Rydberg

The focal concerns perspective suggests that criminal history and the nature of the offense interact to influence judicial assessments of community threat, yet this question has not been subject to systematic empirical examination. Drawing on 4 years of data (2007-2010) from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing ( N = 75,676), we utilize linear quantile mixed models (LQMM) to examine the impact of prior record on the conditional distribution of sentence lengths across violent, property, drug, and sex offenders, controlling for the effects of important individual and judicial district-level covariates. The results indicate that prior record penalties differ both between and within conviction offense types across the conditional sentence length distribution. Substantive, theoretical, and methodological implications are discussed.



2019 ◽  
pp. 72-88
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts

Even if a guidelines criminal history score, other prior record formula, or some combination of record and non-record factors accurately reflects the offender’s recidivism risk, sentence enhancements based on that formula are not justified unless the increased penalty will prevent further offending in a cost-effective, fair, and legal manner. This chapter summarizes the voluminous literature on the relationship between punishment severity and crime. That literature shows that increased penalty severity has at best a modest deterrent effect on offending rates, and is as likely to cause more crime as it is to prevent crime by means of general and specific (individual) deterrence and/or incapacitation. The chapter also discusses whether such enhancements—particularly when based on non-record factors such as age and gender—are unfair to offenders, and whether non-record, risk-based enhancements are consistent with constitutional requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt and jury trial under the Blakely v. Washington doctrine.



2021 ◽  
pp. 003288552110296
Author(s):  
Rhys Hester

Prior criminal record is routinely cited as one of the primary determinants of sentencing, and the common view is that prior record was a leading factor in non-guidelines jurisdictions going back decades. Yet, recent findings from a non-guidelines state failed to conform to this account. This study uses interviews with judges from a non-guidelines state to understand the role of prior record in sentencing in an unstructured sentencing state. This study also reexamines some of the early sentencing guidelines formation literature and finds some indications that pre-guidelines, prior record was not universally an instrumental predictor of sentence length.



2019 ◽  
pp. 114-127
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester

This chapter shows how powerful criminal history enhancements undermine important goals of guidelines reforms. First, these enhancements undermine the goal of making punishment severity proportional to the seriousness of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced; if prior record receives more weight in sentencing, conviction offense seriousness receives less weight. Second, these enhancements counteract the goal of reserving expensive prison beds for offenders convicted of violent crimes—powerful criminal history enhancements shift the balance of prison admissions and inmate stocks toward property, drug, and other nonviolent offenders. Third, prior record enhancements change the composition of prison populations by risk level—older offenders often have more prior convictions but declining recidivism risks, so criminal history enhancements increase the number of aging, low-risk prison inmates. The formulaic nature of such enhancements also over-predicts the risk level of some younger offenders. The chapter concludes with proposals for limiting these adverse effects.



2019 ◽  
pp. 89-113
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester

This chapter explores the degree to which a higher criminal history score increases the severity of recommended and imposed sentences in U.S. guidelines systems. The impact of criminal history on sentence severity is measured in several ways. One set of measures assesses the extent to which a high criminal history score translates into increased sentencing severity—by causing the offender to be recommended for immediate commitment to prison, and/or by increasing the duration of the recommended prison or other custodial sentence. Other measures of prior record enhancement magnitude relate to the criminal history formula itself—the components of the score and the way in which each component is weighted. These rules determine how quickly offenders acquire a high score, triggering the most severe impacts, and they also determine which offenders are most likely to receive high scores. The chapter concludes with proposals for regulating the magnitude of prior record enhancements.



2019 ◽  
pp. 152-162
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester

This chapter shows how sentencing data can be used to quantify the substantial fiscal impacts of high-magnitude criminal history enhancements, overall and with respect to the problematic aspects of those enhancements identified and discussed in previous chapters. It uses data from Minnesota and several other states as examples because of the excellent sentencing data available for those states. The chapter first examines the total fiscal impact (added bed needs and costs) that results from the sentence-enhancing effects of criminal history on prison commitment and prison duration decisions. It then quantifies the fiscal impacts of the identified problematic aspects of prior record enhancements: disproportionately severe prison durations imposed on high history offenders, imprisonment of nonviolent offenders recommended for prison solely because of their elevated criminal history scores, imprisonment of aging offenders who are recommended for prison due to their high history scores, and racially disparate sentences that result from criminal history enhancements.





2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara C. Appleby ◽  
Margaret Bull Kovera


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document