Automated Risk Assessment in the Criminal Justice Process

Prejudice ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Endre Begby

This chapter addresses recent concerns about “algorithmic bias,” specifically in the context of the criminal justice process. Starting from a recent controversy about the use of “automated risk assessment tools” in criminal sentencing and parole hearings, where evidence suggests that such tools effectively discriminate against minority defendants, this chapter argues that the problem here has nothing in particular to do with algorithm-assisted reasoning, nor is it in any clear sense a case of epistemic bias. Rather, given the data set that we are given to work with, there is reason to think that no improvement to our epistemic routines would deliver significantly better results. Instead, the bias is effectively encoded into the data set itself, via a long history of institutionalized racism. This suggests a different diagnosis of the problem: in deeply divided societies, there may just be no way to simultaneously satisfy our moral ideals and our epistemic ideals.

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-190
Author(s):  
Charlotte Barlow ◽  
Sandra Walklate ◽  
Kelly Johnson

The limits of inter-agency understandings of risk in the context of intimate partner violence are well documented. Informed by Hester’s (2011) ‘three planet’ analogy and using empirical data in one police force area in the south of England, this paper offers an exploration of intra-agency operations, focusing on police risk assessment practices. Exploring the policing risk lens and the victim-survivor journey together, findings highlight police operate with at least three risk assessment moments (call hander, front-line and Safeguarding Hub) and point to the tensions that result when failing to centralise victim-survivors’ own assessment of their risk. Using complexity theory, this paper examines the complex interplay of risk that occurs when the victim-survivor risk journey intersects with the policing aspect of the criminal justice process.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-603
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Desmarais ◽  
Evan M. Lowder

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual’s appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.


Author(s):  
Hazel Kemshall

Risk is a pervasive feature of contemporary life, and has become a key feature of penal policy, systems of punishment, and criminal justice services across a number of the Anglophone jurisdictions. Risk as an approach to calculating the probability of “danger” or “hazard” has its roots in the mercantile trade of the 16th century, growing in significance over the intervening centuries until it pervades both the social and economic spheres of everyday life. Actuarialism, that is the method of statistically calculating and aggregating risk data, has similar roots, steeped in the probability calculations of the insurance industry with 20th-century extension into the arenas of social welfare and penality. Within criminal justice one of the first risk assessment tools was the parole predictor designed by Burgess in 1928. Since then we have seen a burgeoning of risk assessment tools and actuarial risk practices across the penal realm, although the extent to which penality is totally risk based is disputed. Claims for a New Penology centered on risk have been much debated, and empirical evidence would tend toward more cautious claims for such a significant paradigm shift. Prevention and responsibilization are often seen as core themes within risk-focused penality. Risk assessment is used not only to assess and predict future offending of current criminals, but also to enable early identification of future criminals, “high crime” areas, and those in need of early interventions. The ethics, accuracy, and moral justification for such preventive strategies have been extensively debated, with concerns expressed about negative and discriminatory profiling; net-widening; over targeting of minority groups especially for selective incarceration; and more recently criticisms of risk-based pre-emption or “pre-crime” targeting, particularly of ethnic minorities. Responsibilization refers to the techniques of actuarial practices used to make persons responsible for their own risk management, and for their own risk decisions throughout the life course. In respect of offenders this is best expressed through corrective programs focused on “right thinking” and re-moralizing offenders toward more desirable social ends. Those offenders who are “ripe for re-moralization” and who present a level of risk that can be managed within the community can avoid custody or extended sentencing. Those who are not, and who present the highest levels of risk, are justifiably selected for risk-based custodial sentences. Such decision-making not only requires high levels of predictive accuracy, but is also fraught with severe ethical challenges and moral choices, not least about the desired balance between risks, rights, and freedoms.


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (Supplement_4) ◽  
pp. iv13-iv17
Author(s):  
Celia Gregson

Abstract Fragility fractures carry high health and social care costs for patients, families, and health systems. Falls are a fundamental risk factor for sustaining a fragility fracture, and hence fracture risk assessment is an intrinsic component of any falls evaluation. I will review the relationship between falls and incident fracture and outline strategies for assessing fracture risk. I will review the different fracture risk assessment tools available, including FRAX. I will discuss approaches to fracture risk assessment in the context of falls. Sarcopenia is an important risk factors for falls. Recently the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) updated their diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia, placing a greater emphasis on muscle strength and physical performance. Whilst measures of muscle mass may not add to the clinical prediction of fractures over an above a tool such as FRAX, I will discuss the value of tests of muscle function, impairment of which characterises sarcopenia, in the prediction of fracture risk. I will further present data on patient’s own perception of fracture risk and how this might be influenced by a history of falls.


2016 ◽  
Vol 106 (5) ◽  
pp. 119-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharad Goel ◽  
Justin M. Rao ◽  
Ravi Shroff

In an effort to bring greater efficiency, equity, and transparency to the criminal justice system, statistical risk assessment tools are increasingly used to inform bail, sentencing, and parole decisions. We examine New York City's stop-and-frisk program, and propose two new use cases for personalized risk assessments. First, we show that risk assessment tools can help police officers make considerably better real-time stop decisions. Second, we show that such tools can help audit past actions; in particular, we argue that a sizable fraction of police stops were conducted on the basis of little evidence, in possible violation of constitutional protections.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Glynn

Purpose – Desistance is increasingly conceptualised as a theoretical construct which is used to explain how offenders orient themselves away from committing crimes. Previous studies suggest that successful desistance occurs due to one or a number of factors. These factors include things such as: faith (Giordano et al., 2007); a rite of passage (Maruna, 2010); gender (Giordano et al., 2002); psychosocial processes (Healey, 2010); personal and social circumstances which are space and place specific (Flynn, 2010); ethnicity and faith (Calverley, 2013); race and racialisation (Glynn, 2014). However, to date there has been little work undertaken to examine how notions of “intersectionality” may be a more appropriate theoretical lens through which to locate and contextualise the understandings of desistance when looking at marginalised populations such as black offenders. Intersectionality is an understanding of human beings as shaped by the interaction of different social locations. These interactions occur within a context of connected systems and structure of power. Through such processes independent forms of privilege and oppression are created. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The paper concludes with a perspective that envisions moving towards an “intersectional model of desistance for marginalised groups such as black offenders”. Findings – It is the author’s view that the development of a intersectional model of desistance for black offenders may begin a dialogue that further pushes the study of re-entry and desistance into an area that transcends the criminal justice system and locates itself firmly within the civil and human rights of black offenders, and indeed, offenders as a whole. It is hoped that by using intersectional approaches when conducting inquiries we will be able to lead towards eradicating multiple oppressions faced by so many sections of the offender populations and the communities they come from. Research limitations/implications – This paper is positional inasmuch as it attempts to establish some, principled arguments to advance the study of desistance. Therefore, a testing of the views expressed in the paper is required. Practical implications – It is the author’s contention that for those black offenders who desire to quit crime, there needs to be networks and activities that not only support their desire to desist, but a radical reframing of how interlocking oppressions that render them subordinate must become a key driver for the desistance project. How can/do black offenders acquire and tell their own authentic narrative when it has been shaped by a history of oppression? It is therefore right to assume that meaningful reintegration of black offenders back into communities requires a deeper commitment to culturally competent rehabilitative processes, that could lead towards a culture of desistance. Social implications – An “Intersectional Model of Desistance” also needs to challenge some white criminologists’ claims by validating the black contribution to criminological theorising. This position should embrace and include perspectives which unify theoretical positions that validate interlocking oppressions; racism, poverty, ethno-cultural group membership, etc., where the broader distribution of opportunities across society, and the ability to recognise them as such as opportunities for black men to desist are taken into consideration. As part of a process of rehabilitation, black offenders need to be engaged with intersectional institutional processes and practices that will lead to a challenge of their criminal values and behaviour, designed to increase their capacity to consider desistance. It is hoped that by using intersectional approaches when conducting inquiries we will be able to eradicate multiple oppressions faced by so many sections of the offender populations and the communities they come from. Originality/value – Understanding how the experiences of black offenders, are impacted by examining interlocking oppressions of criminal justice processes; police, courts, incarceration, probation, etc., would critically assess how these intersections enhances or impedes the desistance trajectories of black offenders, in relation to offenders as a whole. As much of black offender lived reality centres on having to contend, not just with criminal justice process, but the additional oppression of racialisation, the outcomes become more heavily context dependent and driven.


1984 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 568-592 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Steinberg

Despite the general assumption that the gates of the American criminal justice process have always been guarded by public prosecutors, an examination of the case law and social history of criminal prosecution suggests a much more complex transformation of American criminal justice from an eighteenth and early ninteenth century system dominated by private prosecution. In Philadelphia, this system of private prosecution kept most of the power over the disposition of a criminal case in the hands of the private litigants and petty magistrates, generated a highly articulated legal culture, and resulted in relatively few jury trials. The assumption of power by the district attorney during the last third of the nineteenth century emerged from the internal contradictions of this system, but it amounted to a transformation from one form of nontrial descretionary justice to another.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 134-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Douglas ◽  
J. Pugh ◽  
I. Singh ◽  
J. Savulescu ◽  
S. Fazel

AbstractViolence risk assessment tools are increasingly used within criminal justice and forensic psychiatry, however there is little relevant, reliable and unbiased data regarding their predictive accuracy. We argue that such data are needed to (i) prevent excessive reliance on risk assessment scores, (ii) allow matching of different risk assessment tools to different contexts of application, (iii) protect against problematic forms of discrimination and stigmatisation, and (iv) ensure that contentious demographic variables are not prematurely removed from risk assessment tools.


2020 ◽  
pp. 293-314
Author(s):  
Alexandra L. Cox ◽  
Reginald Dwayne Betts

In the US criminal justice system, sentencing determinations are frequently divorced from the social history of the individual accused of a crime and are rarely informed by our empirical knowledge about what forces may lead an individual to desist from offending. Yet, this knowledge can help drive key decisions to grant mercy to individuals at all stages of the criminal justice process, from plea to parole. This chapter argues that comprehensive life histories about individuals accused of crimes can shape sentencing practices in a way that facilitates the achievement of social justice through the attention to the ultimate reintegration of the person at the heart of the sentence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document