Risk Assessment In Criminal Justice
What is Risk Assessment?
Risk assessment in criminal justice is the process of evaluating the likelihood that an individual will engage in future criminal behavior or pose a threat to society. It helps guide decisions on:
Bail and pretrial release.
Sentencing and parole.
Probation and rehabilitation.
Management of high-risk offenders.
Types of Risk Assessments:
Static factors: Unchangeable characteristics such as criminal history, age at first offense.
Dynamic factors: Changeable traits like current behavior, substance abuse, employment status.
Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ): Combines actuarial data with professional judgment.
Actuarial Tools: Standardized instruments like the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R).
Importance:
Enhances public safety by identifying potential high-risk offenders.
Helps allocate resources efficiently.
Aids in fair and evidence-based sentencing.
Supports rehabilitation by focusing on modifiable risk factors.
Case Studies: Risk Assessment in Criminal Justice
1. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) – Risk and Use of Force
Background: Although not a traditional risk assessment case, it addresses evaluating threat levels when law enforcement uses deadly force.
Legal Issue: The U.S. Supreme Court held that police may only use deadly force to prevent escape if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury.
Risk Assessment Element: The ruling emphasized assessing the immediate risk posed by a suspect before deciding on the use of force.
Outcome: It set a precedent requiring law enforcement to evaluate risks carefully and proportionally.
2. Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) – Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders
Background: Hendricks was committed after serving a sentence for sexual offenses under a Kansas law allowing civil commitment for “sexually violent predators.”
Legal Issue: The Court examined whether risk assessments of future dangerousness justified civil commitment.
Risk Assessment Element: Psychological evaluations determined Hendricks posed a “mental abnormality” that made him likely to reoffend.
Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the law, establishing the use of clinical risk assessments in deciding civil confinement.
3. State v. Loomis (2016) – Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessments
Background: Eric Loomis challenged the use of a proprietary algorithm (COMPAS) in sentencing, arguing it violated due process because the algorithm's workings were secret.
Legal Issue: The court considered the role of actuarial risk assessment tools in sentencing and transparency concerns.
Risk Assessment Element: The case highlights the increasing use of algorithm-based tools to predict recidivism and the legal questions about fairness and bias.
Outcome: The Wisconsin Supreme Court allowed COMPAS use but emphasized that it should not be the sole factor in sentencing and must be supplemented by human judgment.
4. Commonwealth v. Baker (Massachusetts, 2017) – Risk Assessment and Parole
Background: Baker was denied parole based on a risk assessment indicating high likelihood of reoffending.
Legal Issue: The court reviewed the validity and fairness of risk assessment tools used in parole decisions.
Risk Assessment Element: The case illustrated challenges in balancing actuarial risk scores with individualized parole hearings.
Outcome: The court upheld the use of risk assessments but stressed they must be part of a broader consideration, including rehabilitative progress.
5. People v. Dotson (California, 2010) – Bail Risk Assessment
Background: Dotson challenged the denial of bail based on a risk assessment predicting high flight risk.
Legal Issue: The court analyzed how risk assessments should factor into bail decisions and defendants’ rights.
Risk Assessment Element: The use of data-driven risk assessments in pretrial release decisions aims to balance public safety and individual liberty.
Outcome: The court ruled that risk assessments can inform bail decisions but must not override constitutional protections.
Summary
Risk assessment tools have become critical in criminal justice for predicting future risks and informing decisions at multiple stages, from pretrial to parole. The cases above show:
The importance of evaluating threats and risks carefully (Tennessee v. Garner).
The legitimacy of using clinical and actuarial assessments for civil commitment and sentencing (Kansas v. Hendricks, State v. Loomis).
Legal and ethical concerns surrounding algorithmic transparency and fairness (State v. Loomis).
The role of risk assessments in parole and bail while respecting individual rights (Commonwealth v. Baker, People v. Dotson).
RELATED Blog
0 comments