The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending

Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) in sever...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Tim Goddard
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	youth justice criminal justice risk assessment instruments criminal history racial disparities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/34fcae9458f84ab0be11ebeaef4688af
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:34fcae9458f84ab0be11ebeaef4688af
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:34fcae9458f84ab0be11ebeaef4688af2021-11-11T19:22:41ZThe Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending10.3390/su1321116242071-1050https://doaj.org/article/34fcae9458f84ab0be11ebeaef4688af2021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/21/11624https://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) in several vital decision points in carceral processing (e.g., pretrial confinement). These instruments rely on information about past behavior (e.g., criminal history) and an understanding of offending (e.g., antisocial personality) that is thought to be neutral, reliable, and enjoys predictive validity. However, it will be argued that when justice system personnel assess the chance of unwanted behavior in the future, several risk domains are differentially prevalent and more frequently experienced by some groups. Much of this disparity is caused by, or due to, forces external to those being assessed, for instance, inequitable social and economic conditions and inequitable decisions by justice personnel to arrest, charge, or sentence people of color. As such, risk assessment instruments inevitably and disproportionately mark some groups of people as a higher risk to violate rules, conditions, orders, or laws. Consequently, risk assessment instruments systematically disfavor disadvantage, and by inference, favor advantage, leading to the need for a radical shift in the taxonomy of classifying risk for future misconduct.Tim GoddardMDPI AGarticleyouth justicecriminal justicerisk assessment instrumentscriminal historyracial disparitiesEnvironmental effects of industries and plantsTD194-195Renewable energy sourcesTJ807-830Environmental sciencesGE1-350ENSustainability, Vol 13, Iss 11624, p 11624 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	youth justice criminal justice risk assessment instruments criminal history racial disparities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350
spellingShingle	youth justice criminal justice risk assessment instruments criminal history racial disparities Environmental effects of industries and plants TD194-195 Renewable energy sources TJ807-830 Environmental sciences GE1-350 Tim Goddard The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
description	Risk assessments in carceral settings have proliferated in recent decades and are now prominent in numerous states and regions. A ubiquitous variety is actuarial risk assessment instruments that are used on children and adults to predict their future chance for misconduct (e.g., recidivism) in several vital decision points in carceral processing (e.g., pretrial confinement). These instruments rely on information about past behavior (e.g., criminal history) and an understanding of offending (e.g., antisocial personality) that is thought to be neutral, reliable, and enjoys predictive validity. However, it will be argued that when justice system personnel assess the chance of unwanted behavior in the future, several risk domains are differentially prevalent and more frequently experienced by some groups. Much of this disparity is caused by, or due to, forces external to those being assessed, for instance, inequitable social and economic conditions and inequitable decisions by justice personnel to arrest, charge, or sentence people of color. As such, risk assessment instruments inevitably and disproportionately mark some groups of people as a higher risk to violate rules, conditions, orders, or laws. Consequently, risk assessment instruments systematically disfavor disadvantage, and by inference, favor advantage, leading to the need for a radical shift in the taxonomy of classifying risk for future misconduct.
format	article
author	Tim Goddard
author_facet	Tim Goddard
author_sort	Tim Goddard
title	The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
title_short	The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
title_full	The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
title_fullStr	The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
title_full_unstemmed	The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending
title_sort	trouble with using risk assessment instruments to quantify the chance of future offending
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/34fcae9458f84ab0be11ebeaef4688af
work_keys_str_mv	AT timgoddard thetroublewithusingriskassessmentinstrumentstoquantifythechanceoffutureoffending AT timgoddard troublewithusingriskassessmentinstrumentstoquantifythechanceoffutureoffending
_version_	1718431519982223360

The Trouble with Using Risk Assessment Instruments to Quantify the Chance of Future Offending

Ejemplares similares