Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled Proposition

ISSN： 0741-8825

Source： Justice Quarterly, Vol.30, Iss.2, 2013-04, pp. : 270-296

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

This paper discusses the concerns associated with the introduction of, and increased reliance on, actuarial risk tools in sentencing in order to: (1) stimulate cross-disciplinary dialog and research about the impact of incorporating actuarial risk logic into sentencing processes and (2) identify questions requiring further empirical examination. In this article, I recognize that actuarial risk logic offers managerial and organizational benefits, but I also demonstrate that the application of actuarial risk when sentencing offenders is not without important consequences. First, I provide a brief outline of the emergence, logic, and entrenchment of probabilistic reasoning within criminal justice decision-making, and the more recent extension and application of actuarial risk logic to sentencing. Then, I use the following themes to define the limits of using risk sciences in sentencing: (1) the logical structure of risk; (2) the slippage between risk prediction and individual causation; (3) current methodological limits of risk science; (4) the potential for gender and race discrimination; (5) the legal relevance and transparency of risk-based sentencing; and (6) the jurisprudential and organizational impact of various risk technologies. Importantly, the nature and severity of these complications will vary by, and within, the jurisdiction (or sentencing regime) because current sentencing practices are influenced by local jurisdictional needs and sentencing laws.