Author： Skeem Jennifer
Publisher： Routledge Ltd
ISSN： 0741-8825
Source： Justice Quarterly, Vol.30, Iss.2, 2013-04, pp. : 297-303
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
The target article is a critique of the movement toward using structured risk assessment tools to inform decisions about sentencing. In this commentary, I analyze (a) the conditions under which it may be more or less fair to use well-validated risk assessment tools in this manner and (b) the extent to which doing so is likely to exacerbate, ameliorate, or have no effect on existing racial and other biases in sentencing. I recommend a policy-relevant research agenda that would specifically test whether and how adding well-validated risk assessment tools to the routine sentencing process alter the severity or nature of sentences. This agenda would also evaluate the extent to which these tools are implemented in “real world settings faithfully enough to bridge the usual divide between science and practice.
Related content
Access to resources
Recommend
The origins of criminal sentencing reforms *
By Link Christopher Shover Neal
Justice Quarterly, Vol. 3, Iss. 3, 1986-09 ,pp. :
Status, power, and sentencing in China *
By Liu Jainhong Zhou Dengke Liska Allen Messner Steven Krohn Marvin Zhang Lening Lu Zhou
Justice Quarterly, Vol. 15, Iss. 2, 1998-06 ,pp. :
Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled Proposition
Justice Quarterly, Vol. 30, Iss. 2, 2013-04 ,pp. :
Determinate sentencing in Colorado *
Justice Quarterly, Vol. 2, Iss. 2, 1985-06 ,pp. :