Bail reform is sweeping the nation and many jurisdictions are looking to pretrial risk assessment as one potential strategy to support these efforts. This article summarizes the findings of a systematic review of research examining the predictive validity of pretrial risk assessments. We reviewed 11 studies (13 publications) examining the predictive validity of six pretrial risk assessment instruments reported in the gray and peer-reviewed literature as of December, 2018. Findings typically show good to excellent predictive validity. Differences in predictive validity for men and women were mixed and small. When it could be examined, predictive validity was generally comparable across racial/ethnic subgroups; however, three comparisons revealed notably lower, albeit still fair to good, predictive validity for defendants of color than White defendants. Findings suggest that pretrial risk assessments predict pretrial outcomes with acceptable accuracy, but also emphasize the need for continued investigation of predictive validity across gender and racial/ethnic subgroups.
Risk assessment instrument (RAI) datasets, particularly ProPublica's COMPAS dataset, are commonly used in algorithmic fairness papers due to benchmarking practices of comparing algorithms on datasets used in prior work. In many cases, this data is used as a benchmark to demonstrate good performance without accounting for the complexities of criminal justice (CJ) processes. We show that pretrial RAI datasets contain numerous measurement biases and errors inherent to CJ pretrial evidence and due to disparities in discretion and deployment, are limited in making claims about real-world outcomes, making the datasets a poor fit for benchmarking under assumptions of ground truth and real-world impact. Conventional practices of simply replicating previous data experiments may implicitly inherit or edify normative positions without explicitly interrogating assumptions. With context of how interdisciplinary fields have engaged in CJ research, algorithmic fairness practices are misaligned for meaningful contribution in the context of CJ, and would benefit from transparent engagement with normative considerations and values related to fairness, justice, and equality. These factors prompt questions about whether benchmarks for intrinsically socio-technical systems like the CJ system can exist in a beneficial and ethical way.
There has been relatively limited empirical investigation of the characteristics and activities of women involved in jihadism-inspired terrorism. To address this knowledge gap, we describe demographic characteristics, criminal history, organizational involvement, plot involvement, and foreign fighting of 405 women involved in jihadisminspired terrorism. We also perform comparative analyses with a subgroup of women (n ϭ 272) matched to a sample of male terrorists (n ϭ 266). Women involved in jihadism-inspired terrorism were diverse in their ethnicities and countries of citizenship; the majority were legal, native residents of their countries. Most had completed at least high school; about half had no recent employment. Women rarely had criminal histories. Most women were linked to at least one terrorist organization, but were not often involved in plots. About half of the women attempted to engage in foreign fighting. Compared to men, women were more often born in 1990 or later, more likely to have no recent profession, and had significantly fewer crimes prior to radicalization. We found no differences on education or criminal activity after radicalization. Compared to men, women were more often associated with at least one organization and less likely to be involved in plots. Women were more likely to attempt foreign fighting at least once and were more often successful on their first attempt. We did not find differences on age of radicalization or age of first foreign fighting attempt. Implications for research, policy, and practice include the need for gender-informed theories of radicalization, threat assessment, and other counterterrorism strategies. Public Significance StatementThe present study reveals differences in the backgrounds of women and men involved in jihadism-inspired terrorism, suggesting different pathways into terrorism. We further find differences in women's and men's terrorism-related outcomes, demonstrating that some types of terrorist activity are likely to vary by gender.
Behavioral approaches to epidemiological and criminal justice stalking victimization are recommended. Victimization under reporting to healthcare and legal professionals were observed. Further research and prevention programming is needed to capitalize on data concerning personality and coping skills, sexual diversity, and trauma-related psychiatric symptoms.
Objectives: There has been much discussion around the use of both money bail and pretrial risk assessment instruments. We examine how bail and risk scores compare in terms of their associations with failure to appear in court and rearrest during the pretrial period. Hypotheses: Our research questions included whether bail and risk scores differed between people who did and did not experience pretrial outcomes and whether pretrial scores were associated with outcomes when controlling for bail and other relevant covariates. Method: To examine these associations, we drew a sample of 492 people (33% women; 60% Black) booked into county jail in a jurisdiction not yet using a pretrial risk assessment instrument to inform release decisions. We completed the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) for this sample and collected data on failure-to-appear and rearrest incidents for 1 year following initial bookings. We examined the associations between bail amount, failure to appear, and rearrest and between PSA subscale scores, failure to appear, and rearrest. Results: Bail amount was not associated with either failure to appear or rearrest. People who failed to appear or were rearrested had higher bail amounts, on average, than people who did not. In contrast, PSA subscale scores were significantly associated with outcomes in the expected direction. Conclusions: Our findings do not support the use of money bail for ensuring that people return to court and avoid rearrest. Instead, our findings suggest that using pretrial risk assessment, instruments could result in more accurate and appropriate release decisions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.