Pre-sentence reports and punishment: A quasi-experiment assessing the effects of risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing

Abstract

The current study investigates the effects of structured risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing outcomes in the Netherlands by means of a quasi-natural experiment. Defendants with such a report are compared with similar defendants without such a report, based on propensity score matching and synchronization on nine additional criteria relevant to penal decision-making (N = 6118). Although structured risk-based pre-sentence reports are a textbook example of 'new penological' accounts, high-risk defendants with such a report are not sentenced to more 'controlling' and less 'diverting' sentencing outcomes than are high-risk defendants without such a report. Instead, these reports overall relate to less 'controlling' and more 'diverting' sentencing outcomes, indicating that the penal welfarism account is still prevalent in penal decision-making in the Netherlands.

Risk, Race, and Recidivism: Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact*

“…Although practices vary, common denominators include 1) judges’ intuitive consideration of offenders’ likelihood of recidivism, which is less transparent, consistent, and accurate than evidence‐based risk assessment (see Rhodes et al., ), and 2) sentencing guidelines that heavily weight criminal history and have been shown to contribute to racial disparities (Frase, ). There is at least one demonstration that risk assessment does not lead to more punitive sentences for high‐risk offenders (albeit in the Netherlands; see van Wingerden, van Wilsem, and Moerings, ). There is no empirical basis for assuming that the status quo—across contexts—is preferable to judicious application of a well‐validated and unbiased risk assessment instrument.…”

What are judges’ views of risk assessments, and how do tools affect adolescent dispositions?

“…As noted above, there are concerns that tools lead to harsher dispositions by exacerbating stigma towards high-risk defendants. van Wingerden et al (2014) proposed that risk levels stated in pre-sentence reports might create a framing effect (Isaacs, 2011) causing judges to overweight information consistent JUDGES' VIEWS OF RISK ASSESSMENTS AND THE EFFECT OF TOOLS 9 with the risk level. However, contrary to their expectations, both low-and high-risk defendants with a risk assessment report received less restrictive sentences than those without a report.…”

Racial Bias and LSI-R Assessments in Probation Sentencing and Outcomes

“…Our findings showed that LSI-R risk assessment scores and risk classifications negatively predicted sentence length. Although counterintuitive, this finding has been reported in similar investigations of risk assessments used in sentencing decisions as a byproduct of high-risk defendants being more likely to commit minor crimes and have shorter sentences relative to low-risk defendants (van Wingerden, van Wilsem, & Moerings, 2014). Our findings suggested this trend was driven primarily by White probationers at low-risk levels, who received sentences that were on average 2 months longer relative to those received by Black probationers classified at Low risk levels.…”

“…Like the present investigation, most studies of race and risk assessment have been retrospective in nature, reflecting the challenge of implementing new risk assessment protocols when many states are already required by state law to use a risk assessment to inform correctional decision-making. In fact, we are only aware of one recent investigation that employed a quasi-experimental design with a propensity score-matched comparison group to examine the effect of presentencing risk assessments on sentencing outcomes (van Wingerden et al, 2014). In this study, defendants who received a presentencing assessment were matched to defendants whose cases were adjudicated during the same period without a presentencing assessment.…”