Utilization of offender case information by “lenient” vs. “punitive” clinicians

Abstract

Presentence evaluations conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists (clinicians) and correctional counselors (caseworkers) were subjected to multiple regression analyses in order to specify the relative contribution of inmate characteristics (offense severity and recidivism probability) and decision-maker response biases to sentencing recommendations. Although both groups of decision-makers showed a response bias effect for cases that were difficult to discriminate, the effect was generally larger for clinicians than for caseworkers. Response bias (lenient vs. punitive) was not associated with type of clinical judgment model (linear vs. configural) or predictability of recommendation, although it was associated with the degree of relative weighting of the two independent variables and, in the case of extremely punitive decision-makers, with the tendency to utilize only one evaluative dimension (offense severity) to the exclusion of the other. Furthermore, it was found that inmates who committed the most serious offenses were exposed selectively to those decision-makers most likely both to place exclusive emphasis on offense severity and to recommend relatively punitive case dispositions. The need for an accountability system designed to minimize the effects of the response biases of correctional decision-makers was discussed.

Correctional Classification and the Prediction of Institutional Adjustment

“…Unfortunately, however, prison personnel. in addition to being poor predictors of behavior, are sometimes excessively punitive and indifferent to the welfare of others (Holland, Heim & Holt, 1976;Holland & Holt, 1978). This latter trend is seen, for example, in the questionable practice of assigning inmates to favorable or unfavorable custodial environments primarily on the basis of factors that are related to the convenience of prison staff members (e.g., the need for skilled inmate workers), thereby compromising the safety and welfare of offenders who present a minimal security risk.…”

Offender Ethnicity and Presentence Decision-Making

“…Offense data were quantified by the first author using a scale, described in detail by Holland and Holt (1978), designed to reflect both the volume and seriousness of current illegal behavior. In using this device, the severity level of the primary offense is located on a scale of 1-7 (1 = least serious, 7 = most serious).…”

Development and Validation of a Parole Quality Assurance Inventory (PQAI)

“…More specifically, decisionmakers who favour parole weigh rehabilitative criteria (e.g., participating/benefiting from correctional programming, proposed release plan) more heavily than those opposing parole, with the latter putting more weight on punishment-oriented concerns (e.g., the offender's attitude in regards to their criminal and prison behaviour). These types of attitudes have been seen across the criminal justice system by caseworkers (Holland & Holt, 1978), and case-management officers (Samra-Grewal, Pfeifer, & Ogloff, 1997) potentially influencing decisions throughout the criminal justice system. Hence, in the absence of structured guidelines, decision-makers will weight factors differently (Gottfredson & Ballard, 1966;Gobeil & Serin, 2009;Hoffman, 1972;Sacks, 1974;Scott, 1974;Rogers & Hayner, 1968), leading to inconsistency in decision-making.…”