Judicial appraisals of risk assessment in sentencing. (10th October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Monahan, John; Metz, Anne L.; Garrett, Brandon L.
• Other Names: Slobogin Christopher guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Behavioral sciences & the law. Volume 36:Number 5(2018)
• Page Start: 565
• Page End: 575
• Publication Date: 2018-10-10
• Subjects: Mental health laws -- United States -- Periodicals; Psychology, Forensic -- Periodicals; 347.3044405
• DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2380
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0735-3936

Abstract

Abstract : The assessment of an offender's risk of recidivism is emerging as a key consideration in sentencing policy in many US jurisdictions. However, little information is available on how actual sentencing judges view this development. This study surveys the views of a population sample of judges in Virginia, the state that has gone further than any other in legislatively mandating risk assessment for certain drug and property offenders. Results indicate that a strong majority of judges endorse the principle that sentencing eligible offenders should include a consideration of recidivism risk. However, a strong majority also report the availability of alternatives to imprisonment in their jurisdictions to be inadequate at best. Finally, most judges oppose the adoption of a policy requiring them to provide a written reason for declining to impose alternative interventions on "low‐risk" offenders.