Progressing policy toward a risk/need informed sanctioning model
Research This study examined whether risk/need assessment results coincided with the placement of defendants into six types of sanctions among convicted adults from 11 counties in one state. Crosstabulations highlighted that individuals’ risk/need levels corresponded to the placement of low-risk/nee...
| Authors: | ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2021
|
| In: |
Criminology & public policy
Year: 2021, Volume: 20, Issue: 1, Pages: 41-69 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | Research This study examined whether risk/need assessment results coincided with the placement of defendants into six types of sanctions among convicted adults from 11 counties in one state. Crosstabulations highlighted that individuals’ risk/need levels corresponded to the placement of low-risk/need individuals to probation and high-risk/need individuals to prison; however, intermediate sanctions were rarely used for any risk/need level and some low- and moderate-risk/need individuals were sentenced to prison when convicted of offenses that do not typically result in incarceration. Policy Implications The results suggest that courts should adopt an evidence-informed sanctioning model by using risk/need assessments to inform sentencing decisions. Further, states should utilize intermediate sanctions more often to divert individuals convicted of less serious offenses from prison. Finally, judges should avoid sentencing low-risk/need individuals to prison whenever possible. These changes could help courts to better match individuals’ risk/need level to sanctions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-9133 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1745-9133.12526 |