RT Article
T1 Progressing policy toward a risk/need informed sanctioning model
JF Criminology & public policy
VO 20
IS 1
SP 41
OP 69
A1 D'Amato, Christopher
A2 Latessa, Edward J. -2022
A2 Newsome, Jamie
A2 Silver, Ian A.
LA English
YR 2021
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1753535379
AB 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.
K1 Criminal Justice Policy
K1 evidence informed sanctioning
K1 Risk/need assessment
K1 Sentencing
DO 10.1111/1745-9133.12526