Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination

This paper critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on actuarial recidivism risk prediction instruments that include demographic and socioeconomic variables. I argue that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause and is bad policy: an explici...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Starr, Sonja B. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2013
En:Año: 2013
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866596403
003 DE-627
005 20250121054908.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231020s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866596403 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866596403 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Starr, Sonja B.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination 
264 1 |c 2013 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This paper critiques, on legal and empirical grounds, the growing trend of basing criminal sentences on actuarial recidivism risk prediction instruments that include demographic and socioeconomic variables. I argue that this practice violates the Equal Protection Clause and is bad policy: an explicit embrace of otherwise-condemned discrimination, sanitized by scientific language. To demonstrate that this practice should be subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny, I comprehensively review the relevant case law, much of which has been ignored by existing literature. To demonstrate that it cannot survive that scrutiny and is undesirable policy, I review the empirical evidence underlying the instruments. I show that they provide wildly imprecise individual risk predictions, that there is no compelling evidence that they outperform judges’ informal predictions, that less discriminatory alternatives would likely perform as well, and that the instruments do not even address the right question: the effect of a given sentencing decision on recidivism risk. Finally, I also present new, suggestive empirical evidence, based on a randomized experiment using fictional cases, that these instruments should not be expected merely to substitute actuarial predictions for less scientific risk assessments, but instead to increase the weight given to recidivism risk versus other sentencing considerations 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232683704.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4394232996 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866596403 
LOK |0 005 20231020043648 
LOK |0 008 231020||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE71224185 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw