Socioeconomic marginality in sentencing: The built-in bias in risk assessment tools and the reproduction of social inequality

Abstract

This article develops a sociological analysis and critique of including socioeconomic factors such as education, employment, income and housing in risk assessment tools that inform sentencing decisions. In widely used risk assessment tools such as the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) (Canada, US), the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) (US), the Offender Assessment System (OASys) (UK) and the Recidive InschattingsSchalen (RISc) (the Netherlands), socioeconomic marginality contributes to a higher risk score, which increases the likelihood of a (longer) custodial sentence for underprivileged offenders compared to their more privileged counterparts. While this has been problematized in relation to gender and racial/ethnic bias, the problem of socioeconomic bias in itself has received little attention. Given the already marginalized position of many justice involved individuals and longstanding concerns about such disparities, and the adverse effects of imprisonment on socioeconomic opportunities, it is essential to evaluate the unintended social consequences of assessing socioeconomic marginality as ‘risk factor’. Elaborating on earlier critiques, I conceptualize risk-based sentencing as a meaning-making process through which (access to) resources and recognition are distributed among offender populations. Through tracing in detail two cultural processes – stigmatization and rationalization – I analyse how risk assessment is likely to produce sentencing disparities as well as to reproduce, and possibly exacerbate, social inequalities more generally.

Keywords

disparity risk assessment sentencing social inequality socioeconomic marginality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

Bonta

(2010) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, London: Routledge.

Ansbro

(2010) The nuts and bolts of risk assessment: When the clinical and actuarial conflict. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 49(3): 252–268.

Apel

Sweeten

(2010) The impact of incarceration on employment during the transition to adulthood. Social Problems 57(3): 448–479.

Austin

Coleman

Peyton

et al. (2003) Reliability and Validity Study of the LSI-R Risk Assessment Instrument, Washington: Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections.

Baird

(2009) A Question of Evidence: A Critique of Risk Assessment Models used in the Justice System, Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Beck

(1992) Risk Society, London: Sage.

Brennan

Dieterich

Ehret

(2009) Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior 36(1): 21–40.

Carey

(2004) No second chance: People with criminal records denied access to public housing. University of Toledo Law Review 36: 545–594.

Caudy

Durso

Taxman

(2013) How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice 41(6): 458–466.

10.

Causa

Johansson

(2009) Intergenerational Social Mobility. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 707, Paris: OECD Publishing.

11.

Chenane

Brennan

Steiner

et al. (2015) Racial and ethnic differences in the predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised among prison inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42(3): 286–303.

12.

Corak

(2013) Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and intergenerational mobility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(3): 79–102.

13.

Dirkzwager AJ, van de Rakt M, Apel R, et al. (2014) Unintended effects of imprisonment. In: Bruinsma G and Weisburd D (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Springer, pp.5382–5392.

14.

Farrall

Bottoms

Shapland

(2010) Social structures and desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology 7(6): 546–570.

15.

Fitzgibbon

(2008) Fit for purpose? OASys assessments and parole decisions. Probation Journal 55(1): 55–69.

16.

Fraser N (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-socialist' age. New Left Review I/212 (July–August): 68–93.

17.

Gans

(1995) The War Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty Policy, New York, NY: Basic Books.

18.

Gendreau

Little

Goggin

(1996) Meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works!. Criminology 34(4): 575–607.

19.

Goddard T and Myers RR (2016) Against evidence-based oppression: Marginalized youth and the politics of risk-based assessment and intervention. Theoretical Criminology. Epub ahead of print 2016. DOI: 1362480616645172.

20.

Hamilton M (2015) Risk-needs assessment: Constitutional and ethical challenges. American Criminal Law Review 52(2): 231–291.

21.

Hannah-Moffat

(2005) Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject hybridizations of risk/need in penality. Punishment & Society 7(1): 29–51.

22.

Hannah-Moffat

(2009) Gridlock or mutability: Reconsidering “gender” and risk assessment. Criminology & Public Policy 8(1): 209–219.

23.

Hannah-Moffat K (2013) Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition. Justice Quarterly 30(2): 270–296.

24.

Hannah-Moffat

(2016) A conceptual kaleidoscope: contemplating ‘dynamic structural risk’ and an uncoupling of risk from need. Psychology, Crime & Law 22(1–2): 33–46.

25.

Hannah-Moffat

Maurutto

(2010) Re-contextualizing pre-sentence reports. Risk and race. Punishment & Society 12(3): 262–286.

26.

Hannah-Moffat

Maurutto

Turnbull

(2009) Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 24(3): 391–409.

27.

Harcourt

(2007) Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Holder E (2014) Attorney General Eric Holder speaks at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 57th annual meeting and 13th state criminal justice network conference, Philadelphia, 1 August 2014. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaks-national-association-criminal-defense-lawyers-57th (accessed 27 April 2016).

29.

Holtfreter

Cupp

(2007) Gender and risk assessment the empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23(4): 363–382.

30.

Howard

Dixon

(2013) Identifying change in the likelihood of violent recidivism: Causal dynamic risk factors in the OASys violence predictor. Law and Human Behavior 37(3): 163–174.

31.

Johnson

Lowenkamp

VanBenschoten

et al. (2011) Construction and validation of the federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA). Federal Probation 75(2): 16–29.

32.

Kleiman

Ostrom

Cheesman

(2007) Using risk assessment to inform sentencing decisions for nonviolent offenders in Virginia. Crime & Delinquency 53(1): 106–132.

33.

Kopf

(2015) Federal supervised release and actuarial data (including age, race, and gender). Federal Sentencing Reporter 27(4): 207–215.

34.

Kutateladze

Andiloro

Johnson

et al. (2014) Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology 52(3): 514–551.

35.

Lamont

(2000) The Dignity of Working Men, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

36.

Lamont

Beljean

Clair

(2014) What is missing? Cultural processes and causal pathways to inequality. Socio-Economic Review 12(3): 573–608.

37.

Loeffler

(2013) Does imprisonment alter the life course? Evidence on crime and employment from a natural experiment. Criminology 51(1): 137–166.

38.

Maurutto P and Hannah-Moffat K (2006) Assembling risk and the restructuring of penal control. British Journal of Criminology 46(3): 438–454.

39.

Millie

Tombs

Hough

(2007) Borderline sentencing: A comparison of sentencers’ decision making in England and Wales, and Scotland. Criminology & Criminal Justice 7(3): 243–267.

40.

Monahan

(2006) A jurisprudence of risk assessment: Forecasting harm among prisoners, predators, and patients. Virginia Law Review 92(3): 391–435.

41.

Monahan J and Skeem JL (2015) Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, No. 53. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2662082 (accessed 27 April 2016).

42.

New York State (NYS) (2015) NYCOMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument. Practitioner Guidance for Probation and Community Corrections Agencies. New York State/Division of Criminal Justice Services. Available at: https://apps.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/pdfs/2015-5-NYCOMPAS-Guidance-August-4-2015.pdf (accessed 27 April 2016).

43.

Northpointe (2012) Practitioners Guide to COMPAS. Available at: http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/technical_documents/FieldGuide2_081412.pdf (accessed 27 April 2016).

44.

National Offender Management Service (NOMS) (2009) Public Protection Manual. Chapter 9. Risk of Harm. National Offender Management Service/HM Prison Service. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prison-probation-and-rehabilitation-public-protection-manual (accessed 27 April 2016).

45.

Oleson JC (2011) Risk in sentencing: Constitutionally suspect variables and evidence-based sentencing. Southern Methodist University Law Review 64(4): 1329–1402.

46.

Pager

(2008) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

47.

Petersilia

Turner

(1987) Guideline-based justice: Prediction and racial minorities. Crime and Justice 9: 151–182.

48.

Putnam

(2015) Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

49.

Ramakers

Apel

Nieuwbeerta

et al. (2014) Imprisonment length and post-prison employment prospects. Criminology 52(3): 399–427.

50.

Ramakers

van Wilsem

Nieuwbeerta

et al. (2015) Down before they go in: A study on pre-prison labour market attachment. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 21(1): 65–82.

51.

Raynor

Kynch

Roberts

et al. (2000) Risk and Need Assessment in Probation Services: An Evaluation, London: Home Office.

52.

Reiman

Leighton

(2016) The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice, London: Routledge.

53.

Robinson

(2003) Implementing OASys: Lessons from research into LSI-R and ACE. Probation Journal 50(1): 30–40.

54.

Savage

(2000) Class Analysis and Social Transformation, Buckingham: Open University Press.

55.

Schneider

Ingram

(1993) Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87(2): 334–347.

56.

Silver

(2000) Actuarial risk assessment: Reflections on an emerging social-scientific tool. Critical Criminology 9(1–2): 123–143.

57.

Skeem JL and Lowenkamp CT (2016) Risk, race, & recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2687339 (accessed 1 August 2016).

58.

Skeem JL, Monahan J and Lowenkamp CT (2016) Gender, risk assessment, and sanctioning: The cost of treating women like men. Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper, No. 10. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2718460 (accessed 1 August 2016).

59.

Smykla

(1986) Critique concerning prediction in probation and parole: Some alternative suggestions. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 30(2): 125–139.

60.

Starr

(2014) Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review 66(4): 803–872.

61.

Starr

(2015) The new profiling: Why punishing based on poverty and identity is unconstitutional and wrong. Federal Sentencing Reporter 27(4): 229–236.

62.

Tonry

(1987) Prediction and classification: Legal and ethical issues. Crime and Justice 9: 367–413.

63.

Tonry

(2014) Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Federal Sentencing Reporter 26(3): 167–176.

64.

van Eijk

(2013) Hostile to hierarchy? Individuality, equality and moral boundaries in Dutch class talk. Sociology 47(3): 526–541.

65.

van Wingerden

van Wilsem

Johnson

(2016) Offender’s personal circumstances and punishment: Toward a more refined model for the explanation of sentencing disparities. Justice Quarterly 33(1): 100–133.

66.

Wakefield

Uggen

(2010) Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 387–406.

67.

Ward

(2015) The slow violence of state organized race crime. Theoretical Criminology 19(3): 299–314.

68.

Western

(2006) Punishment and Inequality in America, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

69.

Western B and Pettit B (2010) Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus 139(3): 8–19.

70.

Whiteacre

(2006) Testing the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for racial/ethnic bias. Criminal Justice Policy Review 17(3): 330–342.

71.

Wolff

(2008) Brennan lecture evidence-based judicial discretion: Promoting public safety through state sentencing reform. New York University Law Review 83(5): 1389–1419.