The current study investigates the effects of structured risk-based pre-sentence reports on sentencing outcomes in the Netherlands by means of a quasi-natural experiment. Defendants with such a report are compared with similar defendants without such a report, based on propensity score matching and synchronization on nine additional criteria relevant to penal decision-making (N = 6118). Although structured risk-based pre-sentence reports are a textbook example of ‘new penological’ accounts, high-risk defendants with such a report are not sentenced to more ‘controlling’ and less ‘diverting’ sentencing outcomes than are high-risk defendants without such a report. Instead, these reports overall relate to less ‘controlling’ and more ‘diverting’ sentencing outcomes, indicating that the penal welfarism account is still prevalent in penal decision-making in the Netherlands.
AndrewsDABontaJ (1995) LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
2.
BaronJ (2008) Thinking and Deciding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
De KeijserJW (2001) Punishment and Purpose: From Moral Theory to Punishment in Action. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
4.
DeaneH (2000) The influence of pre-sentence reports on sentencing in a district court in New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology33(1): 91–106.
5.
DownesDVan SwaaningenR (2007) The road to dystopia? Changes in the penal climate of the Netherlands. In: TonryMBijleveldC (eds) Crime and Justice in the Netherlands. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 31–71.
DuffJC (2009) Judicial Business of the United States Courts. 2009 Annual Report of the Director. Washington, DC: Statistics Division Office of Judges Administrative Office.
8.
FeeleyMMSimonJ (1992) The new penology – Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology30(4): 449–474.
9.
FeeleyMMSimonJ (1994), Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In: NelkenD (ed.) The Futures of Criminology. London: Sage, 173–201.
10.
FieldSNelkenD (2010) Reading and writing youth justice in Italy and (England and) Wales. Punishment & Society12(3): 287–308.
11.
GarlandD (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
GelsthorpeLRaynorP (1995) Quality and effectiveness in probation officers’ reports to sentencers. British Journal of Criminology35(2): 188–200.
13.
GibbsA (1999) The assessment, case management and evaluation system. Probation Journal46(3): 182–186.
14.
GuthrieCRachlinskiJJWistrichAJ (2001) Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review86(4): 777–830.
15.
HallidaySBurnsNHuttonNMcNeillFTataC (2009) Street-level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process. Law & Policy31(4): 405–428.
16.
Handleiding RISc (2004) Handleiding RISc. Gebruikersversie 1.0. Ontwikkeld in samenwerking tussen Adviesbureau Van Montfoort en Reclassering Nederland.
17.
Hannah-MoffatK (2005) Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject – Hybridizations of risk/need in penality. Punishment & Society – International Journal of Penology7(1): 29–51.
18.
Hannah-MoffatK (2013) Actuarial sentencing: An ‘unsettled’ proposition. Justice Quarterly30(2): 270–296.
19.
HowardPClarkDGarnhamN (2003) An Evaluation and Validation of the Offender Assessment System (OASys). OASys Central Research Unit, Report to HM Prison Service and National Probation Service.
20.
IsaacsDM (2011) Baseline framing in sentencing. Yale Law Journal121(426): 426–458.
21.
JohnsonBDKurlychekMC (2012) Transferred juveniles in the era of sentencing guidelines: Examining judicial departures for juvenile offenders in adult criminal court. Criminology50(2): 525–564.
22.
JonesASD’AgostinoRBGondolfEWHeckertA (2004) Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault using propensity scores. Journal of Interpersonal Violence19(9): 1002–1020.
23.
KurlychekMCJohnsonBD (2010) Juvenility and punishment: Sentencing juveniles in adult criminal court. Criminology48(3): 725–758.
MartinsonR (1974) What works – Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest35: 22–54.
26.
MathiesenT (1998) Selective incapacitation revisited. Law and Human Behavior22(4): 455–469.
27.
MoeringsM (2003) Straffen met het oog op veiligheid, een onderneming vol risico’s. Leiden: Universiteit Leiden.
28.
PerssonASvenssonK (2012) Shades of professionalism: Risk assessment in pre-sentence reports in Sweden. European Journal of Criminology9(2): 176–190.
29.
Reclassering Nederland (2012) Midden in de samenleving. Jaarverslag 2011. Utrecht.
30.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB (1985) Constructing a control-group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician39(1): 33–38.
31.
ScottD (2008) Penology. London: Sage.
32.
TataCBurnsNHallidaySHuttonNMcNeillF (2008) Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process: The pursuit of ‘quality’ in pre-sentence reports. British Journal of Criminology48(6): 835–855.
33.
Ten VeldenFDe DreuC (2012) Sociaalpsychologische determinanten van strafrechtelijke besluitvorming. Research memoranda. The Hague: Raad voor de rechtspraak.
34.
Van der KnaapLMLeenartsLEWNijssenLTJ (2007) Psychometrische kwaliteiten van de Recidive Inschattingsschalen (RISc). Interbeoordelaarsbetrouwbaarheid, interne consistentie en congruente validiteit. The Hague: WODC.
35.
Van der KnaapLMLeenartsLEWBornMPOosterveldP (2012) Reevaluating interrater reliability in offender risk assessment. Crime & Delinquency58(1): 147–163.
36.
Van der WoudeMAH (2007) De hedendaagse beheersingscultuur als zondeboksamenleving. PROCES86(4): 159–167.
37.
Van SwaaningenR (1996) Justitie als verzekeringsmaatschappij. Justitiële verkenningen22(5): 82–97.
38.
Van WingerdenSGCMoeringsMVan WilsemJA (2011) Risicotaxatie en straftoemeting. Research memoranda. The Hague: Raad voor de rechtspraak.
39.
WandallRH (2010) Resisting risk assessment? Pre-sentence reports and individualized sentencing in Denmark. Punishment & Society – International Journal of Penology12(3): 329–347.
40.
WerminkHTBloklandANieuwbeertaPNaginDTollenaarN (2010) Comparing the effects of community service and short-term imprisonment on recidivism: A matched samples approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology6(3): 325–349.
