CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 73Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingCriminal Justice and Penology

Impact of risk assessment on judges’ fairness in sentencing relatively poor defendants

Open access
Skeem, Jennifer, Scurich, Nicholas, Monahan, John·2020·Law and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1037/lhb0000360
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Use of risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system is controversial. Advocates emphasize that risk assessments are more transparent, consistent, and accurate in predicting re-offending than judicial intuition. Skeptics worry that risk assessments will increase socioeconomic disparities in incarceration. Ultimately, judges make decisions-not risk assessments. This study tests whether providing risk assessment information interacts with a defendant's socioeconomic class to influence judges' sentencing decisions. HYPOTHESES: Tentatively, socioeconomic status was expected to have a main effect; without an interaction with risk assessment information. METHOD: Judges (N = 340) with sentencing experience were randomly assigned to review 1 of 4 case vignettes and sentence the defendant to probation, jail, or prison. Information in the vignettes was held constant, except the defendant's socioeconomic status and whether risk assessment information was provided. RESULTS: Risk assessment information reduced the likelihood of incarceration for relatively affluent defendants, but the same information increased the likelihood of incarceration for relatively poor defendants. This finding held after controlling for the sex, race, political orientation, and jurisdiction of the judge. CONCLUSIONS: Cuing judges to focus on risk may re-frame how they process socioeconomic status-a variable with opposite effects on perceptions of blameworthiness for past crime versus perceptions of risk for future crime. Providing risk assessment information may have transformed low socioeconomic status from a circumstance that reduced the likelihood of incarceration (by mitigating perceived blameworthiness) to a factor that increased the likelihood of incarceration (by increasing perceived risk). Under some circumstances, risk assessment information may increase sentencing disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/lhb0000360

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even when people do not rely entirely on automation, an algorithm can still significantly alter how people make decisions.

    “even when people do not rely entirely on automation, an algorithm can still significantly alter how people make decisions”

    From The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Skeem et al., 2019

  • Experimental studies suggest that risk assessments increase the weight that judges, law students, and laypeople place on risk relative to other considerations when making simulated pretrial and sentencing decisions.

    “Experimental studies suggest that risk assessments increase the weight that judges, law students, and laypeople place on risk relative to other considerations when making simulated pretrial and sentencing decisions”

    From The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Skeem et al., 2019

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Skeem, J., Scurich, N., & Monahan, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Law and Human Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-02
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
51-59
ISSN
  • 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-661X
DOI
10.1037/lhb0000360
OpenAlex
W2910148890
Cited by
70
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
15.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of California, Berkeley
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
risk assessment tools, sentencing, socioeconomic status, sentencing disparities, incarceration, risk perception, culpability, recidivism prediction, case vignettes
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Criminal Law, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Social Class, United States, Risk Assessment, Judicial Role

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review