Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 731-750

  Krauss, Daniel A ^a  

^a CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RECURRENCE RISK; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; CRIME; CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROBABILITY; RECORDS; RECURRENCE; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 11144219790     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.609     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Barefoot v. Estelle 463, U.S. 880 (S.Ct. 1983).
2. Blumstein, A. (1986). Criminal careers and "career criminals". Vols I & II. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. Carter, G., & Polger, P. (1986). A 20-year summary of the National Weather Service verification results for temperature and precipitation. (Technical Memorandum NWS FCST 31). Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
4. Dawes, R., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.
5. Gardner, W., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 602-609.
6. Goldberg, L. (1968). Simple models or simple process? Some research on clinical judgement. American Psychologist, 23, 483-496.
7. Gottfredson, D. (1999). Choosing punishments: Crime control effects of sentences. Report to National Institute of Justice.
8. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency if informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
9. Grove, W., Zald, D., Lebow, B., Snitz, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Practice, 12, 19-30.
10. Hanley, J., & McNeil, B. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29-36.
11. Hanley, J., & McNeil, B. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves derived from same cases. Radiology, 14, 839-843.
12. Hanson, R. (1998). What do we know about sex offenders in risk assessment? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 50-72.
13. Harer, M. (1994). Recidivism among federal prisoners released in 1987: A preliminary report. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Unpublished report.
14. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 377-394.
15. Hart, S. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk of violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 338-341.
16. Hofer, P., & Allenbaugh, J. (2003). The reason behind the rules: Finding and using the philosophy of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. American Criminal Law Review, 40, 20-85.
17. Hoffman, P. (1994). Twenty years of operational use of a prediction instrument: The United States Parole Commission's salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
18. Hoffman, P., & Beck, J. (1997). The origins of the federal criminal history score. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 9, 192-197.
19. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 2002).
21. Kansas v. Hendricks 521 S.Ct. 2072 (1997).
22. Kempf, K., & Austin, R. (1986). Older and more recent evidence on racial discrimination in sentencing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 29-45.
23. Kraemer, H. C. (1992). Evaluating medical tests. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Krauss, D. (in press). Evaluating science outside the trial box: Applying Daubert to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines' Criminal History Score. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.
25. Krauss, D., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 113-137.
26. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 267-310.
27. Litwack, T. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409-433.
28. Meehl, P. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
29. Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorders and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
31. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
32. Rappaport, A. (2003). Rationalizing the Commission: The philosophical premises of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Emory Law Review, 52, 557-643.
33. Rice, M., & Harris, G. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and. Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
34. Roberts, J. (1994). The role of criminal record in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Criminal Justice Ethics, 4, 21-30.
35. Schmidt, A., & Garner, J. (1990). Recidivism of incarcerated federal offenders, 1978-1993. Preliminary Report. United States Sentencing Commission.
36. Sjosted, G., & Grann, M. (2002). Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial instruments? International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 179-193.
37. Swets, J., Dawes, R., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1, 1-26.
38. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (1987a). Federal Sentencing Guidelines manual. Washington, DC: Westlaw.
39. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (1987b). Supplementary report on the initial sentencing guidelines and policy statements. Washington, DC: Westlaw.
40. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (1992). 1992 sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC: Westlaw.
41. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (1995). Internal report on the Criminal History categories. Washington, DC: Westlaw.
42. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (2002). Sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics. Washington, DC: Westlaw.
43. United States Sentencing Commission (USSC). (2004). Measuring recidivism: The criminal history computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. A component of the fifteen year report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission's legislative mandate.