Up or out: Why "sufficiently reliable" statistical risk assessment is appropriate at sentencing and inappropriate at parole

Minnesota Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1079-1113

  McGarraugh, Pari ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873934363     PISSN: 00265535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. SUSAN C. KINNEVY & JOEL M. CAPLAN, CTR. FOR RESEARCH ON YOUTH & SOC. POLICY, FINDINGS FROM THE APAI INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF RELEASING AUTHORITIES 9 (2008), available at http://paroleboard.arkansas.gov/Resources/ Documents/Publications/2008APAISurvey.pdf.
2. E.g., COLO. REV. STAT. § 17-22.5-404(4)(a)(II) (2012);
3. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 54-124a(m) (2009).
4. Cf. Vincent O'Leary & Daniel Glaser, The Assessment of Risk in Parole Decision Making, in THE FUTURE OF PAROLE: COMMENTARIES ON SYSTEMS IN BRITAIN AND U.S.A. 135, 136 (D.J. West ed., 1972) (finding that 79.4% of parole board members consider risk of recidivism if released to be a consideration which "significantly influenced their decision").
5. E.g., GA. CODE ANN. § 42-9-53 (2012).
6. John Monahan, A Jurisprudence of Risk Assessment: Forecasting Harm Among Prisoners, Predators, and Patients, 92 VA. L. REV. 391, 405 (2006).
7. Paul Gendreau et al., A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!, 34 CRIMINOLOGY 575, 590 (1996).
8. See, e.g., AM. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, SMART REFORM IS POSSIBLE: STATES REDUCING INCARCERATION RATES AND COSTS WHILE PROTECTING COMMUNITIES 9 (2011), available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/smartreformispossible.pdf (arguing that states should "[r]equire [e]vidence-[b]ased [c]riminal [j]ustice [p]ractices and [r]isk [a]ssessment [i]nstruments");
9. Priority Issues: Adult Probation, RIGHT ON CRIME, http://www. rightoncrime.com/priority-issues/adult-probation/ (last visited Nov. 27, 2012) ("Probation can be made particularly efficient through the use of risk assessments ....").
10. See Steven L. Chanenson, The Next Era of Sentencing Reform, 54 EMORY L.J. 377, 382-83 (2005).
11. Roger K. Warren, Evidence-Based Sentencing: Are We Up to the Task?, 23 FED. SENT'G REP. 153, 157 (2010) (reporting that in at least ten states, sentencing judges use risk assessment instruments).
12. E.g., HAW. REV. STAT. § 706-670(3)(b) (2011) (allowing inmates to be represented in parole hearings).
13. N.M. CODE R. § 22.510.2.8(A)(3) (2001) (prohibiting legal counsel from attending parole hearings);
14. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
15. Kevin R. Reitz, The "Traditional" Indeterminate Sentencing Model, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS 270, 289 n.1 (Joan Petersilia ed., 2012)
16. hereinafter Reitz, Indeterminate Sentencing Model.
17. LYNN S. BRANHAM, THE LAW AND POLICY OF SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS IN A NUTSHELL 93 (8th ed. 2010).
18. DEAN J. CHAMPION, PROBATION, PAROLE AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS 241 (2d ed. 1996);
19. See Kevin R. Reitz, Sentencing, in CRIME AND PUBLIC POLICY 467 (James Q. Wilson & Joan Petersilia eds., 2011) (noting the multiple decision-makers involved in sentencing).
20. THE TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND TASK FORCE ON CRIMINAL SENTENCING, FAIR AND CERTAIN PUNISHMENT 94 (1976) (quoting Charlton T. Lewis).
21. NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS & VA. CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMM'N, OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT IN VIRGINIA: A THREE-STAGE EVALUATION 11-12 (2002).
22. JAMES AUSTIN ET AL., INST. ON CRIME, JUSTICE, AND CORR. AT GEORGE WASH. UNIV., RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY STUDY OF THE LSIR RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT 5 (2003) ("Once an inmate becomes eligible for parole, the decision to release that inmate is guided by an assessment of the inmate's risk to public safety.");
23. citing MONT. CODE ANN. § 46-23-201 (1989).
24. E.g., KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 439.510 (LexisNexis 2010).
25. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
26. See, e.g., Michael A. Wolff, Evidence-Based Judicial Discretion: Promoting Public Safety Through State Sentencing Reform, 83 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1389, 1404 (2008) (noting that sentencing judges are consistently ignorant of parole procedures and practices).
27. E.g., S.D. CODIFIED LAWS §§ 24-15-1 to 30 (2012).
28. Compare Rhay, 389 U.S. at 137 (framing the right to counsel in constitutional terms)
29. Rhay, 389 U.S. at 135 (finding that legal representation is important because "certain legal rights may be lost if not exercised at this stage").
30. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, § 102, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996).
31. Cf. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011) (noting that parole release is "low-visibility, low-process" and unlikely to encourage meaningful review).
32. See Note, Merit Appointment Versus Popular Election: A Reformer's Guide to Judicial Selection Methods in Florida, 43 FLA. L. REV. 529, 530 (1991) (describing methods of selecting judges in the United States).
33. Cf. David L. Faigman, To Have and Have Not: Assessing the Value of Social Science to the Law as Science and Policy, 38 EMORY L.J. 1005, 1088 (1989) (noting that the judge's admissibility decision is followed by the trier-of-fact's determination of what weight the evidence deserves).
34. See, e.g., Shira J. Goodman et al., What's More Important: Electing Judges or Judicial Independence? It's Time for Pennsylvania to Choose Judicial Independence, 48 DUQ. L. REV. 859, 860 (2010).
35. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
36. quoting Arkansas Times Staff & Max Brantley, Web Special: Dumond Case Revisited, ARK. TIMES (Sept. 1, 2005), http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/web- special-dumond-case-revisited/Content?oid=862759.
37. E.g., MISS. CODE ANN. § 47-7-5(2) (2009) (requiring only that parole board members have "at least a bachelor's degree or a high school diploma and four (4) years' work experience").
38. see also CONN. GEN. STAT. § 54-125a(a) ("A person ... may be allowed to go at large on parole in the discretion of the panel of the Board of Parole ... if (1) it appears ... that there is a reasonable probability that such inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating the law ....");
39. See, e.g., STATE OF CONN., DEP'T OF CORR., CRIMINAL JUSTICE RISK ASSESSMENT STRATEGY 5 (2009), available at http://www.ct.gov/doc/lib/doc/PDF/ PDFReport/RiskAssessmentStrategy.pdf ("The following assessment instruments are utilized for the purposes of risk, program needs and interventions, classification, development of the Offender Accountability Plan, facility assignment and discharge planning.").
40. See D.A. Andrews et al., The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment, 52 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 7 passim (2006).
41. E.g., MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011) ("Needs and risk assessments are distinct tasks ....");
42. see also NANCY M. CAMPBELL, NAT'L INST. OF CORR., COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PAROLING AUTHORITIES IN AN ERA OF EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES 37 (2008) (describing the difference between the "needs principle" and the "risk principle").
43. See, e.g., D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES L. BONTA, MULTI-HEALTH SYS., INC., LSI-R: LEVEL OF SERVICE INVENTORY-REVISED (2008), available at http://www.assessments.com/assessments-documentation/LSI- R%20Technical%20Brochure.pdf.
44. STATIC-99 Tally Sheet, STATIC-99 CLEARINGHOUSE, http://www.static99.org/ pdfdocs/static-99-coding-rules-e71.pdf (last visited Nov. 27, 2012).
45. SHAMIR RATANSI & STEPHEN M. COX, STATE OF CONN., ASSESSMENT AND VALIDATION OF CONNECTICUT'S SALIENT FACTOR SCORE unpublished Appendix C (2007) (on file with author) [hereinafter Appendix C].
46. MICHAEL MARCUS, SENTENCING SUPPORT TOOLS: USER MANUAL FOR JUDGES 10 (2009).
47. Alexander M. Holsinger et al., Ethnicity, Gender, and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised, 31 J. CRIM. JUST. 309, 315, 318 (2003) (noting racial trends in seven of ten areas measured by the LSI-R).
48. THOMAS BLOMBERG ET AL., VALIDATION OF THE COMPAS RISK ASSESSMENT CLASSIFICATION INSTRUMENT 13 (2010), available at http://www.criminologycenter. fsu.edu/p/pdf/pretrial/Broward%20Co.%20COMPAS%20Validation%202010.pdf.
49. Tammy Meredith et al., Developing and Implementing Automated Risk Assessments in Parole, 9 JUST. RESEARCH & POL'Y 1, 2 (2007).
50. see SUSAN TURNER & TERRY FAIN, VALIDATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT'S RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS, at xi (2003), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/201303.pdf.
51. Anthony W. Flores et al., Predicting Outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The Importance of Implementation Integrity, 34 J. CRIM. JUST. 523, 528 (2006);
52. DORIS LAYTON MACKENZIE, WHAT WORKS IN CORRECTIONS: REDUCING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES OF OFFENDERS AND DELINQUENTS 63 (2006).
53. See Kirk Heilbrun et al., Violence Risk Assessment Tools: Overview and Critical Analysis, in HANDBOOK OF VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT 1, 5 (Randy K. Otto & Kevin S. Douglas eds., 2010) (noting that empirically derived risk assessment instruments produce reproducible scores based on the "predictor variables").
54. see also PETER RAYNOR ET AL., RISK AND NEED ASSESSMENT IN PROBATION SERVICES: AN EVALUATION 9 (2000), available at http://library.npia.police.uk/ docs/hors/hors211.pdf (describing the selection of items in the LSI-R as "intended to have a theoretical and professional rationale justifying the selection of these particular items as relevant to offending").
55. See, e.g., Risk to Re-offend Score Chart, GA. STATE BOARD PARDONS & PAROLES, http://www.pap.state.ga.us/opencms/export/sites/default/resources/RISK- TO-RE.pdf (last visited Nov. 27, 2012) (laying out Georgia's summation scoring method).
56. See Susan J. Sachsenmaier & Stephen J. Lally, Toward a Scientific Foundation of Sex Offender Risk Assessment, in SEX AND VIOLENCE: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIME AND RISK ASSESSMENT 26-27 (David P. Farrington et al. eds., 2001).
57. COMPAS REENTRY ASSESSMENT (2007) (on file with author).
58. RAND R. WILCOX, BASIC STATISTICS: UNDERSTANDING CONVENTIONAL METHODS AND MODERN INSIGHTS 103 (2009).
59. Richard A. Berk & David A. Freedman, Statistical Assumptions as Empirical Commitments, in PUNISHMENT AND SOCIAL CONTROL: ESSAYS IN HONOR OF SHELDON L. MESSINGER 245 n.1 (Thomas G. Blomberg & Stanley Cohen eds., 1995).
60. Cf. Christopher T. Lowenkamp et al., Risk/Need Assessment, Offender Classification, and the Role of Childhood Abuse, 28 CRIM. JUST. & BEHAVIOR 543, 548-49 (2001) (including only those inmates released on parole in the validation study).
61. See Jeromy Anglim, Clustered Samples and Assuming Independence of Observations, JEROMY ANGLIM'S BLOG: PSYCHOLOGY AND STATISTICS (Feb. 26, 2010), http://jeromyanglim.blogspot.com/2010/02/clustered-samples-and-assuming.html.
62. Melinda D. Schlager & David J. Simourd, Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) Among African American and Hispanic Male Offenders, 34 CRIM. JUST. & BEHAVIOR 545, 546 (2007).
63. Kathleen Auerhahn, Selective Incapacitation and the Problem of Prediction, 37 CRIMINOLOGY 703, 708 (1999).
64. Cf. Darrell J. Steffensmeier et al., Age and the Distribution of Crime, 94 AM. J. SOC. 803, 821 (finding that the risk of committing a substance-related crime is dramatically skewed toward younger offenders).
65. E.g., MICHAEL SHADER, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, RISK FACTORS FOR DELINQUENCY: AN OVERVIEW 7 (2004), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ ojjdp/frd030127.pdf;
66. cf. David A. Wolfe & Robin McGee, Dimensions of Child Maltreatment and Their Relationship to Adolescent Adjustment, 6 DEV. & PSYCHOPATHOLOGY 165, 178 (1994) (noting that interactions between risk factors are "powerful predictors" of child maltreatment).
67. See Patrick Keenan, The New Deterrence: Crime and Policy in the Age of Globalization, 91 IOWA L. REV. 505, 524 (2006) (noting "most models incorporate too many simplifications and occasionally unrealistic assumptions to be accurate").
68. See e.g., Clive R. Hollin, Treatment Programs for Offenders: Meta-Analysis, "What Works," and Beyond, 22 INT'L J.L. & PSYCHIATRY 361, 367 (1999) (noting the "garbage in, garbage out" problem in using meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of correctional programs).
69. Erica Beecher-Monas & Edgar Garcia-Rill, Danger at the Edge of Chaos: Predicting Violent Behavior in a Post-Daubert World, 24 CARDOZO L. REV. 1845, 1875 (2003) (pointing out that the developer of one risk assessment instrument "recognizes its subjective nature and recommends that at least two independent ratings be obtained and averaged" (quotation marks omitted)).
70. See Lisa M. Dennis, Constitutionality, Accuracy, Admissibility: Assessing Expert Predictions of Future Violence in Capital Sentencing Proceedings, 10 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 292, 307 (2002).
71. See MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 reporter's note e (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
72. see MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.06(2)(a) (Tentative Draft No. 1, 2007).
73. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.06(4)(b) (Tentative Draft No. 1, 2007).
74. MODEL PENAL CODE § 6B.06 cmt. c (Tentative Draft No. 1, 1997).
75. D.A. ANDREWS & JAMES L. BONTA, LSI-R PROFILE REPORT FOR REX DARLINGTON 4 (2001), available at http://www.psychassessments.com.au/products/ 59/prod59-report1.pdf.
76. See, e.g., EDWARD L. GLAESER ET AL., THE BROOKINGS INST. CTR. ON URBAN & METRO. POLICY, RACIAL SEGREGATION IN THE 2000 CENSUS: PROMISING NEWS 5-7 (2001), available at http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/glaeser.pdf (noting that the Midwest and Northeast remain more segregated than the South and West and that the largest cities are "significantly more segregated" than the national average).
77. See John Q. La Fond, Clinical, Legal and Ethical Issues for Mental Health Professionals in Implementing a Sexual Predator Law in the United States, in SEX AND VIOLENCE: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIME AND RISK ASSESSMENT 116 (David P. Farrington et al. eds., 2001) ("Even validated risk factors only establish correlations; they do not establish causation.").
78. See Sharon Schwartz, The Fallacy of the Ecological Fallacy: The Potential Misuse of a Concept and the Consequences, 84 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 819, 820-22 (1994).
79. Patrick A. Langan & David J. Levin, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, 15 FED. SENT'G REP. 58, 61 (2002).
80. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.06(2)(a) cmt. d (Tentative Draft No. 1, 2007).
81. MARC LEVIN, POLICY PERSPECTIVE: THE ROLE OF RISK ASSESSMENT IN ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY IN TEXAS CORRECTIONS 2 (2010), available at www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2010-07-PP15-RiskAssessment- ml.pdf.
82. Cf. D.A. Andrews et al., Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology, 17 CRIM. JUST. & BEHAV. 19, 26 (1990) (expressing dismay at the frequency with which criminal justice professionals are unfamiliar with simple concepts of risk and recidivism).
83. See Stephen D. Hart et al., Precision of Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments: Evaluating the "Margins of Error" of Group v. Individual Predictions of Violence, 190 BRIT. J. PSYCHIATRY s60, s61 (2007).
84. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09(2) (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
85. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
86. See, e.g., Alfred Blumstein & Soumyo Moitra, The Identification of "Career Criminals" from "Chronic Offenders" in a Cohort, 2 LAW & POL'Y Q. 321, 322 (1980) (citing a study finding a small proportion of offenders are responsible for a large portion of criminal offenses).
87. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
88. CHRISTOPHER T. LOWENKAMP & EDWARD J. LATESSA, UNDERSTANDING THE RISK PRINCIPLE: HOW AND WHY CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS CAN HARM LOW-RISK OFFENDERS 7 (2004), available at http://www.yourhonor.com/dwi/sentencing/RiskPrinciple.pdf.
89. MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. c (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
90. See MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 reporter's note (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2001).
91. See Cassandra Welch, Flexibile Standards, Deferential Review: Daubert's Legacy of Confusion, 29 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 1085, 1086 (2006).
92. See Eric S. Janus & Robert A. Prentky, Forensic Use of Actuarial Risk Assessment: How a Developing Science Can Enhance Accuracy and Accountability, 16 FED. SENT'G REP. 176, 177 (2004) (arguing admissibility decisions are unpredictable "because 'reliability' is a continuous variable (no method is perfectly reliable), and the evidentiary tests do not specify how much reliability is required. It is the underlying substantive law - the legal context - that determines how much reliability is necessary").
93. See Paul S. Milich, Controversial Science in the Courtroom: Daubert and the Law's Hubris, 43 EMORY L.J. 913, 920 (1994) (arguing that no matter what the standard of admissibility, judges will defer to "what certain experts think").
94. Sophia I. Gatowski et al., Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World, 25 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 433, 434 (2001) (noting that "judges are central and active figures in admissibility decision-making").
95. See MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING § 6B.09 cmt. c (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011) (arguing that the appropriate interpretation of risk assessment instruments "will reside in the discretion of the trial judge").
96. See MODEL PENAL CODE § 6B.09 cmt. a (Tentative Draft No. 2, 2011).
97. Cf. Louis Kaplow, Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis, 42 DUKE L.J. 557, 621 (1992) (arguing that when an issue arises frequently, it is reasonable to anticipate at the outset how to resolve the question by adopting a specific rule).
98. Paul H. Robinson, A Functional Analysis of Criminal Law, 88 NW. U. L. REV. 857, 858 n.3 (1994).