Evidence-based sentencing: Public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 36-41

  Scurich, Nicholas ^a   Monahan, John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Criminal sentencing; Mass incarceration; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CRIME; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PRISONER; PUBLIC OPINION; PUNISHMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; UNITED STATES;

CRIME; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; PRISONERS; PUBLIC OPINION; PUNISHMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84956593251     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000161     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Arnold, J., & Arnold, L. (2015). Fixing justice in America. Politico Magazine. Available at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/criminal-justice-reform-coalition-for-public-safety-116057.html
2. Bartneck, C., Duenser, A., Moltchanova, E., & Zawieska, K. (2015). Comparing the similarity of responses received from studies in Amazon's Mechanical Turk to studies conducted online and with direct recruitment. PLoS ONE, 10, e0121595. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121595
3. Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioural researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
4. Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91, 48S-65S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415224
5. Durose, M., Cooper, A., & Snyder, H. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6. Frase, R. (2013). Just sentencing: Principles and procedures for a workable system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7. Frase, R. (2014). Recurring policy issues of guidelines (and nonguidelines) sentencing: Risk assessments, criminal history enhancements, and the enforcement of release conditions. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, 145-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2014.26.3.145
8. Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2013). Retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Social Justice Research, 26, 61-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0174-7
9. Harcourt, B. (2010). Risk as a proxy for race. University of Chicago Public Law Working Paper No. 323. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id1677654
10. Heen, M. S., Lieberman, J. D., & Miethe, T. D. (2014). A comparison of different online sampling approaches for generating national samples. Retrieved from http://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/page-files/27/ComparisonDifferentOnlineSampling.pdf
11. Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., Kessler, R. C., Jensen, P. S., & Kupfer, D. J. (1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 337-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160065009
12. Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
13. Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. (2014). Risk redux: The resurgence of risk assessment in criminal sanctioning. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, 158-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2014.26.3.158
14. Monahan, J. (2014). The inclusion of biological risk factors in violence risk assessments. In I. Singh, W. Sinnott-Armstrong, & J. Savulescu (Eds.), Bioprediction, biomarkers, and bad behavior: Scientific, legal and ethical implications (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199844180.003.0004
15. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
16. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598
17. Pew center on the States. (2008, February 28). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Available at http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/reports/2008/02/28/one-in-100-behind-bars-in-america-2008
18. Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U. S. Department of Justice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e506312010-001
19. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2012). Common (mis)beliefs about memory: A replication and comparison of telephone and Mechanical Turk survey methods. PLoS ONE, 7, e51876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051876
20. Starr, S. (2014). Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 66, 803-872.
21. Tonry, M. (2013). Sentencing in America, 1975-2025. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice in America, 1975-2025. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/671134
22. Tonry, M. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the prediction or recidivism. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, 167-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2014.26.3.167
23. Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. Zimring, F. (2012). The city that became safe: New York's lessons for urban crime and its control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.