The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
sensitivity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the selected threshold for determining ‘low risk’ according to the model by<br />
c<strong>on</strong>trasting the serious re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending outcomes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders predicted to be low risk to<br />
those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders not predicted to be low risk. We also examine the model’s sensitivity<br />
to different definiti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending severity bey<strong>on</strong>d the original substantive definiti<strong>on</strong>s it<br />
was designed to predict. Finally, we examine whether the intensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> supervisi<strong>on</strong> affects<br />
the relati<strong>on</strong>ship between past and future serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending by comparing low risk<br />
experimental participants randomly assigned to low intensity supervisi<strong>on</strong> with those<br />
subject to standard reporting requirements.<br />
Risk Predicti<strong>on</strong> in Offender Management<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> predicti<strong>on</strong> and assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> risk is a l<strong>on</strong>g-standing c<strong>on</strong>cern <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
criminological theory and research. While it may not be possible (or indeed ethical) to<br />
precisely predict and act against those who will commit crimes in the future, the policy<br />
and practice implicati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> understanding the risk factors <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> crime and how they relate to<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fender management and crime preventi<strong>on</strong> are obvious.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> history <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> risk predicti<strong>on</strong> in criminal justice dates back at least to the first half<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the twentieth century, when criminologists such as Burgess (1928) and the Gluecks<br />
(1950) developed simple predictive models based <strong>on</strong> checklists <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> risk and protective<br />
factors. Burgess, for example, combined unweighted predictors c<strong>on</strong>sidered by expert<br />
opini<strong>on</strong> to be related to parole outcomes. More recently, risk predicti<strong>on</strong> has been refined<br />
by extensive research <strong>on</strong> the factors that c<strong>on</strong>tribute favorably or unfavorably to <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending<br />
behavior, many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> which are now str<strong>on</strong>gly c<strong>on</strong>firmed by numerous studies and meta-<br />
132