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.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Philadelphia model differs from other risk assessment and predicti<strong>on</strong><br />
instruments in several ways. Its focus <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly the most serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenses is its primary<br />
distinguishing feature. Berk et al. (2009) argue that it is not helpful for the purposes <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
effective resource allocati<strong>on</strong> to predict any type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> re<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending, as many existing<br />
predicti<strong>on</strong> instruments do.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are both operati<strong>on</strong>al and political advantages to<br />
focusing <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the most extreme cases. Furthermore, the model uses charges rather<br />
than c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s as the outcome measure. While all recidivism outcome measures have<br />
well-documented advantages and disadvantages, charges are appropriate in this c<strong>on</strong>text<br />
because serious crimes are more likely to be pursued, but they do not all result in a<br />
c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> issues such as witness intimidati<strong>on</strong>, which is a significant<br />
problem in Philadelphia (Berk et al., 2009, p. 194).<br />
Although the Philadelphia model is clearly statistical, it also respects the clinical<br />
decisi<strong>on</strong> making processes that are used by probati<strong>on</strong> intake <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> model uses<br />
<strong>on</strong>ly informati<strong>on</strong> routinely available to intake <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers (demographic characteristics and<br />
criminal history) and already used by probati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficers when making clinical judgments.<br />
While this may not fully assuage the ethical c<strong>on</strong>cerns about statistical predicti<strong>on</strong>, it<br />
cannot be said that the model imposes c<strong>on</strong>straints <strong>on</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong> making bey<strong>on</strong>d standard<br />
practice. It simply makes these processes more transparent and replicable.<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Low-<str<strong>on</strong>g>Intensity</str<strong>on</strong>g> Supervisi<strong>on</strong> Experiment<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> Philadelphia APPD Low Risk Experiment ran from October 2007 to October<br />
2008. It tested the hypothesis that low-intensity supervisi<strong>on</strong> (LIS) would not cause a<br />
harmful increase in recidivism for low-risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders compared to APPD’s existing<br />
140