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.
classified as low risk. <str<strong>on</strong>g>The</str<strong>on</strong>g> 0.5 threshold again performed reas<strong>on</strong>ably well. This cut-point<br />
gave the best balance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sensitivity and specificity for both measures, but specificity was<br />
lower than sensitivity (UCR: Sn = 63.0%, Sp = 52.1%; victim/damage: Sn = 63.7%, Sp =<br />
57.4%). Again, increasing the cut point to 0.55 improved specificity for both measures,<br />
at the expense <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a reas<strong>on</strong>able degree <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sensitivity (UCR: Sn = 50.6%, Sp = 63.9%;<br />
victim/damage: Sn = 51.5%, Sp = 70.3%). At the 0.55 threshold the positive predictive<br />
values increase slightly and the proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> false positives is reduced. We see higher<br />
rates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> false positives in these analyses compared to Table 3.5 because there is a higher<br />
prevalence <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending in these categories.<br />
Does low-intensity probati<strong>on</strong> supervisi<strong>on</strong> alter the propensity for serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending?<br />
This analysis focuses <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> the experimental sample: 1,559 predicted low risk<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who participated in the Low Risk Experiment and were randomly assigned to<br />
low-intensity supervisi<strong>on</strong> (LIS) or supervisi<strong>on</strong> as usual (SAU). Regardless <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> their lowrisk<br />
status, we would expect that those <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders who had been involved in serious<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fending prior to random assignment (RA) would be more likely to c<strong>on</strong>tinue to do so. 10<br />
However, because the ultimate practical purpose <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the predictive model is to identify<br />
low-risk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders so that they can be diverted to LIS, it is very important to ensure that<br />
low-risk supervisi<strong>on</strong> itself does not increase the likelihood that <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fenders will engage in<br />
serious recidivism during or after supervisi<strong>on</strong>, over and above the extent to which we<br />
would expect given their past behavior. Table 3.8 shows the proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the sample<br />
that were charged with a serious <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fense post-RA. Because <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> the small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
160