Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T21:25:40.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Negotiated Risk: Actuarial Illusions and Discretion in Probation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2014

Kelly Hannah-Moffat ,
Paula Maurutto  and
Sarah Turnbull
Kelly Hannah-Moffat
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Toronto—Mississaugahannah.moffat@utoronto.ca
Paula Maurutto
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Toronto—Mississaugap.maurutto@utoronto.ca
Sarah Turnbull
Affiliation:
Centre of Criminology, University of Torontosarah.turnbull@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A “just punishment” is increasingly structured by actuarial probability frameworks. Actuarial risk technologies are often characterized as having supplanted much of practitioners' discretionary decision making with structured, quantitatively derived decision-making templates. Some scholars maintain that the transition to risk-based penality has led to “deskilling,” “scientification,” and “erosion of professional discretion,” or even to the elimination of criminal justice practitioners' use of professional discretion. This paper uses data from 71 semi-structured, open-ended interviews with criminal justice professionals to analyse how the introduction of risk tools shapes but does not eliminate discretion. We argue that risk tools are not simply imposed on criminal justice practitioners; instead, practitioners actively resist and embrace risk technologies and temper the impact risk tools have on their discretionary decision making. We maintain that the adoption of risk technologies reflects a negotiated process whereby practitioners welcome the professional advantages that these technologies afford while affirming the centrality of experience and clinical knowledge in decision making. We show how practitioners differentiate between the standardization intended by risk assessments and their own experiences and clinical knowledges, and how they exercise their discretion in an effort to mitigate the perceived discriminatory effects of the risk assessment. Thus, although risk tools are appealing to practitioners because their supposed “objectivity” makes them more defensible to the public, the adoption and use of these tools in the context of professional decision making is more complex and contradictory than much of the theoretical literature has assumed.

Résumé

Une « peine juste » est de plus en plus structurée selon le cadre de la probabilité actuarielle. Les technologies du risque actuariel sont souvent considérées comme des procédés ayant, en grande partie, supplanté la prise de décision discrétionnaire de la part des intervenants par des modèles décisionnaires structurés et quantitatifs. Certains savants soutiennent que la transition vers des pénalités basées sur le risque a mené à la «déqualification», à la «scientificité» et à «l'érosion de la discrétion professionnelle», voire même à l'élimination du pouvoir discrétionnaire professionnel de la part des praticiens du droit criminel. Basé sur 71 entrevues semi-structurées et non directives avec des professionnels de la justice criminelle, cet article analyse comment l'introduction des outils du risque façonne la discrétion sans toutefois l'éliminer. Nous soutenons que les outils du risque ne sont pas simplement imposés sur les praticiens de la justice criminelle. Au contraire, les praticiens résistent et utilisent activement les technologies du risque tout en atténuant l'impaete de ces outils sur leur capacité de prendre des décisions discrétionnaires. Nous soutenons que l'adoption des technologies du risque représente une négociation procédurale : les praticiens accueillent les avantages professionnels que ces technologies apportent tout en affirmant l'importance de l'expérience et de la connaissance clinique dans la prise de décision. Nous démontrons comment, premièrement, les praticiens font la distinction entre la standardisation de l'évaluation du risque et leurs propres expériences et connaissances cliniques et comment, deuxièmement, ils exercent de la discrétion dans le but de mitiger les effets discriminatoires associés à l'évaluation du risque. Ainsi, bien que les praticiens sont attirés vers les outils du risque par le fait que leur soi-disant «objectivité» les aident à défendre leurs décisions auprès du public, l'adoption et l'utilisation de ces outils dans le contexte de la prise de décisions professionnelles est plus complexe et contradictoire que laisserait croire la littérature théorique.

Keywords

risque actuarielpeineprobationdiscrétionactuarial riskpunishmentprobationdiscretion
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law and Society / La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société , Volume 24 , Issue 3: The Dilemmas of Discretion/Dilemmes Discrétionnaires , December 2009 , pp. 391 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Harcourt, Bernard E., Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Maurutto, Paula and Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, “Understanding Risk in the Context of the Youth Criminal Justice Act,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49 (2007), 465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Ericson, Richard, “The Architecture of Risk and Power: A Review Article of Magnus Hörnqvist, The Organised Nature of Power: On Productive and Repressive Interventions Based on Consideration of Risk, Stockholm University, 2007,” British Journal of Criminology 47 (2007), 957Google Scholar; see also Hörnqvist, Magnus, “The Organised Nature of Power: On Productive and Repressive Interventions Based on Consideration of Risk” (PhD diss., Stockholm University, 2007)Google Scholar.

3 Harris, Patricia, “What Community Supervision Officers Need to Know about Actuarial Risk Assessment and Clinical Judgment,” Federal Probation 70 (2006), 8Google Scholar, citing Meehl, Paul E., Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954)Google Scholar.

4 Robinson, Gwen, “Implementing OASys: Lessons from Research into LSI-R and ACE,” The Probation Journal 50 (2003), 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Baker, Kerry, “Assessment in Youth Justice: Professional Discretion and the Use of ASSET,” Youth Justice 5 (2005), 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzgibbon, Diana Wendy, “Institutional Racism, Pre-emptive Criminalisation and Risk Analysis,” The Howard Journal 46 (2007), 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fitzgibbon, Diana Wendy, “Fit for Purpose? OASys Assessments and Parole Decisions,” The Probation Journal 55 (2008), 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneider, Anne L., Ervin, Laurie, and Snyder-Joy, Zoann, “Further Exploration of the Flight from Discretion: The Role of Risk/Need Instruments in Probation Supervision Decisions,” Journal of Criminal Justice 24 (1996), 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Feeley, Malcolm and Simon, Jonathan, “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy for Corrections,” Criminology 30 (1992), 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feeley, Malcolm and Simon, Jonathan, “Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law,” in The Futures of Criminology, ed. Nelken, David (London: Sage, 1994), 173Google Scholar.

6 The use of actuarial risk assessments varies across the country; see, e.g., Hannah-Moffat, Kelly and Maurutto, Paula, Youth Risk/Need Assessment: An Overview of Issues and Practices (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2003)Google Scholar.

7 Ericson, Richard and Haggerty, Kevin, Policing the Risk Society. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Maurutto, Paula and Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, “Assembling Risk and the Restructuring of Penal Control,” British Journal of Criminology 46 (2006), 438CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pratt, John, “Governmentality, Dangerousness and Neoliberalism,” in Governable Places: Readings on Governmentality and Crime Control, ed. Smandych, Russell (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Dartmouth, 1999), 133Google Scholar.

8 Harcourt, Against Prediction; Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, “Understanding Risk.”

9 Extrajudicial Measures Framework for Youth in Ontario (Toronto: Government of Ontario, 2008)Google Scholar, http://www.everykid.on.ca/RESEARCH%20AND%20DOCUMENTS/research-data-files/Youth%20Justice/EJM%20Framework%20-%20English.pdf; Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto, Youth Risk/Need Assessment.

10 Various versions of the LSI are used to assess men, women, and young offenders at most stages of the criminal justice process, guiding pre-sentencing, sentencing, institutional placement and programming, and release decisions. The LSI has undergone several modifications and enhancements, including a name change (the S previously meant supervision) and the proliferation of more than 10 versions of the tool in circulation.

11 Hawkins, Keith, Law as Last Resort: Prosecution Decision-Making in a Regulatory Agency (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 189Google Scholar. See also Hawkins, Keith, “Order, Rationality and Silence: Some Reflections on Criminal Justice Decision-Making,” in Exercising Discretion: Decision-Making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond, ed. Gelshorpe, Loraine and Padfield, Nicola (Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing, 2003)Google Scholar.

12 Andrews, Don A. and Bonta, James, “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation,” Criminal Justice and Behaviour 17 (1990), 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Motiuk, Laurence, “Where Are We in Our Ability to Assess Risk?” Forum on Corrections Research 5 (1993), 14Google Scholar.

14 Andrews, Don A. and Bonta, James, Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Cincinnati, OH: Andersen Publishing, 1998), 245Google Scholar.

15 This model has also produced a plethora of program-evaluation literature seeking to determine which programs most effectively and efficiently target criminogenic factors.

16 Andrews, Don A., Bonta, James, and Wormith, J. Stephen, “The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment,” Crime and Delinquency 52 (2006), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Bonta, James and Wormith, J. Stephen, “Risk and Need Assessment,” in Developments in Social Work with Offenders, ed. McIvor, Gill and Raynor, Peter (London: Jessica Kingsley, 2007), 131Google Scholar.

18 VanBenschoten, Scott, “Risk/Needs Assessment: Is This the Best We Can Do?” Federal Probation 72 (2008), 38Google Scholar.

19 Researchers developing actuarial tools also make choices about the studies included in meta-analyses, the variables included in risk tables, the weighting of different variables, the wording of questions, and the type and interpretation of statistical analyses. For further discussion of the production of risk tools see Maurutto, and Hannah-Moffat, , “Assembling Risk”; Kelly Taylor and Kelley Blanchette, “The Women Are Not Wrong: It Is the Approach That Is Debatable,” Criminology and Public Policy 8 (2009), 209Google Scholar.

20 Third-generation risk assessments contain static risk factors that do not change (e.g., criminal history) and dynamic risk factors that do change (e.g., employment). Second-generation risk assessments rely primarily on static factors. First-generation risk assessment is non-actuarial, typically reliant on clinical judgment. See Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, “Criminogenic Needs and the Transformative Risk Subject,” Punishment and Society 7 (2005), 29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Robinson, “Implementing OASys”; Kemshall, Hazel, Risk in Probation Practice (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 1998)Google Scholar. See also Kemshall, Hazel and Maguire, Mike, “Public Protection, Partnership and Risk Penality: The Multi-agency Risk Management of Sexual and Violent Offenders,” Punishment and Society 3 (2001), 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Power, Michael, The Risk Management of Everything: Rethinking the Politics of Uncertainty (London: Demos, 2004), 14Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., 42.

24 Rothstein, Henry, Huber, Michael, and Gaskell, George, “A Theory of Risk Colonization: The Spiralling Regulatory Logics of Societal and Institutional Risk,” Economy and Society 35 (2006), 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Wormith, J. Stephen, “Adhering to Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment: Academic Musings of a Former Clinician and Administrator,” Forum on Corrections Research 19 (2007), 4Google Scholar.

26 Andrews, Don A. and Bonta, James, The Level of Supervision Inventory—Revised (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1995)Google Scholar.

27 Andrews and Bonta, “Classification for Effective Rehabilitation”; Andrews and Bonta, Level of Supervision Inventory–Revised.

28 See Porter, Theodore M., Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Ballucci, Dale, “Risk in Action: The Practical Effects of the Youth Management Assessment,” Social Legal Studies 17 (2008), 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, “Understanding Risk.”

30 See Hannah-Moffat, Kelly and Shaw, Margaret, Taking Risks: Gender, Diversity. Classification and Assessment in Federal Women's Prisons (Ottawa: Status of Women Canada, 2001)Google Scholar; Maurutto, Paula and Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, “Cross-Examining Risk: A Reply,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49 (2007), 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Moretti, Marlene M., Odgers, Candice, and Jackson, Margaret, eds., Girls and Aggression: Contributing Factors and Intervention Principles, vol. 19 (New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holtfreter, Kristy and Morash, Merry, “The Needs of Women Offenders: Implications for Correctional Programming,” Women and Criminal Justice 14 (2003), 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, “Moral Agent or Actuarial Subject: Risk and Canadian Women's Imprisonment,” Theoretical Criminology 3 (1999), 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bhui, Hindpal Singh, “Racism and Risk Assessment: Linking Theory to Practice with Black Mentally Disordered Offenders,” Probation Journal 46 (1999), 171Google Scholar; Bloom, Barbara and Covington, Stephanie, “Gender Specific Programming for Female Offenders: What Is It and Why Is It Important?” (paper presented at the 50th Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC, November 11–14, 1998)Google Scholar; Daly, Kathleen, “Women's Pathways to Felony Court: Feminist Theories of Law Breaking and Problems of Representation,” Review of Law and Women's Studies 2 (1992), 11Google Scholar; Daly, Kathleen, Gender, Crime and Punishment: Is Justice Blind or Are Men and Women Treated Differently by the Courts? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Steffensmeier, Darrell and Allan, Emilie, “The Nature of Female Offending: Patterns and Explanations,” in Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, ed. Zaplin, Ruth T. (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1998), 5Google Scholar; Belknap, Joanne and Holsinger, Kristi, “An Overview of Delinquent Girls: How Theory and Practice Have Failed and the Need for Innovative Changes,” in Female Offenders: Critical Perspectives and Effective Interventions, ed. Zaplin, Ruth T. (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 1998), 31Google Scholar.

32 Racial minority females and males been shown to display “different needs”: Gavazzi, Stephen M., Yarcheck, Courtney M., and Lim, Ji-Young, “Ethnicity, Gender, and Global Risk Indicators in the Lives of Status Offenders Coming to the Attention of the Juvenile Court,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49 (2005), 696CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. In addition, the race and ethnicity of offenders can influence the attribution of risk factors by practitioners: Hudson, Barbara and Bramhall, Gaynor, “Assessing the ‘Other’: Constructions of ‘Asianness’ in Risk Assessments by Probation Officers,” British Journal of Criminology 45 (2005), 721CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These studies beg us to query whether “risk assessment and risk prediction is a transcultural, transracial” phenomenon: Margaret Severson and Christine Duclos, W., Assessing Suicide and Risk Behaviors in an Incarcerated American Indian Population—Investigating Culturally Sensitive Risk Assessment Instruments and Procedures in a Border Jail: Final Report (Lawrence: University of Kansas, School of Social Work, 2003), 57Google Scholar See also Schwalbe, Craig S. et al. , “Classifying Juvenile Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism: Predictive Validity, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 33 (2006), 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Belknap, Joanne and Holsinger, Kristi, “The Gendered Nature of Risk Factors for Delinquency,” Feminist Criminology 1 (2006), 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hollin, Clive R. and Palmer, Emma J., “Criminogenic Need and Women Offenders: A Critique of the Literature,” Legal and Criminological Psychology 11 (2006), 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holsinger, Kirsti and Holsinger, Alexander M., “Differential Pathways to Violence and Self-Injurious Behavior: African American and White Girls in the Juvenile Justice System,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42 (2005), 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Cf. Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto, Youth Risk/Needs Assessment.

34 Hoge, Robert D. and Andrews, Don A., Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems, 2002)Google Scholar.

35 Wormith, “Adhering to Principles,” 4.

36 Likewise, VanBenschoten, “Risk/Needs Assessment,” acknowledges that if practitioners view current risk/need tools as “fraught with limitations,” they are less likely to accept the tools and use them to manage cases.