Risk-Evaluation: Where MAYBE You Go to Prison for Crimes Committed

Matthew Motley is between the ages of 21 and 29. That is six points against him. He is male. Two points. He has been incarcerated previously but not convicted of a felony. One point. He has been arrested or confined in the past 12 months. Three points.

Total risk score: 12 points.

Had Mr. Motley scored 15 or higher on an evaluation measure aimed at predicting the likelihood of future criminal behavior, a state judge in Virginia might have sent him to prison instead of sentencing the 24-year-old in May to probation and continued drug treatment. Mr. Motley, who pleaded guilty to dealing marijuana and ecstasy, declined to comment, but his lawyer said the sentence was the "culmination of what was really a remarkable recovery from a very dark place."

Judges have always considered the risk of reoffending in meting out sentences, and they generally follow guidelines that dictate a range of punishment for a given offense. Mr. Motley's sanction, however, reflects a broad effort to bring a more scientific approach to decisions made by judges, parole officers and corrections officials working in a system that often relies on gut instinct. Risk-evaluation tools have emerged as a centerpiece of efforts to reduce the U.S. inmate population, which jumped from around 200,000 in the early 1970s to over 2 million today.

Many parole boards now weigh risk scores when considering early release, and prison officials use them to determine the level of security offenders need during their stay. But the adoption of such tools has sparked a debate over which factors are acceptable. Attributes such as age or sex, which employers are generally forbidden from including in hiring decisions, are considered by criminal-justice experts to be strong predictors of whether an offender is likely to commit a crime in the future.

Read the rest of the story HERE.

If you like what you see, please "Like" us on Facebook either here or here. Please follow us on Twitter here.