Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
30 - The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
from Part IV - Postconviction Phase Decisions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- 28 Amenability to Treatment Evaluations
- 29 Choosing Between Life and Death
- 30 The Communication of Risk to Legal Decision-Makers
- 31 The Psychology of Parole Decision-Making
- 32 Probation Decision-Making
- 33 Decision-Making in Violence Risk Assessment
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
Expert testimony concerning risk and its communication to the trier of fact and other legal actors has important implications for some of the most significant legal decisions, from pretrial detention to capital sentencing. Although considerable psycholegal research has focused on the process of risk assessment and management, a limited number of studies have examined how risk is communicated and interpreted by judges, juries, and other legal decision-makers as well as the public. This chapter examines the primary methods of risk communication and critiques their usefulness based upon the legal contexts in which they are most commonly offered. In particular, legal decisions based upon risk concerning pretrial release, sentencing determinations, and sexually violent predator (SVP) laws are highlighted to discuss more general issues with risk communication in the legal system. Suggestions for more effective and accurate presentation of risk are offered, as well as the practical and legal policy implications of adopting such practices.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 460 - 475Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Bail Reform Act of 1984, Publ. L. No. 89–465, (1984). www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/5865.Google Scholar
Barbaree, H. E., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(4) , 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320601800408.Google Scholar
Batastini, A. B., Vitacco, M. J., Coaker, L. C., & Lester, M. E. (2019). Communicating violence risk during testimony: Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000196.Google Scholar
Baughman, S. B. & McIntyre, F. (2011). Predicting violence. Texas Law Review, 90, 548. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1756506.Google Scholar
Blais, J., Babchishin, K. M. , & Hanson, R. K. (2022). Improving our risk communication: Standardized risk levels for brief assessment of recidivism risk-2002R. Sexual Abuse, 34(6), 667–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211047185.Google Scholar
Blais, J., & Forth, A. E. (2014). Prosecution-retained versus court-appointed experts: Comparing and contrasting risk assessment reports in preventative detention hearings. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000082.Google Scholar
Borges, M. (2020). California rejects proposition to end cash bail. Jurist. www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/california-rejects-proposition-to-end-cash-bail/.Google Scholar
Costanzo, M. & Krauss, D. (2021). Forensic and legal psychology: Psychological science applied to the law. 4th ed. Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
DeMatteo, D. , Murphy, M. , Galloway, M. , & Krauss, D. (2015). A national survey of sexually violent predator legislation: Procedures, policy, and practice. International Journal of Law and Mental Health, 14, 245–266.Google Scholar
DeMichele, M., Baumgartner, P., Barrick, K., etal. (2018). What do criminal justice professionals think about risk assessment at pretrial? Federal Probation, 83(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3168490.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk for violence – user guide. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. & Shaffer, C. (2021). The science of and practice with the HCR-20 V3 (Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3). In Douglas, K. & Otto, R. (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 253–293). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Garrett, B., Jakubow, A., & Monahan, J. (2018). Nonviolent risk assessment in Virginia sentencing: The Sentencing Commission Data. A report of the Virginia Criminal Justice Policy Reform project. University of Virginia School of Law. www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2018meetings/UVA%20Law%20School%20-%20NVRA%20Sentencing%20Analysis%20and%20Judicial%20Survey%20(Mar%201%202018).pdf.Google Scholar
Garrett, B., Jakubow, A., & Monahan, J. (2019). Judicial reliance on risk assessment in sentencing drug and property offender: A test of the treatment resource hypothesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(6), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819842589.Google Scholar
Garrett, B. & Monahan, J. (2020). Judging risk. California Law Review, 108(2), 439–493. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38B56D515.Google Scholar
Green, B. & Chen, Y. (2019). Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments. In Proceedings of the Conference of Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 90-99). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287563.Google Scholar
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K. & Anderson, D. (2021). Static-99 R: An empirical-actuarial risk tool for adult males with a history of sexual offending. In Douglas, K. & Otto, R. (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 106–130). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., Helmus, L. M., Thornton, D., & Phenix, A. (2017). Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99 R and Static-2002 R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment, 29(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000371.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R. J., et al. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. Washington, DC: Justice Center Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421.Google Scholar
Harris, H., Goss, J., & Gumbs, A. (2019). Pretrial risk assessment in California. Public Policy Institute of California. www.ppic.org/publication/pretrial-risk-assessment-in-california/.Google Scholar
Heilbrun, K., Dvoskin, J., Hart, S., & McNiel, D. (1999). Violence risk communication: Implications for research, policy, and practice. Health, Risk & Society, 1(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698579908407009.Google Scholar
Hilton, Z. N., Carter, A. M., Harris, G. T., & Sharpe, A. J. (2008). Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309337.Google Scholar
Hogan, N. (2021). Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 28, 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767719.Google Scholar
Hyatt, J. & Chanenson, S. (2016). The use of risk assessment at sentencing: Implications for research and policy. US Department of Justice. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/wps/art193.Google Scholar
Jurek v. Texas, 428 US 262 (1976).Google Scholar
Karsjens v. Jesson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (2015).Google Scholar
Kansas SVP Statute, 59-29a02, 2012. https://codes.findlaw.com/ks/chapter-59-probate-code/ks-st-sect-59-29a02.html.Google Scholar
Kansas v. Crane, 534 US 407 (2002).Google Scholar
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346 (1997).Google Scholar
Krauss, D., Cook, G., & Klapatch, L. (2018). Risk assessment communication difficulties: An empirical examination of the effects of categorical versus probabilistic risk communication in sexually violent predator decisions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 36, 532–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2379.Google Scholar
Krauss, D., Cook, G., Song, E., & Umanath, S. (2021). The public’s perception of crime control theater laws: It’s complicated. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27, 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000302.Google Scholar
Krauss, D. & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267–310.Google Scholar
Krauss, D. & Scurich, N. (2014). The Impact of case factors on jurors’ decisions in a sexual violent predator hearing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 135–145.Google Scholar
Kwartner, P., Lyons, P. M., & Boccaccini, M.T. (2006). Judges’ risk communication preferences in risk for future violence cases. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5, 185–194.Google Scholar
Lee, S. C., & Hanson, R. K. (2021). Updated 5-year and new 10-year sexual recidivism rate norms for Static-99R with routine/complete samples. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000436.Google Scholar
Lowenkamp, C. & Latessa, E. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential treatment. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 263–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00021.x.Google Scholar
Milgram, A., Holsinger, A. M., Vannostrand, M., & Alsdorf, M. W. (2015). Pretrial risk assessment: Improving public safety and fairness in pretrial decision-making. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 216–221. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2015.27.4.216.Google Scholar
Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 12, 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945.Google Scholar
Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449.Google Scholar
Picard, S., Watkins, M., Rempel, M., & Kerodal, A., (2019). Beyond the algorithm: Pretrial reform, risk assessment, and racial fairness. Center for Court Innovation. www.courtinnovation.org/publications/beyond-algorithm.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. & Wistrich, A. (2017). Judging the judiciary by the numbers: Empirical research on judges. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032.Google Scholar
Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. (2020). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. Prison Policy Initiative. www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html.Google Scholar
Scurich, N. (2016a). An introduction to the assessment of violence risk. In Singh, J. P., Bjørkly, S., & Fazel, S. (Eds.), International perspectives on violence risk assessment (pp. 3–15). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199386291.003.0001.Google Scholar
Scurich, N. (2016b). Structured risk assessment and legal decision-making. In Miller, M. K. & Bornstein, B. H. (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 159–183). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Scurich, N. (2018). The case against categorical risk estimates. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(5), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2382.Google Scholar
Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2019). The dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(2), 158–175.Google Scholar
Scurich, N. & Krauss, D. A. (2020). Public’s views of risk assessment Algorithms and pretrial decision-making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000219.Google Scholar
Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S. L., Hurducas, C., et al. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment: A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(3), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.922141.Google Scholar
Singh, J., Fazel, S., Gueorguieva, R., & Buchanan, A. (2014). Rates of violence in patients classified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.131938.Google Scholar
Slobogin, C. (2021). Just algorithms: Using science to reduce incarceration and inform the jurisprudence of risk. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. (2018). Distortion of justice: How the inability to pay bail affects case outcomes. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 34(4), 511–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewy019.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. & Doleac, J. (2021). Algorithmic risk assessment in the hands of humans. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3489440.Google Scholar
Storey, J. E. , Watt, K. A. , & Hart, S. D. (2015). An examination of violence risk communication in practice using a structured professional judgment framework. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 33(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Subramanian, R., Delaney, R., Roberts, S., Fishman, N., McGarry, P. (2015). Incarceration’s front door: The misuse of jails in America. Vera Institute of Justice. www.vera.org/downloads/publications/incarcerations-front-door-report_02.pdf.Google Scholar
US Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (2019). Uniform crime report: Crime in the United States 2019. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested.pdf.Google Scholar
United States v. Salerno, 481 US 739 (1987).Google Scholar
Van Orden v. Schafer, 129 F. Supp. 3d 839 (2015).Google Scholar
Viljoen, J., Johnson, M., Cochrane, D., Vargen, L., & Vincent, G. (2019). Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 43(5), 397–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000344.Google Scholar
Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. 2021 annual report. www.vcsc.virginia.gov/2021AnnualReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Widgery, A. (2015). Trends in pretrial release: State legislation. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/all-library-items/trends-pretrial-release-state-legislation.Google Scholar