Purpose

 

The legal system’s use of risk assessment has grown exponentially over the past several decades. Empirically validated risk measures are commonly implemented in parole, bail, civil commitment, and presentence proceedings. Despite their growing popularity, both policy-makers and legal scholars question their moral and legal acceptability, particularly in presentence proceedings. The purpose of this paper is to assess the current role of risk assessment in sentencing through an examination of the instrument currently under construction in the state of Pennsylvania.

Design/methodology/approach

 

Drawing on the current state of the literature, this paper evaluates the current use of risk assessment in criminal sentencing and discusses its consequences, both positive and negative.

Findings

 

Four areas for improvement in the use of risk assessment in sentencing were identified. Recommendations for change are proposed.

Practical implications

 

While the use of risk assessment within the legal system has significantly increased over the past several decades, the incorporation of risk assessment in presentence proceedings is a relatively new practice. This paper provides readers with insight on the appropriateness of using risk assessment in this context and provides suggestions for reducing ethical concerns. Recommendations for increasing the validity and clinical utility of these instruments are also discussed.

Originality/value

 

Although the literature on the use of risk assessment in legal proceedings is dense, relatively little is written about their use in criminal sentencing. This paper introduces readers to this concept by examining a risk measure proposed for use in the state of Pennsylvania’s presentence proceedings. The authors discuss concerns and propose recommendations for the future use of risk assessment in this setting.