Anna S. Knes, Evan M. Lowder, Mindy L. Thai, Sydney M. Reuter, Autumn R. Kent
{"title":"刑事法律专业人员在审前决策中使用风险评估的多研究审查","authors":"Anna S. Knes, Evan M. Lowder, Mindy L. Thai, Sydney M. Reuter, Autumn R. Kent","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Risk assessments represent a contemporary solution to reform bail practices. Current research suggests such tools can promote nonfinancial release. However, fewer studies have examined why judges may not regularly adhere to pretrial risk assessments and how other pretrial practices may affect risk assessment-guided decision-making.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study examined how long-standing and newer pretrial practices—the presence of counsel at first appearance, continued reliance on traditional bail setting practices and the use of structured guidelines—informs pretrial release decision.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of 146 US criminal-legal professionals representing defence attorneys (37.2%), pretrial services officers (26.4%), prosecutors (14.0%), judges (8.3%), and other roles (14.0%). The survey involved three randomized vignette scenarios and questions on respondents' background and perceptions of risk assessments. In each vignette, participants rated their probability of a release on recognizance, detention, bail and supervision decision. Analyses incorporated a combination of <i>t</i>-tests, ANOVAs and multiple regressions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Findings indicated the absence of counsel at first appearance and presence of a traditional bail system led to a lower likelihood of releasing on recognizance, while the provision of structured guidelines did not alter participants' likelihood of releasing on recognizance, assigning bail or assigning significantly higher bail amounts. Participants' race, political affiliation and confidence in daily decision-making were associated with certain release decisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings suggest other pretrial practices limit the consideration of risk assessment information in decision-making. To promote greater adherence to risk assessment tools, we recommend strategies to curtail discretionary use of bail when pretrial risk assessments are present.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"268-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12305","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making\",\"authors\":\"Anna S. Knes, Evan M. Lowder, Mindy L. Thai, Sydney M. Reuter, Autumn R. Kent\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lcrp.12305\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Risk assessments represent a contemporary solution to reform bail practices. Current research suggests such tools can promote nonfinancial release. However, fewer studies have examined why judges may not regularly adhere to pretrial risk assessments and how other pretrial practices may affect risk assessment-guided decision-making.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study examined how long-standing and newer pretrial practices—the presence of counsel at first appearance, continued reliance on traditional bail setting practices and the use of structured guidelines—informs pretrial release decision.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of 146 US criminal-legal professionals representing defence attorneys (37.2%), pretrial services officers (26.4%), prosecutors (14.0%), judges (8.3%), and other roles (14.0%). The survey involved three randomized vignette scenarios and questions on respondents' background and perceptions of risk assessments. In each vignette, participants rated their probability of a release on recognizance, detention, bail and supervision decision. Analyses incorporated a combination of <i>t</i>-tests, ANOVAs and multiple regressions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Findings indicated the absence of counsel at first appearance and presence of a traditional bail system led to a lower likelihood of releasing on recognizance, while the provision of structured guidelines did not alter participants' likelihood of releasing on recognizance, assigning bail or assigning significantly higher bail amounts. Participants' race, political affiliation and confidence in daily decision-making were associated with certain release decisions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our findings suggest other pretrial practices limit the consideration of risk assessment information in decision-making. To promote greater adherence to risk assessment tools, we recommend strategies to curtail discretionary use of bail when pretrial risk assessments are present.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"268-297\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12305\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12305\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12305","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making
Introduction
Risk assessments represent a contemporary solution to reform bail practices. Current research suggests such tools can promote nonfinancial release. However, fewer studies have examined why judges may not regularly adhere to pretrial risk assessments and how other pretrial practices may affect risk assessment-guided decision-making.
Aim
This study examined how long-standing and newer pretrial practices—the presence of counsel at first appearance, continued reliance on traditional bail setting practices and the use of structured guidelines—informs pretrial release decision.
Methods
We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of 146 US criminal-legal professionals representing defence attorneys (37.2%), pretrial services officers (26.4%), prosecutors (14.0%), judges (8.3%), and other roles (14.0%). The survey involved three randomized vignette scenarios and questions on respondents' background and perceptions of risk assessments. In each vignette, participants rated their probability of a release on recognizance, detention, bail and supervision decision. Analyses incorporated a combination of t-tests, ANOVAs and multiple regressions.
Results
Findings indicated the absence of counsel at first appearance and presence of a traditional bail system led to a lower likelihood of releasing on recognizance, while the provision of structured guidelines did not alter participants' likelihood of releasing on recognizance, assigning bail or assigning significantly higher bail amounts. Participants' race, political affiliation and confidence in daily decision-making were associated with certain release decisions.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest other pretrial practices limit the consideration of risk assessment information in decision-making. To promote greater adherence to risk assessment tools, we recommend strategies to curtail discretionary use of bail when pretrial risk assessments are present.
期刊介绍:
Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.