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

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
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,&nbsp;Evan M. Lowder,&nbsp;Mindy L. Thai,&nbsp;Sydney M. Reuter,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;Evan M. Lowder,&nbsp;Mindy L. Thai,&nbsp;Sydney M. Reuter,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

风险评估是改革保释实践的当代解决方案。目前的研究表明,这些工具可以促进非财务信息的释放。然而,很少有研究调查法官为何可能不定期坚持审前风险评估,以及其他审前做法如何影响以风险评估为指导的决策。本研究考察了长期存在的审前做法和新的审前做法——首次出庭时律师在场、继续依赖传统的保释设置做法和使用结构化指导方针——如何影响审前释放决定。方法对146名美国刑事法律专业人员进行了全国性的横断面调查,分别代表辩护律师(37.2%)、审前服务人员(26.4%)、检察官(14.0%)、法官(8.3%)和其他角色(14.0%)。这项调查包括三个随机的小场景和关于受访者的背景和对风险评估的看法的问题。在每个小插曲中,参与者对他们被释放的可能性进行了评级,包括担保、拘留、保释和监督决定。分析结合了t检验、方差分析和多元回归。研究结果表明,首次出庭时律师的缺席和传统保释制度的存在导致被保释者获得保释的可能性较低,而结构化指导方针的提供并没有改变被保释者获得保释、分配保释金或分配更高保释金金额的可能性。参与者的种族、政治派别和对日常决策的信心与某些释放决定有关。结论其他审前实践限制了决策过程中对风险评估信息的考虑。为了促进更大程度地遵守风险评估工具,我们建议采取策略,在审前风险评估存在时,减少酌情使用保释金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making

Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making

Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
31
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信