Forecasts of Violence to Inform Sentencing Decisions
- 580 Downloads
Recent legislation in Pennsylvania mandates that forecasts of "future dangerousness" be provided to judges when sentences are given. Similar requirements already exist in other jurisdictions. Research has shown that machine learning can lead to usefully accurate forecasts of criminal behavior in such setting. But there are settings in which there is insufficient IT infrastructure to support machine learning. The intent of this paper is provide a prototype procedure for making forecasts of future dangerousness that could be used to inform sentencing decisions when machine learning is not practical. We consider how classification trees can be improved so that they may provide an acceptable second choice.
We apply an version of classifications trees available in R, with some technical enhancements to improve tree stability. Our approach is illustrated with real data that could be used to inform sentencing decisions.
Modest sized trees grown from large samples can forecast well and in a stable fashion, especially if the small fraction of indecisive classifications are found and accounted for in a systematic manner. But machine learning is still to be preferred when practical.
Our enhanced version of classifications trees may well provide a viable alternative to machine learning when machine learning is beyond local IT capabilities.
KeywordsSentencing Forecasting Machine learning Classification trees
- Berk RA (2008a) Forecasting methods in crime and justice. In: Hagan J, Schepple KL, Tyler TR (eds) Annual review of law and social science, vol 4. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 173–192Google Scholar
- Berk RA (2008b) Statistical learning from a regression perspective. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Berk RA (2013) Algorithmic criminology. Secur Inform 2(5) (forthcoming)Google Scholar
- Breiman L, Friedman JH, Olshen RA, Stone CJ (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth Press, MontereyGoogle Scholar
- Burgess EM (1928) Factors determining success or failure on parole. In: Bruce AA, Harno AJ, Burgess EW, Landesco EW (eds) The working of the indeterminate sentence law and the parole system in Illinois. State Board of Parole, Springfield, pp 205–249Google Scholar
- Bushway S (2011) Albany Law Rev 74(3)Google Scholar
- Casey PM, Warren RK, Elek JK (2011) Using offender risk and needs assessment information at sentencing: guidance from a national working group. National Center for State Courts. http://www.ncsconline.org/
- Farrington DP, Tarling R (2003) Prediction in criminology. SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
- Feeley M, Simon J (1994) Actuarial justice: the emerging new criminal law. In: Nelken D (ed) The futures of criminology. Sage, London, pp 173–201Google Scholar
- Harcourt BW (2007) Against prediction: profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Hastie R, Dawes RM (2001) Rational choice in an uncertain world. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Hyatt JM, Chanenson L, Bergstrom MH (2011) Reform in motion: the promise and profiles of incorporating risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis into Pennsylvania sentencing. Duquesne Law Rev 49(4):707–749Google Scholar
- Monahan J (1981) Predicting violent behavior: an assessment of clinical techniques. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
- Pew Center of the States, Public Safety Performance Project (2011) Risk/needs assessment 101: science reveals new tools to manage offenders. The Pew Center of the States. http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/publicsafety.
- Tóth N (2008) Handling classification uncertainty with decision trees in biomedical diagnostic systems. PhD thesis, Department of Measurement and Information Systems, Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsGoogle Scholar
- Turner S, Hess J, Jannetta J (2009) Development of the California Risk Assessment Instrument. Center for Evidence Based Corrections, The University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar