Advertisement

Risk Assessment, Predictive Algorithms and Preventive Justice

  • Bernadette McSherryEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

The term “preventive justice” was first used in the late eighteenth century and linked to laws aimed at preventing future crime by intervening where, according to Blackstone (Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. Routledge, 1753), there was a “probable suspicion, that some crime is intended or likely to happen”. The past few decades have seen preventive justice schemes reinvigorated in association with a focus on risk assessment tools aimed at predicting the risk of future harmful behavior. While there has been considerable criticism of the use of risk assessment tools to predict rather than manage behavior, “structured professional judgment”, which combines statistical or actuarial risk prediction with clinical methods, has become an accepted forensic method to help identify those who are at low, moderate or high risk of harming others. Recently, predictive machine learning algorithms have been used to inform judicial decision-making, including sentencing, in the absence of expert testimony about their proper use. These algorithmic assessments may be viewed as an extension of a previous trend toward actuarial prediction tools aimed at assessing the risk of recidivism. This chapter analyzes some of the issues raised by the use of risk assessment tools in predicting the risk of harm. It will argue that there remain serious ethical and human rights concerns with the movement toward predictive algorithms in predicting the risk of future harmful behavior and that structured professional judgment, with all its faults, may in fact be the “least worst” option.

References

  1. Albrecht, H-J 2012, ‘The Incapacitation of the Dangerous Offender: Criminal Policy and Legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany’, in M Malsch & M Duker (eds), Incapacitation: Trends and New Perspectives, Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, A & Zedner, L 2014, Preventive Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2003a] QCA 416.Google Scholar
  4. Attorney-General (Qld) v Fardon [2003b] QSC 200.Google Scholar
  5. Attorney-General (Qld) v George [2009] QSC 2.Google Scholar
  6. Attorney-General (Qld) v McLean [2006] QSC 137.Google Scholar
  7. Australian Government 2011, Response of the Australian Government to the Views of the Committee in Communication No. 1635/2007 Tillman v Australia and Communication No. 1629/2007 Fardon v Australia, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra.Google Scholar
  8. Baxstrom v Herold 383 US 107 (1966).Google Scholar
  9. Bergman, LR & Magnussuon, D 1997, ‘A Person-Oriented Approach in Research on Developmental Psychopathology’, Development and Psychopathology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 291–319.Google Scholar
  10. Blackstone, W (1753/2001), Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  11. Bottoms, AE 2009, ‘Reflections on the Renaissance of Dangerousness’, Howard Journal of Penology and Crime Prevention, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 70–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. BVerfG (2011a) 2 BvR 2365/09 of 4.5.2011.Google Scholar
  13. BVerfG (2011b) 2 BvR 2846/09 of 8.6.2011.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, TW 2000, ‘Sexual Predator Evaluations and Phrenology: Considering Issues of Evidentiary Reliability’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavadino, M 1998, ‘Death to the Psychopath’, Journal of Forensic Psychiatry vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, MR & Ogloff, JRP 2008, ‘Risk Assessment’, in K Fritzon & P Wilson (eds), Forensic Psychology and Criminology: An Australian Perspective, McGraw-Hill Australia, North Ryde, New South Wales, pp. 141–150.Google Scholar
  17. Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Moolarvie [2008] WASC 37.Google Scholar
  18. Douglas, T, Purgh, J, Singh, I, Savulescu, J & Fazek, S 2017, ‘Risk Assessment Tools in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychiatry: The Need For Better Data,’ European Psychiatry, vol 42, pp. 134–137.Google Scholar
  19. Drenkhahn, K, Morgenstern, C & van Zyl Smit, D 2012, ‘What is in a Name? Preventive Detention in Germany in the Shadow of European Human Rights Law’, Criminal Law Review, issue 3, pp. 167–187.Google Scholar
  20. Ericson, RV 2007, Crime in an Insecure World, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Ewart v Canada [2018] SCC 30.Google Scholar
  22. Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575.Google Scholar
  23. Farrington, DP (ed) 2005, Integrated Development and Life Course Theories of Offending, Transaction, London: Transaction.Google Scholar
  24. Feeley, M & Simon, J 1992, ‘The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and its Implications’, Criminology, vol 30, no. 4, pp. 449–474.Google Scholar
  25. Feeley, M & Simon, J 1994, ‘Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law’, in D Nelken (ed), The Futures of Criminology, Sage, London, pp. 173–201.Google Scholar
  26. Garland, D 2003, ‘Penal Modernism and Postmodernism’, in T Blomberg & S Cohen (eds), Punishment and Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger, 2nd edn, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, pp. 45–73.Google Scholar
  27. Glazebrook, S 2010, ‘Risky Business: Predicting Recidivism,’ Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 88–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gledhill, K 2011, ‘Preventive Sentences and Orders: The Challenges of Due Process’, Journal of Commonwealth Criminal Law, vol. 1, pp. 78–104.Google Scholar
  29. Grosskopf v Germany [2010] 53 EHRR 7.Google Scholar
  30. Haidn v Germany [2011] ECHR 39.Google Scholar
  31. Hannah-Moffat, K 2013, ‘Actuarial Sentencing: An ‘Unsettled’ Proposition’, Justice Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 270–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hare, RD 2002, ‘Psychopathy and Risk for Recidivism and Violence’, in N Gray, J Laing & L Noaks (eds), Criminal Justice, Mental Health and the Politics of Risk, Cavendish, London, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar
  33. Hart, SD 2016, ‘Culture and Violence Risk Assessment: The Case of Ewert v. Canada’, Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 76–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hebenton, B & Seddon T 2009, ‘From Dangerousness to Precaution: Managing Sexual and Violent Offenders in an Insecure and Uncertain Age’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 343–362.Google Scholar
  35. Janus, ES 2004, ‘Sexually Violent Predator Laws: Psychiatry in Service to a Morally Dubious Enterprise’, Lancet, vol. 364, pp. 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keyzer, P & Blay, S 2006, ‘Double Punishment? Preventive Detention Schemes Under Australian Legislation and their Consistency with International Law: The Fardon Communication,’ Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 407–424.Google Scholar
  37. Lombroso, C (1876/2006). Criminal Man [L’uomo delinquent], trans. M Gibson & NH Rafter, Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  38. Loomis v Wisconsin 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017).Google Scholar
  39. Lussier, P & Davies, G 2011, ‘A Person-Oriented Perspective on Sexual Offenders, Offending Trajectories, and Risk of Recidivism: A New Challenge for Policymakers, Risk Assessors and Actuarial Prediction?’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 530–561.Google Scholar
  40. M v Germany [2010] 51 EHRR 41.Google Scholar
  41. McCallum, D 2001, Personality and Dangerousness: Genealogies of Antisocial Personality Disorder, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. McSherry, B 2014, Managing Fear: The Law and Ethics of Preventive Detention and Risk Assessmen, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  43. McSherry, B & Keyzer, P 2009, Sex Offenders and Preventive Detention: Politics, Policy and Practice, The Federation Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
  44. Mercado, CC & Ogloff, JRP 2007, ‘Risk and the Preventive Detention of Sex Offenders in Australia and the United States’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 49–59.Google Scholar
  45. Michaelsen, C 2012, ‘“From Strasbourg with Love”: Preventive Detention Before the German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights’ Human Rights Law Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 148–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mill, JS 1859 [1991], On Liberty and Other Essays, Oxford World Classics edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Monahan, J 1981, The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar
  48. Olver, ME, Neumann, CS, Sewall, L, Lewis, K, Hare, RD & Wong, SCP 2018, ‘A Comprehensive Examination of the Psychometric Properties of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a Canadian Multisite Sample of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Offender,’ Psychological Assessment, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 779–792.Google Scholar
  49. Petrila, J 2011, ‘Sexually Violent Predator Laws: Going Back to a Time Better Forgotten’, in B McSherry & P Keyzer (eds), Dangerous People: Policy, Prediction and Practice, Routledge, New York, pp. 63–72.Google Scholar
  50. Pratt, J 1997, Governing the Dangerous, Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pratt, J 2000, ‘The Return of the Wheelbarrow Men: Or, The Arrival of Postmodern Penality?’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Royal College of Psychiatrists 2005, ‘The Psychiatrist, Court and Sentencing: The Impact of Extended Sentencing on the Ethical Framework of Forensic Psychiatry’, Psychiatric Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 73–77.Google Scholar
  53. Salekin, RT, Rogers, R & Sewell, KW 1996, ‘A Review and Meta-Analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Predictive Validity of Dangerousness’, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 203–215.Google Scholar
  54. Singh, JP, Desmarais, SL, Hurducas, C, Arbach-Lucioni, K, Condemarin, C, Dean, K, Doyle, M, Folino, JO, Godoy-Cervera, V, Grann, M, Ho, RMY, Large, MM, Nielsen, LH, Pham, TH, Rebocho, MF, Reeves, KA, Rettenberger, M, de Ruiter, C, Seewald, K & Otto, RK 2014, ‘International Perspectives on the Practical Application of Violence Risk Assessment: A Global Survey of 44 Countries,’ International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 193–206.Google Scholar
  55. Re Fardon v Australia, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1629/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/98/D/1629/2007 (12 April 2010).Google Scholar
  56. Re Miller and Carroll v New Zealand, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 2502/2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/121/D/2502/2014 (21 November 2014).Google Scholar
  57. Re Tillman v Australia, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1635/2007, UN Doc. CCPR/C/98/D/1635/2007 (12 April 2010).Google Scholar
  58. R v Peta [2007] 2 NZLR 627.Google Scholar
  59. Skeem, JL & Cooke, DJ 2010a, ‘Is Criminal Behavior a Central Component of Psychopathy? Conceptual Directions for Resolving the Debate,’ Psychological Assessments, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 433–445.Google Scholar
  60. Skeem, JL & Cooke, DJ 2010b, ‘One Measure Does Not a Construct Make: Directions Toward Reinvigorating Psychopathy Research – Reply to Hare and Neuman (2010)’, Psychological Assessment, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 455–459.Google Scholar
  61. Slobogin, C 2012, ‘Risk Assessment’, in J Petersilia & KR Reitz (eds), Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 196–214.Google Scholar
  62. Smiles S & Marriner C 2007, ‘PM Defiant: No Visa and No Apology’, The Age, 31 July.Google Scholar
  63. State v Loomis 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).Google Scholar
  64. Staum, M 2003, Labelling People: French Scholars on Society, Race and Empire, 1815–1848, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.Google Scholar
  65. Steadman, HJ 1973, ‘Implications from the Baxstrom Experience’, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 189–196.Google Scholar
  66. Steadman, HJ 2000, ‘From Dangerousness to Risk Assessment of Community Violence: Taking Stock at the Turn of the Century,’ Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 265–271.Google Scholar
  67. Sullivan, DH, Mullen PE & Pathé MT 2005, ‘Legislation in Victoria on Sexual Offenders: Issues for Health Professionals’, Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 183, no. 6, pp. 318–320.Google Scholar
  68. Thornberry, T P & Krohn, MD (eds) 2003, Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies, Kluwer Academic, New York.Google Scholar
  69. United States Government 2017, ‘Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae’, Loomis v Wisconsin, No. 16-6387.Google Scholar
  70. Zedner, L 2009, Security, Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Law SchoolUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations