Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Risk Factor

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Killing Time

  • 259 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter delves into the relevance of risk as a factor influencing parole decision-makers when deliberating on the release of life sentence prisoners. In addition to addressing the theoretical foundations of risk, the chapter examines legal and policy developments reflective of a risk-based approach and how risk technologies are employed in practice. Ireland can be considered as somewhat of an outlier to broader penal trends operating in many common law countries where the indicators of risk are more visible across the institutions of criminal justice. Nonetheless, there appears to be a shift towards a risk-based approach in the context of parole with decision-makers emphasising the centrality of public protection to their deliberative process. While Parole Board members state that risk is the central element, its relationship to decision-making is complex raising questions as to whether risk in the objective, knowable and probabilistic form has manifested itself in the practices of decision-makers.

There is an element of taking a chance perhaps, but that chance is almost a hundred per cent safe.

Parole Board member 03

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ‘Mental illness’ includes psychosis, affective disorder, anxiety disorder but excludes substance use disorder (Kennedy et al. 2005, pp. 47–48).

  2. 2.

    ‘Psychosis’ includes schizophrenia, psychotic mood disorder, substance induced psychosis and other psychotic disorders (Kennedy et al. 2005, pp. 47–48).

References

  • Abracen, J., Looman, J., & Anderson, D. (2000). Alcohol and drug abuse in sexual and nonsexual violent offenders. Sexual Abuse, 12(4), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2000). The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacik, I., & O’Connell, M. (1998). Crime and poverty in Ireland. Dublin: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 490–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Hartland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borum, R., Swartz, M., & Swanson, J. (1996). Assessing and managing violence risk in clinical practice. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 2(4), 205–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform (pp. 17–49). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken, D. C. (2010). Differing conceptions of risk and need in Irish probation officers. Irish Probation Journal, 7(1), 108–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2000). Calculations of risk in contemporary penal practice. In M. Brown & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order (pp. 93–108). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L. (2010). Responding to gun crime in Ireland. British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, J. M. (2007). What factors affect parole – A review of empirical research. Federal Probation, 71(1), 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carich, M. S., Metzger, C. K., Baig, M. S., & Harper, J. J. (2004). Enhancing victim empathy for sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(3–4), 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, D., & Carson, T. (2010). Public protection: Perpetrators, predictions, prevention and performance. In M. Nash & A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of public protection (pp. 162–180). Oxon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Central Statistics Office. (2011). Quarterly national household survey: Educational attainment thematic report 2011. Dublin: Central Statistics Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheliotis, L. K. (2006). How iron is the iron cage of new penology? The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy. Punishment and Society, 8(3), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copas, J., & Marshall, P. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: A statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series, 47(1), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe. (2003). Recommendation 23 on management by prison administrations of life-sentence and other long-term prisoners. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Predictive factors for violent misconduct in close custody. The Prison Journal, 87(2), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, E. (1995). Homicide in Ireland 1972–1991. Dublin: Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, E. (2001). Homicide in Ireland 1992–1996. Dublin: Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ekberg, M. (2007). The parameters of the risk society: A review and exploration. Current Sociology, 55(3), 343–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faigman, D. L., Monahan, J., & Slobogin, C. (2014). Group to individual (G2i) inference in scientific expert testimony. University of Chicago Law Review, 1, 417–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. (2002). Developmental criminology and risk focused prevention. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 657–701). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Ttofi, M. M. (2012). Risk and protective factors for offending. In D. P. Farrington & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of crime prevention (pp. 46–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1994). Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In D. Nelken (Ed.), The futures of criminology (pp. 173–201). New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, C. (2017, May 2). Parole head seeks priority housing for life term prisoners. Irish Times. Retrieved from https://www.irishtimes.com

  • Garland, D. (1996). The limits of the sovereign state strategy: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L., & Padfield, P. (Eds.). (2003). Exercising discretion: Decision-making in the criminal justice system and beyond. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. T., & Paparozzi, M. (2002). The common-sense revolution and correctional policy. In J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment (pp. 359–386). Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Smith, P., & Thériault, Y. L. (2009). Chaos theory and correctional treatment: Common sense, correctional quackery, and the law of fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 384–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K. (2004). Losing ground: Gendered knowledge, parole risk, and responsibility. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 11(3), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K., Maurutto, P., & Turnbull, S. (2009). Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation. Canadian Journal of Law & Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 24(3), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. D. (2003). Actuarial risk assessment: Commentary on Berlin et al. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(4), 383–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. D., & Cooke, D. J. (2013). Another look at the (im-)precision of individual risk estimates made using actuarial risk assessment instruments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, K. (1983). Assessing evil: Decision behaviour and Parole Board justice. British Journal of Criminology, 23(2), 101–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, D. (2012). Advise, assist and befriend: Can probation supervision support desistance? Social Policy & Administration, 46(4), 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, D., & O’Donnell, I. (2008). Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers. Probation Journal, 55(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heil, P., Harrison, L., English, K., & Ahlmeyer, S. (2009). Is prison sexual offending indicative of community risk? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 892–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., O’Neill, M. L., Stevens, T. N., Strohman, L. K., Bowman, Q., & Lo, Y. W. (2004). Assessing normative approaches to communicating violence risk: A national survey of psychologists. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(2), 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R., & Shute, S. (2000). Parole decision-making: Weighing the risk to the public. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, R., Shute, S., & Wilcox, A. (2000). The parole system at work: A study of risk based decision-making. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44(4), 961–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huebner, B. M., Varano, S. P., & Bynum, T. S. (2007). Gangs, guns, and drugs: Recidivism among serious, young offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(2), 187–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Watch. (2012). Old behind bars: The aging prison population in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Penal Reform Trust. (2016). ‘I’m here, time stands still’: The rights, needs and experiences of older people in prison. Dublin: IPRT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irish Times. (2006, March 9). McDowell defends length of murder sentences. Irish Times, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazemian, L., & Maruna, S. (2009). Desistance from crime. In M. D. Krohn, A. J. Lizotte, & G. Penly Hall (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 277–295). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (1998). Risk in probation practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2001). Risk assessment and management of known violent and sexual offenders: A review of current issues. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2003). Understanding risk in criminal justice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2006). Crime and risk. In P. Taylor-Goodby & J. Zinn (Eds.), Risk in social science (pp. 76–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2008). Understanding the managements of high risk offenders in the community. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H., & Maguire, M. (2001). Public protection, partnership and risk penality: The multi-agency risk management of sexual and violent offenders. Punishment and Society, 3(2), 237–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, H. G., Monks, S., Curtin, K., Wright, B., Linehan, S., Duffy, D., Telijeur, C., & Kelly, A. (2005). Mental illness in Irish prisoners: Psychiatric morbidity in sentenced, remanded, and newly committed prisoners. Dublin: National Forensic Mental Health Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilcommins, S., O’Donnell, I., O’Sullivan, E., & Vaughan, B. (2004). Crime, punishment and the search for order in Ireland. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, D., & O’Connor, W. A. (1988). A prospective study of predictors of violence in adult male mental health admissions. Law and Human Behavior, 12(2), 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubrin, C. E., & Stewart, E. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44(1), 165–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, W. R., Hogue, T. E., Taylor, J. L., Steptoe, L., Mooney, P., O’Brien, G., Johnston, S., & Smith, A. H. (2008). Risk assessment in offenders with intellectual disability: A comparison across three levels of security. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(1), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2000). Rehabilitation as rhetoric: The ideal of reformation in contemporary parole discourse and practices. Punishment and Society, 2(1), 40–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R. (2005). The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 9(2), 175–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurutto, P., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2006). Assembling risk and the restructuring of penal control. British Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 438–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNally, G. (2009). Probation in Ireland, part 2: The modern age, 1960s to 2000. Irish Probation Journal, 6(1), 187–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Hemmati, T. (2004). The measures of criminal attitudes and associates (MCAA) the prediction of general and violent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(6), 717–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, C. (2010). The psychology of the life sentence: The subjective experiences of life sentence prisoners. Unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monahan, J. (1993). Limiting therapist exposure to Tarasoff liability: Guidelines for risk containment. American Psychologist, 48(3), 242–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, J. L., & Daffern, M. (2011). Institutional aggression as a predictor of violent recidivism: Implications for parole decision making. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(1), 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, B. (1996). Risk assessment: A practitioner’s guide to predicting harmful behaviour. London: Whiting and Birch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R., Gray, E., Roberts, C., Taylor, E., & Merrington, S. (2013). Managing persistent and serious offenders in the community. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I. (2005). Crime and justice in the Republic of Ireland. European Journal of Criminology, 2(1), 99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, I., Baumer, E. P., & Hughes, N. (2008). Recidivism in the Republic of Ireland. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 123–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, P. (1997). Mountjoy prisoners: A sociological and criminological profile. Dublin: Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2000). Risk societies and the government of crime. In M. Brown & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous offenders: Punishment and social order, Dangerousness, risk and modern society (pp. 189–208). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2010). Crime and risk. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, T. (2016). Sentencing law and practice. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olden, J. (2001). Report of Mr John Olden on the management of the sentences of Thomas Murray, life sentence prisoner. Dublin: Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2010). Discretion and decision-making in public protection. In M. Nash & A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of public protection (pp. 103–132). Oxon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N., Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2000). An exploration of decision-making at discretionary lifer panels. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parole Board. (2002–2015). Annual reports. Dublin: Parole Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J. (2007). Penal populism. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, J., Brown, D., Brown, M., Hallsworth, S., & Morrison, W. (2005). The new punitiveness. Trends, theories and perspective. Devon: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M. (2012). Practitioner perceptions on the merits, challenges and ethical dilemmas of LSI-R in practice. Irish Probation Journal, 9(1), 111–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prison Service. (2001–2016). Annual reports. Dublin/Longford: Irish Prison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probation Service. (2008). Strategy statement 2008–2010. Dublin: Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2001). Power, knowledge and “what works” in probation. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(3), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2002). A rationality of risk in the Probation Service: Its evolution and contemporary profile. Punishment and Society, 4(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, A. (2003). In denial of murder: No parole. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 42(2), 176–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serin, R. (2011). Parole Board Canada: Pre-reading material (ATRA and decision framework). Parole Board Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/bopp/lib/bopp/SDM.pdf

  • Seymour, M., & Costello, L. (2005). A study of the number, profile and progression routes of homeless persons before the court and in custody in Dublin. Dublin: Probation and Welfare Service/Department of Justice and Equality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1998). Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4(1–2), 452–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaum, P. S., Clark Robbins, P., Mulvey, E. P., Grisson, T., Roth, L. H., & Banks, S. (2000). A classification tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikström, P. O. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Social mechanisms of community influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 118–148). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. C., & Gordon, A. (2006). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment-friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12(3), 279–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Table of Legal Instruments

Table of Cases

    Ireland

    • People (Attorney General) v O’Callaghan [1966] IR 501.

      Google Scholar 

    Table of Parliamentary Debates

    • 541 (2) Dáil Debates Col.199: John O’Donoghue, 3 October 2001.

      Google Scholar 

    • 913(2) Dáil Debates Col.: Frances Fitzgerald, 15 June 2016.

      Google Scholar 

    • Dáil Question No. 81: Frances Fitzgerald, 08 November 2016.

      Google Scholar 

    • Dáil Question No. 827: Frances Fitzgerald, 20 June 2017.

      Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Author information

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

      Diarmuid Griffin

    Authors
    1. Diarmuid Griffin
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2018 The Author(s)

    About this chapter

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this chapter

    Griffin, D. (2018). The Risk Factor. In: Killing Time. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72667-0_4

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72667-0_4

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

    • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72666-3

    • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72667-0

    • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation