Quantitative decision models increasingly are replacing human judgment and discretion in criminal justice decision making. Some view this change positively, as they believe discretion is arbitrary and introduces race, class, gender, and other forms of bias into decisions. Others equate the spread of quantitative decision models with the “scientification” of administration and contend that it detracts from professionalism, democracy, and participatory administration. This study examines the implementation process and the role of risk/need assessment instruments for decisions about the proper level of supervision in parole and probation situations. The findings indicate a generally negative or, at best, neutral view toward the instruments, although they were seen as having some value for management and legitimation purposes. Paradoxically, the respondents found it hard to envision a system without them, and a slight majority believed the system was better off with the instruments than with discretionary decisions. One of the intriguing findings is that those who had more confidence in the value of the instruments also were more likely to believe they were personally effective in reducing recidivism, rehabilitating offenders, and reducing the crime rate. In this sense, the scientific status of the risk/need instruments lends perceptual rationality and legitimation to the work of the probation officers.
Read full abstract