Offender's Criminal History Research Articles

単発の殺人における犯人の犯罪経歴の予測手法<br/>―ロジスティック回帰分析と決定木の比較―

The present study compared decision tree analysis to logistic regression analysis in order to investigate whether decision tree analysis has sufficient ability to construct a model that predicts offender characteristics from the crime scene and/or victim information. The data used in this study were collected from solved single homicide cases that occurred in Japan between 2004 and 2009 (n=1226). After constructing models that predict offender's criminal history by logistic regression analysis and decision tree analysis, AUC (area under the ROC curve) of those models and the predictive values were compared. The AUC was .75 (p<.001) for logistic regression model and .71 (p<.001) for the decision tree model. A significant difference between these AUCs was not observed (χ2(1)=3.71, p=.05). The predictive values were 67.3% for both the logistic regression model and the decision tree model. These findings suggest that the decision tree is comparable to logistic regression analysis in constructing a model that predicts the offender's criminal history from offence characteristics in single homicide cases.

Race, Ethnicity, and Judicial Discretion

Without question, discretion plays an important role in the criminal-sentencing process. Some of this discretion has resulted in racial and ethnic disparity in sentencing. Under the Sentencing Reform Act (1984), judicial discretion was constrained as a result of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. For the 20 years that followed, for the most part, judges could only consider offense severity and offender criminal history when applying sentences. However, in 2005, the Federal Guidelines were made advisory following the United States v. Booker decision. This study evaluates the effects of this decision on sentence length. Using data from the Monitoring of Federal Criminal Sentences database, I estimate the effects of Booker, as well as race, ethnicity, and other variables on sentencing. Moreover, I use quantile regression models to examine whether the effects of those variables are consistent across the distribution of sentences. Implications are discussed.

BASELINE FINDINGS OF A PROSPECTIVE STUDY ON PRO-OFFENDING ATTITUDES AND SELF-REPORTED PROBLEMS AMONG JUVENILE PROBATIONERS

Although there are scholarly articles and government reports published over the years (Chui, 2004, 2006; Lo et al., 1997), little is known about the effectiveness of the current Hong Kong probation system in reducing juvenile probationers' recidivism risk and easing their community reintegration process. Thus, this Phase One study of an ongoing three-phase longitudinal project aims to set a baseline to measure the pro-offending attitudes and self-reported problems of 77 male juvenile offenders (aged 14 to 20) who recently started their probation period at a residential home using CRIME-PICS II. Phases Two and Three will be conducted upon the completion of their probation and eventual release into their community. Within-programme changes will be measured to examine the effectiveness of the current juvenile probation practice. Sample demographic characteristics, offender criminal history, and CRIME-PICS II descriptive findings are presented. This project is imperative in several aspects with implications for both public policy and social work practice.

Is the Offense Serious Axis Free of Extralegal Influence?: Assessing the Predictors of a ‘Legally Relevant’ Guideline Criterion

Grid based sentencing guidelines, composed of offense seriousness and offender criminal history axis, have become a staple of US sentencing in recent decades. As such, extensive research explores whether they reduce extralegal sentence disparity. However, to date, no study has examined whether extralegal disparity is present in how either axis of guideline sentencing are constructed. Using federal sentencing commission data along with both single and multi-level analyses, this research explores the legal and extralegal factors that predict one of these key grid axes: the offense seriousness score. The results call into question not only some assumptions underlying guideline sentencing but also recent analytical strategies for assessing sentencing outcomes in guideline systems.

Youth sex offenders in court

Sexual offending by young people is increasingly viewed as a social problem that requires a strong response, but there is little research on the legal treatment of youthful sex offenders. On the one hand, these youths may be viewed as potential future sex offenders; on the other hand, because of their youth and immaturity they may be considered more reformable than adults and their behaviour more excusable. This article builds on an archival study of 385 sexual offence cases, which were disposed in court and by conference and formal caution, in South Australia from 1995 to 2001. Drawing on the transcripts of 55 cases sentenced by judges (i.e. the most legally serious offences), we analyse sentencing discourses and outcomes using both the explicit and latent content of the sentencing remarks. Specifically, we explore the judges' orientations and aims when sentencing adolescent sex offenders, how judges reconcile the seriousness of offending and the youthfulness of offenders and how they balance the competing interests of victims and offenders. Two major findings emerge. First, the cases fell in a three-way typology patterned by the victims' age, the context of the offence and the offender's criminal history. Second, our study suggests that while youth court judges consider sexual offending against children as very serious and are concerned by future offending, they do not adopt a punitive approach, but rather a therapeutic and rehabilitative perspective at sentencing.

Assessment of Hate Crime Offenders: The Role of Bias Intent in Examining Violence Risk

ABSTRACT This study investigated the criminal histories and violence risk of a sample of 204 hate crime offenders. Record review of the offender's criminal history was rated on the HCR-20 and Cormier-Lang scales. Crime reports were rated for the severity of the bias offense on the Victim Functional Impact scale and the offender's targeting of outgroup victims–i.e., the bias intent. Findings indicated that 56% of the offenders had prior criminal convictions; HCR-20 ratings were comparable to those found in other offender groups and were correlated with the severity of the hate crime. The severity of the criminal history as measured on the Cormier-Lang scale, the number of prior arrests, and number of criminal convictions were significantly greater for offenders who targeted racial minority victims. Offenders who belonged to bias oriented groups had more extensive and violent criminal histories and committed more severe hate crimes. Findings are considered in terms of clinical intervention and risk assessment practices with hate crime offenders.

Intermediate Sanctions and the Halfway Back Program in Kentucky

Intermediate sanctions are more cost-effective means of responding to crime, both at the initial point of sanctioning, and as a means of responding to noncompliant offenders already under supervision. However, if intermediate sanction programs are to provide a viable option for avoiding further over-crowding in our prisons, and limiting spending on corrections, the operations of such programs, and the ways in which offenders are selected for participation must be efficient and effective. The key to success, then, for intermediate sanctions for offenders who violate conditions of community supervision is to establish a viable set of criteria for screening potential program participants. In our study of Kentucky's Halfway Back Program we found that traditional demographic and offender criminal history screening criteria were not accurate predictors of successful program completion. The failure of these factors to successfully predict program completion point to the need to refine the policies governing the criteria used to select offenders for placement in intermediate sanction programs.

Relationship to Victim Predicts Sentence Length in Sexual Assault Cases

There is good evidence that rapists and rape are viewed differently according to the social relationship between the victim and offender. Clinical files from 204 rapists incarcerated at a medium-security penitentiary were reviewed. The rapists were divided into three groups: 103 stranger rapists, 36 acquaintance rapists, and 65 partner rapists (including 20 men who sexually assaulted ex-partners). Based on previous findings, we predicted no group differences in terms of demographic or offense characteristics. Based on social psychological and legal findings, we predicted that victim-offender relationship would be related to sentence length, even after controlling for presumably relevant factors such as the offender's criminal history. Our predictions were supported. Stranger rapists used more force that partner rapists and caused more physical injury than rapists of known victims. However, these factors did not predict sentence length. There were only two significant predictors: excessiveness of force used and victim-offender relationship.

The Role of Criminal Record in the Sentencing Process

An offender's criminal history plays an important role in sentencing in all jurisdictions. Statutory enhancements for repeat offenders exist in most countries, and there is widespread public support for harsher penalties for recidivists. Advocates of general or specific deterrence support a recidivist premium on the grounds that recidivists are more likely to reoffend and need stronger disincentives. Incapacitationists argue that longer detention is required for offenders with a greater likelihood of reoffending. Most desert-based theorists support a limited sentencing discount for first offenders. State and federal sentencing guideline systems in the United States attach great importance to criminal history information, but there is considerable diversity in the way in which different systems define and limit the use of previous convictions. This essay explores a number of important policy issues relating to the use of criminal history information, including definitions of what should be included in a criminal record, the use of juvenile adjudications, the duration of previous convictions, and the question of whether previous criminal misconduct should ever be completely effaced. As well, a number of alternative ways of conceptualizing criminal history are explored. Throughout this essay, the focus is on the sentencing guideline systems in the United States, although many of these issues also apply to other jurisdictions.

The role of criminal record in the federal sentencing guidelines

Most criminal justice systems accord a central role to an offender's criminal history in the determination of sentence, although the importance of previous convictions varies across jurisdictions. In countries such as Canada, Australia, England and Wales, criminal record plays a critical but limited role in sentencing. Elsewhere, in several American states, criminal record is primary, eclipsing even the seriousness of the offence of conviction as a determinant of severity.(1) Criminal history is relevant in jurisdictions with formal guideline systems, as well as countries that have traditionally eschewed such attempts to structure sentencing practices. Most penal codes around the world also contain repetitive offender provisions that prescribe higher penalties for recidivists, or which defer parole eligibility for the recidivist offender.(2) Statutory premiums for recidivists are not new--for example, the Indictable Offences Bill, introduced in England well over a century ago, provided a mandatory minimum for repeat offenders.(3) Finally, it is worth noting that public attitudes regarding sentencing are also strongly influenced by the offender's criminal antecedents. Survey research in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere suggests that when members of the public are asked to sentence offenders, support for incarceration increases as a direct function of the number of prior convictions.(4) Justifying the Recidivist Premium The exact impact of criminal record is determined, in theory, by the nature of the underlying sentencing purpose(s). Some desert theorists, including Andrew von Hirsch and Martin Wasik,(5) regard criminal history as being relevant to the sentencing decision, albeit in a limited way. They argue that our everyday moral judgements incorporate the notion of leniency towards people who transgress for the first time. According to this view, a lapse into criminality after a lifetime of lawabiding behavior should be responded to with a certain degree of tolerance. The result is a first offender discount. As Wasik and Von Hirsch note: A first offender, after being confronted with censure or blame, is capable--as a reasoning human being presumed capable of ethical judgments--of reflecting on the morality of what he has done and of making an extra effort to show greater restraint. What we do, in granting the discount [to first offenders], is to show respect for this capacity--and thereby give the offender a so-called 'second chance.' With repetitions, however, the discount should begin to diminish and eventually disappear.(6) In practice, this justification is known as the progressive loss of mitigation.(7) However, there are other desert theorists (such as George Fletcher and Alexis Durham III) who see little role for criminal record in the determination of sanction(8). According to their perspective, there should be no discount for first offenders, and no increase in severity as a function of the number of previous convictions. Neither version of desert theory distinguishes between offenders with lengthy, but varying criminal histories. For Wasik and Von Hirsch, such offenders can no longer claim that their current transgressions are at odds with their actions to that point; they have had their second chance. For the other desert theorists, there is no role for criminal record to mitigate even for first offenders. The utilitarian sentencing purposes use an offender's criminal record in a very different way. An incapacitation strategy would give primary weight to the offender's criminal record, on grounds that the actuarial probability of future offending depends largely on the number and nature of priors. Advocates of individual deterrence would take a re-conviction as evidence that a harsher was now required as the previous clearly failed to deter the offender. Some form of recidivist premium then is justified according to almost all sentencing theories. …

Explaining Deviant Behaviour: The Social Context Of `Action' and `Infraction' Accounts in the Probation Service

The most familiar sociological image of the probation officer sees him firmly committed to some variant of a psycho-pathological view of deviancy in which both society and volition are disregarded. It was from this assumption that the research sprang, the purpose being to examine the treatment ideologies held by probation officers. But from focussed interviews, it was clear that explanations of deviancy offered by the probation officers were wider than anticipated, encompassing both determinist and voluntarist accounts of behaviour. It is suggested that the structural context of probation work - utilitarian justice and casework treatment notions - creates more `space' for offering a greater variety of explanations than has often been appreciated. And, in offering these explanations probation officers do not necessarily reinterpret their clients' accounts which were sometimes accepted and at other times rejected. How the cases were explained appears to depend on the circumstances of the case. The more serious the offender's criminal history or his personal or social problems, the more likely it was that the probation officer thought in determinist terms offering an `action' account. But equally, the respondents recognised the sometimes voluntary nature .4 delinquency, though this was generally in less serious cases.