Abstract:Objective: Use of risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system is controversial. Advocates emphasize that risk assessments are more transparent, consistent, and accurate in predicting re-offending than judicial intuition. Skeptics worry that risk assessments will increase socioeconomic disparities in incarceration. Ultimately, judges make decisions-not risk assessments. This study tests whether providing risk assessment information interacts with a defendant's socioeconomic class to influence judges' sentencing decisions. Hypotheses: Tentatively, socioeconomic status was expected to have a main effect; without an interaction with risk assessment information. Method: Judges (N = 340) with sentencing experience were randomly assigned to review 1 of 4 case vignettes and sentence the defendant to probation, jail, or prison. Information in the vignettes was held constant, except the defendant's socioeconomic status and whether risk assessment information was provided. Results: Risk assessment information reduced the likelihood of incarceration for relatively affluent defendants, but the same information increased the likelihood of incarceration for relatively poor defendants. This finding held after controlling for the sex, race, political orientation, and jurisdiction of the judge. Conclusions: Cuing judges to focus on risk may re-frame how they process socioeconomic status-a variable with opposite effects on perceptions of blameworthiness for past crime versus perceptions of risk for future crime. Providing risk assessment information may have transformed low socioeconomic status from a circumstance that reduced the likelihood of incarceration (by mitigating perceived blameworthiness) to a factor that increased the likelihood of incarceration (by increasing perceived risk). Under some circumstances, risk assessment information may increase sentencing disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Assessing the Differential Effects of Race and Ethnicity on Sentence Outcomes under Different Sentencing Systems

Sentencing and State-Level Racial and Ethnic Contexts

A Multilevel Test of Minority Threat Effects on Sentencing

Assessing Cumulative Disadvantage Against Minority Female Defendants in State Courts

Racial Sentencing Disparities and Differential Progression Through the Criminal Justice System: Evidence From Linked Federal and State Court Data

Revisiting the Minority Threat Perspective: Examining the Main and Interactive Effects of Segregation on Sentencing Severity

Examining the Direct and Interactive Effects of Changes in Racial and Ethnic Threat on Sentencing Decisions

Sentencing Disparity and Sentencing Guidelines: the Case of China

Citizenship, Legal Status, and Federal Sentencing Outcomes: Examining the Moderating Effects of Age, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity

Sentencing guidelines: A quantitative comparison of sentencing policies in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington

Examining Cumulative Disadvantage Against American Indian Defendants in Federal Courts

Sex Disparities in Sentencing and Judges’ Beliefs: A Vignette Approach

Discrimination in Sentencing: Showing Remorse and the Intersection of Race and Gender

Impact of risk assessment on judges' fairness in sentencing relatively poor defendants

Associations of Racial Equity Training, Policies, and Practices With Routine Supervision Strategies in Community Corrections

Legal and Extra-Legal Factors Related to the Imposition of Blended Sentences

Examining the Impact of Ecological Contexts on Gender Disparity in Federal Sentencing

Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions

Evidence-based sentencing: Public openness and opposition to using gender, age, and race as risk factors for recidivism.

Neighborhood effects and consequences of criminal justice contact: a research framework

Judges’ Perceptions of Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System