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).

Judging Hardworking Robbers and Lazy Thieves: An Experimental Test of Act- vs. Person-Centered Punitiveness and Perceived Redeemability

Money, Moral Transgressions, and Blame

Calculated Punishment

Exploring individual-level predictors of punitive attitudes in Australia

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

Intuitive anger in the context of crime and punishment

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

Jobs and Punishment: Public Opinion on Leniency for White-Collar Crime

How information about perpetrators' nature and nurture influences assessments of their character, mental states, and deserved punishment

Situational Moral Evaluations: The Role of Rationalizations & Moral Identity

Do individual characteristics explain variation in sanction risk updating among serious juvenile offenders? Advancing the logic of differential deterrence.

Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality.

Stigmatizing 'evildoers': how beliefs about evil and public stigma explain criminal justice policy preferences

The role of personality and the need for cognitive closure in shaping punitiveness to crime

Sympathy with resentment: Willingness to report criminal behavior depends on the punishment

'Lock them up and throw away the key': an evaluation of the structure of punitive attitudes

Consequentialist Motives for Punishment Signal Trustworthiness

Who Is Your Biggest Critic? Cultural Variation in Moral Judgments of the Self and Others

The relationship of the source of punishment and personality traits with investment and punishment in a public goods game

Punitive attitudes toward cartels: evidence from an experimental study

Empathy and Negative Reciprocity as Predictors of Third-Party Punishment