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).

Bias, insecurity and the level of trust in the judiciary: the case of Brazil

Confidence in the Judicial System: Evidence from Brazil

Behavioral Biases and Judicial Decision-Making in Brazil

Judicial Favoritism of Politicians: Evidence from Small Claims Court

SOCIAL TRUST, INEQUALITY, AND STATE INSTITUTIONS IN BRAZIL

Gender Bias Detection in Court Decisions: A Brazilian Case Study

Electoral Crime Under Democracy: Information Effects from Judicial Decisions in Brazil

The impact of judiciary decisions on public security policies in Brazil

Legal socialisation in Brazil: examining the generalisability of the procedural justice model

Public Confidence in the Judiciary and the Police – Does Respondents Internalize Montesquieu’s Ideas?

THE SUPREME THEATRE: HOW INDIVIDUALISM AND THE EXTREME PUBLICITY ARE UNDERMINING THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS OF THE SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL

Fight like a Woman: Domestic Violence and Female Judges in Brazil

Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making: Evaluating the role of AI in debiasing

PROTECTING POLITICAL RIGHTS OR INTERFERING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA?

Victimization, Fear of Crime, and Trust in Criminal Justice Institutions: A Cross-National Analysis

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

Judges’ Perceptions of Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System

Economic Inequality and Unfairness Evaluations of Income Distribution Negatively Predict Political and Social Trust: Evidence From Latin America Over 23 Years

Court Enforcement, Bank Loans, and Firm Investment: Evidence from a Bankruptcy Reform in Brazil

Assessing randomness in case assignment: the case study of the Brazilian Supreme Court

Biased Language Detection in Court Decisions