A Comparative Analysis of Criminal Risk Assessment Tools

This report provides an in-depth examination of risk assessment tools within the criminal justice system, focusing on their role in predicting reoffending. It differentiates between structured and unstructured risk assessments, highlighting the increasing prevalence of structured methods. The core of the report delves into two primary structured tools: the Actuarial Decision Making tool, which employs algorithms and statistical data to predict risk, and the Structured Professional Judgment tool, which incorporates professional judgment alongside defined risk factors. The report analyzes the application of these tools, particularly in assessing sexual offenders and adolescent offenders. It then explores the validity, reliability, and limitations of each tool, including a comparative analysis of their similarities and differences, and presents case studies illustrating their practical application. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of these tools in enhancing the accuracy of judgments regarding future criminal behavior, and minimizing the impact of potential biases. The report also includes a bibliography of the sources used.

CRIMINAL RISK ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION
• Risk assessment in the criminal justice system tends to
answer the question:
“What is the possibility that someone who has
committed a crime will reoffend?”
• Risk assessment tools are majorly used by
probation officers, psychiatrists, psychologists
among others to assess the risk of criminal
offending violent offending and sexual offending
and to recommend whether an offender should be
placed in long - term psychiatric care.

FORM OF RISK
ASSESSMENT
• There are two major forms of risk assessment; structured and
unstructured. Structured risk assessment has gained popularity over
the years since studies show that unstructured risk assessments have
often proved to give wrong results since they are confined to only
professional expertise. (Kamorowsk et.al., 2018) In this paper, we
shall discuss two structured risk assessment tools which involve:
• Actuarial Decision making tool ;and
• Structured Professional judgment tool

RISK ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
ACTUARIAL DECISION MAKING TOOL
• Actuarial decision making involves the application of
algorithms, equations and decision rules to a set of
combined risk factors so as to arrive at predictive
decision. This is a tool that has been majorly used in
coming up with conclusive predictions in the field of
psychology.

STRUCTURED PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENT TOOL
This tool is an improved version of the
actuarial decision making tool. It involves
providing operational definitions and coding
rules for a set of risk factors and coming up
with a professional judgment in making the
final decision.('Violence Risk Assessment -
Iresearchnet' (Psychology 2020) <
http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-
psychology/violence-risk-assessment/>
accessed 17 April 2020)

RISK ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION
TO THE POPULATION OF THE
OFFENDERS
ACTUARIAL DECISION MAKING TOOL
• In relation to the targeted population, this risk
assessment tool focuses on sexual offenders. Two
major issues arise out of this;
THE purpose; and
THE validity of the instruments used.

ACTURIAL DECISION
MAKING TOOL CONT.
With regards to purpose, the instrument has to outline the
information of the examinee, the criminal offence, the
design as well as a summarized interview.
On the other hand, the instrument ought to exhibit predictive
validity that involve longitudinal research whereby repeated
observations of the same variables are done over short and
long periods of time. (Vincent et al.,n.d.)

STRUCTURED PROFESSIONAL
JUDGEMENTS
This is majorly used on adolescent sexual offenders.
The main specialized assessment in this is the Structured
Assessment of Violence Risk in youth (SAVRY). It has a
systematic order where it first differentiates violent and
non violent offenders. Thereafter, predicts violent and
non violent recidivism over a 12-month follow up period
and afterwards releases the results after a professional
judgment is made.(Lawing et al., 2017)

VALIDITY AND
RELIABILITY
• Over the years, actuarial decision making has been used
historically by various professions. It is an improved
version of clinical risk assessment. However with time,
it has lost its relevance since it generally relies on
selecting risk factors statistically which is a general
method and may give dubious results.
• How do we remedy this?

VALIDITY AND
RELIABILITY CONT.
• This has been cured by cross validation, however, it has still proven
not to give conclusive results. Also, it heavily relies on time -
invariant risk factors that are of less relevance. With time there has
been a great shift to structured professional judgment. This is because,
the latter is an imitation of the former with exceptions of its
downsides and an addition of professional judgment making it have a
higher preference to the former. .('Violence Risk Assessment -
Iresearchnet' (Psychology 2020) <
http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/violence-
risk-assessment/> accessed 17 April 2020)

CASE STUDIES
STRUCTURED PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENTS
• A 5-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY ON MALE JUVENILE
OFFENDERS IN HUNAN PROVINCE, CHINA
Objective
• The main objective of the study was to assess whether this risk
assessment tool could be used to predict violence reoffending in Chinese
Male Juvenile Offenders as well as determining which high risk factors
are majorly associated with violent recidivism.
Facts
• 246 juvenile offenders were recruited and interviews done together with
their legal guardians. Information of other arrests. charges and
convictions that happened 5 years after their release were collected from
the police records.

Findings
Out of the 246 juveniles, 63 of them were rearrested over other
violent offences that happened in the 5 year follow up.17 were
reported to have negative attitude, 18 with impulsivity and 20
with anger management problems.
Conclusion
The results conclusively explained the 25.0% of violence
offending in the province. It was also quite clear that the
structured professional judgment tool can be used to report on
the development and evaluation of effective violence risk
assessment ways to manage male juvenile offenders.(Zhou et
al., 2017)