Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 377–387 | Cite as

Sentencing Using Statistical Treatment Rules: What We Don’t Know Can Hurt Us

Research Note


The existing literature seriously misinterprets the available evidence on the predictability of high rate criminal offending and thus the potential value of statistical treatment rules that impose stiffer punishments on offenders with higher predicted risk of recidivism. The misinterpretation results from the failure to take account of the fact that the data used in existing risk assessment exercises come from environments characterized by informal (and sometimes formal) attempts by judges and other actors to base penal treatments on expected recidivism. Findings of little or no predictive power for baseline covariates may simply indicate the efficient use of the available information. We lay out the problem in detail, provide examples from several literatures and then consider general solutions to the problem.


Selective incarceration Sentencing Statistical treatment rule Profiling 



We thank Gary Sweeten and Peter Reuter for helpful discussions and two anonymous referees for their thoughtful comments.


  1. Andrews D, Bonta J, Wormith S (2006) The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime Delinq 52:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auerhahn K (1999) Selective incapacitation and the problem of prediction. Criminology 37:703–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger M, Black D, Smith J (2001) Evaluating profiling as a means of allocating government services. In: Lechner M, Pfeiffer P (eds) Econometric evaluation of active labour market policies. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 59–84Google Scholar
  4. Berk RA, Ladd H, Graziano H, Baek J-H (2003) A randomized experiment testing inmate classification systems. Criminol Public Policy 2(2):215–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black D, Smith J, Berger M, Noel B (2003) Is the threat of reemployment services more effective than the services themselves? Evidence from random assignment in the UI system. Am Econ Rev 93:1313–1327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black D, Smith J, Plesca M, Shannon S (2003) Estimating the duration of unemployment insurance benefit recipiency. Revised Final Report to the U.S. Department of LaborGoogle Scholar
  7. Black D, Galdo J, Smith J (2007) Evaluating the worker profiling and reemployment services system using a regression discontinuity design. Am Econ Rev Papers Proc 97(2):104–107Google Scholar
  8. Bushway S, Johnson B, Slocum LA (2007) Is the magic still there? The relevance of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. J Quant Criminol 23(2):151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eggleston E, Laub J, Sampson R (2004) Methodological sensitivities to latent class analysis of long-term criminal trajectories. J Quant Criminol 20:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engel RS (forthcoming). A critique of the outcome test in racial profiling research. Justice QuartGoogle Scholar
  11. Gendreau P, Little T, Goggin C (1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology 34(4):575–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottfredson D (1999) Effects of judge’s sentencing decisions on criminal careers. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. NCJ 178889Google Scholar
  13. Gottfredson S, Gottfredson D (1986) Accuracy of prediction models. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher C (eds) Criminal careers and “career criminals”. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 212–290Google Scholar
  14. Gottfredson S, Gottfredson D (1994) Behavioral prediction and the problem of incapacitation. Criminology 32:441–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gottfredson S, Moriarty L (2006) Statistical risk assessment: old problems and new applications. Crime Delinq 52:178–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hahn J, Todd P, van der Klaauw W (2001) Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica 69(1):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harcourt B (2006) Against prediction: profiling, policing and punishing in an actuarial age. University Of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleiman M, Ostrom B, Cheesman F (2007) Using risk assessment to inform sentencing decisions for nonviolent offenders in Virginia. Crime Delinq 53(1):106–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klepper S, Nagin D, Tierney L (1983) Discrimination in the criminal justice system: a critical appraisal of the literature. In: Blumstein A et al. (eds) Research on sentencing: the search for reform, vol II. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 55–128Google Scholar
  20. Knowles J, Persico N, Todd P (2001) Racial bias in motor-vehicle searches: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 109:203–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski C, Nagin D (1998) Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: a case study of sentencing and recidivism. Sociolog Methodol 28:99–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitchell O (2005) A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. J Quant Criminol 21(4):439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murphy S (2005) An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med 24(10):1455–1481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom B, Kleiman M, Cheesman F, Hansen R, Kauder N (2002) Offender risk assessment in Virginia: a three-stage evaluation. National Center for State Courts, WilliamsburgGoogle Scholar
  25. Steffensmeier D (1980) Assessing the impact of the women’s movement on sex-based differences in the handling of adult criminal defendants. Crime Delinq 26:344–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steffensmeier D, Kramer J, Streifel C (1993) Gender and imprisonment decisions. Criminology 31:411–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steffensmeier D, Kramer J, Ulmer J (1995) Age differences in sentencing. Justice Q 12:583–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tonry M (1996) Sentencing matters. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Van der Klaauw W (2002) Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on college enrollment: a regression-discontinuity approach. Int Econ Rev 43(4):1249–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Visher C (1986) The Rand inmate survey: a reanalysis. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher C (eds) Criminal careers and “career criminals”, vol 2. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 161–211Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations