University of Virginia School of Law -

This study examines how risk assessments may alter a judge’s sentencing for poor defendants compared to rich defendants. It also examines how access to risk assessments may heighten sentencing disparities between poor defendants with risk assessments provided, and poor defendants without risk assessments. Designed as a 2 x 2 factorial experiment, the study asks 340 American judges to assign a sentence based on provided fictional vignettes. The study finds that if provided with a risk assessment, relatively affluent defendants had a lower chance of incarceration. Conversely, if provided with a risk assessment, relatively poor defendants had a higher chance of incarceration. Additionally, relatively poor defendants without a risk assessment were given a lower chance of incarceration. Ultimately, the study finds that biases exist within risk assessment, which can increase sentencing disparities.

Jennifer Skeem teaches the intersection between behavior science and criminal justice at UC Berkeley. Nicholas Scurich specializes in judgement, decision making, and violence risk assessment at UC Irvine. John Monahan teaches how courts use behavior science at the University of Virginia School of Law.

READ ARTICLE

^{Keywords: Risk assessment, national, poor, rich, defendants, judges, sentencing, sentencing disparities, bias}