Abstract OBJECTIVES: Proponents of criminogenic risk assessment have called for its widespread expansion throughout the criminal justice system. Its success in predicting recidivism is taken as evidence that criminogenic risks tap into the causes of criminal behavior, and that targeting these factors can reduce correctional supervision rates and even prevent crime. This study challenges these assertions, by testing the implicit assumption that populations in which recidivism risk factors were identified are interchangeable with populations experiencing the onset/duration of exposure to the criminal justice system.
Abstract Risk assessment and risk reduction have become increasingly central to criminal justice policy and practice in the last 25 years. Yet there remains a lack of consensus both on the theoretical and methodological foundations of risk and on its social and practical implications. Some proponents see risk assessment and reduction as solutions to the inefficiencies and injustices of contemporary mass incarceration. Some critics see actuarial risk as being partially responsible for mass incarceration, and warn that recent iterations will only reinscribe existing inequalities under a new guise of objectivity.
Abstract Although research robustly indicates that general or "criminogenic" factors predict various measures of recidivism, there is controversy about the extent to which these factors, versus untreated symptoms, lead to justice involvement for people with mental illnesses. Based on a sample of 183 people in intensive outpatient treatment followed for an average period of 34.5 months, the present study tested whether criminogenic factors (i.e., factor-analytically derived proxies of some of the "Central Eight"; Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and psychotic symptoms were independently associated with arrest.