Evidence-based sentencing and scientific evidence.
criminal law
evidence-based policies
evidence-based sentencing
rehabilitation
scientific evidence
selective incapacitation
violence risk assessments
Journal
Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
07
10
2023
accepted:
30
10
2023
medline:
30
11
2023
pubmed:
30
11
2023
entrez:
30
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Evidence-based sentencing (EBS) is a new name for an aspiration that has deep roots in criminal law: to apply the sentence most appropriate to each offender's risk of reoffending, in order to reduce that risk as far as possible. This modern version of the traditional sentencing goals of rehabilitation and incapacitation fits into the broader approach of so-called "evidence-based public policy." It takes the view that the best existing evidence for reducing reoffending are modern structured risk assessment tools and claims to be able to achieve several goals at once: reducing reoffending, maintaining high levels of public safety, making more efficient use of public resources, and moving criminal policy away from ideological battles by basing it on the objective knowledge provided by the best available scientific evidence. However, despite the success of this approach in recent years, it is not clear to what extent it succeeds in correctly assessing the risk of individual offenders, nor whether it achieves its intended effect of reducing recidivism. This paper aims to critically examine these two issues: the quality of the scientific evidence on which EBS is based, and the available data on the extent to which it achieves (or does not achieve) its intended goals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38034313
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1309141
pmc: PMC10682443
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1309141Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Martínez-Garay.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Mar;204(3):180-7
pubmed: 24590974
Law Hum Behav. 2018 Jun;42(3):181-214
pubmed: 29648841
BMJ. 2012 Jul 24;345:e4692
pubmed: 22833604
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Apr;5(2):65-6
pubmed: 10947548
Perspect Biol Med. 2009 Spring;52(2):304-18
pubmed: 19395827
Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 29;9(1):841
pubmed: 30696902
Behav Sci Law. 2018 Sep;36(5):638-656
pubmed: 30451322
Psychol Med. 2012 May;42(5):895-8
pubmed: 22017918
Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):55-73
pubmed: 23444299
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;3(6):535-43
pubmed: 27086134
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr;84:11-13
pubmed: 28532611
Eur Psychiatry. 2017 May;42:134-137
pubmed: 28371726
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:21-34
pubmed: 16053581
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e91845
pubmed: 24632561
Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):740-67
pubmed: 20804235
Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):8-22
pubmed: 23408459
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:489-513
pubmed: 26666966
Behav Sci Law. 2013 Jan-Feb;31(1):154-64
pubmed: 23408438
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2016 Jul 21;24(2):292-301
pubmed: 31983955
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Aug;62(4):783-92
pubmed: 7962882
Law Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;43(5):397-420
pubmed: 31414840
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May;73:82-6
pubmed: 26934549