Archive for February, 2016

An Ill-Thought-Out Idea Advances in Florida

posted by Judge_Burke @ 15:30 PM
February 2, 2016

Last week, the Florida House Appropriations Committee approved “a controversial bill that would ask voters to impose term limits on state appellate judges” despite testimony against it by former Supreme Court Justice Major Harding.

In the Miami Herald, Mary Ellen Klas explains that the bill, which could be on the 2016 ballot if it passes the House and Senate, would limit those who serve on the state’s supreme court and intermediate appellate courts to a total of 12 years, with some exceptions for judges appointed to partial terms. Rep. Richard Corcoran (R), a major proponent of the bill, stated that “if legislators and governors have term limits, the judiciary should as well.” Former Justice Harding, however, expressed concern that the measure would “not only discourage people from seeking a court appointment but will diminish the quality of people who serve on the bench.” According to Klas, The Florida Bar, many legal scholars, and judicial advocates also oppose the bill.


Risk Assessment: How Accurate is the Tool You Use?

posted by Judge_Burke @ 15:30 PM
February 1, 2016

There are many probation departments who rely on risk assessment tools in making recommendations about bail, eligibility to be in a drug court, and sentencing. Proponents argue these assessments make the criminal justice system more fair. Many judges and many lawyers have a cursory knowledge of the tools used in their jurisdiction. But, what if the tool used in your jurisdiction has flaws? 


Gender, Risk Assessment, and Sanctioning: The Cost of Treating Women Like Men

Jennifer L. Skeem 

University of California, Berkeley

John Monahan 

University of Virginia School of Law

Christopher T. Lowenkamp 

Government of the United States of America – Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

January 18, 2016



Increasingly, jurisdictions across the U.S. are using risk assessment instruments to scaffold efforts to unwind mass incarceration without compromising public safety. Despite promising results, critics oppose the use of these instruments to inform sentencing and correctional decisions. One argument is that the use of instruments that include gender as a risk factor will discriminate against men in sanctioning. Based on a sample of 14,310 federal offenders, we empirically test the predictive fairness of an instrument that omits gender, the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA). We found that the PCRA strongly predicts arrests for both genders — but overestimates women’s likelihood of recidivism. For a given PCRA score, the predicted probability of arrest — which is based on combining both genders — is too high for women. Although gender neutrality is an obviously appealing concept, it may translate into instrument bias and overly harsh sanctions for women. With respect to the moral question of disparate impact, we found that women obtain slightly lower mean scores on the PCRA than men (d= .32); this difference is wholly attributable to men’s greater criminal history, a factor already embedded in sentencing guidelines.