|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 155
6
Use of Criminal Career Information
in Criminal Justice Decision Making
INTRODUCTION
All stages of decision making within
the criminal justice system may use infor-
mation regarding an incliviclual's criminal
career: a police officer in deciding
whether or not to arrest a suspect, a pros-
ecutor in cleciding whether to pursue a
case, a magistrate in setting pretrial re-
lease conditions, a sentencing judge in
weighing community safety when ciecicI-
ing on a punishment, and a parole board
in making a release decision. In all of
these decisions, there are multiple, often
competing, objectives, of which one re-
flects a concern for public safety: that
concern involves at least an implicit at-
tempt to assess an indiviclual's criminal
career. The dimensions of criminal ca-
reers cannot be measurer! directly, but
decision makers often attempt to draw
inferences about them from observable
characteristics such as prior record, age,
employment status, or drug clependency.
The resulting characterization of an of-
fender reflects a decision maker's own
experience with offenders in the context
of her or his personal background and
155
theories of behavior. Thus, these con-
structed portraits of offenders are likely to
be basest on varying information and to
slider considerably across decision
makers.
At each decision stage, the characteris-
tics used to assess a suspect are con-
strained in part by the type of information
at hand and by the time avaflable to
gather adclitional information. Aciclitional
time may permit successive decision
makers to assemble a more complete pic-
ture. However, decision makers are
rarely able to generate detafled informa-
tion about the most operationally relevant
criminal career dimensions: the fre-
quency of offending and the time remain-
ing in the career. Rather, they use the
available information to roughly cate-
gorize inclivicluals on the basis of a
presumed likelihood of future criminal
activity by converting an indivicluaT's
observable attributes into some general
risk classification, such as high, low, or
medium risk. This process may be ex-
plicit, as in the formal scoring methods
used by parole boards for release deci-
sions and by prosecutors for case assign
OCR for page 156
156
meets to criminal career units, or implicit,
anc! perhaps only as a secondary objec
· . · , · ~
Eve, In a JUC .ge s sentencing ctec~s~ons.
For most decisions, a risk classification
contributes to the selection of one of the
available choices low bone! or high
boncI; a sentence to prison, jail, or proba-
tion; release on parole or clenial but it is
almost never the only consideration. The
complexity of these other considerations,
such as retribution in sentences or
strength of the evidence in prosecutorial
decisions, makes it particularly clifficult to
isolate the role of criminal career informa-
tion in the clecision. In aciclition, in all
these decisions, ethical considerations
limit the ways in which a risk cIassifica-
tion can be used in a decision. The nature
of those limits varies consiclerably across
the different stages of the criminal justice
system; for example, the use of risk cIas-
sifications at parole has long been ac-
ceptec] anc] is wiclely practiced, while
such classifications at sentencing are
more controversial.
There is also consiclerable debate
about the kinds of variables that shouIc!
legitimately enter any formal risk cIassifi-
cation. The most legally relevant vari-
able-the current offense- is an impor-
tant consideration, as is information about
prior adult convictions. Other defendant
characteristics that might have predictive
power, but that are more controversial,
include variables like prior arrests (espe-
cially if not followed by convictions), or
socioeconomic factors such as employ-
ment status. The most controversial vari-
ables are so-called ascribed characteris-
tics, such as sex or race, over which the
offender has no control.
Previous chapters
state of knowledge about criminal careers
ant! the means by which the criminal
justice system might try to intervene to
modify those careers. In this chapter we
summarized the
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
examine ways in which criminal career
information is used, both formally and
informally, in decision making and the
means by which better information might
be provided to facilitate those uses. We
first examine the various ways in which
criminal career information is combined
with other considerations in decisions at
each stage of criminal processing. Such
information is most relevant in decisions
about whether to hold a person in con-
finement.
We next examine methodological ap-
proaches for the development of predic-
tion scales. In some jurisdictions for some
stages of the criminal justice system, the
use of risk classifications invokes explicit
prediction methods in which predictor
variables are selected, weighted, and
combined to generate a precliction score.
This score is used to form a classification
rule: individuals with prediction scores
above a specified cut point are designated
"high risk" and those with scores below
that cut point are designated "low risk."
Any such classification rule inevitably re-
sults in some errors among predicted
high risks who are not (false positives)
and predicted Tow risks who are not (false
negatives). Use of prediction in criminal
justice decision making raises some ethi-
cal questions: the weight to give to pre-
dicted future offending, "unacceptable"
predictor variables, and the selection of
the cut point, which dictates the mix of
false positive and false negative errors.
Although the choices of weights, vari-
ables, ant! cut points must be macle lo-
cally, we attempt to identify the critical
issues to be considered in making those
choices.
Finally, since all prediction scales are
dependent on the quality ant! complete-
ness of the data available, we examine
some issues in the use of individual rec-
ords, and particularly juvenile recorcls,
OCR for page 157
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER lNFORMATlON lN DECISION MAKING
which might contribute appreciably to
improved classification.
CRIMINAL CAREER PERSPECTIVES
IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE DECISION
MAKING
A substantial bocly of research, summa-
rized in a paper prepared for the pane!
(Gottfredson and Got~redson, Volume
II), has been directed at establishing the
determinants of each major criminal jus-
tice decision: arrest, prosecution, pretrial
release, sentencing, and parole.) The dis-
cussion in this section examines the de-
gree to which those decisions selectively
target individuals with serious criminal
careers, i.e., those with the highest aver-
age values of offending frequency (A),
especially for serious crimes, and the
longest residual careers. Chanters 2, 3,
ant! 4 highlight the relevance of the in-
stant offense, records of the prior adult
and juvenile criminal activity, drug use,
and employment history as indicators of
more serious criminal careers; this chap-
ter emphasizes the role of those factors in
criminal justice decision making.2
iWith respect to research on decisions on arrest,
see, for example, Piliavin and Briar (1964), LaFave
(1965), Black and Reiss (1970), Reiss (1971), and
Smith and Visher (1981~; on prosecution choices,
see Forst and Brosi (1977), Forst, Lucianovic, and
Cox (1977), Jacoby, Mellon, and Smith (1982),
Feeney (1983~; on pretrial release see Ebbeson and
Konecni (1975), Bynum (1976), Bock and Frazier
(1977), Roth and Wice (1978), Goldkamp (1979),
Goldkamp and Gottiredson (1984~; on sentencing,
see major reviews by Blumstein et al. (1983), Hagan
and Bumiller (1983), Garber, Klepper, and Nagin
(1983), and Klepper, Nagin, and Tierney (1983~; on
parole, see major reviews by Schuessler (1954),
Mannheim and Wilkins (1955), and D.M.
Gottfredson, Wilkins, and Hoffman (1978~.
2The literature contains research on many other
factors, ranging from psychological tests to defend-
ant demeanor in the courtroom, that we did not
review and are not covered in this discussion.
~- 7
157
Police Decisions
Faced with the decision to arrest a
suspect, police officers must weigh the
evidence of"probable cause" (LaFave,
1965) along with considerations of main-
taining public order and protecting other
people. Information about the criminal
careers of suspects is most useful in ad-
vancing the latter objective. Except when
an arrest occurs at the end of an investi-
gation, such information has typically
not been available at the time of the ar-
rest decision. However, this situation is
changing as telecommunications equip-
ment and advanced record retrieval
systems allow officers on the scene to
check a suspect's wanted or warrant sta-
tus.
Studies of police officers' arrest deci-
sions report that the dominant variable
accounting for a police decision to arrest
is the seriousness of the alleger] offense
(see, e.g., Black, 1971; Sherman, 1980;
Smith, 19821. Over factors that increase
the probability of arrest are hostile behav-
ior by the suspect, victims' preferences
for arrest, a stranger-to-stranger relation-
ship between the victim and the suspect,
the officer's prior knowledge of the par-
ties involved, and low socioeconomic
neighborhood (see, e.g., Piliavin and
Briar, 1964; Frieclrich, 1977; Smith,
19861. Some evidence suggests that in
encounters involving interpersonal dis-
putes, suspects who appear to be under
the influence of alcohol are more likely
to be arrested (Smith and Klein, 1984~;
however, the effect of suspects' drug use
on arrest decisions has not been exam-
ined.
Programs have been established to
structure police decision making in order
to focus additional resources on offenders
with serious criminal careers. This can be
accomplished by targeting prearrest in
OCR for page 158
158
vestigation on such offenders, by postar-
rest investigation to assist in prosecuting
them, and by placing high priority on
serving warrants on them (Gay and Bow-
ers, 19851. Of the three approaches, only
prearrest targeting leaves the choice of
targets to the police; postarrest priorities
are generally establisher! by statute or by
prosecutors.
As one example, prearrest targeting
was a major theme of the Repeat Offender
Project (ROP) of the Washington, D.C.,
Metropolitan Police Department. A sne-
cial ROP unit was established in 1982 to
target and apprehend offenders believed
to be committing five or more FBI index
offenses per week (an annual frequency
of at least 260) or to be trafficking in stolen
property. Initially, a committee of senior
officers selectee] ROP targets without
any explicit rule-on the basis of informa-
tion developed through informants and
investigations, as well as available police
records; other offenders became ROP tar-
gets because of outstanding warrants or
arrest opportunities that arose during in-
vestigations of other targets. This selec-
tion process led to the targeting of of-
fenders who were older than average and
had longer-than-average records of previ-
ous adult inclex arrests. Subsequently, the
ROP unit adopted an explicit rule that
gave greatest weight to verified infor-
mants' information, but also incorporated
variables related to serious criminal ca-
reers, such as "criminal history" (not cle-
finecl further), narcotics addiction, pend-
ing cases, and status as a parolee,
probationer, or unemployed! person (Mar-
tin, 19841. This approach exemplifies a
philosophy expressed in other locations
using prearrest targeting, that official-
record indicators of the career should be
supplemented by additional information
on the current level of activity, which
may be obtained through informants or
other investigative methods (Gay ant]
Bowers, 19851.
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
Prosecution
The extent to which prosecution prac-
tices successfully target offenders with
serious criminal careers is related to how
much prosecution efforts are focused on
such offenders and whether such efforts
result in higher conviction rates or longer
sentences. Information on this issue de-
rives largely from experience from career
criminal units (CCUs), many of which
were established with federal funding to
give special attention to "career crimi-
nals," but with each local prosecutor's
office cleaning its target populations.
However, other evidence is available
from statistical analyses of variables asso-
ciatecI with measures of prosecution ef-
fort.
Decision Making in the Absence of
Career Criminal Units
Since obtaining a conviction is a pri-
mary prosecution goal, it is not surprising
that the availability of evidence has been
found to be the principal determinant of
prosecution effort (see review in Rhocles,
1984~. Other determinants are the seri-
ousness of the current charge and the
relationship between the defendant and
victim. The degree to which prosecution
is focused on defendants with serious
criminal histories is far less clear. Several
stuclies have found evidence that charge
reflections or other indicators of plea bar-
gaining occur less frequently in cases
involving defendants with extensive ar-
rest histories (Bernstein et al., 1977;
McDonald, 1978; lacoby, Mellon, and
Smith, 1982~. Empirical results on alloca-
tion of effort vary, depencling on the mea-
sure of prosecution effort being analyzer!
(e.g., time from arrest to (lisposition, plea
bargaining indicators, attorney hours).3
sin an econometric analysis of 5,717 felony cases,
Forst and Brosi (1977) found no relationship be
OCR for page 159
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
The influence of a juvenile arrest or
adjudication record on adult prosecution
decisions is largely unexplored. The bi-
furcation of juvenile and adult records
certainly inhibits prosecutors from ob-
taining and using juvenile records at early
decision points. Greenwood, Petersflia,
and Zimring (1980) report that in a na-
tional survey, 60 percent of prosecutors
responded that juvenile police records
were "rarely or never" avaflable at the
time of filing, while a majority (74 per-
cent) reported that adult records are "al-
ways or usually" available. Boland and
Wilson (1978) hypothesized that because
of the lack of information about juvenile
activity, the aclult criminal justice system
makes no distinction between the first
adult arrest of a chronic juvenile offender
and the arrest of a true first offender. A
test of the Boland-Wflson hypothesis re-
quires a comparison between a jurisclic-
tion with integrated juvenile and adult
records and a comparable jurisdiction
with more limited sharing of information.
No adequate test has yet been carried out.
One effort in this direction was uncler-
taken by Greenwood, Abrahamse, and
Zimring (1984) in comparing prosecutors'
tween prior record and time from arrest to disposi-
tion, which was the authors' proxy for effort. In part,
this lack of relationship is appropriate because arrest
history is included as a factor in their strength-of-
evidence measure, which was found to positively
influence prosecutor efforts. On the basis of an
experimental study of 855 prosecutors, Jacoby,
Mellon, and Smith (1982) report that defendants'
criminality (as measured by prior convictions, ar-
rests, and parole or wanted status) was related to the
priority assigned to a case, once it had been ac-
cepted for prosecution. Hausner, Mullin, and
Moorer (1982), analyzing a large sample of cases
presented to U.S. attorneys, found that cases involv-
ing repeat offenders were more likely to be ac-
cepted than cases involving first offenders. But the
analysis did not control for strength of evidence, and
the acceptance decision patterns may not apply
outside the federal system because the declined
cases were also eligible for prosecution in state
courts.
159
decisions in Seattle, which has an inte-
gratec] record! system, with those in Los
Angeles and Las Vegas, which do not;
however, there were not enough relevant
cases in Seattle for satisfactory analysis.
In that study, Greenwood, Abrahamse,
and Zimring (1984) argue that the avail-
abflity of the juvenile record! cloes not
guarantee that its severity will influence
case disposition.
There have been few studies of the
influences on prosecution efforts of other
variables relater! to serious criminal ca-
reers, such as drug use and employment
status, and the evidence is not consis-
tent.4
Career Criminal Unit Evaluations
Career Criminal Units were estab-
lished in more than 100 prosecutors' of-
fices during the 1970s. Their caseloads
were generally restricted by case selec-
tion criteria that were left to the discre-
tion of the local jurisdictions. One evalu-
ation found that CCU cases received
more attention: CCU convictions were
found to consume between five and
seven times as many attorney hours as
other convictions; smaller but still sizable
differentials in attorney hours were also
observed for pleas and dismissals
(Rhodes, 19801. Two CCU evaluations
(Springer and Phillips, no..; Chelimsky
and Dahmann, 1981) provide information
on whether CCUs selected cases involv-
ing defendants with the most serious
criminal careers and on whether the extra
resources led to higher conviction rates or
40ne analysis of prosecution decision making in
1,196 burglary cases found the probability of case
acceptance to be positively related to the existence
of a prior record, but for defendants with prior
records, a prior drug-related charge made prosecu-
tion less likely in the instant case. However, be-
cause the cases arose from a special burglary pro-
gram, these conclusions may not generalize to other
settings (see Rhodes, 19841.
OCR for page 160
160
longer sentences for the targeted defen-
dants.
The four CCUs evaluated by Chelim-
sky and Dahmann showed marked varia-
tion in formal selection criteria. Defini-
tions of"career criminals" differed in
terms of current charge thresholds (e.g.,
robberies only, felonies only, or any
charge); attention to prior arrests and con-
victions; and "status indicators," such as
pretrial or parole release following an
earlier case. While the evaluators claimed
that it was impossible to say "with any
certainty how closely the group of indi-
viduals prosecuted by these programs
represented the ideal career criminal
group" (1981:72), the selection criteria
used by the four CCUs were in fact ~en-
erally consistent with indicators of seri-
ous criminal careers, although the selec-
tion might have been improved by also
considering drug involvement.
Evaluating the impact of CCUs on case
processing is more problematic. On the
basis of their reviews of 15 evaluations,
Springer and Phillips (n.d.) conclude that
prosecution by CCUs was more success-
ful than routine prosecution in terms of
pretrial detention rates, conviction rates,
dismissal rates, and incarceration rates. In
contrast, Chelimsky and Dahmann (1981)
found no effect of CCUs on these rates,
but concurred with the Springer and Phil-
lips finding that the units had increased
the seriousness of the charges for which
convictions were obtained. The differ-
ences in conclusions may have arisen
because only one of the four units evalu-
ated by Chelimsky and Dahmann was in
a large urban office. Had they evaluated
other jurisdictions whose regular units
were under a greater press of caseloads,
Chelimsky and Dahmann might have
found more substantial effects of CCUs
on case outcomes.
Results of CCU evaluations should be
treated carefully because of two common
methodological problems in the research
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
to date. First, pretest and pastiest periods
were typically of only 1 year, so that
evaluations were based on only the earli-
est cases processed by the units, which
may not have been representative of later
performance. Second, the comparison
group designs used in CCU evaluations
cannot completely control for bias in case
selection. In maintaining CCU caseloads
at desired levels, the formal selection
rules were frequently tightened or re-
laxed through unwritten informal revi-
sions. These shifts may have invoked
strength of evidence, perhaps by choos-
ing important but weak marginal cases for
which extra prosecutorial attention was
likely to affect case outcome (thereby bi-
asing evaluation results against the unit)
or by skimming the best cases to improve
the unit's success rate. In either case,
informal practices could have distorted
the evaluations of CCU effectiveness.
Thus, the evidence is still ambiguous on
the question of whether resource alloca-
tion has a measurable effect on case out-
come rates: CCUs do appear to target
high-rate serious offenders, but their ef-
fect on case outcomes is still unproven.
Pretrial Release
While the primary consideration in pre-
trial release decisions is ensuring appear-
ance for trial, community safety during
the period until trial is also often an im-
portant concern. Indeed, "preventive de-
tention" statutes in some jurisdictions
permit a judge to focus explicitly on the
risk to the community in detaining a sus-
pect prior to trial. No assessments are
available of the effects of preventive de-
tention laws in routine use. (See, how-
ever, Bases and MacDonald, 1972, for an
early evaluation, and Gottlieb, 1985, for a
preliminary report of an evaluation in
progress.) Even in the absence of preven-
tive detention laws, however, judges can
and do consider current criminal justice
OCR for page 161
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
status, prior record, and other factors re-
lated to criminal careers in their pretrial
~ · ~
cleclslons.
Analyses of the pretrial release deci-
sion have generally considered the role of
seriousness of the current charge, indica-
tors ofties to the community, and eviden-
tiary strength. Charge seriousness domi-
nates the decision, measured in terms of
either release of the defendant on per-
sonal recognizance or the amount of fi-
nancial bond demanded (Gottfredson and
Gottiredson, Volume II; Rhodes, 19841.
The influence of charge seriousness re-
flects joint concern over the incentive for
nonappearance at a trial that might result
in a serious sentence as well as concern
about harm to the community in the event
of repetition of the crime during the pre-
trial period. Community-ties indicators
(e.g., local residence of family) are in-
tended to predict appearance at trial;
however, they have not been consistently
found to influence the decision to release
a defendant on personal recognizance,
and they seem not to affect the amount of
bait or conditions of release in serious
cases when the defendant is not released
on recognizance (Goldkamp and Gott-
fredson, 1981a,b).
Adult criminal history emerges as com-
parable in importance to seriousness of
the current charge in determining pretrial
release decisions (M.R. Gottiredson,
1974; Bynum, 1976; Roth anc] Wice, 1978;
Goldkamp, 1979; Goldkamp and Gottfred-
son, 1981a, b; Nagel, 1983; Stryker,
Nagel, and Hagan, 19831. Two related
measures have been found significant:
indicators of the overall adult record
(measured in such teas as total prior
arrests or number of felony convictions in
the preceding 5 years) and indicators of
current criminal justice status (e.g., pend-
ing cases at the time of arrest).
Two other variables related to serious
criminal careers~rug use and employ-
ment status have been studied. For fel
]6]
ony cases in urban courts, indicators of
drug use have been found not to influ-
ence either the decision to release on
recognizance or the bond amount set for
defendants not released immediately
(Roth and Wice, 1978; Goldkamp and
Gottfredson, 19841. The most recent
study of the federal system also found no
evidence that drug use influences pretrial
release decisions (Rhodes, 19851. In at
least two jurisdictions, urinalysis tests for
current drug involvement are made at the
time of arrest. However, analyses are not
yet available ofthe relationship of the test
results to pretrial release decisions and to
clefenclants' pretrial conduct. Employ-
ment status, however, has been consis-
tently found to influence decisions on
pretrial release on recognizance. Em-
ployecI clefendants are more likely than
unemployed defendants to be released
on personal recognizance, controlling for
charge seriousness and prior record (see,
e.g., Roth and Wice, 1978; GolUkamp and
Gottfrecison, 1981a). This finding may re-
flect both a recognition of their commu-
nity ties as well as a reluctance to impose
an extralegal penalty (namely, loss of job
ant] income) before trial.
Sentencing
Determinants of sentencing were re-
cently reviewed by a pane} of the Na-
tional Research Council, which con-
cluded that "using a variety of indicators,
offense seriousness and offender's prior
record have emerges] as the key determi-
nants of sentences" (Blumstein et al.,
1983:83~. Despite measurement prob-
lems that tend to cause underestimates of
its effect, prior record consistently
emerges as one of the strongest effects on
sentence, second only to the current
charge (Blumstein et al., 1983:83~7;
Got~recison and Gottfredson Volume II).
A review prepared for this panel
(Rhocles, 1984) i(lentified three studies,
OCR for page 162
162
conducted in support of sentencing
guidelines development, that have also
found drug use to be an aggravating factor
at sentencing for certain charges: sex
crimes, fraud, weapons charges, and forg-
ery. These offenses are neither so serious
that incarceration is nearly automatic nor
so minor that it would be inappropriate.
With such intermediate offenses, there is
more room for the influence of factors
such as drug use that are not related to the
current charge and prior record.
Sentencing is the decision point at
which the potential effect of juvenile
record availability receives the greatest
attention, and analyses have provided
some fragmentary evidence suggesting
that routine availability of juvenile rec-
ords might increase the sentences of
young adult offenders with extensive ju-
venile records. Greenwood, Abrahamse,
and Zimring (1984) compared sentencing
practices for young adults in three juris-
dictions: Las Vegas, with no disclosure of
juvenile records before the presentence
investigation; Los Angeles, with frequent
pretrial information sharing between the
two systems; and Seattle, with one of the
few integrated repositories containing
both juvenile and adult records. While
their study was limited, the researchers
found that, among young adult defen-
dants, those with more extensive juvenile
records were more likely than others to
be sent to a state prison in all three sites
(1984:531. They attribute the finding in
part to informal record sharing, and they
also point out that even in the absence of
information, a sentencing judge may pre-
sume the existence of a median juvenile
record, in which case presentation of a
minimal record would be treated as a
mitigating factor.
Uncertainty concerning the influence
of juvenile records on sentencing in the
adult system makes clear the need for
more careful comparisons of individual
case decisions in a "two-track" system (in
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
which juvenile records are shielded from
adult authorities) with decisions in a sim-
ilar "one-track" system with shared infor-
mation. The most comprehensive analy-
sis of decision making in a one-track
system was based on data from London,
where juvenile court information is
shared with adult authorities. That study
concluded Mat the number of juvenile
convictions does influence sentence se-
verity at the first adult conviction (Langan
and Farrington, 1983~. While the relation-
ship between expected incarceration
time and age is confounded by the dif-
ferent institutional options available at
different ages, the probability that a con-
viction leads to incarceration increases
monotonically with the number of prior
convictions over the entire age range of
10 to 24. Replication and comparison of
this analysis in comparable American set-
tings for example, Seattle and another
jurisdiction in the state of Washington
with separate juvenile and adult reposito-
ries would be an important step in as-
certaining the effect of a single repository
for both juvenile and adult records in
informing the sentencing decision.
Parole Release
In their release decisions, parole au-
thorities consider retributive concerns,
support for maintaining institutional dis-
cipline, and facilitating inmate reentry
into society. The parole decision also in-
vokes prediction of future offenses, fre-
quently by means of formal guidelines
(HofEnan and Beck, 1974; HofEnan,
19831.
Analyses of parole decisions have gen-
erally measured the decision outcome ei-
ther in terms of time served in prison or a
binary release/no release outcome at the
time of first eligibility for parole. Neither
of these measures is entirely satisfactory.
"Time served in prison" confounds the
parole decision with the sentence, espe
OCR for page 163
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
cially the minimum sentence; the binary
indicator fails to reflect the severity of
punishment imposed. Furthermore, nei-
ther indicator captures aspects like the
term and special conditions of parole.
Despite the difficulty of analyzing pa-
role decisions, two variables emerge as
dominant influences: the charge that led
to the incarceration and the adult criminal
history (Scott, 1974; D.M. GottEredson et
al., 1978; Elion and Megargee, 1979~. Not
surprisingly, these variables are also the
primary bases of parole guidelines used
to structure decisions in the federal sys-
tem and in many states.
Other indicators of serious criminal ca-
reers also play a role in parole decision
making. Surveys of board members
(Parker, 1972) and analyses of cases
(Elton and Megargee, 1979) suggest that
knowledge of juvenile offenses ant! other
life events incorporated in presentence
reports play an influential although not
1 · · 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1
163
Conclusions
Criminal justice decisions arrest, pre
trial release, prosecution, sentencing, and
paroIc are macie with different ranges of
discretion, different objectives, and dif
ferent information available at the time of
the decision. Despite the differences in
objectives, each decision includes some
assessment of whether the subject is pur
suing a serious criminal career ant] hence
is a candidate for confinement. A key
question is whether these assessments do
in fact leacI to more severe sanctions for
offenders whose careers involve the most
frequent and serious offending over the
longest durations.
A review of relevant research shows
that seriousness of the current charge and
prior adult record two factors closely re
lated to serious criminal careers~omi
nate the decision-making process. Em
ployment status only influences decisions
Decisive role. mono use nas Seen con- regarding pretrial release. The impact of a
sistently found to be a predictor, although juvenile criminal history on decision
a weak one, of parole denials (see making has been thoroughly explored
GottEredson and Gottfredson, Volume II). only in sentencing; even though items in
A history of drug abuse is considered a -' ~ ' ' ~ '
negative indicator at parole hearings, ac
cording to both a survey of parole board
members (Parker, 1972) and a content
analysis of parole board hearings (Carroll
and Payne, 1977a, b), but it rarely
emerges as a dominant influence on the
decision to release (e.g., Scott, 1974;
D.M. Gottfrecison et al., 19781.
Misconduct during incarceration in-
formation not available at sentencing
emerges as a strong factor affecting parole
decisions (see Gottfredson and GottEred-
son, Volume II). Its influence on parole
decisions presumably reflects its value in
predicting recidivism as well as its moti-
vational value in maintaining institu-
tional discipline (Glueck and Glueck,
1930; Mannheim and Wilkins, 1955;
CarIson, 1973; GottEredson and Aclams,
19801.
the juvenile history are related to adult
criminal behavior, legal restrictions ant]
the inaccessibility of juvenile history in-
formation have minimized its use in most
criminal justice decisions. Drug use, es-
pecially concurrent use of narcotics and
other drugs, which is strongly associated
with frequent and serious criminal activ-
ity, has not been found to be an important
determinant of criminal justice decisions.
ISSUES IN PREDICTION-BASED
CLASSIFICATION
Introduction
While a variety of considerations are
weighed at each stage of criminal justice
decision making, the prediction of future
offending is a consideration common to
all stages. Most often these predictions
OCR for page 164
164
i.e., based solely on the
are "clinical,"
decision maker's judgment and previous
experience. For more than 60 years, ef-
forts have been made to improve the
quality of these predictions and to sys-
tematize their use by means of statisti-
cally derived, precliction-basec! cIassifica-
tion rules. Such empirically based rules
require clevelopment of scales that relate
prediction variables to estimates of future
offending and transform every offender's
scale score into a risk classification level,
such as high risk or Tow risk. The risk
classification of each offender is then con-
sidered as one factor in making individual
decisions. Prediction-based classification
rules have been developed for use in
pretrial release (GoIc~kamp and Gottfred-
son, 1981a), in assignment to a career
criminal unit for prosecution (Rhodes et
al., 1982), at sentencing (Greenwood,
1982), for institutional classification
(D.M. Gottfrecison and Bonds, 1961), and
for parole release (Hart, 1923; Mannheim
and Wilkins, 1955; Hoffman and Beck,
19741.
General arguments for the use of such
rules have included enhancing the visi-
bility of the decision process, improving
the equity of decisions, and providing
routine feedback on the outcomes of de-
cisions. But perhaps most important, it
has been argued that using such rules
informs decision makers of systematic
patterns occurring beyond their own ex-
perience and so can improve the accuracy
of their predictions. Interest in predic-
tion-based rules has recently been in-
creased by attention to selective incapac-
itation policies, especially by claims that
selective incapacitation can reduce
crime, prison populations, or both.
Increased pub! c concern about crime,
coupled with the pressure of growing
prison populations, has intensified the
search for more efficient ways to use lim-
itec! criminal justice resources. New lim-
itations on the discretion of parole boards
, ,,
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
have encouraged the consideration of fu-
ture risk at earlier decision points, espe-
cially at sentencing. Finally, newly de-
veloped prediction scales have attracted
attention as candidates for incorporation
in prediction-based classification rules.
In order to address the technical ant!
ethical issues in precliction-based cIassi-
fication rules, it is important to first out-
line the process by which they are devel-
oped. Three basic steps are involved in
deriving a scale that assesses the likely
future course of an inclividuaT's criminal
career: first, assessing the ethical limita-
tions on the role of prediction in decision
making and on the choice of the predic-
tors; second, combining appropriate risk
factors to form a prediction scale and
using that scale to define a classification
rule; and third, validating the perform-
ance of the rule in terms of its cIassifica
tion errors.
Many jurisdictions may not have the
necessary data or are otherwise unable to
clevelop their own prediction scale and
accompanying classification rule, and so
have consiclered the transfer of an exist-
ing prediction-based classification rule
for their own jurisdiction. However,
transferring such a rule outside the juris-
cliction in which it was developed creates
accuracy problems that must be consid-
ered carefully. These problems in the
transfer of classification rules are clis-
cussed at the end of this section.
Ethical Issues
Opinions differ on the proper role in
criminal justice decision making of pre-
clictions of future criminality. In one
view, because a convicted offender is
aIreacly vulnerable to state intervention
within statutory limits, use of predictive
criteria following conviction, especially
in deciding whether to release on parole,
is widely accepted by many people. From
another view, because of the symbolic
OCR for page 165
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
import and strong just-deserts component
of sentences, many people find the use of
prediction at sentencing to be acceptable
only within narrow limits, if at all. Some
people would permit the use of preclic-
tion only in certain preconviction deci-
sions, such as selection for pretrial release
on personal recognizance or, possibly, for
intensive prosecution.
Predictive considerations have long
played an implicit though informal role in
criminal justice decision making. Explicit
prediction-based classification rules have
been widely used for several decades as a
basis for structuring decisions framed in
terms of reducing punishment, such as
parole release and pretrial release; few
ethical objections have been raised
against those uses. More recently, explicit
rules have been advocated and used as a
basis for imposing punishment and in-
creasing the risk of punishment: at sen-
tencing (Greenwood, 1982), in selection
for intensive prosecution (Forst et al.,
1982), and in targeting for proactive po-
lice investigation (see Martin, 1984;
Moore et al., 1984, for discussions).
In addition to their presumed advan-
tage in effectively targeting crime control
resources on worst-risk offenders, explicit
rules can make the exercise of discretion
more precise and fair. By formalizing the
decision criteria, rule-bound decisions ar-
ticulate the bases for discretionary deci-
sions and make those decisions more pre-
dictable. At the same time, when rules
serve only as guiclelines, the discretion to
diverge from them is retained, but usually
carries some burden for providing rea
165
offenders as high risk is acknowledged as
a greater concern as the sanction becomes
more severe and as the preclicted crimi
nal behavior becomes less serious If.
Monahan, 1981; Morris ant! Miller, 1985~.
For example, imposing life sentences un
der the predictive presumption of habit
ual offender laws is generally less accept
able than briefly detaining the writers of
threatening letters to the White House
during a presidential public appearance.
For any classification rule, the ratio of
false-positive to false-negative error rates
can be adjuster! by setting more or less
stringent threshold scores for classifying a
subject as high risk. But the ability to
simultaneously reduce both rates re
quires improved knowledge about corre
lates of the criminal career. Informing
policy makers of the estimated error rates
is one essential step in enabling them to
decide what role prediction-based cIassi
fications should play. The choice may
well be different for different crimes and
sanctions, for different stages of the crim
inal justice process, and in different
jurisdictions.
Ethical Considerations in Selecting
Cantlidate Risk Factors
Ethical considerations limit the choice
of variables that can be used in predic
tion-based classification rules. Serious
ness of the instant charge appears to have
nearly universal acceptance on ethical
grounds and is also most useful from a
crime control perspective. Charge seri
ousness occupies a central ethical place
sons for the divergence. in the just-cleserts theory of punishment
Several ethical considerations are in- (von Hirsch, 1985:10), and its power to
volved in using prediction-basec] cIassifi- enhance incapacitative effects has been
cation rules in decision making. One con- clemonstratec] empirically, using data
sideration is the relative importance from several jurisdictions (see Chapter 5;
given to the predicted incremental dan- Cohen, 1984a). Except for charge serious
ger to the public compared with the cost ness, virtually all other variables having
to the defendant of the contemplated ad- predictive content have been the subject
ditional sanction. Inaccurately classifying of ethical objections to their use in cIas
OCR for page 187
USE OF CRIMINaL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
TABLE 6-7 Proposed INSLAW Scale for Selecting Career Criminals for
Special Prosecution
\7ariable Points
187
Heavy Use of Alcohol
Heroin Use
Age at Time of Instant Arrest
Less than 22
23-27
28~2
33~7
38-42
43+
Length of Criminal Career
0-5 years
6-10
11-15
16-20
21+
Arrests During Last Five Years
Crimes of Violence
Crimes Against Property
Sale of Drugs
Other Offenses
Longest Time Served, Single Term
1-5 months
6-12
13-24
25~6
37-48
49+
Number Probation Sentences
Instant Offense Was Crime of Violence*
Instant Offense Was Crime Labeled "Other"**
Critical Value to Label an Offender As a "Career Criminal": +47 points
+5
+10
+21
+14
+7
o
-7
-14
+1
+2
+3
+4
+4 per arrest
+3 per arrest
+4 per arrest
+2 per arrest
+4
+9
+18
+27
+36
+45
+ 1.5 per sentence
+7
-18
*Violent crimes include homicide, assault, robbery, sexual assault, and kidnapping. **Other crimes
include military violations, probation and parole violations, weapons and all others except arson,
burglary, larceny, auto theft, fraud, forgery, drug sales or possession, and violent crimes.
SOURCE: Rhodes et al. (1982:Table Van.
On an independent sample nor imple-
mentecI in practice, no assessment can be
made about its accuracy beyonc] the con-
struction sample.
Relying on time to rearrest as the de-
pendent variable, the INSLAW scale is
intended to distinguish among offenders
in terms of their frequency rates- which
are reciprocally related to the time to
rearrest. On the basis of a statistical mode}
that fit time to rearrest to offender at-
tributes, including prior record, 200 "ca-
reer criminals" were iclentifiecI. Again, by
relying on predicted! time to rearrest as a
basis for estimating inclividual arrest
rates, combined with estimates of a ho-
mogeneous risk of arrest per crime by
offense type, sharp differences in esti-
mated individual offense rates, A, were
calculated. Individuals iclentified by the
scale as career criminals were each esti-
matec! to commit an average of 38
nondrug crimes per year, compared with
estimated rates of only 4 nondrug crimes
per year for other offenders.
There are no published results on the
OCR for page 188
188
accuracy of these estimates of A that are
based on actual rearrest experiences oh- pated.
served in the two offender risk groups.
The only measures of accuracy reported,
baser! on arrests observed during the fol-
Tow-up period, are error rates. The false-
positive rate was 15 percent among scale-
identified career criminals and the
false-negative rate was 36 percent among
all other offenders; the RIOC is 74 per-
cent, and the scale appears quite accurate
in distinguishing among offenders in the
construction sample in terms of their risk
of future arrests. Some deterioration in
this accuracy can be expected as the scale
is applier! to independent validation
samples, especially if the scale, which
was developed using released offenders
on probation and parole, is applied to
the intended target population of ar-
restees.
The INSLAW scale presented in Table
6-7 invokes a number of offender charac-
teristics in ways consistent with what is
known about the relationship of those
characteristics to the frequency, serious-
ness, and duration of offending. Drug and
heavy alcohol use are treated as aggravat-
ing factors, as is early age at onset (in the
form of elapsed career length). Age is
presented as an aggravating factor until
age 32 and as a mitigating factor after age
38, but over the entire age range, the
older the suspect, the better the score.
Both frequency and seriousness of prior
arrests are aggravating factors. Because of
its consistency with available knowledge
of criminal careers, the INSLAW scale
shows promise; it should be validated on
other samples, perhaps leading to exper-
imental implementation. Because some
scale variables may be controversial
e.g., substance abuse and reliance on past
arrests rather than convictions- such
analyses should include assessments of
changes in accuracy under alternative
scale formulations; in light of experience
with other scales examined here, large
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
reductions in accuracy are not antici
Summary
Some recent classification scales rely-
ing on similar predictor variables re-
flecting primarily prior criminal record
and drug use- have displayed greater ac-
curacy in identifying worst-risk offenders
than earlier scales. When criteria of rear-
rest in follow-up periods of at least 3 years
are used, false-positive rates among of-
fenders classified as worst-risks are under
30 percent in construction samples and
under 40 percent in validation samples
(see especially Rhodes et al., 1982;
Fischer, 1984; and Janus, 1985 in Table
6-~. This difference from the 50 to 60
percent false-positive rates that have tra-
ditionally characterized statistical cIassifi-
cations of poor-risk offenders is due in
part to reliance on broader criterion vari-
ables, particularly recidivism measures
based on arrests rather than recommit-
ment to prison, and measures using
longer follow-up periods that increase the
likelihood of detecting recidivism. The
resulting higher base rates contribute to
greater classification accuracy, especially
in relation to low selection ratios. For
example, the INSLAW scale, with its
high base rate and low selection ratio,
results in a low false-positive rate (15
percent) but a high false-negative rate (36
percent). However, to the extent that the
gains in accuracy are beyond those ex-
pected merely from the increased base
rates, the broader criterion variables may
yield a more sensitive measure of
releasees' offending behavior.
The Rand scale displays the least im-
provement from earlier 50-60 percent
false-positive rates. As the only scale
based on self-reports, it is unique in at-
tempting to predict actual crimes commit-
ted rather than arrests. There may be
more measurement error in individual
OCR for page 189
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
TABLE 6-S Accuracy of Several Explicit Classification Scales Assessing
Offending Risk
]89
Iowa Assessment INSLAW Rand Inmate
Salient Factor Score 81 Scale Scale Scale
Hoffman Janus Fisher Rhodes et al. Greenwood
Scale Attribute (1983) (1985) (1984) (1982) (1982)
Construction sample Federal prisoners Iowa state prisoners Federal pro- Prison and jail
released in released in 1976-80 bationers inmates in
1971-72 (N = 814) and parol- California,
(N = 3,955) ees re- Michigan,
leased from and Texas
custody in in 1978
1970-71 (N = 886)
(N= 1,708)
Validation sample Federal prisoners (N = 2,186) Iowa state prisoners None None
released in first released in 1976-80
half of 1978 (N = 186)
(N = 2,339)
Recidivism criterion Reincarceration Rearrest Rearrest or reincarcer- Time to rear- Individual fre
ation for serious rest for seri- quency
crime ous crime rates for
robbery and
burglarya
Length of follow-tip 2 3 4 5 None (1- to 2
(years) year retro
spective ob
servation
period)
Base rate (%)b
Construction sample 31 N.R. 37 42 25
Validation sample 30 44 26 N.V. N.V.
Selection ratio (%)c
Construction sample 34 N.R. 33 12 27
Validation sample 24 23 30 N.V. N.V.
False-positive rate (%)
Construction sample 54 N.R. 29 15 55
(3_69)d (0 - 64) (0 - 58) (3_75)
Validation sample 51 34 38 N.V. N.V.
(0-70) (0-56) (4-74)
False-negative rate (%)
Construction sample 24 N.R. 20 36 17
(0~1) (4~7) (30-42) (0-25)
Validation sample 24 38 11 N.V. N.V.
(6-30) (21-44) (0-26)
Relative Improvement
Over Chance (RIOC)e
Construction sample .24 N.R. .54 .74 .31
Validation sample .28 .38 .59 N.V. N.V.
NOTE: N.R. = not reported; N.V. = not validated.
aThe criterion variable in the Rand Inmate Scale is individual frequency rates of committing crimes, and not a
traditional binary recidivism variable (e.g., rearrested or not during a follow-up period).
bPercent unfavorable outcomes found in the total sample.
CPercent predicted to be high risks in the total sample.
dThe minimum and maximum possible values of the false-positive (FP) and false-negative (FN) rates appear in
parentheses. These are determined from the selection ratio (SR) and base rate (BR) as follows: FP c 1 - BR; FN c BR;
FP 2 SR - BR when SR 2 BR, = 0 otherwise; FN 2 BR - SR when BR 2 SR, = 0 otherwise.
eThe Relative Improvement Over Chance (RIOC) compares actual classification accuracy to the maximum accuracy
possible and the random accuracy associated with the selection ratio and base rates in sample (see text):
RIOC [(1-FP) SR + (1 - FN) (1 - SR)] - [(SR) (BR) + (1 - SR) (1 - BR)]
[MIN(SR, BR) + MIN(1 - SR, 1 - BR)] - [(SR)(BR) + (1 - SR) (1 - BR)]
OCR for page 190
190
crime rates estimated from self-reports
than in criterion measures based on offl-
cially recorded arrests, and this increased
error in the dependent variable would
reduce the accuracy of predictions. The
Rand scale is also only a preliminary
attempt at calibrating a classification
scale: simple bivariate relationships are
used to identify potential predictor vari-
ables, and Burgess weights (scored either
O or 1) are assigned to the selected vari-
ables. This approach contrasts with the
extensive multivariate analysis, which in-
volves more flexible characterization of
the contributions by individual predictor
variables. These analyses are reflected in
the more complex weighting schemes
found in other scales.
The recent classification scales are also
noteworthy because when independent
validation samples representing similar
populations have been used, as with the
federal parole system's Salient Factor
Score and the 1984 Iowa risk assessment
scale, there is little evidence of substan-
tial statistical shrinkage in their accuracy.
This result is due in part to the use of
reasonably large samples in scale devel-
opment more than 800 individuals-
which reduces the impact of statistical
shrinkage due to sampling variation. Also,
validation studies indicate that offender
populations appear to be reasonably sta-
ble over time: there was no detectable
reduction in accuracy between applica-
tions of the Salient Factor Score to a
sample of federal prisoners released dur-
ing 1970-1972 and another sample re-
leased in 1978.
The various classification scales also
show no evidence of important reduc-
tions in scale accuracy when various con-
troversial variables like employment sta-
tus are removed from them. It thus
appears that accommodating just-deserts
concerns by avoiding ethically objection-
able classification variables will not seri-
ously impair classification accuracy.
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
ADULT, JWENILE, AND
NON-JUSTICE SYSTEM RECORDS
AND THEIR INTEGRATION
Attention to certain offender character-
istics whether achieved through formal
rules or infollllal practice-can, to some
extent, improve the accuracy of offender
classification in terms of criminal career
dimensions. Incorporating these cIassifi-
cations into decisions requires that deci-
sion makers receive timely and accurate
information about predictor variables,
and doing so will require improvements
in criminal justice and other record-
keeping systems. We focus here on adult
criminal histories, the record of prior
adult arrests and dispositions; juvenile
records, the records of police contacts and
juvenile court adjudications; and other
records maintained outside the justice
system on such matters as drug use,
employment history, school perform-
ance, and social history. These record
categories differ in terms of how accessi-
ble they are to criminal justice decision
makers.
Adult Records
In most jurisdictions, the arrest and
fingerprinting of an individual normally
initiates both an update of the local arrest
record and retrieval of the record for use
by the prosecutor at screening and for use
by the judge at the initial court appear-
ance shortly after arrest, when charges are
filed and pretrial release conditions are
set. In some jurisdictions, local authori-
ties do not receive the entire history of
arrests in other jurisdictions for several
weeks, when arrest records are received
from repositories in state identification
bureaus and the FBI. These delays can
lead to the use of incomplete prior record
information at the important stages of ini-
tial screening by the prosecutor, charg-
ing, and pretrial release decisions. How
OCR for page 191
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
ever, many states have established
statewide computerized criminal history
files, and many metropolitan areas have
established regional systems combining
arrest histories from participating juris-
clictions. From these networks, records of
prior arrests by participating jurisdictions
can be retrieved quickly ant! linked to the
proper individual using demographic
identifiers and fingerprint classification.
An arrest is the result of a law enforce-
ment action based on the evidentiary
standard of"probable cause"; it is not
"guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Therefore, it is argued that, under the
latter standard, only prior convictions
should be used as an indicator of previous
criminal activity and that records of ar-
rests not followed by a record of a convic-
tion should not be used. Advocates of this
position point to potential biases in deci-
sions to make and record arrests and to
the possibility that use of arrest records in
decision making may encourage more fi~-
ing of charges or filing on multiple counts
on the basis of weaker evidence, at least
for offenders who are considered espe-
cially persistent. Furthermore, advocates
of the position argue that police arrest
records receive no independent scrutiny
and are therefore more likely to contain
undetected inaccuracies than are court
conviction records, which are open to the
public.
In contrast, advocates of current prac-
tice argue that exclusion of arrest data
until disposition data become routinely
available would, in some jurisdictions,
preclude access to useful information for
years. Moreover, some advocates con-
sider an arrest record to be a more sensi-
tive and vaTic! measure of a criminal ca-
reer than a conviction record because the
former more fully reflects variations in
the rate of activity, because a failure to
convict is not necessarily indicative of
factual innocence, and because plea bar-
gaining can distort the meaning of convic
191
tion records. Conviction records are also
vulnerable to distortions when their in-
fluence on decisions is altered: for exam-
ple, when the number of prior convic-
tions became an explicit basis for
sentencing under guidelines introduced
in Minnesota, prosecutors seemed less
willing to dismiss charges than they pre-
viously had been (Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines Commission, 1984:811.
It is-generally acknowledged that dis-
position records are less readily available
than arrest records. Those who advocate a
requirement for disposition data argue
that the requirement would encourage
police, prosecutors, and courts to under-
take the costly cooperative effort needed
to improve the availability of those data.
They argue that information on prior case
dispositions and sentences is useful be-
cause it describes an offencler's previous
sanctioning experience, which permits
adjustment for incarceration time in esti-
mating the frequency of previous arrests
while free, a measure that has been found
to predict future arrest frequency (Barrett
ant! Lofaso, 1985~. However, while con-
viction information can always be re-
trieved through a search of written court
records, only in a few jurisdictions-
where courts, prosecutors, and police op-
erate an integrated criminal justice infor-
mation system is it routinely available
in time for screening, charging, and pre-
trial release decisions. Data on actual
time served in jail or prison following
arrest or conviction are even less gener-
ally available, since corrections records
on individuals are linked to police and
court records in only a few states. And
data on dispositions other than convic-
tions are not systematically recorded.
Because knowledge of previous case
(lispositions ant] sanctions can contribute
to a current decision, court disposition
and corrections data should be integrated
with arrest records. Even before full inte-
gration is accomplished, several steps
OCR for page 192
192
should be taken to enhance the validity of
arrest records, which would benefit both
decision makers and those who study
criminal careers. These steps include pro-
moting standards for the completeness of
arrest records; encouraging crossduris-
~ i c t i o n a ~ s t a n c ~ a r ~ i z a t i o n o f n o m e n c ~ a t u r e
that describes aggravating or mitigating
attributes of the alleged offense as well as
its legal category; and quickly noting ar-
rests that are unfounded, either by police
officials or by the screening prosecutor.
Regardless of the quality of arrest rec-
ords, opinions will continue to differ
about their appropriate use in decision
making. However, decisions about their
use should be influenced by attention
both to the ethical issues discussed ear-
lier in this chapter and to the value of
arrest-history information in predicting
the future course of a criminal career.
Juvenile Records
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
these restrictions mean that the arrest
histories available for formal adult pro-
ceeclings usually do not include records
of juvenile contacts with police and, usu-
ally, court dispositions that occurred be-
fore the defendant reached legal adult-
hood. Police information is sometimes
shared informally with prosecutors (for
whom it may affect charging decisions),
but in a national survey, 60 percent of
responding prosecutors reporter! that po-
lice records of juveniles were "rarely or
never" provided at the time charges were
filed (Greenwood, Petersilia, and Zim-
ring, 1980~.
Juvenile court records may legally be
used in adult courts in most states for
postadjudication decisions, such as dispo-
sition and classification. In many states
they may be used for predisposition deci-
sions such as pretrial (retention. How-
ever, the sharing of juvenile court records
with adult authorities is operationally
hindered by statutory prohibitions
against storing juvenile court records in
In considering the use of juvenile rec- ~ ~
ordsas decision adds for adult defendants, the same repositories as adult records.
it is useful to distinguish between police Such records are routinely retrieved dur
records of contacts with juveniles and ingpresentenceinvestigations,whichoc
juvenile court records of referrals and curIong after arrest. They can usually be
dispositions. According to a recent report obtainers although with some difficulty,
prepared for the Bureau of Justice Statis
tics (SEARCH Group, Inc., 1982:29 34),
police agencies have broad legal discre
tion in recording contacts with juveniles.
But other criminal justice agencies en
counter great difficulty in obtaining this
information about individuals prior to
their conviction in adult court. Routine
exchange is hinclered by laws restricting
the fingerprinting of juveniles, a restric
tion that complicates subsequent record
retrieval and unambiguous matching.
Generally, fingerprints of juveniles may
be taken only following contact concern
ing a serious offense, must be stored sep
arately from adults' fingerprints, and must
eventually be sealed or purged under
various conditions. In most jurisdictions,
by police agencies for investigative prear-
rest use; but time constraints and the
absence of positive fingerprint identifica-
tion generally prevent access to them in
time for early postarrest decisions. Under
these circumstances the disposition infor-
mation in juvenile court records is even
less likely to be available for use shortly
after an arrest than is the record of local
police.
The completeness of juvenile record
repositories themselves is affected by the
sealing and purging of the records. Many
states have adopted statutes that specify
conditions under which juvenile records
must be seabeds (i.e., restricted from dis-
closure outside the repository except pur-
suant to a court order) or purged (i.e.,
OCR for page 193
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
destroyed). Motivated by concern over
stigmatization of adults for their clelin-
quent activities as juveniles, these stat-
utes generally authorize record sealing
within a few years after a person reaches
adult age and purging several years later
if the subject is not arrested as an adult
and petitions the court requesting these
actions (SEARCH Group, Inc., 1982:4
511. In addition to legal requirements for
sealing and purging individual records,
some repositories have begun more gen-
eral purging as a means of reducing the
cost of storing juvenile records.
In combination, the prohibitions
against merged juvenile and adult rec-
ords, the failure to routinely include juve-
nile court data in police record systems,
and the sealing and purging of juvenile
records create a situation in most jurisclic-
tions in which criminal justice authorities
frequently make their decisions with no
information about police contacts with
juveniles. Even when police contact in-
formation is available, it is usually not
accompanied by information about the
disposition following the contact. These
conditions, particularly the purging of ju-
venile records, have also hampered the
efforts of researchers to study criminal
careers over the ages of transition from
juvenile status to adulthood.
Restrictions on the storage and dissem-
ination of juvenile records resulted from
the orientation of juvenile courts toward
rehabilitation rather than punishment
and from the belief that juveniles are less
responsible than adults for acts that
would be labeled criminal by the adult
justice system. Some people believe that
the fingerprinting of juveniles, a key to
accurate identification, may create a
"criminal self-image" that may weaken
self-imposec! restraints against future
crime. It is also argued that dissemination
of records outside the juvenile court sys-
tem stigmatizes a juvenile with the desig-
nation "clelinquent," which may lessen
|93
opportunities for legitimate employment,
thereby increasing the likelihood of sub-
sequent offending. The prospect of hav-
ing juvenile records purged after an ar-
rest-free period is advocated as an
incentive for juveniles to terminate crim-
inal careers before adulthood. Others
have argued that the ambiguity of nota-
tion that is characteristic of juvenile court
records makes them very Circuit to inter-
pret and summarize (e.g., Greenwood,
Abrahamse, and Zimring, 19841. Finally,
in pursuing their objective of rehabilita-
tion, juvenile courts collect "social data"
on such episodes as misconduct in
school, mental health status, family his-
tory, and other topics that are not only
especially sensitive to an individual but
may also involve other parties whose pri-
vacy would be compromised by dissemi-
nation. It is argued that routine sharing of
these records could disrupt continued co-
operation by the agencies that now pro-
vide such background information to the
juvenile court.
For those who advocate the use of ju-
venile records, the challenge is to re-
spond to these concerns by designing
systems and procedures that inform adult
justice system decision makers more fully
about juvenile delinquent careers with-
out undermining the rehabilitative goal of
juvenile courts. Maintaining accessible
fingerprint records of juveniles arrested
for serious crimes-crimes that would be
felonies if committed by an adult may
be warranted as a means of eliminating
cases of mistaken identity. Using finger-
prints to identify persons uniquely, sys-
tems could! be developed for the routine
transfer of juvenile disposition data to
police recorcls. Augmenting police rec-
orcis wig data on juvenile dispositions
could both improve the fairness with
which those records are subsequently
used and eliminate the need for access to
the juvenile court files with their sensi-
tive social data. Juvenile arrest and dispo
OCR for page 194
194
sition histories could be maintained in a
separate repository, with no clisclosure
permitted for uses outside the criminal
justice system. Adult justice system agen-
cies would gain access to the juvenfle
record] at the time of a person's first seri-
ous criminal involvement as an adult. In
defining criteria for access, different juris-
dictions might choose different thresh-
olds of crime seriousness and different
stages of criminal justice processing (e.g.,
arrest, indictment, or conviction). Requir-
ing a high level of seriousness would
reflect a desire to avoid opening a juve-
nile record in connection with only a
minor offense. Precluding access until
after conviction would reflect a belief in
the principle that a juvenfle record
should not influence decisions in the
adult system that are made before guilt is
established with legal certainty. Alterna-
tively, permitting prosecutors and judges
to see a juvenile record when making
charging, pretrial release, and plea bar-
gaining decisions would allow them to
become more fully informed of the public
safety risks associated with their deci-
sions. Different jurisdictions will weigh
these concerns differently and so may
choose different thresholds and stages.
One choice that seems reasonable would
be the first adult arrest for a felony. A
juvenile record would be appended to an
adult record only if the adult arrest leads
to a conviction. The juvenile record, with
appropriate safeguards against dissemina-
tion, would be retained in the juvenfle
repository at least as Tong as it retains
value for decision making in the aclult
criminal justice system.
When juvenfle records are no longer
operationally useful, they should be pre-
served in an otherwise inaccessible way
for research purposes. Research on a
number of important questions has been
hindered by the bifurcation of juvenfle
and adult record systems. As highlighted
in Chapter 3, particular problems have
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
been the misleading conclusion of clesis-
tance-"false Resistance" from offend-
ing that is implied by the truncation of
juvenfle court records when indivicluals
"graduate" to a(lult jurisdiction ant! the
inability to inclucle the record before age
18 in career-length estimates for adult
samples. The bifurcation has hampered
research on such key questions as the
effect of juvenfle justice interventions on
adult criminal careers and the influence
of information about juvenfle careers on
the processing of cases involving young
adults. There would be considerable re-
search value in linked records of juvenile
and adult arrests and dispositions. Record
purging preclucles such research. There-
fore, while access to juvenile records
should be carefully controlled to protect
in(livid~uals' identities, those records
should be stored as a basis for research.
Other Records
Some information that is useful in pre-
dicting the course of criminal careers is
not available in either the adult or juve-
nile justice system records. For example,
Chaiken and Chaiken (1984:211) found
that official-record information was not
sufficient to distinguish the offenders
they designated as "violent predators"
from other offenders. Despite violent
predators' self-reports of frequent, violent
delinquency as juveniles, their juvenile
records either did not exist or were found
to be indistinguishable from those of
other offenders. Greenwood (1982)
pointed to two specific characteristics that
distinguish high-rate offenders a history
of drug use and significant periods of
unemployment. Data on these character-
istics are not routinely inclu(led in arrest
histories or court disposition files, al-
though they sometimes appear with other
social data in juvenile court records or
adult presentence investigation.
Presentence investigations will un
OCR for page 195
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAEUNG
doubtedly continue to be the primary
vehicle for the collection of information
on drug use, employment status, and fam-
iTy and social history. Although maintain-
ing such data in permanent criminal jus-
tice records might improve the quality of
preconviction decisions, that benefit
might be at least partly offset by other
consequences. For example, routine dis-
closure of drug treatment agency records
to justice agencies for predictive use
might discourage users from seeking
treatment or disrupt the therapeutic rela-
tionship between users and counselors.
Urinalysis at the time of arrest is an alter-
native means of determining drug use,
and test results could be appended to the
arrest record for use following subse
quent arrests. This procedure would as- ~~
sist efforts to provide police and prosecu
tors with information about an arrestee's
history of drug use and would avoid prob
lems associated with inflation sharing
between treatment agencies and justice
agencies.
In addition to data on employment his-
tory, substance abuse, and other social
history, presentence reports in most juris-
dictions also include the investigators'
sentencing recommendation. To the ex-
tent that these recommendations have in-
fluence, it is important that their underly-
ing predictive assumptions be based on
facts. Presentence investigators should tee
informed of base rates of characteristics
(such as substance abuse or truancy that
195
cies for those decisions. They do so more
often on the basis oftheir own knowledge
and experience than on the basis of statis
tical analysis of information about repre
sentative offenders. Because of the grow
ing body of data and research on
offenders, there are considerable oppor
tunities for expanding ant! improving the
bases for decision making in terms of
predictors of specific offenders' careers.
Exploiting such opportunities does not
preclude the pursuit of other criminal
justice objectives, such as assuring ap
pearance at trial or imposing deserved
punishment. Decision makers can com
bine prediction-based classifications with
aclditional information- ties to the com
munity, victims' preferences, seriousness
ot tne crime, or amenability to various
forms of correctional treatment- that is
pertinent to those other objectives. In
concert with these other objectives, at
tempts to reduce crime through incapac
itation of offenders could be improved by
familiarity with the accumulating knowI
edge about offenders' criminal careers.
That knowledge would inform decision
makers of typical criminal careers and of
the indicators of high- and low-risk of
fenders. It is likely that the research
knowleclge will confirm some of their
current beliefs and practices. But it is also
likely that some factors they believe to be
important as predictors of offending will
be found not to be so, while other factors
they may not view as salient will be
are often used to distinguish among of- shown to be important.
fenders. They should also be in foe of Because decision makers' predictions
correlations between those characteris- about offenders' criminal careers are not
tics and the frequency of serious offend
~ng.
CONCLUSIONS
Criminal justice decision makers use
knowledge about criminal careers both in
making specific decisions affecting indi
vidual offenders and in establishing poli
_
routinely recorded, it is impossible to
measure directly the improvement that
could be achieved by giving decision
makers statistical predictions about the
offenders who come before them. Indi-
rect evidence suggests that with available
statistical scales, gains in crime control
efficiency through selective incapacita-
tion would be modest at best a ~10
OCR for page 196
196
percent reduction in robberies by adults,
for example, with an increase of 1(~20
percent in the number of convicted rob-
bers who are incarcerated. Similar crime
control through general increases in in-
carceration would require substantially
higher increases in prison populations.
The gains from selective incapacitation
are limited in part because decision mak-
ers already invoke many of the offender
characteristics that figure prominently in
the scales. As criminal career research
progresses and the quality of available
data improves, the crime-control effi-
ciency of selective incapacitation can be
expected to improve somewhat.
As progress continues and new predic-
tion scales emerge, there will be a ten-
dency to take scales developed in one
jurisdiction and use them in another. to
use scales developed for one stage of the
criminal justice process at another stage,
and to take scales developed at one time
and use them at a later time. It is impor-
tant to recognize that such transfer must
be done with great caution and with val-
idation and recalibration in each new set-
ting. The characteristics of convicted of-
fenders at the sentencing stage in one
state may be considerably different from
those in another state. Hence, the factors
that distinguish high-risk offenders in one
state may well be different from those in
the other state. Similarly, the factors that
distinguish high-risk prisoners who have
already been filtered through multiple
stages of the criminal justice system
(probably through several occurrences of
recidivism) are likely to be different from
those that distinguish high-risk arrestees
being considered for pretrial release. Fur-
thermore, since there may be changes
over time in both the environment asso-
ciated with offending and the selection
processes within the criminal justice sys-
tem, predictors even within a particular
jurisdiction must be periodically recali-
brated.
CRIMINAL CAREERS AND CAREER CRIMINALS
Since prediction scales are potentially
vulnerable to variation by jurisdiction, by
stage of the criminal justice system, and
over time, successful validation in several
jurisdictions can increase confidence in
scale transferability by identifying key
variables that seem to have consistently
high predictive value, by helping to re-
fine data collection forms and variable
definitions, and by developing initial can-
didate scales that can be adapted in any
new setting. It is crucial, however, that
every scale be tested, validated, and
recalibrated at each decision stage and
jurisdiction in which it is to be used.
In choosing offender characteristics to
be incorporated in prediction scales, it is
important to consider the ethical appro-
priateness of any candidate variable. In
general, the seriousness of the instant
offense is the most acceptable predictor,
followed closely by a record of prior con-
victions. Any other characteristics that are
considered for use should have theoreti-
cal import and validity, reflect blamewor-
thiness, bear a strong predictive relation-
ship to a criminal career, and should take
account of other social concerns such as
equal protection. Other ethical issues in-
volve concern about errors, especially
when prediction is used to increase indi-
vidual punishment, but also when it is
used to decrease some individuals' pun-
ishment. In all such prediction, ethical
questions must be addressed carefully
and must be resolved locally.
In the use of prediction scales, the
validity of data on the predictor variables
is a crucial concern. Records available to
the criminal justice system raise many
questions involving the use of such data.
First, some variables used as predictors-
such as drug use or juvenile convic-
tions may be poorly or ambiguously re-
corded in the information sources avail-
able. If such data are to be used,
information systems will have to improve
the accuracy of their records, avoiding
OCR for page 197
USE OF CRIMINAL CAREER INFORMATION IN DECISION MAKING
errors both of omission ant! of commis-
sion. In considering the variables and
records to be used as predictors, it is also
important to anticipate reactions as a con-
sequence of such uses. If information
about drug involvement is used as a pre-
dictor of offending-as current informa-
tion suggests it should-one must con-
sider whether such use would inhibit
individuals from participating in drug
treatment programs. Addressing these
concerns may require continuing to re-
strict the source of information about cer-
tain variables: for example, to obtain cer-
tain information only from criminal
justice sources rather than from therapeu-
tic agencies.
Juvenile records are of particular con-
cern because of the bifurcation between
the adult and the juvenile criminal justice
systems. Records of juvenile adjudica-
tions are typically unavailable to the adult
criminal justice system, presumably to
avoid lifetime stigmatization as a result of
some minor juvenile escapades. While
that principle is certainly reasonable for
individuals whose juvenile involvement
197
is indeed minor and especially for those
who do not persist into an adult criminal
career, the bifurcation floes not seem rea-
sonable for juveniles whose delinquency
careers are serious and who persist into
serious adult offending. Thus, while juve-
nile records should continue to be pro-
tected from general public access, the
adult criminal justice system should have
access to juvenile records of at least those
offenders arrested as adults on a felony
charge.
There is a clear capability in the cur-
rent state of the art to develop predictors
that are better than chance, but it is still
unclear how much better than current
practice statistically assisted prediction
can be. One can expect currently avail-
able scales to produce only limited im-
provements to existing decision practices
in terms of crime control. It is reasonable
to expect, however, that future research
will improve criminal justice decisions, at
a minimum by highlighting additional
salient predictor variables and by point-
ing to variables that are often used but are
incleed weak.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
criminal careers
