Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on February 26, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2006 5(3-4):175-200; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm001
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
5/3-4/175    most recent
mgm001v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wandall, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Actuarial risk assessment. The loss of recognition of the individual offender

Rasmus H. Wandall{dagger}

Post Doctoral Research Fellow and Assistant Research Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

{dagger} Email: Rasmus.wandall{at}jur.ku.dk

Received on 24 January 2006. Revised on 29 November 2006. Accepted on 13 December 2006.


   Abstract

The paper is about the design of sentencing decision-making. It contrasts the actuarial risk assessment instrument (ARAI) in the Commonwealth of Virginia to the statutory and judicial guidance in Denmark. Both are used as frameworks to identify and classify offenders eligible for diversion to alternative sanctions to imprisonment. By contrasting the sentencing frameworks, the paper articulates and defends the view that actuarial risk assessment as introduced in Virginia challenges a fundamental quality of modern penal justice of recognizing the moral personality of individuals subjected to criminal sentencing. The paper also shows that sentencing judges in Virginia, despite the unambiguously aggregate language of the ARAI, are provided some space to construct sentencing as a more concrete and individualized analysis, relying on the discretionary character of the instrument. Yet, from this discretionary construction flows not only that sentencers are released from the formal legal structures but also that sentencing judges are subjected to the enforcement mechanisms of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, outside the scope of judicial review.

Keywords: sentencing; risk; comparative; actuarial; alternatives to imprisonment; fundamental rights


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.