skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 222104 Find in a Library
Title: Umpires Strike Back: Canadian Judicial Experience with Risk-Assessment Instruments
Journal: Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice  Volume:49  Issue:4  Dated:October 2007  Pages:493-517
Author(s): David P. Cole
Date Published: October 2007
Page Count: 25
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: This article examines how correctional officials are importing into bail and sentencing proceedings risk-assessment instruments principally designed for institutional classification, placement, and release decisionmaking.
Abstract: As Canadian correctional policymakers have begun to embed usage of risk-assessment instruments and various forms of penal and probation decisionmaking, judges are frequently being asked to rule on their admissibility and evidentiary relevance in a variety of contexts, most particularly sentencing. The premise of risk-assessment instruments is that a scientifically representative, valid, and reliable basis can be demonstrated for treating risk with respect to the future as a present fact. Assuming that third or subsequent generation instruments do approach this standard, at least for some populations, on an issue as important as sentencing, expert evidence of this nature should be at a very high and consistent level. As this review of recent law in routine sentencing cases too frequently demonstrates the quality and accuracy of information used, the types of instruments used, and the training and expertise of the assessor are simply not of the consistent caliber that judges and the public should expect. If Canadian correctional officials are not prepared to invest in the resources necessary to adduce proper risk-assessment information, Canadian judges will likely continue to either refuse to admit it into evidence, or will downplay, sidestep, or even ignore its utility. Judges have a difficult enough role balancing risk and proportionality, and are not being adequately assisted in this process when they are provided inadequate formulation or inappropriate or incomplete materials. Notes, references
Main Term(s): Judicial decisions; Judicial process; Needs assessment
Index Term(s): Legal system; Presentence studies; Probation or parole decisionmaking; Sentence processing; Sentence review
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.