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: 97228 Find in a Library
Title: Crime File: Predicting Criminality
Series: NIJ Crime Files
Corporate Author: Police Foundation
United States of America
Date Published: 1984
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Rockville, MD 20850
Police Foundation
Washington, DC 20036
US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
Washington, DC 20531
Grant Number: 84-IJ-CX-0031
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Audiovisual Sales
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20850
United States of America
Document: PDF (Study Guide)|Video (28:51)
Format: Video (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This video cassette, number 16 in the Crime File series, portrays a panel discussion of the nature and reliability of the Federal and California parole guidelines, justification for their use as sentencing guidelines, and moral and legal issues associated with their use.
Abstract: The moderator explains the Federal parole guidelines chart, which assigns points to persons being considered for parole, based upon factors found to be statistically related to successful parole outcomes. Those receiving high scores are more likely to be paroled. When questioned about the reliability of this chart, panelist Peter Hoffman, research director of the U.S. Parole Commission, notes that those receiving high scores have an average 6-percent recidivism rate, and those having low scores have an average 50-percent recidivism rate. When questioned about the moral and legal issues of using these parole guidelines, Hoffman argues that since the commission is charged with making decisions about the release of serious offenders, it is better to make those decisions scientifically than subjectively. Further, he indicates that the reliability of the chart makes it less objectionable than if it was a poor predictor of recidivism. Panelist Peter Greenwood of the Rand Corporation, who was involved in the development of the California parole guidelines, indicates that his scale is similar to the one used by the Federal Parole Commission. He advises that criminal behavior patterns differ from State to State, however, and that scales used by the various States should reflect this. Panelist John Monahan of the University of Virginia Law School advises that predictive scales based upon statistical analysis are more reliable in predicting criminality than are clinical judgments. All three panelists believe that predictive scales can and should be used as sentencing guidelines, but Monahan cautions that sentencing paramaters should be determined by the severity of the crime. The sentence given within those parameters (from the minimum to the maximum sentence for a given offense) would be determined by the guidelines.
Index Term(s): California; Criminality prediction; Dangerousness; Federal parole guidelines; Parole outcome prediction; Selective incapacitation; Sentencing guidelines; Videotapes
Note: Videocassette (3/4 inch, Beta, and VHS), 28 minutes in length, color.
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.