NCJ Number
85079
Journal
British Journal of Criminology Volume: 22 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1982) Pages: 285-314
Date Published
1982
Length
30 pages
Annotation
This essay reflects upon the conclusions of the Floud Report in England regarding preventive sentencing and dangerousness based upon the author's experience at Maryland's Patuxent Institution, an institution which treated serious juvenile offenders under indeterminate sentencing.
Abstract
The prediction of dangerousness was an issue in the evaluation and eventual closing of Patuxent Institution, as the evaluators concluded that there is no reliable way to determine whether a particular person or group of persons will commit a violent or dangerous act in the future, thus placing the Patuxent policy of release or confinement based upon behavioral predictions upon shaky ground. The decision to close Patuxent, however, appeared to rest more upon a political climate that opposed indeterminate sentencing and involuntary treatment in favor of determinate sentencing and voluntary treatment. Patuxent did predict dangerousness in about half of the cases, which makes the prediction of safety just as uncertain as the prediction of dangerousness. This raises the policy issue of whether the public must be asked to take the risk of release or the criminal justice system and the offender are to take the risk of perpetrating injustice or being treated unjustly. The climate of public opinion currently appears to favor the risk of injustice being done against that small percentage of persons deemed likely to repeat violent or severely damaging behavior. The English proposals for preventive sentencing appear to offer adequate protection for reducing the likelihood that a person at low-risk of committing a violent offense will be incarcerated beyond the time appropriate for the instant offense. Eighty-four references are listed.