Quandary of Dangerousness - Towards the Resolution of a Persisting Dilemma

• NCJ Number: 85077
• Journal: British Journal of Criminology Volume: 22 Issue: 3 Dated: (July 1982) Pages: 255-267
• Author(s): J P Conrad
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 13 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom
• Note: An earlier version of this paper was presented as a colloquium lecture on November 4, 1981.

Annotation

The tension between the due process model and the crime control model in dealing with dangerous offenders can be resolved by establishing criminal justice processing that is predictable, provides extended and significant control of violent offenders, and that is consistent with civilized standards of fairness and compassion.

Abstract

The due process model is firm in its opposition to using the concept of dangerousness in the criminal law. To pronounce a defendant dangerous as well as guilty is viewed under this model as a prediction about future conduct. Advocates of the due process model maintain that predictive methods perform no better than mere chance. Exponents of the crime control model, on the other hand, insist that the state should not allow a criminal known to be dangerous to be set free to commit violent crimes. Adherents of the crime control model insist that the prediction of dangerousness must be accepted as a legitimate tool in the administration of justice. Two research studies based in Columbus, Ohio, found that the criminal justice system is unpredictable in handling offenders based upon criminal history and severity of offense, such that it does not deter recidivists. Incapacitation was found to prevent some crime but not as much as many have supposed. The proposed reconstruction of the criminal justice system must ensure that plea bargaining does not result in seeking conviction for a crime other than the one that was committed, and sanctions should be predictable, such that anyone who commits a violent offense should know that intensive and extended social control will be the consequence. Further, a Police Bureau of Offender Supervision staffed by sworn police officers should be established to receive regular reports from probationers and parolees and to check their activities as may be indicated by circumstances. Fifteen references are listed.