z-logo
Premium
Utilization of offender case information by “lenient” vs. “punitive” clinicians
Author(s) -
Holland Terrill R.,
Holt Norman
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.124
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1097-4679
pISSN - 0021-9762
DOI - 10.1002/1097-4679(197807)34:3<798::aid-jclp2270340348>3.0.co;2-w
Subject(s) - punitive damages , psychology , recidivism , weighting , accountability , social psychology , clinical psychology , medicine , political science , law , radiology
Presentence evaluations conducted by psychologists and psychiatrists (clinicians) and correctional counselors (caseworkers) were subjected to multiple regression analyses in order to specify the relative contribution of inmate characteristics (offense severity and recidivism probability) and decision maker response biases to sentencing recommendations. Although both groups of decision‐makers showed a response bias effect for cases that were difficult to discriminate, the effect was generally lerger for chnicians than for caseworkers. Response bias (lenient vs. punitive) was not associated with type of clinical judgment model (linear vs. configural) or predictability of recommendation, although it was associated with the degree of relative weighting of the two independent variables and, in the case of extremely punitive decision‐makers, with the tendency to utilize only one evaluative dimension (offense severity) to the exclusion of the other. Furthermore, it was found that inmates who committed the most serious offenses were exposed selectively to those decision‐makers most likely both to place exclusive emphasis on offense severity and to recommend relatively punitive case dispostions. The need for an accountability system designed to minimize the effects of the response biases of correctional decision‐makers was discussed.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here