Write a three page critical reflection on these two articles The two articles are based on sentencing in the era of actuarial justice  The questions that

Write a three page critical reflection on these two articles The two articles are based on sentencing in the era of actuarial justice 

The questions that need to be answered within this critical reflection are: 

What is the statement or the claim the author(s) is/are making? What are the arguments for their claims? What are the supporting arguments? Do the supporting arguments make sense based on the data, the conceptual/ theoretical and the literature presented by the author(s)? What are the theoretical or literary connection of the current articles to other articles/ concepts discussed in lectures? Use APA style intext citation. 

These questions are to be answered throughout the critical reflection and not with subtitles. 


Provide a short synopsis of each article, an overview of the main points, the arguments used to back up the main points, kind of like explaining the articles to someone who hasn’t read them, however this is not a summary of the articles 

Double spaced, 12pt font, Times new roman, APA style DATE DOWNLOADED: Sun Nov 21 16:45:00 2021
SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline


Bluebook 21st ed.

Kelly Hannah-Moffat & Paula Maurutto, Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk
and Race, 12 Punishment & Soc’y 262 (2010).

ALWD 7th ed.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat & Paula Maurutto, Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk
and Race, 12 Punishment & Soc’y 262 (2010).

APA 7th ed.
Hannah-Moffat, K., & Maurutto, P. (2010). Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports:
Risk and Race. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 262-286.

Chicago 17th ed.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat; Paula Maurutto, “Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk
and Race,” Punishment and Society 12, no. 3 (July 2010): 262-286

McGill Guide 9th ed.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat & Paula Maurutto, “Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk
and Race” (2010) 12:3 Punishment & Soc’y 262.

AGLC 4th ed.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat and Paula Maurutto, ‘Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports:
Risk and Race’ (2010) 12 Punishment and Society 262.

MLA 8th ed.
Hannah-Moffat, Kelly, and Paula Maurutto. “Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports:
Risk and Race.” Punishment and Society, vol. 12, no. 3, July 2010, p. 262-286.

OSCOLA 4th ed.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat & Paula Maurutto, ‘Re-Contextualizing Pre-Sentence Reports: Risk
and Race’ (2010) 12 Punishment & Soc’y 262

— Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline’s Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at

— The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
— To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:

Copyright Information





Punishment & Society
12(3) 262-286

Re-contextualizing @ The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions:

p re -sentence reports sagepub.co.uk/journalsPernissions.nav
DOl: 10. 1177/1462474510369442

Risk and race pun.sagepub.corn

Kelly Hannah-Moffat and Paula Maurutto’
University of Toronto, Canada

In the past two decades, Canadian policies governing the structure and content of pre-
sentence reports (PSRs) have shifted to focus more directly on the systematic identi-
fication of offender’s criminogenic risk and needs. In this article, we (1) examine how
risk-based approaches to offender management have altered the structure and format
of the PSR in Canada, and (2) contrast the structure of risk-based PSRs to Gladue
reports for Aboriginal offenders in Canada. Gladue reports are designed to identify the
unique systemic race/cultural and historical factors specific to Aboriginal offenders and
to recommend alternatives to incarceration. We argue that although risk-based PSRs
incorporate recognition of race-related issues, their structure and emphasis on actuar-
ially based risk assessments frames race and risk differently from Gladue reports. In
Gladue reports, holistic approaches and cultural impact factors are documented and
used to understand risk and need. Finally, we argue that the conceptualization and
relevance of race is limited by actuarial risk logic.

actuarial, Gladue, pre-sentence report, race, risk, sentencing

Sentencing is an important aspect of legal decision making, in which information
about an offender’s risk and needs is produced, contested and used to craft sanc-
tions.2 Risk information is clearly relevant to the judiciary during the sentencing
process (Vigorita, 2003): to evaluate ‘risk’, judges use information from a variety of
sources (i.e. criminal history, professional assessment, pre-sentence, ‘Gladue
reports’3 and offender statements), and decisions based on risk are often informed
by conflicting penal rationales (i.e. rehabilitation, deterrence, incapacitation).
Scholars have recently raised concerns about how criminal law, and sentencing

Corresponding author:
Kelly Hannah-Moffat, University of Toronto, Canada. Email: hannah.moffat@utoronto.ca

in particular, is increasingly being shaped by the proliferation of actuarially based
knowledge about ‘risk’ (Simon, 2005; Netter, 2007) and, more broadly, how pun-
ishment is being viewed through the lens of actuarial probability (Ashworth, 2005;
von Hirsch and Ashworth, 2005; Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006, 2007;
Harcourt, 2007). In this article, we examine the incorporation of risk into pre-
sentence reports (PSRs), which are ordered by the Canadian judiciary in cases
that require more detailed information about an offender and community options
for release. We examine how applying risk-based approaches to offender manage-
ment has changed the structure of the PSR and explore how this change affects the
characterization of offenders’ risk and treatment needs. We also examine how it
conflicts with recent legal reforms directing courts to foreground racial histories
when sentencing Aboriginal people.

Many Canadian and international jurisdictions are modifying policies and man-
dating the use of standardized actuarial risk assessment instruments in PSRs;4 and
some US states are incorporating actuarial risk scores into sentencing guidelines
(i.e. Virginia, 5 see discussion in Harcourt, 2007). Actuarial-based risk assessments
use statistical techniques to assess and classify offenders’ criminogenic need(s) and
to predict the likelihood of recidivism. Actuarial assessments focus on ‘objective’
criteria (i.e. type of offence, prior criminal history, age and gender and sentence
length) and factors that are empirically shown to be statistically co-related with
recidivism. The criteria contained in the actuarial risk instruments, such as the
Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) are easily identifiable and verifiable,
and hence can be quickly scored by correctional staff, thereby reducing the need for
broad, lengthy assessments by professionally trained clinicians (Hannah-Moffat,
2004; Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006). This form of actuarial assessment is
considerably different from alternative methods of assessing an offender’s risk and
needs for the purpose of sentencing.

PSRs frame legal subjectivities for the court. They play an important role in
informing the court about the offender’s risk and treatment potential, and in defin-
ing the type, length and conditions attached to the final sentence. Risk technologies
are framed as superior to unstructured clinical judgement, which involves
‘the exercise of educated intuition where information items gleaned from inter-
views, client history, psychometric instruments, and conferences with other profes-
sionals are engaged at the discretion of the individual carrying out the assessment’
(Meehl, 1954 cited in Harris, 2006: 8). Risk technologies are often characterized as
having supplanted much of practitioners’ discretionary decision making with struc-
tured, quantitatively derived decision-making templates. Some scholars maintain
that the transition to risk-based penality has led to the ‘deskilling’, ‘scientification’
and ‘erosion of professional discretion’ (Robinson, 2003: 33; see also Schneider
et al., 1996; Baker, 2005; Fitzgibbon, 2007, 2008), or even to the elimination of
discretion among criminal justice practitioners. Feeley and Simon (1992, 1994)
argue that the proliferation of actuarial tools, the rise of incapacitation policies
and the apparent decline of more clinical approaches to offender management
signal a new form of penal managerialism, namely ‘actuarial justice’.

Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto 263

The restructuring and alignment of PSRs within actuarial risk logic marks a
significant change in the penal system, especially since the PSR literature clearly
illustrates a high level of concordance between recommendations by probation
officers and the sentences imposed by judges (Cole and Angus, 2003: 302; see
also Thorpe and Pease, 1976; Thorpe, 1979; Brown and Levy, 1998; Creamer,
2000; Bateman and Stanley, 2002; Bonta et al., 2005). For example, Canadian
studies report an 80 per cent concordance rate between PSR recommendations
and dispositions (Hagan, 1975; Boldt et al., 1983) and demonstrate a high level
of judicial satisfaction6 with these reports. International research has reported
similarly high levels of concordance between PSRs and judicial decision making:
92 per cent in the United States (Norman and Wadman, 2000); 78 per cent in
England and Wales (Thorpe and Pease, 1976); and 77 to 80 per cent in
New Zealand (Deane, 2000). Although evidence on concordance between PSR
and sentencing is contested, highly nuanced and difficult to unravel empirically
(Haines and Morgan, 2007; Tata et al., 2008), existing research demonstrates
that the PSR plays a central interpretive role in sentencing and among criminal
justice professionals (see also Tata, and Wandall, both this issue)

International literature has raised important concerns about how the rise of
actuarial technologies affects, targets and indirectly discriminates against racial
minorities (Bhui, 1999; Durrance and Williams, 2003; Pridemore, 2004; Hudson
and Bramhall, 2005; Harcourt, 2007). Some researchers have argued that rather
than producing more neutral practices, the use of actuarial risk assessments repro-
duces and embeds forms of systemic discrimination (Maurutto and Hannah-
Moffat, 2007). Research has shown that legal understandings of risk are gendered
and racialized (Hannah-Moffat and O’Malley, 2007; Harcourt, 2007) and that the
integration of conventional risk/need assessments into penal practices produces
gendered and racial effects. Some scholars have investigated specific gendered
(Deane, 2000; Horn and Evans, 2000) and racial biases inherent in the writing of
PSRs (Cohen and Palmor, 1985; Power, 2003; Hudson and Bramhall, 2005), but
these studies have not addressed how race and gender concerns shape the risk-
based structure of the PSR, and few, if any, have compared the PSR and other
specialized court reports such as the ‘Gladue report’ about Aboriginal offenders,
which differently constitute offender risk and rehabilitation.

In this largely conceptual article, we argue that the risk-based focus of the PSR
provides a decontextualized and limited understanding of the impact of racial his-
tories on offending, sentencing and treatment options. Concerns about race, in
particular the vastly disproportionate incarceration of Aboriginal people in
Canada, have given rise to new sentencing provisions that affect all court reports.
The 1996 amendments to Canadian sentencing law, specifically section 718.2(e) of
the Criminal Code of Canada, provide new guidelines for how judges are to
approach the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. The Supreme Court of Canada
decision in R v. Gladue (1999) requires the court to consider non-custodial options
for Aboriginal people and to consider the unique circumstances of Aboriginal
offenders. Canadian courts, and consequently PSRs, now have a statutory duty

264 Punishment & Society 12(3)

in the case of Aboriginal offenders to incorporate cultural information about risk.
Nevertheless, few scholars have focused on the compatibility of actuarial risk logic
with the type of contextualized analysis of race required by Canadian law. As we
will show in this article, the PSR policy resulting from this new legal framework
positions race (and gender)7 issues as secondary, or at best supplementary, to
actuarial risk.

This article uses data from two separate studies. We use data from 43 detailed
semi-structured interviews with probation officers, defence lawyers and Crown
prosecutors across Canada. These interviews asked participants about the use,
preparation and content of the PSR, the use of risk assessments in the PSR process
and the role (if any) of gender and race in the preparation of the PSR. We also rely
on a content analysis of the provincial and territorial risk assessment policies and
risk instruments used in probation and sentencing. These two sources of data were
collected for a larger study on the expanding use of risk assessments within
Canadian legal and criminal justice systems (see Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto,
2004). Second, we rely on three additional data sources: 12 semi-structured inter-
views with judges, court works and lawyers; 12 months of court observations
in Gladue courts; and content analysis of 15 pre-sentence and Gladue reports.
These data were collected for an ongoing study of Canadian specialized courts
beginning in 2008.

Practitioners'” dissatisfaction with the information provided in PSRs for
Aboriginal offenders and their unique circumstances has recently motivated some
courts to order more specialized, separate ‘Gladue reports’, often in lieu of the
PSR. A Gladue report and its recommendations are holistic and contextualized
accounts that characterize the Aboriginal offender’s needs, risk and community
options differently from the actuarial risk-based character of PSRs. Essentially,
they adopt a non-actuarial model and more contextualized approach to situate
and frame Aboriginal offenders’ risk.

This article examines how, over the past two decades, policies governing the
structure and content of PSRs in Canadian jurisdictions have been revised to focus
more directly on systematic identification of the offender’s criminogenic risk and
needs, and how these factors have affected, are affecting and will affect offender
behaviour. First, we argue that the incorporation of actuarial risk logic into the
preparation of PSRs changes the content, structure and recommendations of these
reports. We demonstrate how an offender’s risk/need levels as presented in PSRs
increasingly reflect an actuarial definition of criminogenic risk/need. This shift is a
consequence of policies that mandate probation officers in many jurisdictions to
use ‘objective’ risk assessment instruments when preparing the PSR, such as the
Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R). Second, we explore how the appli-
cation of actuarial logic in the PSR reframes rehabilitative concerns, social histories
and sentencing recommendations. We argue that these differences are significant
because they change how legal subjects are characterized and what type of infor-
mation is presented to courts. The international research shows that these reports
play a key role in sentencing (Tata et al., 2008). Third, we argue that although

Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto 265

risk-based PSRs consider race, their structure and emphasis on actuarially based
risk assessments tend to frame offender risk quite differently from Gladue reports,
which culturally situate offenders and incorporate racial knowledge to position
criminal behaviour holistically within a wider collective history of race relations
and colonialism. To make these arguments, we draw on detailed analysis of policies
for court-ordered reports, sample PSR and Gladue reports and a comprehensive
review of the risk tools and types of data used to compile reports. Although our
data include information from 11 provinces and territories, our focus is the prov-
ince of Ontario, which has one of the most explicit risk-based PSR policies.
Ontario’s PSR policy simultaneously addresses Gladue and criminogenic risk/
need; its judiciary have been ordering Gladue reports either in lieu of or to sup-
plement the PSR, and it has a specialized Aboriginal People’s Court explicitly
designed to enact Gladue principles.

Understanding the PSR: Canadian legallpolicy context

In Canada, PSRs are prepared by probation officers9 at the request of a judge
following a conviction. The PSR, also known as a ‘predisposition report’, a
‘social inquiry report’ or ‘pre-sentence investigation’ in the international literature,
contains life history information about offenders and occasionally information
about victims. PSRs are time consuming to compile (10-14 hours on average)
and are, therefore, generally requested only in cases when custody is being consid-
ered or ‘complex’ cases (Bonta et al., 2005; Cox, 2008). Comprehensive national
data on the number of PSRs ordered in Canada are not available, but individual
jurisdictions report that PSRs are provided in a relatively small number of cases.
In Ontario, for example, 7017 PSRs were completed in 2006-7 (Cox, 2008), which
represents approximately 10 per cent of the cases in adult criminal court. PSRs are
prepared on the request of a sentencing judge, they are not mandatory.

Judges use information and recommendations from the PSR to determine the
suitability of community supervision and to develop the conditions for supervision.
Criminal Code section 721.3 stipulates that unless otherwise specified by the court,
the PSR must, wherever possible, contain information about the following: (a) the
offender’s age, maturity, character, behaviour, attitude and willingness to make
amends; (b) any history of previous dispositions under the Young Offenders Act
and of previous findings of guilt under this Act and any other Act of Parliament;
and (c) any history of alternative measures used to deal with the offender, and the
offender’s response to those measures. Criminal Code guidelines also grant prov-
inces and territories the authority to make further specifications about the PSR’s
content and form (sec. 721.2). Consequently, the exact format of the PSR is left to
the discretion of each province or territory. The structure of the PSR is also defined
by section 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada and the R v. Gladue (1999)
decision, which provided new guidelines for judges when they approach sentencing,
specifically the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders. According to section 718.2(e),
‘all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the

266 Punishment & Society 12(3)

circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to
the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders’.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Gladue (1999) was based on an
interpretation of section 718.2(e) as an alteration of the method of analysis used by
judges in sentencing. It indicated that when crafting a sentence for an Aboriginal
offender, judges must:

[c]onsider unique circumstances arising from or specific to Aboriginal heritage
(e.g., marginalization, residential school, overt racism, chronic substance abuse in
his or her community, family or community background, isolation, community relo-
cation, dislocation from Aboriginal community given adoption and/or product of
child welfare system, etc.), and to consider other sanctions specific to Aboriginal
heritage (e.g., sentencing circles, Aboriginal healing lodges, etc.). (Ministry of
Correctional Services, 2007b: 3)

These provisions explicitly address the problem of the overrepresentation of
Aboriginal people in custody and encourage the consideration of alternative sen-
tences. Historically, Aboriginal people in Canada have been overincarcerated.10

Aboriginal people account for approximately 3 per cent of the adult population
in Canada, but represent roughly 22 per cent of the Canadian prison population
(Perreault, 2009). Consequently, PSR policy in many provinces has been modified
to include information specific to Aboriginal offenders. In most Canadian juris-
dictions, policies for court reports include supplementary descriptions of the
Gladue decision and instructions for including Gladue factors in PSRs. These leg-
islative frameworks require the writers of the PSR to incorporate Aboriginal issues,
but do not explicitly require that the PSR include information about criminogenic
risk. Thus, whether or not to include actuarial risk assessment in the PSR is a
matter of discretionary policy for and practice in each jurisdiction.

Since 2000, eight of Canada’s 13 jurisdictions have integrated risk assessments to
structure their PSRs, and the remaining three provinces and territories are contem-
plating their integration (Cole and Angus, 2003; Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto,
2004; Bonta et al., 2005). Most provinces have used a version of the LSI-R, 12

developed by Andrews and Bonta (1995, 2003), to restructure PSRs and to focus
recommendations on criminogenic risk/need factors. Others have developed their
own tools; for example, British Columbia pioneered the Youth Community
Assessment Risk/Need Tool, and Manitoba and Nunavut are using the Offender
Risk Assessment and Management System (ORAMS), a tool that the Northwest
Territories used previously.13 However, jurisdictions across the country vary
greatly in terms of how risk information is reported in PSRs. For example, PSRs
prepared in Manitoba and Saskatchewan include a subsection with the findings of
an evidence-based, actuarial risk assessment; other jurisdictions use similar assess-
ments to guide the writing of the PSR without formally referencing the risk assess-
ment. Nova Scotia included a separate section on risk assessment, but removed it
after a court challenge (R v. Elliot, 2004). Nova Scotia now uses the risk assessment

Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto 267

to structure the PSR report without directly referencing the risk instrument
(Bonta et al., 2005). In Ontario, provincial policy requires that practitioners pre-
paring PSRs use an Ontario Revision risk assessment instrument (LSI-OR), but the
score is not to be disclosed or discussed in the report (Ministry of Correctional
Services, 2007b). In contrast, PSRs prepared in Saskatchewan include the risk score
and clearly identify the use of the LSI.

Actuarial risk and the PSR

Most of the literature about PSRs focuses on judicial use, interpretation and sat-
isfaction with the reports (Brown, 1991; Bonta et al., 2005; Tata et al., 2008), as
well as on the training of PSR writers and the assessment of the quality of reports
(Gelsthorpe and Raynor, 1995; Raynor et al., 1995; Creamer, 2000; Norman and
Wadman, 2000; Bateman and Stanley, 2002; Downing and Lynch, 2002). Few have
conducted a detailed analysis of how actuarial risk-based rehabilitative logics are
being used to restructure the content of the PSR. The recent emphasis on risk in the
PSR can be linked to three broad shifts in penality: (1) the rise of penal manage-
rialism with its emphasis on efficiency and effectiveness; (2) risk-based penality, and
particularly the use of actuarially based assessment techniques; and (3) the refram-
ing of rehabilitative approaches and offender management (Hannah-Moffat, 2004;
Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006; Ward and Maruna, 2007). These broader
trends have affected probation practices and consequently the PSR (Stinchcomb
and Hippensteel 2001; Cole and Angus, 2003; Kemshall, 2003; Hudson and
Bramhall, 2005, 2007; Cole, 2007). The type of actuarial risk assessment integrated
into Canadian policy emerged from the ‘what works movement’, which advocates
an empirically based assessment of an offender’s ‘criminogenic’ risks/needs and the
provision of accredited, evidence-based treatment services, which are matched to
the offender’s risk/need levels (Robinson, 1999; Hannah-Moffat, 2004; Mair, 2004).
This risk logic and related assessment tools are treatment focused. This form of
risk/need assessment identifies ‘criminogenic factors’ which are ‘treatable’ and sta-
tistically correlated with recidivism. Targeted ‘evidence-based’ rehabilitative pro-
grammes which are matched to the offender’s level of risk/need are recommended.
If a motivated offender completes these rehabilitative programmes, their probabil-
ity of recidivism is assumed to be lower.

Since the 1990s, Canadian probation and correctional institutions have inte-
grated formal risk assessment into their case management and supervisory practices
(Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006). A version of the Level of Service Inventory
(LSI) is routinely used by probation officers across the country to classify and
formulate treatment plans for sentenced offenders and to manage growing case-
loads through the efficient, targeted allocation of scarce treatment and supervisory
resources. Advocates of risk-based probation management claim that the applica-
tion of tools such as the LSI ensures offender management is more efficient, empir-
ically sound, objective and transparent (Bonta et al., 2005).

268 Punishment & Society 12(3)

Actuarial risk/need assessment was incorporated into the PSR process in 2000.
In Canada, the current trend is to collapse actuarial data into the PSR narrative
and to use actuarial templates to structure the PSR, even though the assessment of
an offender in a pre-sentence context differs from the assessment of a sentenced
offender. For example, Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat (2007) argued that the inclu-
sion of risk assessment information in PSRs raises questions regarding the extent to
which information that is not directly pertinent to the offence, but rather is a
prediction of future behaviour based on a narrowly defined set of criminogenic
needs, ought to be used to inform dispositions.

Evidence-based risk/need assessment tools used in the preparation of PSRs
combine static (unchanging) historic factors with dynamic (changeable or amenable
to treatment) criminogenic need variables. The most prominent tools, the LSI –
Revised (LSI-R) and Youth Level of Service Inventory/Case Management
Inventory (YLS/CMI), typically contain eight risk/need factors: (1) criminal
history (measured in terms of number of offences rather than type of offence);
(2) education/employment; (3) family circumstances; (4) leisure/recreation;
(5) pro-criminal attitude; (6) substance abuse; (7) antisocial patterns; and
(8) acquaintances. A series of questions is typically used to determine the relevance
and strength of each factor. A numerical evaluation of these variables produces a
total risk score that is used to classify an offender as having a low, medium or high
risk of recidivism. Currently, the LSI is used in jurisdictions throughout Canada,
the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Europe. The tool, originally
written in English, is available in Spanish, Croatian and French (French European
and French Canadian), and it is in the process of being translated into Dutch and
Icelandic (Maurutto and Hannah-Moffat, 2006: 439).

The LSI-R is principally based on a Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) frame-
work1 4 (Andrews et al., 1990). An RNR framework assessment focuses on identi-
fying criminogenic need, which narrowly represents the areas of an offender’s life
that are statistically correlated with offending and are believed to be amenable to
treatment. Addressing these risk/need factors through treatment programmes is
expected to lower recidivism and, consequently, ‘risk’. For example, substance
abuse is known to increase recidivism, but treatment programmes can diminish
such problems, thereby lowering the chance of recidivism. This particular definition
of ‘criminogenic needs’ differs from that of ‘self-defined needs’ or ‘clinically defined
holistic needs’, and often excludes socio-cultural understandings of need and struc-
tural factors such as racism or poverty (see Hannah-Moffat, 2004). Additionally,
advocates of the RNR framework and broader principles of effective rehabilitation
support matching the intensity of treatment and supervision to the offender’s
assessed level of risk/need (Andrews et al., 1990). They argue that lower risk/
need offenders do not require a high number of interventions and that overpro-
gramming can produce the adverse effect of escalating risk. The vast literature on
the RNR and related risk/need assessment tools has only recently considered its
implications for gender (Blanchette and Brown, 2006; Hannah-Moffat, 2008), and

Hannah-Moffat and Maurutto 269

few scholars have examined the logic of this risk-based rehabilitative model’s com-
patibility with racial, ethnic and cultural considerations.

Those advocating the inclusion of risk/need-based instruments in PSRs argue
that these tools can identify the necessary level of intervention and supervision, and
systematically identify treatment targets by providing information on the needs of
the offender that must be addressed to reduce recidivism (Bonta, 2002; Andrews
and Bonta, 2003). They claim that it is in the best interest of the courts to apply
risk/need assessment to structure PSRs or to identify what needs to be done to
manage offender risk (Bonta et …

Looking for this or a Similar Assignment? Click below to Place your Order