New system takes on parolees' chance of re-offending
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon probation and parole officials will begin using a new tool next month to help them better predict the chances that convicted felons will commit new crimes after they're released from prison.
The system is called the Oregon Public Safety Checklist and is similar to the actuarial tools that insurance companies use to set premiums. It will make an estimate based on the person's age, gender and criminal history, replacing an outdated and less-reliable assessment that the state has used to judge recidivism for more than 30 years.
A pilot study is under way to determine how the new risk model can be used by judges at sentencing, or by prosecutors and defense lawyers negotiating a plea deal. The Marion County jail is using the new tool to help decide which inmates to release when there's overcrowding. Multnomah County is considering using it to decide whom to recommend for release from custody pending trial.
Yet prosecutors are concerned that the tool is faulty and misidentifies dangerous offenders as low risk. They point to the low-risk scores the tool gives convicted Woodburn bank bomber Bruce Turnidge or predatory sex offender Jeffrey Cutlip, who is now accused of two homicides in Portland in the 1970s.
"Everyone in the business of supervising offenders has said an actuarial tool is really the cornerstone in the modern world," Craig Prins, executive director of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, told The Oregonian. "We're trying to get a tool as accurate and as accessible as possible."
Since 1979, the state has relied on something called the Oregon Case Management System to measure the risk that offenders may commit new felonies within three years of their release from prison or their completion of probation. But its reliability has been low compared with screening tools used in other states. It also has been time-consuming, requiring county parole or probation officers to spend up to an hour researching an offender's prior criminal history and then inputting data for each offender on an automated worksheet.
Under the new method, a parole or probation officer or even a judge types information identifying the offender into a website, and the computer generates a quick analysis of the offender's demographic information and criminal history, culled from the state's electronic databases. It produces three scores: the risk the offender will be convicted of a new felony within three years of release; the person's risk of being arrested for a property crime within five to 10 years of release; and his or her risk of arrest for a crime against a person within five to 10 years of release.
State officials caution that the new tool has its limitations.
It does not include out-of-state or federal arrests or convictions. And it can't be used to measure risk levels for first-time offenders, who have no conviction history. It's only an initial screen and not the best tool for evaluating specialized caseloads such as sex offenders.
"If you have an offender with an extensive out-of-state criminal history, with a minor record in Oregon, this tool is going to underestimate his risk, so you need to account for that," said Kelly Officer, an analyst with the state Criminal Justice Commission.
Clackamas County District Attorney John Foote, who represents the state district attorneys' association on the Governor's Commission on Public Safety, says the new tool is imprecise and is inappropriate to use at sentencing.
For example, while the actuarial tool considers young offenders at greater risk of committing new crimes than older offenders, Foote argues that younger offenders shouldn't be "targeted for harsher sentences" simply because of their age.
Statistically, the state found the new checklist is more reliable. The old case management system was accurate about 63 percent of the time; the new checklist has a 78 percent accuracy rate, state officials said.
While prosecutors remain cool to the idea of using the tool in sentencing, Prins said he never intended it to be the only factors judges use.
"The risk score is a piece of information that can help ascertain the likelihood of future criminal behavior," Prins said, "but at the end of the day it's just a piece of information that helps inform a very important and complicated decision."
_____________
Information from: The Oregonian
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Clearly we need to change the current system, it isn't working. This new checklist has shown promise. It isn't like it hasn't been used elsewhere. There is research supporting it. No one is asking the judges to sit on their brains. It is only ONE of the tools they will use. So why not try it? Something needs to change. The recidivism rates in Oregon are staggering and costing us money as well as creating more victims. We need more money for law enforcement and we could cut expenditures in prison and jails, but we are dealing with a budget that is far to small to deal with the amount of criminals the system has to contend with. We HAVE to make a change, this system is not working. There is not the time or space here to get into all the problems with the current legal system, nor would it be productive. This could be one step in the right direction. It won't make everyone happy, but nothing will. The reason it scores youthful offenders higher is that research shows that those who get involved in serious crime at a younger age ARE more likely to re-offend. THERE ARE OF COURSE, exceptions to the rule, there always are. But that is what statistics show. No system is perfect. However, if you keep doing what you are doing you will keep getting what you got. What we have isn't working. The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.Â
No laws can keep you or make you free.
More money at another failure in the works. There is only one way to reduce crime. Keep the criminal in jail, period! Why can't they see this? We have all these liberal judges on the bench, that no one voted for, who can't bring themselves to sentence anyone to a mandatory jail term. If criminals are sentenced hard, and made to complete that sentence until the last day, it does two things, keeps them off the street, and reduces criminal activity. They scream what about over crowded jails? Well if you don't like overcrowded jails, don't commit crimes. Sure it will take a few years for the pendulum to swing, but it will and there will be less crime, the jails will start to equal out and things will improve. Start electing Judges instead of the Bar recommending and the Governor appointing them. This is a corrupt fixed system, to ensure the liberal power of the bench can survive. The judges know if they do not keep criminals in a revolving door situation, it will eventually mean some of their jobs. When was the last time you heard of a judge being sued because he or she let someone out that committed another crime, even murder.
 @souptonuts You do actually realize that your statement is pretty uneducated dont you? I also have to wonder exactly where you get your ideas from? Have you ever looked at an election ballot? If you do how in the heck do you miss the section where the Judges are listed? The only time the Governor appoints a judge is during mid-terms when say a judge retires in the middle of their term. I know that you have crowned yourself the king of the right but you have heard of things like Measure 11 right? You do realize that judges have about zero say in how long a person is sentenced to serve right? You do realize that it doesnt matter if it is your first crime or your fiftieth crime you are going to face the same sentence right? You do realize that when facing those mandatory minimums it doesnt matter if it was a six pack of soda or the contents of the register right?Â
Â
What truly makes this a corrupt and fixed system is that there is now power in the courts. There is no money for public safety anymore. Even knowing these things voters, unlike yourself since you obviously dont know how judges are appointed, continue to vote to make more things prisonable crimes when once they were probation crimes. Do you know the difference between someone serving say 5 years in prison for a crime such as assault and getting 3 years of supervised probation? Well it will cost approximately $150,000 in tax dollars to house them in prison for 5 years. Now I know that you are going to say it is because they live life high on the hog but quit being ignorant and think about it.....there is the prison itself...it needs electricity, water, land, heat, cooling, staff, maintenance, etc etc. it is not about luxuries it is about normal costs of running a money making business. Now the difference with putting someone on 3 years of probation. They dont have to lose their job or their housing. They actually PAY every single month for having a probation officer.Â
Â
So I know I am completely wrong in your mind because you know much more then I do but I am hoping that perhaps I have been able to educate you just a little bit.
@Shannon K @souptonuts Ok Shannon since you are the expert on these things, you tell me the last time you saw a judge on the ballot that had opposition. How it works is that if a judge retires, the bar association makes recommendations to the governor regarding their preferred choice for appointment. The governor almost always makes that appointment. Since Progressives have been in control for most of 3 plus decades, it is rare that any judge other than a liberal judge is on the bench. After they are appointed it is rare that anyone opposes them on the ballot. Lawyers have figured ways around things like measure 11, mandatory gun sentences and such. I worked in the criminal justice system for over 4 decades and saw a steady decline. The OSP which was a 1000 strong plus in the late 70's has declined to less that 500 under Progressive leadership. The criminal code has become so convoluted it is barely comprehensible to the average person. The traffice code went from one volume barely an inch thick to over two inches thick and the criminal code changed much worse than that. Respect for Law Officers is lower than anytime in State history. When someone is charged they heap so many charges on that it is hard to determine exactly what the person is guilty of. How many sex offenders are on the rolls, you can't even count them. The last thirty years have been devastating to the criminal justice system, and only a Progressive Liberal could see otherwise. So like most Progressive Liberals you fall back on things like "your uneducated", "Stupid" etc. etc. Open your mind, read a little history and enlighten yourself to the facts, not talking points. Oh, and be sure to vote for all those single names of judges running on the ballot with no opposition. As far as the cost of housing a prisoner, that can also be trimmed down, it is not a country club and should not be treated as such. Take away cable TV, dirty magazines, drugs, and a host of other ills in prison, get State salaries and benefits under control, etc. The cost can be cut substantially. Can you imagine this, the state even had criminals working in the DMV at one time, hope that has changed. Read some history, please.