1
2023-2024 Kayleigh de Bruin
23053514Y – Risicotaxatie
Samenvatting literatuur en hoorcolleges
Semester 1 2023-2024
, 2
2023-2024 Kayleigh de Bruin
Literatuur Week 1: 4 september – 8 september 2023
Predictive Sentencing – Esther FJC van Ginneken
A general shift can be observed from a welfare-oriented approach to a neoliberal
approach. Today, risk assessment may serve the primary function of efficient offender
management, although there is still attention to rehabilitative, retributive and incapacitate
goals.
First Generation: 1950s to 1960s; it was generally believed that the causes of
criminality could be ‘diagnosed’ and ‘treated’ using an individual approach. Unstructured
clinical risk assessments are considered to be the first generation of risk instruments, and they
have been criticised for their lack of reliability and predictive validity.
Second Generation: 1970s to 1980s; dissatisfaction with the rehabilitative potential of
prison programmes. A study claimed that crime could be reduced through selective
incapacitation of offenders who are most likely to re-offend. A defining characteristic of
second-generation risk assessment is that it's based on static factors (fixed factors, e.g., age at
first arrest). Thus, risk is assessed using a formula. Static-99 is one of the most well-known
instruments for predicting sexual offending. The 1990s: rapid rise in crime rates > the new
generation of risk assessment challenged the dominant focus on punitive responses and
incapacitation to some extent by a greater focus on treatment potential.
Third and fourth generation: Third-generation risk assessment includes static and
dynamic factors (needs; can change over time). The Risk-Needs-Responsitivity (RNR)
Model, which is the foundation of the third and fourth-generation risk assessments, ensures
that the level of treatment is proportionate with the risk of re-offending. Second, interventions
target dynamic factors that are correlated with recidivism. These needs can be distinguished
between criminogenic needs (e.g., pro-criminal attitudes and substance abuse) and non-
criminogenic needs (e.g., self-esteem and mental health). Third, interventions should
2023-2024 Kayleigh de Bruin
23053514Y – Risicotaxatie
Samenvatting literatuur en hoorcolleges
Semester 1 2023-2024
, 2
2023-2024 Kayleigh de Bruin
Literatuur Week 1: 4 september – 8 september 2023
Predictive Sentencing – Esther FJC van Ginneken
A general shift can be observed from a welfare-oriented approach to a neoliberal
approach. Today, risk assessment may serve the primary function of efficient offender
management, although there is still attention to rehabilitative, retributive and incapacitate
goals.
First Generation: 1950s to 1960s; it was generally believed that the causes of
criminality could be ‘diagnosed’ and ‘treated’ using an individual approach. Unstructured
clinical risk assessments are considered to be the first generation of risk instruments, and they
have been criticised for their lack of reliability and predictive validity.
Second Generation: 1970s to 1980s; dissatisfaction with the rehabilitative potential of
prison programmes. A study claimed that crime could be reduced through selective
incapacitation of offenders who are most likely to re-offend. A defining characteristic of
second-generation risk assessment is that it's based on static factors (fixed factors, e.g., age at
first arrest). Thus, risk is assessed using a formula. Static-99 is one of the most well-known
instruments for predicting sexual offending. The 1990s: rapid rise in crime rates > the new
generation of risk assessment challenged the dominant focus on punitive responses and
incapacitation to some extent by a greater focus on treatment potential.
Third and fourth generation: Third-generation risk assessment includes static and
dynamic factors (needs; can change over time). The Risk-Needs-Responsitivity (RNR)
Model, which is the foundation of the third and fourth-generation risk assessments, ensures
that the level of treatment is proportionate with the risk of re-offending. Second, interventions
target dynamic factors that are correlated with recidivism. These needs can be distinguished
between criminogenic needs (e.g., pro-criminal attitudes and substance abuse) and non-
criminogenic needs (e.g., self-esteem and mental health). Third, interventions should
