The situation here is a bit comparable to the standard test for psychopathy, which includes questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” The test was designed by a psychologist, and not meant to be used in a criminal justice context. But it has nevertheless become standard. The problem is that it makes rehabilitation extremely difficult—you can’t change answers to historical questions, so rehabilitated criminal psychopaths are sometimes unable to score high enough to have their status changed, which affects parole options.
Not directly relevant, but a comparable to study if someone seriously takes a stab at a “stupidity test.”
I’m not sure that’s completely true. Rehabilitation is difficult in principle. Parole boards should not put dangerous people on the street even if they have improved slightly.
In a perfect world, parole boards would give the credence for recidivism and have credence calibration based on it. People on such a board can use questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” to inform themselves to the extend it helps them make better predictions.
Yes, there’s are people who complain about the metrics and who think they are unfair. The makers of these scales also don’t like them to be used for this purpose.
At the same time I’m not convinced that the metrics aren’t up to the task.
The situation here is a bit comparable to the standard test for psychopathy, which includes questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” The test was designed by a psychologist, and not meant to be used in a criminal justice context. But it has nevertheless become standard. The problem is that it makes rehabilitation extremely difficult—you can’t change answers to historical questions, so rehabilitated criminal psychopaths are sometimes unable to score high enough to have their status changed, which affects parole options.
Not directly relevant, but a comparable to study if someone seriously takes a stab at a “stupidity test.”
I’m not sure that’s completely true. Rehabilitation is difficult in principle. Parole boards should not put dangerous people on the street even if they have improved slightly.
In a perfect world, parole boards would give the credence for recidivism and have credence calibration based on it. People on such a board can use questions like “did the patient ever harm animals as a child?” to inform themselves to the extend it helps them make better predictions.
Put “psychopath test parole” in your favorite search engine and you’ll find plenty of media coverage over the issue.
Yes, there’s are people who complain about the metrics and who think they are unfair. The makers of these scales also don’t like them to be used for this purpose. At the same time I’m not convinced that the metrics aren’t up to the task.