The Counterintuitive Consequences of Sex Offender Risk Assessments at Sentencing^†.

This article examines the impact of Virginia's adoption of a sex offender risk assessment tool on sentencing outcomes for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. The risk assessment, designed to increase sentence severity by expanding the upper sentencing guidelines based on risk categories, led to increased incarceration rates and longer sentences for those convicted of sexual assault but unexpectedly resulted in decreased sentences for those convicted of rape. This divergence is attributed to differences in how the risk assessment modified sentencing guidelines: it raised the minimum sentence for sexual assault but only expanded the upper limit for rape, allowing judges more leniency in rape cases. The authors propose that the risk assessment may have functioned as a "political shield," enabling judges to justify leniency for low-risk offenders by deflecting blame if reoffense occurred, thereby influencing sentencing patterns beyond the tool's intended effect.