For the proper conduct of criminal proceedings and for the execution of sentences to serve their intended purposes, it is essential to accurately identify the risks and needs of defendants and convicts. In this regard, actuarial risk assessment tools have been utilized in the criminal justice system for over fifty years. Over the past twenty-five years, it has become possible to use these tools in a computer-assisted manner. One such tool in use today is COMPAS. As a comprehensive set of psychological scales, COMPAS enables assessments by considering both static and dynamic risk factors, as well as the offender’s needs. Using this tool, determinations can be made regarding whether a defendant should be detained during trial, which punishment would be most appropriate, and whether conditional release is suitable. Despite its advantages, there are significant concerns regarding the use of this tool. In particular, claims that the program causes discrimination and violates the principles of equality of arms are still being debated. In our opinion, while it is possible to implement a similar program in Turkey, the Turkish criminal justice system is only suitable for utilizing such programs at the execution stage.
In the pursuit of ensuring the proper conduct of criminal proceedings and the effective execution of sentences, the accurate identification of risks and needs for defendants and convicts is critical. Actuarial risk assessment tools have been employed within criminal justice systems for over fifty years to fulfill this purpose. In the past twenty-five years, technological advancements have facilitated the integration of computerized risk assessment methods, thereby enhancing decision-making accuracy and efficiency. These tools serve as a bridge between empirical criminological research and practical applications, offering structured, transparent, and scientifically grounded evaluations that surpass the limitations of subjective human judgment.
One such tool, COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions), has gained prominence in this field. COMPAS utilizes a comprehensive set of psychological scales to evaluate both static and dynamic risk factors alongside the specific needs of an offender. By analyzing these factors, it facilitates determinations regarding pretrial detention, sentencing appropriateness, and conditional release eligibility. Despite its benefits, the application of COMPAS has sparked significant debates over its implications for equality of arms, transparency, and its potential to perpetuate systemic biases.
The utility of actuarial risk assessment tools like COMPAS lies in their ability to transform informal, discretionary risk assessments into structured processes. COMPAS, as a fourth-generation actuarial risk assessment instrument, integrates both static factors (such as criminal history) and dynamic factors (such as employment or social environment) while also accounting for offenders’ criminogenic needs. This enables its application across various stages of the criminal justice process, from pretrial assessments to the design of rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, its reliance on data-driven methodologies offers decision-makers a means to reduce cognitive biases and improve the consistency of judicial outcomes.
However, the implementation of COMPAS has not been without criticism. One major concern is its potential to reinforce systemic biases. For example, studies have raised concerns that COMPAS’s algorithm may disproportionately label certain racial or socioeconomic groups as high-risk, perpetuating existing inequalities in the justice system. Critics also highlight the “black box” nature of its proprietary algorithm, which limits transparency and raises questions about fairness and accountability. These challenges underscore the need for robust oversight mechanisms, such as independent audits of algorithms and the adoption of open-source models, to mitigate potential risks and uphold the principles of justice.
In the context of Turkey, the integration of actuarial risk assessment tools poses unique challenges and opportunities. While the Turkish criminal justice system currently lacks provisions for using such tools during pretrial detention or sentencing, their application in correctional settings appears more feasible. Turkey’s legal framework already incorporates elements of the risk-need model in its approach to rehabilitation and conditional release, aligning with the principles underlying tools like COMPAS. However, the absence of comprehensive recidivism statistics and culturally tailored risk assessment methodologies remains a significant barrier to effective implementation. Addressing these gaps is a prerequisite for the successful adoption of such tools.
This study argues that adopting computerized risk assessment tools in Turkey requires careful consideration of their legal and cultural compatibility. The tools must be adapted to address the specific needs and characteristics of the Turkish criminal justice system, emphasizing transparency, accuracy, and fairness. Moreover, their deployment should be confined to the execution phase of sentencing, where their potential benefits can be maximized without compromising the principles of justice. The inclusion of training programs for judicial and correctional staff is equally critical to ensure the proper interpretation and use of these tools.
Ultimately, the evolution of risk assessment tools represents a critical juncture in the modernization of criminal justice systems worldwide. By leveraging advances in data analytics and artificial intelligence, these tools hold the promise of more equitable and efficient decision-making. However, their integration must be guided by a commitment to ethical principles and a nuanced understanding of their limitations, ensuring that they serve as instruments of justice rather than perpetuators of inequality. For Turkey, the careful adaptation and implementation of such tools could contribute to a more effective and humane criminal justice system, provided that proper safeguards and contextual considerations are in place.
Criminal Procedure, Risk-assessment Tools, COMPAS, Risk-Need Model, Probation
