IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v13y2016i1p94-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Richard A. Berk
  • Susan B. Sorenson
  • Geoffrey Barnes

Abstract

Arguably the most important decision at an arraignment is whether to release an offender until the date of his or her next scheduled court appearance. Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, threats to public safety can be a key factor in that decision. Implicitly, a forecast of “future dangerousness” is required. In this article, we consider in particular whether usefully accurate forecasts of domestic violence can be obtained. We apply machine learning to data on over 28,000 arraignment cases from a major metropolitan area in which an offender faces domestic violence charges. One of three possible post‐arraignment outcomes is forecasted within two years: (1) a domestic violence arrest associated with a physical injury, (2) a domestic violence arrest not associated with a physical injury, and (3) no arrests for domestic violence. We incorporate asymmetric costs for different kinds of forecasting errors so that very strong statistical evidence is required before an offender is forecasted to be a good risk. When an out‐of‐sample forecast of no post‐arraignment domestic violence arrests within two years is made, it is correct about 90 percent of the time. Under current practice within the jurisdiction studied, approximately 20 percent of those released after an arraignment for domestic violence are arrested within two years for a new domestic violence offense. If magistrates used the methods we have developed and released only offenders forecasted not to be arrested for domestic violence within two years after an arraignment, as few as 10 percent might be arrested. The failure rate could be cut nearly in half. Over a typical 24‐month period in the jurisdiction studied, well over 2,000 post‐arraignment arrests for domestic violence perhaps could be averted.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard A. Berk & Susan B. Sorenson & Geoffrey Barnes, 2016. "Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 94-115, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:94-115
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12098
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12098
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12098?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Berk & Lawrence Sherman & Geoffrey Barnes & Ellen Kurtz & Lindsay Ahlman, 2009. "Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: a high stakes application of statistical learning," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 191-211, January.
    2. Bock, E. Wilbur & Frazier, Charles E., 1977. "Official standards versus actual criteria in bond dispositions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 321-328.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2021. "Fragile Algorithms and Fallible Decision-Makers: Lessons from the Justice System," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 71-96, Fall.
    2. Richard Berk, 2019. "Accuracy and Fairness for Juvenile Justice Risk Assessments," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 175-194, March.
    3. Xiaochen Hu & Xudong Zhang & Nicholas Lovrich, 2021. "Public perceptions of police behavior during traffic stops: logistic regression and machine learning approaches compared," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 355-380, May.
    4. Jeffrey Grogger & Sean Gupta & Ria Ivandic & Tom Kirchmaier, 2021. "Comparing Conventional and Machine‐Learning Approaches to Risk Assessment in Domestic Abuse Cases," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 90-130, March.
    5. Netta Barak‐Corren & Yoav Kan‐Tor & Nelson Tebbe, 2022. "Examining the effects of antidiscrimination laws on children in the foster care and adoption systems," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 1003-1066, December.
    6. Cristopher Moore & Elise Ferguson & Paul Guerin, 2023. "How accurate are rebuttable presumptions of pretrial dangerousness?: A natural experiment from New Mexico," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 377-408, June.
    7. Vivian Hui & Rose E. Constantino & Young Ji Lee, 2023. "Harnessing Machine Learning in Tackling Domestic Violence—An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Stevenson, Megan T. & Doleac, Jennifer, 2019. "Algorithmic Risk Assessment in the Hands of Humans," IZA Discussion Papers 12853, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bhatt, Monica & Heller, Sara & Kapustin, Max & Bertrand, Marianne & Blattman, Christopher, 2023. "Predicting and Preventing Gun Violence: An Experimental Evaluation of READI Chicago," SocArXiv dks29, Center for Open Science.
    2. Valasik, Matthew, 2018. "Gang violence predictability: Using risk terrain modeling to study gang homicides and gang assaults in East Los Angeles," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 10-21.
    3. Vahlne, Niklas, 2017. "On LPG usage in rural Vietnamese households," Development Engineering, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Guido Vittorio Travaini & Federico Pacchioni & Silvia Bellumore & Marta Bosia & Francesco De Micco, 2022. "Machine Learning and Criminal Justice: A Systematic Review of Advanced Methodology for Recidivism Risk Prediction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-13, August.
    5. Jiaming Zeng & Berk Ustun & Cynthia Rudin, 2017. "Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(3), pages 689-722, June.
    6. Kigerl, Alex & Hamilton, Zachary & Kowalski, Melissa & Mei, Xiaohan, 2022. "The great methods bake-off: Comparing performance of machine learning algorithms," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Paul Seed, 2010. "The use of cost information when defining critical values for prediction of rare events by using logistic regression and similar methods," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(1), pages 255-256, January.
    8. Ciner, Cetin, 2019. "Do industry returns predict the stock market? A reprise using the random forest," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 152-158.
    9. Brendan O'Flaherty & Rajiv Sethi & Morgan Williams, 2024. "The nature, detection, and avoidance of harmful discrimination in criminal justice," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(1), pages 289-320, January.
    10. Kalist David E. & Lee Daniel Y. & Spurr Stephen J., 2015. "Predicting Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, January.
    11. DeLisi, Matt & Berg, Mark T., 2006. "Exploring theoretical linkages between self-control theory and criminal justice system processing," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 153-163.
    12. Sharad Goel & Justin M. Rao & Ravi Shroff, 2016. "Personalized Risk Assessments in the Criminal Justice System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 119-123, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:13:y:2016:i:1:p:94-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.