Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Justices contemplate whether judges can use sentencing assessment

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 5, 2016//

Justices contemplate whether judges can use sentencing assessment

By: Erika Strebel, [email protected]//April 5, 2016//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is grappling with questions over whether an assessment system used to gauge a person’s risk of recidivism should have been taken into account in the sentencing of a man found guilty of vehicle theft.

The justices on the state’s high court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case of Eric Loomis, who was convicted in 2013 of operating a vehicle without an owner’s consent and attempting to flee or elude an officer, among other crimes. Loomis was sentenced to six years in jail plus five years of extended supervision.

Loomis later made a resentencing motion. His main argument was that the circuit court that heard his case violated his due-process rights by taking into account an assessment of the chances that he would commit crimes again.

The assessment was part of Loomis’ pre-sentencing report. Such reports are often used to outline the history of a person who has been convicted of a crime to determine if certain circumstances exist warranting a lesser or greater sentence.

Loomis’ report contained a score predicting his recidivism risk. The trial judge said Loomis’ score influenced his sentencing.

The assessment system used in Loomis’ case is called the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions. One component of the assessment assigns a score on a scale of one through 10 — a 10 indicates a person is highly likely to re-offend.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley said the score was misleading in Loomis’ case.

“All you’re getting is a bar chart that says this guy is a high risk,” she said.

Bradley said the score provides too little information and is calculated using only a few basic facts about a person, including his or her sex, as well as his or her age when the offense occurred.

Bradley also said the score compares Loomis not with other Wisconsin residents who have committed similar crimes but rather with people in a study group assembled by the creator of the assessment. What’s more, she said, the assessment was developed privately, meaning that details concerning the study group’s makeup are not available to the court or defendant.

On the other hand, Justice Michael Gableman said that, given his years of experience as a trial-court judge, he finds it hard to believe that a judge would ever flip straight to the risk score and use it as the main reason for handing down a particular sentence.

Justice Annette Ziegler said the case is a tough one.

“How do we know the judge went too far here and did so inappropriately?” she asked. “How do we know that this translates into a bad sentence?”

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests