Pro Sem W5D5.1-5.2

"WHAT IS A DECISION?

A decision is a judgment, a choice between alternatives (Houston, 1999). The decisions you made when you opened your closet this morning and the parole board’s decision whether or not to parole an offender may seem to have little in common. Your choice of clothing and a parole board’s decision, however, both "resulted from processes that share some basic elements. Those elements are shown in Figure 12.2. In general, some theory or broad framework guides most decisions. As you examine your wardrobe, your selection of what to wear may simply be based on your beliefs about what looks good on you, but complex decisions may involve sophisticated theories. In his study of parole board decision making, for example, Hawkins (1983) found that broad support of classical is morpositivism frames board members decisions—that is, some members of the parole board place great importance on whether an offender has been punished for a suitable time, whereas others are concerned with evidence of rehabilitation or change in the offender’s outlook. Wilson’s (1968) styles of policing may also be seen as broad frameworks within which police officers make decisions to arrest or not arrest. Officers in departments characterized by the watchman style, with its primary focus on maintaining order, may be reluctant to arrest if less drastic means will control a disturbance. Officers in legalistic departments, however, may invoke their power toarrest based solely on whether a statute has been violated. More recent research,however, suggests that organizational structure or styles of policing only partially predict arrest rates, and factors such as crime rates or violent crime rates may be a stronger determinant (Chappell, MacDonald, and Manz, 2006). Goals in the decision-making process are specific to each decision, and they refer to what a decision-maker would like to achieve. In a decision to prosecute a particular case, the prosecuting attorney’s goal may be to gain a conviction; in the decision to dispatch a police car to a burglary scene or to schedule an appointment, a dispatcher’s goal may be the efficient use of personnel. Goals may not always be so obvious, however. In his study of probation officers ’sentencing recommendations, Rosecrance (1985) concluded that “ball park "recommendations” serve the goal of maintaining credibility with the judge and may have little to do with particular cases. However, plea bargaining, mandatory minimum sentences, and sentencing guidelines have reduced the role of probation officers’ recommendations in sentencing decisions (Stinchcomb and Hip-pensteel, 2001).Decision-makers also need three kinds of information. First, they must be aware of alternatives, or choices. If there are no alternatives, no decision must be made. Second, they must also be aware of the possible consequences of the alternatives. If consequences do not differ or if there are no expectations regarding consequences, an alternative can be selected only at random. Third, some information is needed about the subject of the decision in order to guide the selection among the alternatives. A judge’s sentencing decision can illustrate the importance of information. Evidence of a convicted offender’s crime and criminal history provides a basis for selection among the sentencing alternatives as provided by statute. All of this information is considered in light of the expected consequences of each possible sentence. Among these consequences may be dan-ger to the public if an offender remains in the community, the possible brutalizing effects of a prison term on a youthful offender, and public dissatisfaction if a substantial penalty is not imposed.The availability of the information, however, does not necessarily produce a decision. That information must be processed. Processing occurs through the decision rules, which govern how the elements of the decision are combined.In criminal justice, many decisions rely on essentially clinical decision rules that are based on education, training, and experience. Arrest decisions, sentencing decisions, and classification decisions usually rely on the clinical judgments of individuals. At the other extreme are quantitative decision rules, involving the assignment of numerical weights to pieces of information. Those weights are added to produce a sum that dictates the decision. Scales based on these principles have been developed for use in prosecution, bail, sentencing, and parole decisions.The processing of information according to decision rules produces outcomes.People are arrested, sentenced, transferred between prisons, or paroled. Policies are implemented, changed, or dismantled. The outcome is the result of the decision. In many but not all cases, the decision process is not completed with the outcome. Many types of decisions are repeated again and again. Police officers soon face new decisions about whether or not to arrest, and judges continue to sentence convicted offenders. In a cybernetic, or self-correcting, decision model, the outcome of prior decisions provides feedback to influence future decisions. Cybernetic decision processes are based on mechanical models similar to the thermostat in a house. When the heat is turned on, the temperature rises until the preset temperature high is reached; then the thermostat turns off the heat until the preset low temperature is reached, at which point the heat comes on again. Criminal justice feedback is not nearly so simple, but the same principles apply. Police officer’s arrest practices are influenced by prosecutors’ decision to pursue prosecution or dismiss charges. Parole board decisions are influenced by information about the failure of some parolees"