Can an Expert Opinion Mitigate Racially Biased Diversion Decisions? An Empirical Examination in the Context of Re-Offense Risk Assessment

Using a vignette-based experimental design, this study tested whether the racial or ethnic identity of a justice-impacted person influences jury-eligible individuals’ perceptions of post-conviction risk, placement (incarceration vs. community supervision), and need for mandated treatment. Furthermore, we examined whether the inclusion of data from a reoffense risk tool could mitigate racial bias. Participants recruited through Amazon’s MTurk ( N = 448) were randomly assigned to conditions varying by race/ethnicity of an examinee (Black, Latino, White) and if/how risk assessment data were included (no risk data, risk data only, and risk data reported by a qualified examiner). There was no statistically significant effect of the examinee’s racial/ethnic identity on ratings of reoffense risk or placement decisions; however, the Black examinee was more likely to be mandated with treatment. Regardless of examinee identity, participants exposed to risk information proffered by an expert more often calibrated their risk decisions to the examinee’s actual risk level.