Legitimacy and Risk Assessment at Sentencing: Lessons from Pennsylvania

Abstract This article analyzes Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Risk Assessment Instrument through the lens of legitimacy theory, focusing on issues of procedural transparency, bias and discrimination, and the ongoing tensions between algorithmic risk prediction and individualized justice. Spanning a decade (2010–20), the instrument’s development included multiple public hearings and reports aimed at crafting a tool to assess the recidivism risk of offenders. This tool is intended to guide judges on which cases require further evaluation and potential intervention. During the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing’s extensive and public development process, the instrument faced significant public skepticism due to concerns about procedural fairness, racial bias, gender discrimination, and due process. This article discusses these themes using public testimony about the tool. It concludes with recommendations for policymakers, urging thoughtful engagement with public input, transparent methodology, and rigorous procedural checks to balance fairness and utility. This case study underscores the inherent complexities and challenges in implementing predictive algorithms in criminal justice and suggests that legitimacy theory can help navigate the public’s concerns and build trust in these systems.