{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019572953736654804, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.901840490797546, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problematic Components Found in Many Criminal History Formulas

The focus of this chapter is on five components of criminal history scores that lack strong justification from the perspective of recidivism risk, retribution, or both rationales. These components are: juvenile court adjudications, misdemeanor convictions, the offender’s “custody status” when committing the offense being sentenced (whether he was incarcerated or on some form of criminal justice release), weighting prior felony convictions according to their severity ranking or other seriousness indicator, and the policy in some jurisdictions of according extra weight to prior offenses that were similar to the offense being sentenced (“patterning” premiums). The chapter then presents data from Minnesota, showing how the inclusion of the first four of these score components greatly increases the frequency and duration of recommended and imposed prison terms. The chapter concludes that criminal history scores should not routinely include any of these five problematic components, although judges might consider them as potential aggravating factors.