Quantitative Assessment Model for Social Risk of Arrest: Principles, Empirical Data, Challenges, and Optimization Paths
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67542/008rhr79Keywords:
Arrest; Social danger; Quantitative assessment; Algorithmic regulationAbstract
The general requirements for arrest include evidentiary requirements, criminal elements, and the social danger factor, with the latter being pivotal in approving or issuing an arrest decision. Current legal provisions regarding the social danger factor for arrest suffer from issues such as abstract wording, inconsistent evaluation criteria, and ambiguous application conditions. To ensure more equitable, objective, scientific, and standardized application of arrest measures, judicial authorities have introduced a quantitative assessment mechanism for the social danger factor in judicial practice. Analysis of historical data, pilot programs, and international experiences reveals that enhancing the objectivity of assessment factors and weighting assignments, along with timely updates to sample data to balance quantitative evaluation with discretionary discretion, represent the primary directions for future optimization of the quantitative assessment model.
References
Zhuang, Y. L., et al. (2021). Connotation, function and implementation of the criminal justice policy of less arrest, less prosecution and less detention. People's Procuratorate, 15, 37--40. (In Chinese)
Wan, Y. (2021). Interpreting three key words of arrest system: "social risk," "necessity of arrest," and "necessity of detention". Chinese Journal of Criminal Law, 4, 70. (In Chinese)
Wang, Z. H. (2016). Principle and construction of quantitative assessment model for social risk in examination and approval of arrest. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 2, 73--74. (In Chinese)
Sun, Q. (2017). Studies on several issues of arrest under the background of judicial reform. China Legal Science, 3, 31. (In Chinese)
Chen, W. D. (2019). Theory and practice of custody necessity review system. China Legal Publishing House. (In Chinese)
Wang, A. L. (2018). Interpretation of revised provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. China Legal Publishing House. (In Chinese)
Chen, Y. S. (2013). China's problems of arrest and institutional responses: Centering on the revision of the arrest system in the 2012 Criminal Procedure Law. Tribune of Political Science and Law, 4, 23. (In Chinese)
Chen, P., & Tang, Y. F. (2023). Reshaping understanding of arrest under the background of new era justice. In Shanghai Law Research (Vol. 10). Shanghai People's Publishing House. (In Chinese)
Zhong, Y. Y., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Exploration on establishing a quantitative assessment mechanism for social risk: Nansha District, Guangzhou, Guangdong. Retrieved from https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/zdgz/202010/t20201010_481455.shtml
Ma, L. J. (2023, March 22). Social risk assessment speaks with data. Procuratorate Daily, 001. (In Chinese)
Wen, J. (2014). Research on personal risk assessment methods. China University of Political Science and Law Press. (In Chinese)
Northpointe. (2024). Practitioner's guide to COMPAS core. Retrieved from https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840784/Practitioner-s-Guide-to-COMPAS-Core
Shi, L. M., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Risk investigation and assessment in criminal justice: From the perspective of pretrial release. In Criminal Law Review (Vol. 4). Law Press. (In Chinese)
Zhang, J. X., & Liang, X. H. (2010). US Department of Justice pretrial risk assessment model and its enlightenment to China. Chinese Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 106--107. (In Chinese)
He, Y. (2021). Significant year-on-year decrease in pretrial detention rate: What tricks does this pilot procuratorate have? Retrieved from https://sichuan.scol.com.cn/ggxw/202107/58221925.html
Wu, Q. B. (2023). Research on optimization of quantitative assessment model for social risk examination of arrest. Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, 5, 93--94. (In Chinese)
Chen, W. D., & Cui, K. P. (2023). Reflection and construction of applicable conditions of arrest: From "general arrest" and "direct arrest". Journal of Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, 5, 31. (In Chinese)
Gao, T. (2021). Research on quantitative assessment of social risk of arrest: From the perspective of automated decision-making and algorithm regulation. Northern Legal Science, 6, 136--137. (In Chinese)
Kenschall, H. (2009). Interpreting risk in criminal justice (W. Wang, Trans.). China People's Public Security University Press.
Larson, J., et al. (2024). How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. Retrieved from https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm
Li, B. (2018). Artificial intelligence in American judicial practice: Problems and challenges. China Law Review, 2, 56. (In Chinese)
Jiang, S. (2020). Automated decision-making, criminal justice and algorithm regulation: Reflections triggered by the Loomis case. Oriental Law, 3, 77. (In Chinese)
Zheng, X. (2020). Application and regulation of artificial intelligence technology in judicial adjudication. Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 3, 683. (In Chinese)
Yu, Z. G. (2002). On the definition and connotation of criminal record. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2, 112. (In Chinese)
Min, F. J. (2018). Problems and solutions to the litigation-based examination and approval mechanism for arrest. Western Legal Science Review, 4, 55--57. (In Chinese)
Cheng, G. (2023). Review and reconstruction of China's criminal compulsory measure system. Journal of Hubei Police University, 5, 145. (In Chinese)
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2026-08-13 (2)
- 2026-07-22 (1)
