The target article is a critique of the movement toward using structured risk assessment tools to inform decisions about sentencing. In this commentary, I analyze (a) the conditions under which it may be more or less fair to use well-validated risk assessment tools in this manner and (b) the extent to which doing so is likely to exacerbate, ameliorate, or have no effect on existing racial and other biases in sentencing. I recommend a policy-relevant research agenda that would specifically test whether and how adding well-validated risk assessment tools to the routine sentencing process alters the severity or nature of sentences. This agenda would also evaluate the extent to which these tools are implemented in “real world” settings faithfully enough to bridge the usual divide between science and practice.