This study identifies factors that contribute to sentencing outcomes for criminally sentenced individuals experiencing mental disorders, in two U.S. states with divergent sociopolitical ideologies. Recent case law (n = 130) from appellate courts in New York and Kansas (from 2020 to 2021) was analyzed using regression and machine learning to predict sentence severity for individuals experiencing mental disorders. Across both states, trauma-related and personality disorders led to the most severe sentences, while paraphilia, addiction, and mood disorders had the lowest probability of imprisonment. Sentencing outcomes in Kansas were significantly more severe as compared with New York. A classification analysis identified important patterns of sentencing determinants that predicted which mental disorders were more likely to lead to incarceration. Findings and implications are discussed in relation to punishment disparities as well as the potentials and pitfalls regarding the use of machine learning approaches in criminal justice research and policy.
AbramskyS.FellnerJ. (2003). Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. Human Rights Watch.
2.
AlexanderL.LinkB. (2003). The impact of contact on stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 271–289.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.).
4.
Americans with Disabilities Act. (1990). Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2(a)(7), 104 Stat. 327, 329.
5.
AppelbaumP.ScurichN.RaadR. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000039
6.
AspinwallL.BrownT.TaberyJ. (2012). The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths?Science (New York, N.Y.), 337, 846–849. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219569
7.
BatastiniA. B.LesterM. E.ThompsonR. A. (2018). Mental illness in the eyes of the law: Examining perceptions of stigma among judges and attorneys. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(7), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1406092
8.
BattsS. (2009). Brain lesions and their implications in criminal responsibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(2), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.857
9.
BerkR.BleichJ. (2014). Forecasts of violence to inform sentencing decisions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9195-0
10.
BerryessaC. M. (2018a). The effects of psychiatric and “biological” labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(2), 241–256.
11.
BerryessaC. M. (2018b). Judicial stereotyping associated with genetic essentialist biases toward mental disorders and potential negative effects on sentencing. Law & Society Review, 53(1), 202–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12382
BreslauJ.LaneM.SampsonN.KesslerR. C. (2008). Mental disorders and subsequent educational attainment in a US national sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 42(9), 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2008.01.016
15.
BurdL.FastD.ConryJ.WilliamsA. (2010). Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder as a marker for increased risk of involvement with correction systems. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 559–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531003800408
16.
CabrelliD.SiemsM. (2015). Convergence, legal origins, and transplants in comparative corporate law: A case-based and quantitative analysis. American Journal of Comparative Law, 63(1), 109–153. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2629847
17.
CameronC. M.KornhauserL. A. (2005). Decision rules in a judicial hierarchy. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 161(2), 264–292.
18.
CarrollJ. S.PerkowitzW. T.LurigioA. J.WeaverF. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.107
19.
CheungB. Y.HeineS. J. (2015). The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1723–1738.
20.
ChopinJ.PaquetteS.FortinF. (2022). Geeks and newbies: Investigating the criminal expertise of online sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 44, 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2022.2059417
21.
CorriganP. W.WatsonA. C. (2003). Factors that explain how policy makers distribute resources to mental health services. Psychiatric Services, 54(4), 501–507.
22.
DavidsonM. L.RoskyJ. W. (2015). Dangerousness or diminished capacity? Exploring the association of gender and mental illness with violent offense sentence length. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9267-1
23.
DeLucaJ. S.YanosP. T. (2016). Managing the terror of a dangerous world: Political attitudes as predictors of mental health stigma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764015589131
24.
DennoD. W. (2015). The myth of the double-edged sword: An empirical study of neuroscience evidence in criminal cases. Boston College Law Review, 56, 493–551.
25.
DhamiM. K. (2013). A “decision science” perspective on the old and new sentencing guidelines in England and Wales. In AshworthA.RobertsJ. V. (Eds.), Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model (pp. 165–181). Oxford University Press.
26.
DoudsA.StevensH. R.SumnerW. E. (2013). Sword or shield? A systematic review of the roles FASD evidence plays in judicial proceedings. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(4), 492–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412447809
27.
DuffR. A. (1990). Intention, agency and criminal liability: Philosophy of action and the criminal law (Vol. 1). Blackwell.
28.
DuranteK. A. (2021). County-level context and sentence lengths for Black, Latinx, and White individuals sentenced to prison: A multi-level assessment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(9), 915–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211021893
FarahanyN. A. (2016). Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: An empirical analysis. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2(3), 485–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv059
31.
FastD. K.ConryJ. (2009). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and the criminal justice system. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(3), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.66
32.
FazelS.HayesA. J.BartellasK.ClericiM.TrestmanR. (2016). Mental health of prisoners: Prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 3(9). https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0
FinsJ. J. (2005). Clinical pragmatism and the care of brain damaged patients: Toward a palliative neuroethics for disorders of consciousness. Progress in Brain Research, 150, 565–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(05)50040-2
35.
HareR. D.BlackP. J.WalshZ. (2013). The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: Forensic applications and limitations. In ArcherR. P.WheelerE. M. A. (Eds.), Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments (pp. 230–265). Routledge; Taylor & Francis.
36.
HeineS. J.Dar-NimrodI.CheungB.ProulxT. (2016). Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 137–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2016.10.003
37.
HelmR. K.ReynaV. F.FranzA. A.NovickR. Z. (2018). Too young to plead? Risk, rationality, and plea bargaining’s innocence problem in adolescents. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000156
38.
HennellJ. (2012). Mental illness on appeal and the right to assist counsel. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 29(2), 350–378.
39.
HuangW. S. W.FinnM. A.RubackR. B.FriedmanR. R. (1996). Individual and contextual influences on sentence lengths: Examining political conservatism. The Prison Journal, 76(4), 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855596076004003
40.
JamesG.WittenD.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (2021). Tree-based methods. In JamesG.WittenD.HastieT.TibshiraniR. (Eds.), An introduction to statistical learning (pp. 327–365). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1418-1_8
41.
JohnsonS. C.ElbogenE. B. (2013). Personality disorders at the interface of psychiatry and the law: Legal use and clinical classification. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 15(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2013.15.2/sjohnson
42.
JohnstonE. L. (2013). Vulnerability and just desert: A theory of sentencing and mental illness. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103(1), 147–230.
KastellecJ. (2010). The statistical analysis of judicial decisions and legal rules with classification trees. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 202–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01176.x
45.
KimB.CanoM. V.KimK.SpohnC. (2016). The impact of United States v. Booker and Gall/Kimbrough v. United States on sentence severity: Assessing social context and judicial discretion. Crime & Delinquency, 62(8), 1072–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714551783
46.
KingN. J.SouleD. A.SteenS.WeidnerR. R. (2005). When process affects punishment: Differences in sentences after guilty plea, bench trial, and jury trial in five guidelines states. Columbia Law Review, 105, 959.
47.
LiebmanJ. S.ShepardM. J. (1978). Guiding capital sentencing discretion beyond the “boiler plate”: Mental disorder as a mitigating factor. The Georgetown Law Journal, 66, 757.
48.
LinJ.GrattetR.PetersiliaJ. (2010). “Back-end sentencing” and reimprisonment: Individual, organizational, and community predictors of parole sanctioning decisions. Criminology, 48(3), 759–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00201.x
49.
LöselF. (2012). Offender treatment and rehabilitation: What works? In MaguireM.MorganR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (5th ed., pp. 986–1016). Oxford University Press.
50.
MicleM.GabrielO.SaucanD. (2013). Legal and extralegal factors influencing judge’s penal decisions. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 78, 697–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.378
51.
MileyL. N.Heiss-MosesE.CochranJ. K.HeideK. M.FogelS. J.SmithM. D.BejerregaardB. J. (2020). An examination of the effects of mental disorders as mitigating factors on capital sentencing outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(4), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2477
52.
MooreS.WotusR.NormanA.HollowayM.DeanJ. (2019). Behind the cloak of competence: Brain injury and mental capacity legislation. Journal of Adult Protection, 21(4), 201–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-02-2019-0007
O’BrienÉ.Nic DaeidN.BlackS. (2015). Science in the court: Pitfalls, challenges and solutions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1674), 20150062. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0062
55.
PadfieldN.MarunaS. (2006). The revolving door at the prison gate: Exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6(3), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895806065534
56.
PerlinM. L. (2015). “I expected it to happen/I knew he’d lost control”: The impact of PTSD on criminal sentencing after the promulgation of DSM-5. Utah Law Review, 15(4), 881–927.
57.
PerlinM. L.GouldK. K. (1995). Rashomon and the criminal law: Mental disability and the federal sentencing guidelines. Articles & Chapters—New York Law School, 22, 1105.
RaineA.BuchsbaumM. S.StanleyJ.LottenbergS.AbelL.StoddardJ. (1994). Selective reductions in prefrontal glucose metabolism in murderers. Biological Psychiatry, 36(6), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3223(94)91211-4
60.
RyanM. J. (2021). Framing individualized sentencing for politics and the constitution. American Criminal Law Review, 58(4), 1747–1767.
61.
SchanzenbachM.TillerE. (2008). Reviewing the sentencing guidelines: Judicial politics, empirical evidence, and reform. University of Chicago Law Review, 75(2), 715–760.
62.
ScurichN.AppelbaumP. (2015). The blunt-edged sword: Genetic explanations of misbehavior neither mitigate nor aggravate punishment. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(1), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsv053
63.
ShnidermanA. B. (2014). No such thing as a sure thing: Neuroscience, the insanity defense, and sentencing mitigation. The Jury Expert, 26(1), 11–14.
64.
SilverJ. R.SilverE. (2017). Why are conservatives more punitive than liberals? A moral foundations approach. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 258–272.
65.
SpohnC. (2005). Sentencing decisions in three U.S. District Courts: Testing the assumption of uniformity in the federal sentencing process. Justice Research and Policy, 7, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.7.2.2005.1
ThomaidouM. A.BerryessaC. M. (2022). A jury of scientists: Formal education in biobehavioral sciences reduces the odds of punitive criminal sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 40, 787–817. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2588
69.
TiedeL.CarpR.ManningK. (2010). Judicial attributes and sentencing-deviation cases: Do sex, race, and politics matter?The Justicy System Journal, 31(3), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2010.10767970
70.
TsimploulisG.NiveauG.EytanA.GiannakopoulosP.SentissiO. (2018). Schizophrenia and criminal responsibility: A systematic review. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 206(5), 370–377. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000805
71.
TyreeA. L. (1981). Fact content analysis of case law. Jurimetrics, 22(1), 1–33.
van EsR. M. S.KunstM. J. J.de KeijserJ. W. (2020). Forensic mental health expert testimony and judicial decision-making: A systematic literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51, 101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101387
75.
VartkessianE. S. (2020). Including assets-based mitigation in sentencing. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 857–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419866887
ZimmermanM.MorganT. A.StantonK. (2018). The severity of psychiatric disorders. World Psychiatry, 17(3), 258–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20569
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
