Abstract
Forensic mental health expertise (FMHE) is an important source of information for decision-makers in the criminal justice system. This expertise can be used in various decisions in a criminal trial, such as criminal responsibility and sentencing decisions. Despite an increasing body of empirical literature concerning FMHE, it remains largely unknown how and to what extent this expertise affects judicial decisions. The aim of this review was therefore to provide insight in the relationship between FMHE and different judicial decisions by synthesizing published, quantitative empirical studies. Based on a systematic literature search using multiple online databases and selection criteria, a total of 27 studies are included in this review. The majority of studies were experiments conducted in the US among mock jurors. Most studies focused on criminal responsibility or sentencing decisions. Studies concerning criminal responsibility found consistent results in which psychotic defendants of serious, violent crimes were considered not guilty by reason of insanity more often than defendants with psychopathic disorders. Results for length and type of sanctions were less consistent and were often affected by perceived behavioral control, recidivism risk and treatability. Studies on possible prejudicial effects of FMHE are almost non-existent. Evaluation of findings, limitations and implications for future research and practice are discussed.
Highlights
In most legal systems, a person who commits a crime is held criminally responsible for this act based on the proposition that a person has freedom of action and could have refrained from committing the crime
To systematically review existing literature on the relationship between forensic mental health expertise and judicial decision-making in a criminal trial, we searched multiple electronic databases for journal articles and dissertations with a focus on the relationship between forensic mental health expertise and different judicial decisions in a criminal trial
The aim of the current review was to provide a synthesis of empirical, quantitative research on the effects of forensic mental health expertise on judicial decision-making in a criminal trial
Summary
A person who commits a crime is held criminally responsible for this act based on the proposition that a person has freedom of action and could have refrained from committing the crime. Criminal responsibility requires the intention to conduct the act (mens rea) in addition to this conduct being voluntary and prohibited (intentional bodily movement), or actus reus. Both elements of the crime (mens rea and actus reus) have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to result in a guilty verdict. A judge or jury is usually not equipped with medical or psychological expertise to determine whether a defendant suffers from a mental disorder and to what extent this contributed to committing the crime by impairing the ability to appreciate the nature of the action or wrongfulness of the act In order to inform the judge or jury on these factors and to assist them in their decision-making process, a forensic mental health expert can be requested to do an evaluation
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
