Abstract
In the Netherlands, in approximately 30% of the more serious criminal cases, a pretrial forensic mental health report (FMHR) is requested to inform the court whether a mental disorder was present at the time of alleged crime, whether this disorder affected behavior and decision-making at the time of the offense and how this disorder may affect future (criminal) behavior. While informative for sentencing decisions, information about mental disorders or risk is irrelevant for the question whether the defendant committed the alleged crime. Yet based on cognitive psychological theory of evidence evaluation and integration, we hypothesized that information in an FMHR would affect the evaluation of evidence as well as the ultimate decision about guilt. Using an experimental vignette study among 200 law and criminology students with manipulation of the presence and content of an FMHR, we found a main effect of the presence of an FMHR report on decisions about guilt. The proportion of guilty verdicts increased with almost 20% when an FMHR was present compared to when this report was absent, irrespective of the type of disorder (schizophrenia or personality disorder) or level of recidivism risk (low or high) present in the report. We did not find support for our hypothesis that this effect could be explained by assimilation of other available evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.
Highlights
Ill people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and mental illness is more prevalent among prisoners than in the general population (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Fazel, Hayes, Bartellas, Clerici, & Trestman, 2016)
Based on this research question, the theory and limited prior research we identified three main hypotheses that were tested: 1) Presence of an forensic mental health report (FMHR) in a case with weak and circumstantial evi dence will increase the probative value of available evidence and result in more guilty verdicts compared to when an FMHR is absent
Since indication of recidivism risk is a crucial part of a Dutch FMHR, for this final hypothesis we explored whether an effect of mental disorder on decisions about guilt varied according to information about recidivism risk
Summary
Ill people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and mental illness is more prevalent among prisoners than in the general population (Fazel & Danesh, 2002; Fazel, Hayes, Bartellas, Clerici, & Trestman, 2016). Forensic mental health experts evaluate whether a mental disorder was present at the time of the alleged crime, whether this disorder affected behavior and decisionmaking at the time of the offense and how this disorder may affect future (criminal) behavior. This evaluation results in advice on criminal re sponsibility (three degrees: no responsibility, diminished re sponsibility, full responsibility), an indication of recidivism risk and advice on possible treatment measures (e.g. Hummelen & van der Wolf, 2018; see Koenraadt, 2010 for an English overview of this evaluation; van Marle, Mevis, & van der Wolf, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
