The role of psychiatry in the sentencing process

Abstract

The input of psychiatry into the sentencing process has varied with the degree of discretion afforded sentencing decisionmakers. The greater the discretion accorded judges and parole boards, the more influential psychiatry has been in determining the duration of criminal sentences. Psychiatry played but a minor role during the first century of our Republic, when relatively determinate sentencing was the order of the day. It has assumed an important place during our second century as relatively indeterminate sentencing, with its manifold variations, became the primary mechanism of sentencing throughout the United States. As we begin our third century, the situation remains uncertain: we are witnessing a vocal reaction against the excesses of discretion, disparity, and indeterminancy; there is a call for the return to relatively fixed, certain and equal sentences. It is not clear, at this time, how far back the pendulum will swing, although it seems likely that there will be some retrenching. Already several state legislatures have significantly reduced the discretion of the parole boards and other releasing authority. The United States Congress and other legislatures currently have before them bills which would curtail the degree of discretion currently exercised by sentencing judges as well. The continued role of psychiatry in the sentencing process is thus extremely uncertain. What seems clear is that it will not remain what it has been: its significance will almost surely be diminished; its role will certainly be altered. We are at a watershed in the history of psychiatry in the sentencing process. Now is the time to do some hard thinking about the appropriate relationship between the science of the mind and the moral enterprise of fitting the punishment to the crime and/or the criminal.