In the Netherlands, a pretrial forensic mental health report (FMHR) can be requested to inform the court whether a mental disorder was present at the time of the offense, whether this disorder... Show moreIn the Netherlands, a pretrial forensic mental health report (FMHR) can be requested to inform the court whether a mental disorder was present at the time of the offense, whether this disorder affected behaviour and decision-making at the time of the offense, how this disorder may affect future behaviour and advise on possible treatment measures. However, a substantial number of defendants refuse to cooperate with FMHRs to avoid being sentenced to a forensic psychiatric hospital for at least two years (TBS). With an experimental vignette study among law and criminology students (N = 355), we tested whether TBS is less likely for an uncooperative defendant than for a cooperative defendant. Second, we tested whether an uncooperative defendant receives a longer prison sentence when TBS is not imposed. Results showed that refusing to cooperate reduces the likelihood of a TBS measure and that this is compensated by a slightly longer prison sentence. Extending international research, we explored whether type of disorder and recidivism risk in an FMHR had an effect on sentencing. Results show that schizophrenia led to TBS more often than antisocial personality disorder regardless of recidivism risk. Type of disorder or recidivism risk did not substantially affect the prison sentence regardless of whether TBS had been imposed. Recommendations for research and practice are discussed. Show less
Es, R.M.S. van; Keijser, J.W. de; Kunst, M.J.J.; Doorn, J. van 2022
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... Show moreIn 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. Show less
Es, R.M.S. van; Kunst, M.J.J.; Keijser, J.W. de 2020
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... Show moreForensic 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. Show less
A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal... Show moreA forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed. Show less
