The effects of forensic mental health reports on decisions about guilt in the Netherlands: An experimental approach.

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.

An exploration of third parties' preference for compensation over punishment: six experimental demonstrations.

Research suggests that to restore equity, third parties prefer compensation of a victim over the punishment of a perpetrator. It remains unclear, however, whether this preference for compensation is stable or specific to certain situations. In six experimental studies, we find that adjustments in the characteristics of the situation or in the available behavioral options hardly modify the preference of compensation over punishment. This preference for compensation was found even in cases where punishment might refrain a perpetrator from acting unfairly again in the future, and even when punishment has a greater impact in restoring equity than compensation does. Thus, the preference of compensation over punishment appears to be quite robust. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.

One rule for the goose, one for the gander? Wrongfulness and harmfulness in determining reactions to offenders and victims of crime.

People's reactions to offenders and victims of crime follow different rationales. Whereas the punishment of the offender is primarily determined by the severity of the crime (which includes its foreseeable harmful consequences), the actual harm that is experienced by the victim drives the need for his or her support and assistance. With the introduction of the Victim Impact Statement (VIS), in which victims are allowed to express the (harmful) consequences of the crime on their lives, the question is raised whether allowing such victim input during criminal proceedings would influence the offender's sentence. The main goal of the current research is to disentangle how a crime's wrongfulness and harmfulness influence people's reactions to offenders and victims. We show that, whereas people's perceptions of the offender (and the outcome of the trial) are influenced by the severity of the crime, people's judgements related to the victim are more likely to be influenced by an interaction between the severity of the crime and the experienced harm of the crime. That is, in this study no support was found for the argument that the delivery of a VIS would lead to a violation of the proportionality principle.