NCJ Number
79250
Journal
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1981) Pages: 67-82
Date Published
1981
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article reviews research regarding the use of psychiatric presentence reports and their influence on sentencing practices in England and Australia.
Abstract
Although psychological presentence reports are used far less frequently than social enquiry reports, several studies have found that judges tend to request psychiatric evaluations when an offender commits a sexual crime, has behaved irrationally, or has violently attacked a family member. Evidence does not support the charge that referrals for psychiatric presentence reports are made indiscriminately with little attention to psychiatric criteria. Judges may want a referral to confirm their opinion that no mental abnormality exists. However, studies from England and the United States show that the decision to seek a psychiatric report often results in offenders being remanded in custody and not allowed release on bail. The rationale behind presentence reports is to assist the criminal court in imposing more effective sentences, and some psychiatrists assume that their data and predictions will produce lenient, individualized, and preferably noncustodial treatment for the offender. Numerous reports from England and Australia have found that a high proportion of criminal court decisions follow recommendations in the psychiatric reports. However, other studies have revealed that the courts concurred more frequently with custodial recommendations than with noncustodial proposals. It would appear that the rhetoric of securing leniency for the offender and individualized disposition is not matched by sentencing realities. Furthermore, it is alleged that psychiatric diagnoses are based on the same criteria and information available to the judge -- the probability of recidivism, the current offense, and the prior criminal record. Insurmountable methodological problems have caused many researchers to abandon the recidivism measure and advocate a return to the medical model. This seems impractical in view of the court's responsibility to impose punishment, and consequently the role of the psychiatric report should be clarified. Footnotes and approximately 100 references are included.