Is the Defendant Mad or Bad? The Association Between Mental Health, Race and Sex in Sentencing in Federal Courts

Although US courts regularly sentence individuals with mental health problems, to date, there has been little research on whether mental health indicators are related to sentencing decisions. The focal concerns perspective suggests that sentencing decisions reflect perceptions of the blameworthiness of the defendant, concerns about protecting the community, and practical considerations. Potentially, mental health issues could serve as a mitigating factor in sentencing decisions by making defendants seem less culpable for their actions and more deserving of assistance rather than punishment, and/or due to concerns about practical considerations related to higher costs of incarceration or of exacerbating current mental health conditions. However, mental health could also serve as an aggravating factor, making defendants appear less in control of their actions, and thus more likely to recidivate. Using the lens of intersectionality, it is likely that whether mental health issues mitigate or aggravate sentences will vary by the race and sex of the individual. We use weighted negative binomial regression modeling to measure whether mental health indicators predict sentence length in US federal courts, and whether these outcomes vary based on the race and/or sex of the defendant across different crime types. Results indicate support that mental illness is related to sentencing and this relationship does vary by race, and the combination of both race and sex. However, the form of this relationship varies by offense type, suggesting that mental health, race and sex could be perceived differently by sentencing actors based on the offense.