This research examined whether an individual's endorsement of punishment goals moderates and mediates the effect of a clinical assessment of recidivism risk on the length of prison sentences. We measured participants' endorsement of punishment goals, both before they read a criminal case (i.e. a priori endorsement), and after they had read it (i.e. case-specific endorsement). As expected, the effect of the clinical report's conclusion on participants' sentencing decisions was moderated by a priori endorsement of incapacitation as a punishment goal. Participants who expressed strong (versus weak) a priori endorsement of this punishment goal were influenced by the report's conclusion on the risk of recidivism. In addition, when the clinical report concluded that the offender had a high risk of recidivating, participants expressed greater case-specific motivation to incapacitate him. Finally, the clinical report's conclusion had an indirect effect on the severity of the sentence through case-specific endorsement of the incapacitation punishment goal.
Keywords: clinical report; incapacitation; jury decision making; punishment goals; risk of recidivism; sentence.
© 2020 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.