In federal courtrooms across the United States, the presence of a mental health diagnosis can play an unpredictable role in sentencing, sometimes reducing prison time, other times lengthening it. New research indicates that the outcome often depends on the identity of the defendant and the nature of the accusation.
In a study published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Tracy Sohoni, Sylwia Piatkowska, and Briana Paige analyze how mental health, race, and sex intersect to influence sentencing in U.S. federal courts.
While mental health issues are often thought to reduce culpability, potentially leading to shorter sentences or greater access to treatment, they can also be seen as signs of instability or risk, prompting longer incarceration. Using national data from incarcerated individuals, the researchers tested these competing possibilities and found that the impact of a mental health diagnosis was neither uniform nor straightforward. In some cases, it shortened sentences; in others, it lengthened them; and in many, it had no measurable effect at all.
The findings reveal a sentencing system where the same diagnosis can be interpreted as either a mitigating or aggravating factor, depending on who the defendant is and what they have been charged with. This unevenness underscores how formal sentencing guidelines, designed to reduce disparities, still operate within broader patterns of bias and structural inequality that shape the treatment of people diagnosed with mental health conditions in the justice system.
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
