Sentencing Psychology: What Influences Punishment Decisions
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Sentencing psychology studies how courts and other authorized decision-makers choose punishment after legally established wrongdoing. It examines how law, evidence, institutional practices, cognitive processes, social judgments, and emotions shape sentences. The field helps explain why cases that appear similar can produce different penalties, which influences are legitimate, and how sentencing decisions can be made more consistent, proportionate, and transparent.
A criminal sentence is a legal act governed by the applicable jurisdiction. Psychological research can explain aspects of human judgment, but it cannot independently declare a lawful penalty or decide what punishment is deserved. Federal law, state law, juvenile law, and the laws of other countries establish different sentencing ranges, permissible factors, and decision-making procedures. Keeping psychological findings separate from legal standards is fundamental throughout this article.
What Is Sentencing Psychology?
Sentencing psychology is the scientific investigation of punishment decision-making in legal institutions. Its central objects are the information a decision-maker receives, the way that information is interpreted, the legal and institutional constraints on the decision, and the resulting sanction. Researchers use sentencing databases, judicial interviews, surveys, hypothetical-case experiments, qualitative case studies, and evaluations of procedural reforms. Each method provides a different kind of evidence.
Psychologists may investigate anchoring, perception of responsibility, perceived seriousness, implicit assumptions, emotional reactions, the persuasive effect of mitigation, and the use of behavioral evidence. A forensic psychologist might contribute an assessment of functional impairment or treatment needs, subject to qualifications and ethical duties. The judge or other legally designated sentencer remains responsible for the legal decision. The American Psychological Association's forensic specialty guidelines emphasize competence, impartiality, and transparency about the limitations of professional opinions. [APA forensic guidelines]
The topic differs from the psychology of guilt verdicts, plea negotiations, offender behavior, and rehabilitation after sentencing. Those questions intersect, but each has its own primary research program. Sentencing psychology primarily answers why a given legal consequence was selected and which human or systemic factors influenced the choice.
What Factors Influence Criminal Sentencing?
Offense seriousness, intent, and harm
The nature of the offense, the legally established facts, the degree of injury or loss, any proven planning or threat, the defendant's role, relevant aggravators, and prior criminal history often guide punishment. Seriousness cannot always be reduced to a single dimension: a case may involve substantial financial harm without physical injury, or grave physical harm with disputed intent. Legal definitions determine how such distinctions count at sentencing, while psychology studies how decision-makers perceive and weigh them.
In cases involving moral responsibility, people may distinguish deliberate harm from recklessness, coercion, or conduct under diminished control. Their psychological intuitions may influence proportionality judgments, but the permissible role of those distinctions depends on criminal statutes and sentencing doctrine. A scientist studying moral blame is not applying the jurisdiction's legal test for culpability merely by using similar language.
Statutory rules, sentencing guidelines, and judicial discretion
Legal rules determine sentencing authority and often establish minimums, maximums, enhancements, criminal-history calculations, eligibility for probation, and available alternatives. In one case, judges may choose from a wide range; in another, a mandatory rule sharply limits discretion. A sentencing study must identify whether the decision was constrained by law before describing the outcome as a reflection of a judge's preference.
In U.S. federal cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) directs judges to consider the offense, the defendant's characteristics, the purposes of punishment, available types of sentences, applicable guidelines, avoiding unwarranted disparities, and restitution. This legal framework includes a requirement that punishment be sufficient but no greater than necessary for the statutory purposes. These provisions are federal rules rather than universal psychological laws. [Federal sentencing statute]
The United States Sentencing Commission's 2025 Guidelines Manual, effective November 1, 2025, provides the published federal guideline framework reviewed here as of October 11, 2026. Proposed or adopted amendments with a later effective date should not be treated as presently operative. State courts and courts outside the United States require their own legal sources; the federal manual cannot stand in for them. [2025 Guidelines Manual]
Aggravating factors, mitigating factors, and presentence information
Aggravating evidence can support a more serious sentence when the law permits it, while mitigating evidence can support leniency or a different sanction. Depending on jurisdiction, a court may consider planning, prior records, the circumstances of the offense, coercion, age, verified trauma histories, documented treatment engagement, family responsibilities, employment, or available supervision. Each item must be analyzed for its legal relevance and its factual basis.
Presentence investigations and advocacy shape which facts reach the court. A complete clinical report, reliable records of progress, or an actual community treatment placement may make an alternative to confinement easier to evaluate. Missing information can produce a different impression even when two defendants' underlying circumstances are comparable. Psychologists therefore examine information quality and access, not merely the personal qualities of the sentencer.
Victims, community impact, and procedural participation
Statements about injury and other consequences may help a court understand the harm associated with the offense. Yet the rules for who may speak, what may be included, and how statements may affect punishment differ significantly across jurisdictions and case types. The emotional power of a presentation and its legal relevance are distinct questions.
A systematic review of 36 studies by Kunst and colleagues found insufficient evidence to establish a consistent, general effect of victim impact statements on guilt and sentencing outcomes. Many experiments concerned American capital cases, making broad claims about ordinary sentencing especially uncertain. That review neither demonstrates that the statements never matter nor establishes that they always increase punishment. [Victim impact systematic review]
Four Major Purposes of Criminal Punishment
Retribution and proportionality
Retribution concerns punishment as a response to past wrongdoing and legally relevant culpability. In psychological judgment, intentions, perceived responsibility, severity of harm, and moral expectations can shape what seems deserved. In law, the particular role of retribution depends on statutory and constitutional rules. U.S. federal law expressly directs consideration of just punishment and the seriousness of the offense. [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)]
Proportionality reasoning explains why some sentencing arguments focus primarily on the act and its established circumstances. Research on lay moral judgments helps identify relevant intuitions, but a public survey about what someone deserves cannot establish the correct judicial outcome. Normative theories of justice, empirical psychology, and binding law answer related yet different questions.
Deterrence
General deterrence seeks to influence other people's future behavior; specific deterrence seeks to influence the sentenced person's future behavior. Psychological research asks how people perceive the certainty, timing, and severity of sanctions, what alternatives they see, and how those perceptions interact with opportunity and social conditions. A court's stated deterrence rationale does not prove that additional prison time will reduce any particular future offense.
Research must measure the intended outcome and compare appropriate alternatives. A penalty may convey symbolic condemnation while showing limited measurable effect on later convictions. Conversely, a structured supervision program may affect reoffending without being regarded as severe by observers. Deterrence should be discussed as an empirical question about responses to incentives and sanctions, as well as a legal sentencing purpose.
Incapacitation and public protection
Incapacitation restricts opportunities to commit certain acts during custody or other legally imposed restrictions. Public-protection arguments sometimes incorporate estimates of future offending. A risk factor is a statistical association, not proof that a person will commit a crime. Courts should distinguish offense seriousness, historical conduct, particular safety concerns, and properly validated future-risk estimates.
An assessment's predictive validity, calibration, intended population, target outcome, and error rates determine what it can reasonably support. No score establishes guilt, supplies a legal sentencing standard, or predicts the actions of a named individual with certainty. Official National Institute of Justice guidance stresses assessment fairness, effectiveness, and careful communication, with particular attention to post-sentencing needs and decisions. [National Institute of Justice risk guidelines]
Rehabilitation, restitution, and restoration
Rehabilitation aims to support changes that reduce future offending and improve functioning. Sentences may include treatment, education, employment support, community supervision, or access to appropriate services when law allows. Restitution concerns financial compensation under applicable law. Restorative justice involves processes addressing harm and accountability, commonly emphasizing informed voluntary participation. These goals require distinct measures of success.
A Campbell systematic review of custody versus noncustodial sanctions found no general recidivism advantage for imprisonment in the relatively high-quality studies it analyzed. A separate systematic review of randomized restorative justice conferences found a modest average reduction in repeat offending among consenting participants. Both findings are bounded by study eligibility, populations, interventions, outcomes, and follow-up; neither chooses the legally proper sanction in an individual case. [Campbell custodial-sanction review]
How Cognitive Biases Can Affect Sentencing
Anchoring and initial numerical recommendations
Anchoring occurs when an initial number influences later estimates. A prosecutor's sentence request, an earlier proposed term, or an irrelevant numerical cue may create a reference point against which the sentencer judges other options. In experimental studies with legal professionals, Englich, Mussweiler, and Strack found that even randomly produced numbers influenced punishment estimates under controlled conditions. Legal experience did not eliminate the reported effect. [Englich and colleagues' experiment]
Related experiments found that judges' decisions could shift toward sentencing demands even when the informational value of those demands was limited. These experiments reveal a psychologically credible mechanism; they do not quantify the actual influence of a prosecutor's number on every real judge. The framing of the task, local legal context, time available, adversarial safeguards, and completeness of the case file all affect generalizability. [Sentencing under uncertainty]
Framing, selection, and confirmation processes
A presentation may emphasize the offense's most distressing consequences or instead foreground documented coercion, developmental circumstances, and treatment progress. Both narratives can contain accurate facts, yet they draw attention to different comparisons and explanations. A decision-maker who forms an early coherent story may then give disproportionate attention to later evidence supporting it.
A well-organized sentencing record separates established facts, contested allegations, expert interpretations, moral intuitions, and governing legal consequences. Claims about a person's inner motives should be traced to appropriate evidence. Psychological plausibility alone does not show that a proposed explanation of the offense or defendant is accurate.
Emotion, moral outrage, and empathy
Punishment decisions occur in emotionally consequential settings. Fear for public safety, anger about deliberate harm, empathy with victims, concern about a defendant's life circumstances, and confidence in rehabilitation may influence what feels appropriate. Research does not justify a single formula by which a specific emotion always lengthens or shortens a sentence.
Remorse may be invoked at sentencing, but a display of crying, flat affect, hesitation, eye contact, or limited verbal expression cannot reliably prove sincerity or lack of remorse. Disability, trauma, medication, communication styles, culture, and the stress of a hearing affect behavior. Credible legal assessment requires case-specific corroboration, professional boundaries, and attention to what the law permits the sentencer to consider.
The role and limits of judicial expertise
Judges are trained in law, evidence, procedure, and legal reasoning. Expertise can improve recognition of legally relevant details and workable options, but it does not automatically remove human susceptibility to anchoring and other decision processes. Controlled experiments are especially useful for identifying those processes; they remain limited representations of actual courts. [Research on judicial anchoring]
Different judges may prioritize proportionality, deterrence, public safety, or rehabilitation within legally authorized discretion. This variation must not be confused with a proven breach of law. Evaluation requires the exact legal framework, comparable cases, judicial reasons, and the evidence submitted, rather than an impression that any two cases with the same statutory offense must receive identical terms.
Sentencing Disparities: Race, Gender, Age, and Social Context
What large federal datasets show
The U.S. Sentencing Commission's 2023 analysis examined federal cases from fiscal years 2017 through 2021 and found demographic differences after adjustment for available measured case characteristics. For all cases, Black male defendants received sentences 13.4% longer, and Hispanic male defendants 11.2% longer, than White male defendants under the report's statistical comparisons. A significant share of the observed difference concerned the initial decision whether imprisonment was imposed. [USSC demographic differences report]
These are historical federal estimates from specific models, not automatic descriptions of current state sentencing or evidence that a particular judge intentionally discriminated. Case selection, charge and plea processes, unmeasured variables, criminal-history data, and institutional conditions complicate interpretation. Observational associations justify systematic scrutiny, but identifying a causal mechanism requires stronger research designs or detailed case-specific evidence.
The focal-concerns approach
Steffensmeier, Ulmer, and Kramer developed a focal-concerns account in which perceived blameworthiness, community protection, and practical organizational concerns help organize sentencing judgments. Their 1998 study found interactions among age, race, and gender in a historical Pennsylvania dataset. The framework is valuable for generating hypotheses about disparity; it should not be treated as a timeless numeric prediction for all courts. [Focal-concerns research]
Social status can influence outcomes both through direct perceptions and through resources. Differences in representation, access to evaluations, housing, employment, and the availability of noncustodial programs may affect what options seem practical and what mitigation can be demonstrated. Fairness audits should therefore examine procedure and institutional access as well as explicit judicial language.
Court cultures and geographic differences
Prosecutorial practices, local caseloads, supervision resources, legal interpretations, plea conventions, and court organization can influence sentencing patterns. Differences between districts may reflect case mix, lawful discretion, or unwarranted disparity. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's fiscal 2025 Sourcebook provides descriptive federal sentencing data, including district and circuit comparisons, but it cannot by itself isolate the psychological causes of a pattern. [FY2025 Sourcebook]
A valid comparison controls for legally relevant offense and offender characteristics where possible and reports how cases entered the sample. Because cases are filtered through arrest, charging, plea negotiation, and trial, an analysis of people who reach sentencing observes only a selected part of the criminal process.
Mental Health and Neuroscience Evidence at Sentencing
A clinical diagnosis, psychological construct, observed symptom, psychometric score, professional forensic opinion, and legal finding each have different meanings. Diagnoses do not explain criminal conduct in general and do not make people inherently dangerous. The legal significance of a person's functional impairment or treatment needs must be established under the relevant jurisdiction's rules and the evidence in the particular proceeding.
Aspinwall, Brown, and Tabery presented 181 U.S. state trial judges with a hypothetical case involving psychopathy and evidence of a biological mechanism. The experiment illustrated competing effects of such material: biological explanations may influence perceived blameworthiness while increasing concerns about future danger. The study was an experiment using a constructed case, not a national estimate of actual sentences. [Aspinwall, Brown, and Tabery 2012]
In a 2024 interview-and-vignette study, Thomaidou and Berryessa examined judgments from 34 criminal-court judges in 16 U.S. states. Cases describing organic brain disorders or trauma tended to receive less severe hypothetical punishment than a condition-free comparison, while brain disorders were more mitigating than trauma in the study. Ratings related to retribution helped explain the pattern. The small, nonrepresentative sample and hypothetical cases limit transfer to actual court outcomes. [Thomaidou and Berryessa 2024]
Other controlled research using an American public sample found little consistent impact of behavioral genetic information and mixed effects of neuroimaging evidence on punishment decisions. These findings argue for examining exactly which evidence is offered, who evaluates it, what interpretation accompanies it, and which legal standard applies. Scientific terminology alone neither guarantees mitigation nor predicts dangerousness. [Genetic evidence experiment]
A responsible forensic report describes referral questions, methods, sources, validity limitations, alternative explanations, clinically relevant functioning, and the boundaries of the opinion. A forensic professional must not silently replace a legal question with a diagnosis, nor a diagnosis with a forecast of future crime. Impartiality and clarity are fundamental ethical obligations. [APA forensic guidelines]
Victim Impact Evidence and Sentencing
Victim impact submissions may describe financial loss, disability, bereavement, distress, disrupted work, and other consequences. Their legitimate role varies with legal procedure, and their psychological impact may depend on narrative vividness, perceived credibility, and delivery format. Evidence of actual harm should not be confused with emotional presentation style.
Kunst and colleagues systematically reviewed the effect of victim impact statements on decisions and found the available research too heterogeneous and concentrated in specific settings for a definitive general conclusion. The review included 31 experiments and five criminal-case-file studies. A conclusion about U.S. death-penalty vignette research should not be generalized automatically to routine noncapital hearings in different jurisdictions. [Victim impact review]
A fair process should preserve legally established participation rights while scrutinizing factual reliability. Eloquence, media exposure, access to editing resources, or the availability of compelling images should not become an unexamined stand-in for harm. Digital material, including simulated audio or video, calls for especially careful attention to provenance and whether words are attributed to someone who actually spoke them.
Risk Assessment, False Positives, and Algorithmic Tools
A risk instrument estimates a future outcome for a defined setting or population based on available predictors. It is neither a test of criminal responsibility nor proof of the offense. A correlation between a risk factor and reoffending does not establish that the factor caused a given person's conduct. Validity in one population or decision context does not automatically transfer to another.
Predictive discrimination concerns whether a model separates higher and lower observed outcome frequencies. Calibration asks whether predicted risks correspond to the observed proportions within the relevant population. Sensitivity and specificity assess different types of classification performance; positive predictive value depends on prevalence. When the outcome is uncommon, even a seemingly accurate model can label many people as higher risk who will not experience it.
Subgroup fairness requires looking at error patterns across relevant populations, how missing data and historical enforcement patterns enter the instrument, and whether different fairness criteria conflict. A prison-program planning tool should not be repurposed as a sentence-length determinant without legal authorization and applicable validation. NIJ's risk-and-needs assessment guidance discusses fairness, effectiveness, efficient administration, and intelligible communication. [NIJ risk assessment guidelines]
A useful forensic explanation states the precise predicted event, time horizon, validation sample, base rate, score uncertainty, and limitations. It identifies protective and potentially changeable circumstances when supported. The court determines the legal significance of any admissible information; an algorithm does not supply a judicial finding.
Does Prison Reduce Crime More Than Community Sentences?
Sentence severity and sentence effectiveness are separate questions. Imprisonment can incapacitate during confinement, but the effects of a sanction on later reoffending depend on multiple social and individual mechanisms. Community supervision, appropriate treatment, restitution, and structured interventions may meet different goals where legally available.
An updated Campbell review of custodial versus noncustodial sanctions identified 14 comparatively high-quality studies, including randomized trials and natural experiments. Its analysis did not find that imprisonment generally reduced later offending more than community sanctions in the studied comparisons. This is an empirical conclusion about recidivism evidence and populations, not a universal legal instruction to sentence without confinement. [Campbell review]
A systematic review of randomized restorative justice conferences found a modest average reduction in repeat offending among consenting participants. Voluntary participation, appropriate safeguards, offense types, and available services matter. The results cannot be extended to compulsory programs or every offense, and the benefits of restorative approaches should be evaluated across victim as well as offender outcomes. [Restorative justice review]
What Counts as Strong Evidence in Sentencing Psychology?
Experiments and hypothetical cases
Randomized vignettes manipulate a factor such as a prosecutor's recommendation while holding the rest of the case constant. This design helps identify causal psychological effects in an experimental task. It does not recreate the full evidentiary record, real-world consequences, adversarial interaction, institutional constraints, or appellate oversight of an actual sentencing hearing.
Observational studies and court databases
Large administrative datasets reveal how sentences vary across cases and time. They may support adjusted comparisons of imprisonment probability, sentence length, and court-level patterns. Yet unobserved case differences and selection through charging and pleas can distort interpretation. A statistically significant association does not determine the reason for a particular sentence and cannot by itself establish discrimination by a particular judge.
Systematic reviews, replications, and natural experiments
Systematic reviews describe how a body of studies was identified and appraise its limits. Natural experiments exploit policy or procedural changes that may allow stronger causal inference. Replication across jurisdictions is necessary before treating results as broadly applicable. Reviews of sentencing influences include experimental, observational, and field evidence, each with its own inferential boundaries. [Research review of sentencing influences]
The quality of an explanation improves when it distinguishes the psychological mechanism being proposed, the observed outcome, the legal context, and the strength of the causal evidence. Claims about implicit bias or emotion require evidence more specific than a striking anecdote or an unexpectedly severe sentence.
How Can Sentencing Be More Consistent and Fair?
A defensible process begins with the controlling legal rules and a reliable record of established facts. It identifies contested information, gives parties a meaningful opportunity to respond, and explains the connection between relevant sentencing considerations and the final sanction. It also makes the chosen sentence intelligible relative to statutory purposes and available alternatives.
Awareness of anchoring supports reviewing recommendations against legal ranges and comparable cases rather than merely adopting the first numerical request as a default. Accurate and complete presentence reports, qualified forensic testimony, documented options for supervision and treatment, and attention to potential demographic disparities can help structure more careful decisions.
Monitoring patterns over time should distinguish the decision to imprison from the length of imprisonment, and should take case composition, charging, pleas, statute, and local programs into account. A course on unconscious bias is not itself evidence of improved outcomes. Procedural reforms need evaluation of actual decisions and any unintended consequences.
Sound sentencing psychology contributes knowledge about human reasoning, institutional variation, and evidence quality. The governing legal system remains responsible for determining lawful factors, procedural safeguards, and the acceptable balance among punishment purposes.
A Practical Example of How the Same Case Can Be Framed Differently
Consider two hypothetical sentencing hearings involving legally comparable offenses and criminal-history records. In one, a long prison term is proposed first; in the other, the decision-maker starts with the applicable range and verified comparable outcomes. Anchoring research gives a reason to examine how these starting numbers could affect later judgments. It supplies no basis for assigning an exact difference in months to the hypothetical case.
Now imagine that one hearing presents a complete, independently verified mental-health evaluation and a feasible supervision plan while the other omits these documents. Sentences might differ because information access differs, even if the defendants' relevant circumstances are similar. A careful investigation asks what was documented, why it was considered, whether it was legally relevant, and whether the court supplied a reasoned explanation.
Myths and Misconceptions
Myth: experienced judges cannot be influenced by irrelevant numbers
Legal expertise does not necessarily eliminate anchoring. Controlled experiments have demonstrated effects in legal professionals, although the magnitude and circumstances of real-world effects need separate research. [Judicial anchoring evidence]
Myth: more severe sentences always prevent more crime
Evidence on reoffending after custodial and noncustodial sanctions does not support a universal equation between punishment severity and lower recidivism. Deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and proportionality are different objectives. [Custodial sanctions review]
Myth: a mental-health diagnosis establishes criminality or dangerousness
A diagnosis is a clinical description under diagnostic criteria. It does not establish that someone offended, prove legal responsibility, or accurately predict an individual's future actions. Forensic opinions must address the specific referral and legal context.
Myth: a risk score tells the judge what sentence to impose
A statistical score carries uncertainty, base-rate dependence, subgroup limitations, and possible false positives and false negatives. A court's authority and sentencing obligations arise from law, not from a model's numerical output.
Myth: victim impact statements always produce harsher sentences
Systematic-review evidence remains insufficient to support this broad claim across case types and jurisdictions. Their legal role and actual effect require context-specific evaluation. [Victim impact review]
Frequently Asked Questions
What is sentencing psychology in simple terms?
It is the study of how judges and other authorized decision-makers choose criminal punishment, using psychological science to understand judgment, information processing, institutional pressures, and possible disparities while recognizing that the actual sentence is governed by law.
What are the biggest factors in sentencing?
Generally relevant categories include offense seriousness, legally established facts, applicable statutes and guidelines, criminal history, aggravating and mitigating information, the available sanctions, and authorized punishment goals. The exact factors and their permitted weight differ across jurisdictions.
Can race or gender affect sentencing outcomes?
Observational research has documented demographic differences in defined court populations after statistical adjustment. These patterns justify scrutiny, but cannot establish the psychological motive behind a particular judge's ruling. The results depend on court system, era, case mix, available variables, and analytic method. [USSC disparities report]
What does anchoring mean in court?
Anchoring is the tendency for an initial number, such as a recommended prison term, to influence a later estimate. Judicial experiments have shown that even irrelevant numbers can influence responses, with important limitations when translating results to real proceedings. [Judicial anchoring experiment]
Do victim impact statements always lengthen a prison sentence?
No universal effect has been established. The systematic literature is heterogeneous and strongly shaped by research on simulated or capital cases, while legal admissibility and procedure vary. [Victim-impact systematic review]
Can psychological evidence produce a lighter sentence?
It may influence how culpability, treatment needs, or mitigation are understood when it is relevant and admissible. Studies using hypothetical cases found context-dependent effects, and some biological information also elicited perceived dangerousness. There is no clinically or scientifically guaranteed sentencing result. [Judges and psychiatric evidence study]
Are judges' feelings more important than the law?
Law determines the authority, constraints, and relevant considerations for sentencing. Psychological processes operate as people interpret evidence and exercise discretion within those constraints. An emotional reaction does not itself create a legal justification for a penalty.
Is a risk assessment the same as a prediction of one person's future crime?
No. Risk assessment estimates group-referenced probabilities for defined outcomes using imperfect data and a specified time horizon. Accuracy, calibration, fairness, and error rates must be evaluated before interpreting its relevance to an individual case.
Does sentencing psychology work the same in every country?
Psychological mechanisms can be studied across jurisdictions, but sentencing rules and institutions vary. Federal U.S. data cannot be assumed to describe a state court or another nation's legal practices without relevant evidence.
Can a forensic psychologist choose the correct sentence?
A qualified psychologist can provide an appropriately bounded opinion about relevant psychological functioning, evidence, or needs. The authorized sentencer applies the law and makes the legal determination. [APA forensic guidelines]
For broader context, see Jury Psychology: How Jurors Make Decisions.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2011). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. [APA official guideline]
Appelbaum, P. S., Scurich, N., & Raad, R. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 134–144. DOI: 10.1037/law0000039. [Journal DOI]
Aspinwall, L. G., Brown, T. R., & Tabery, J. (2012). The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges' sentencing of psychopaths? Science, 337, 846–849. DOI: 10.1126/science.1219569. [Journal DOI]
Englich, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02687.x. [Journal DOI]
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200. DOI: 10.1177/0146167205282152. [Journal DOI]
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2010). Unconscious influences in sentencing decisions: A research review of psychological sources of disparity. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 19–36. DOI: 10.1080/00450610903391440. [Journal DOI]
Kunst, M., de Groot, G., Meester, J., & van Doorn, J. (2021). The impact of victim impact statements on legal decisions in criminal proceedings: A systematic review of the literature across jurisdictions and decision types. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 101512. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2020.101512. [Journal DOI]
National Institute of Justice. (2021). Guidelines for Post-Sentencing Risk Assessment. [NIJ report]
Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 1–24. DOI: 10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9. [Journal DOI]
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36, 763–798. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01265.x. [Journal DOI]
Thomaidou, M. A., & Berryessa, C. M. (2024). Bio-behavioral scientific evidence alters judges' sentencing decision-making: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 95, 102007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102007. [Journal DOI]
U.S. Congress. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Imposition of a sentence. [Federal statute]
United States Sentencing Commission. (2023). 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing. [Commission report]
United States Sentencing Commission. (2025). 2025 Guidelines Manual. [Commission manual]
United States Sentencing Commission. (2026). 2025 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. [Commission sourcebook]
Villettaz, P., Gillieron, G., & Killias, M. (2015). The Effects on Re-offending of Custodial vs. Non-custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 11. DOI: 10.4073/csr.2015.1. [Review DOI]