Logo image
Substance use disorder (SUD) and the criminal defendant: the impact of substance type on judges' sentencing recommendations
Thesis   Open access

Substance use disorder (SUD) and the criminal defendant: the impact of substance type on judges' sentencing recommendations

Alisha Desai
Master of Science (M.S.), Drexel University
Jul 2018
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17918/D8167F
pdf
Desai_Alisha_2018513.15 kBDownloadView

Abstract

Sentencing (Criminal procedure) Judges Judges--Attitudes Psychology Substance Abuse
Individuals with substance use disorder (SUD) continue to be disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. The vast majority of the estimated 1.5 million inmates who meet criteria for an SUD commit drug offenses, robbery, or property crimes to support their habit (CASA Columbia, 2010; Karberg & James, 2005). Although mental illness may be introduced as a mitigating factor during criminal trials to promote leniency in sentencing, research demonstrates that an SUD diagnosis is less likely to be viewed as mitigating and more likely to result in deleterious sentencing outcomes for a defendant convicted of a capital offense (Barnett et al., 2004, 2008). To address the lack of research investigating this trend in non-capital trials, the present study aimed to examine whether sentencing recommendations following a robbery conviction differ as a function of type of substance abuse. Participants (N = 111) consisted of United States criminal court judges who were randomized to one of five conditions: 1) control (i.e., no substance abuse reported); 2) alcohol use disorder; 3) cannabis use disorder; 4) opioid use disorder, heroin; or 5) opioid use disorder, prescription painkillers. ANOVA and Chi-square analyses revealed that a defendant with a reported SUD diagnosis was viewed as more likely to reoffend and less capable of logical reasoning as compared to a defendant with no reported history of substance abuse. Differences also emerged between heroin and marijuana with regard to whether the diagnosis was viewed as mitigating or non-influential. Implications for research, legal practice, and rehabilitation are discussed.

Metrics

60 File views/ downloads
72 Record Views

Details

Logo image