Forensic Sentencing Evaluations under Post-Booker Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Incorporating Voluntary Substance Use

Melinda Wolbransky, Jennifer M. Serico, Kirk Heilbrun

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker (2005) significantly changed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines by making the Guidelines advisory rather than mandated. This holding suggests that forensic mental health evaluators may need to approach federal sentencing evaluations somewhat differently. Prior to Booker, federal sentencing evaluations focused on downward-departure factors related to mental state at the time of the offense, particularly influences affecting a defendant's respective capacities to understand the wrongfulness of the alleged offense and conform conduct to the requirements of the law. In making the Guidelines advisory, Booker allows courts to consider additional influences relevant to cognitive and mental health functioning in making sentencing decisions, thereby broadening the scope of forensic mental health assessment conducted to inform federal sentencing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)57-67
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Forensic Psychology Practice
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2012
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Booker
  • federal sentencing
  • forensic evaluation
  • mental capacity
  • substance use

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Applied Psychology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Forensic Sentencing Evaluations under Post-Booker Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Incorporating Voluntary Substance Use'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this