Sentencing Disparities and Psychological Evaluation

Abstract

Sentencing disparities occur when individuals convicted of similar crimes receive inconsistent punishments due to psychological, sociocultural, cognitive, and systemic influences rather than legal factors alone. The increasing use of forensic psychological assessments in sentencing—such as risk evaluations, mental health diagnoses, and offender profiling—raises questions about how cognitive biases, diagnostic interpretations, and subjective expert testimony influence judicial outcomes. This paper synthesizes research across forensic psychology, criminology, and legal theory to propose the Psychological Influence on Sentencing Disparities Model (PISDM), mapping how psychological variables intersect with judicial decision-making. Policy recommendations emphasize evidence-based sentencing, standardized evaluation tools, trauma-informed mitigation, and judicial training in psychological science.