Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

what form it should take, and what impact it is likely

to have on the offender.

When mental health professionals are called on to

conduct an assessment of the accused at this stage of

proceedings, the report is likely to follow a fairly stan-

dard format that typically includes a review of the

following: (a) personal and family data, including

information regarding the offender’s childhood,

school, employment, relationships, substance use, and

mental and physical health; (b) offense information,

which moves beyond a simple recounting of events to

include motivation for the offense and the defendant’s

attitude toward the offense; (c) a review of criminal

history, including juvenile adjudications, past

response to corrections, and criminal behaviors not

resulting in arrest; (d) an evaluation of the accused,

which may include the results of testing as well as a

current mental status assessment; (e) a risk assess-

ment; and (f) conclusions including recommendations

and risk management strategies.

There has been relatively little research on judge’s

views of presentence reports. That research that has

been conducted appears to have asked the question gen-

erally instead of focusing on specific reports. Although

responses have been favorable in many cases, those

criticisms that do exist focus on the unrealistic recom-

mendations made and the jargon used in reports.

Indeed, research suggests the need to tie the content of

the report to its purpose—that is, to concentrate on

issues relevant to understanding the offending behavior

and considering constructive responses to it. In doing

so, the examiner should also consider the seriousness of

the offense, as this has been a criticism of past reports.

Furthermore, reports should make use of appropriate

language free from jargon, prejudicial or stereotypical

language, and spelling and grammatical errors. In addi-

tion, standards of practice would require providing

thorough but concise information in a logical format

and presenting information from a variety of sources

including, but not limited to, a file review of police

records, court transcripts, and criminal record; an inter-

view with the offender, including testing information;

and interviews with collateral sources, such as family

members, spouses, employers, and other relevant com-

munity contacts. Additionally, the offender may be

asked to sign release forms so that records may be

obtained from various community agencies with which

the accused has had prior contact, including hospital

and community mental health centers, substance abuse

treatment programs, and community corrections.

Despite some criticism, presentence evaluations

or the recommendations such assessments provide

appear to play a prominent role in sentencing deci-

sions. As such, providing reports of consistent quality

is of paramount importance because failure to do so

may contribute to inequality in outcomes. There is a

need for further research to examine the quality of

these assessments and the impact they have in sen-

tencing offenders. Such information will assist the

examiner in providing evaluations of the highest qual-

ity and help ensure that these evaluations meet the

needs of the court.

Karen E. Whittemore

See alsoForensic Assessment; Probation Decisions; Risk

Assessment Approaches; Violence Risk Assessment

Further Readings

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. Y., & Hoge, R. D. (1990).

Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering

psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17,19–52.

Heilbrun, A. B. (1999). Recommending probation and parole.

In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.),The handbook of

forensic psychology(2nd ed., pp. 303–326). New York:

Wiley.

Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin,

C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A

handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers

(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Rogers, R., & Mitchell, C. N. (1991). Mental health

experts and the criminal courts. Toronto, ON,

Canada: Carswell.

PRETRIALPUBLICITY,

IMPACT ONJURIES

When a trial is deemed newsworthy by the press, it is

likely that information about the nature of the allega-

tions, the character of the defendant, or other case-

relevant information is reported in the media.

Although the First Amendment to the Constitution

guarantees the right to free speech and a free press,

there is concern among the courts and scholars that

providing information about a case to potential jury

members before a trial may bias the jury pool by cre-

ating negative perceptions of the defendant and

Pretrial Publicity, Impact on Juries——— 615

P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 615