Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

in the English system similarly reports that, for offenses

of similar levels of seriousness or for similar types of

offenders, sentences appear to vary by area, court type,

and sentencer. Here, sentences given in the Crown court

tend to be more severe than those given by the magis-

trates’ (lower) court for similar offenses, and sentences

by professional judges tend to be more severe than those

given by lay judges (magistrates).

Although psychologists have generally not studied

the impact of higher-level variables on sentencing

decisions, they have demonstrated how the personal

characteristics of the sentencer, such as his or her atti-

tudes and experience, may influence the sentencing

decision. Psychological research has also pointed to

the types of heuristic decision-making strategies that

sentencers may use.

More recently, criminologists such as Brian Johnson

have begun to argue for the importance of studying sen-

tencing decisions using multilevel theories. These

allow the researcher to simultaneously examine the rel-

ative (direct) impact of individual- and higher-level

factors on sentencing decisions and to measure the

interactive effects of individual- and higher-level fac-

tors. Therefore, theories of sentencing can better con-

sider how sentencers are influenced by the individual

offender, case, or victim and how sentencing behavior

is affected by the characteristics of the sentencer and

his or her environment such as court or area.

Mandeep K. Dhami

See alsoBail-Setting Decisions; Death Penalty; Parole

Decisions; Plea Bargaining; Probation Decisions; Public

Opinion About Sentencing and Incarceration; Sentencing

Diversion Programs

Further Readings

Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal

sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant

characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence

outcomes for drug offenses. Law and Society Review,

31,789–822.

Daly, K., & Bordt, R. L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing:

An analysis of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly,

12,141–175.

Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing

research: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 21,439–466.

Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2005). Understanding public

attitudes to criminal justice.Berkshire, UK: Open

University Press.

Johnson, B. (2006). The multilevel context of criminal

sentencing: Integrating judge- and county-level

influences. Criminology, 44,259–298.

Von Hirsch, A., & Ashworth, A. (Eds.). (1998). Principled

sentencing(2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Hart.

SENTENCING

DIVERSIONPROGRAMS

Sentencing diversion programs are formal, institution-

alized programs for people with mental illness that

were created to reduce the volume of and frequency

with which this population is involved in the criminal

justice system as defendants. Their primary purpose is

to divert persons with mental illness (PMIs) from the

criminal justice system (including jail and prison) into

community, outpatient mental health, and substance

abuse treatment. Diversion, which can occur at any

point in the criminal justice process (from prearrest to

postconviction), has several defining features. These

features include sharing a common goal of reducing

recidivism rates of PMIs, relying on a therapeutic

jurisprudence model, having predefined target popula-

tions, using a carrot-and-stick approach to achieve

compliance, maintaining collaborations across multi-

ple systems of care, and sometimes mandating treat-

ment. Preliminary research on the effectiveness of the

programs is equivocal but promising, in that diversion

can improve the lives of PMIs involved in the criminal

justice system.

The Purpose of Diversion Programs

Diversion has always been an informal option for the

police and prosecutors, but the development of formal-

ized programs is relatively recent. Diversion is an

attempt to stem the tide of PMIs who enter the criminal

justice system. An estimated 900,000 persons with seri-

ous mental illness are booked into U.S. jails annually.

(Serious mental illness is typically defined as having a

schizo-spectrum, bipolar, or major depressive disorder.)

Approximately 10% to 15% of jail and prison inmates

have a serious mental illness compared with about 3% of

the general population. Moreover, PMIs who are

involved in the justice system tend to have repeated,

“revolving-door” contact with law enforcement and the

courts. It has been said that U.S. jails and prisons have

become de facto mental health institutions. Because of

710 ———Sentencing Diversion Programs

S-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 710