Opening the Black Box of Judicial Decision-Making in Cases with Forensic Mental Health Reports: A Qualitative Study from the Netherlands

Abstract

Forensic mental health reports (FMHRs) can be informative regarding criminal responsibility, risk assessment, and treatment options, but are formally irrelevant for decisions about guilt (in terms of actus reus). In the Netherlands, a criminal trial is not bifurcated into a guilt and sentencing phase. Consequently, the court has the FMHR in the case file before the trial starts. Important gaps remain in our understanding of the judicial decision-making process in cases with FMHRs. In five focus groups, 17 judges were interviewed about how expert information in FMHRs plays a role in their decision-making about guilt and sentencing. Using thematic analysis, results showed that evaluation of recidivism risk is influential in decisions about treatment. Conclusions about criminal responsibility inform decisions about the prison sentence length. Although not used deliberately, judges could not rule out that an FMHR contributes to their conviction of guilt. Implications for research and practice are discussed.