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

• NCJ Number: 239112
• Journal: Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: January-February 2012 Pages: 57-67
• Author(s): Melinda Wolbransky, M.S.; Jennifer M. Serico, B.A.; Kirk Heilbrun, Ph.D.
• Date Published: February 2012
• Length: 11 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Booker (2005) that changed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

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. (Published Abstract)