When punishment goals moderate and mediate the effect of clinical reports on the recidivism risk on prison sentences.

ABSTRACT

This research examined whether an individual's endorsement of punishment goals moderates and mediates the effect of a clinical assessment of recidivism risk on the length of prison sentences. We measured participants' endorsement of punishment goals, both before they read a criminal case (i.e. a priori endorsement), and after they had read it (i.e. case-specific endorsement). As expected, the effect of the clinical report's conclusion on participants' sentencing decisions was moderated by a priori endorsement of incapacitation as a punishment goal. Participants who expressed strong (versus weak) a priori endorsement of this punishment goal were influenced by the report's conclusion on the risk of recidivism. In addition, when the clinical report concluded that the offender had a high risk of recidivating, participants expressed greater case-specific motivation to incapacitate him. Finally, the clinical report's conclusion had an indirect effect on the severity of the sentence through case-specific endorsement of the incapacitation punishment goal.