Mitigating, Aggravating, or Both? A Review of Context‐Dependent Factors in Sentencing Decisions

Bibliographic Data

ID21558392
AuthorsHaley Moon (0009-0008-5904-9227, School of Criminal Justice and Criminology University of Arkansas at Little Rock Little Rock Arkansas USA, corresponding author)
Year2026
Publication date2026-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueBehavioral Sciences & the Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0735-3936 • E-ISSN: 1099-0798
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/bsl.70073
PMID42226440
OpenAlexW7163163389
LanguageEN
References cited47

Current theories of punishment and legal decision‐making provide useful frameworks for identifying mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. However, a key limitation is that these theories typically treat factors as either mitigating or aggravating, without accounting for variables that can function as both (e.g., mental illness, pecuniary gain, or a history of abuse). At present, no comprehensive theoretical model explains why such factors are “context‐dependent.” This review addresses that gap by examining three independent theories: attribution theory, rational choice theory, and focal concerns theory. Each offers valuable insight into why its respective context‐dependent factor may be perceived as mitigating or aggravating, yet none alone accounts for the broader range of context‐dependent factors. Building on these insights, this review introduces an integrated model of decision‐making to explain how context‐dependent factors influence sentencing decisions

Aggravating Factor · Attribution · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Tools

Open DOI