“Criminal” or “Insane”? Ethnicity and Psychiatric Evaluations of Defendants’ Competency and Responsibility

Objectives: Ethnicity is a well-established factor in criminal justice decisions, but its impact on forensic psychiatric evaluations—particularly in assessments of competency to stand trial (CST) and mental state at the time of the offense (MSO)—has received limited attention. While clinical and legal predictors are well documented, the role of ethnic background remains unclear, with existing findings often inconsistent, especially between CST and MSO outcomes. This study examines whether defendants’ ethnicity (Jewish vs. Arab) is associated with different CST and MSO outcomes in evaluations conducted at the Jerusalem Mental Health Center. Method: Archival data from 248 Jewish and Arab defendants evaluated at the Jerusalem Mental Health Center were coded and analyzed. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between ethnicity and CST and MSO outcomes, controlling for criminal history and clinical symptoms. The final dataset included 168 cases for CST and 157 for MSO. Findings: For MSO decisions, Arab defendants were more likely than Jewish defendants to be assessed as not criminally responsible, while no significant ethnic differences were found in CST outcomes. Conclusions: These findings highlight the potential influence of ethnicity on forensic psychiatric decisions, particularly in assessments of criminal responsibility. They also shed light on the inconsistent findings in previous research and support theoretical claims regarding attribution processes and intergroup bias—where minority defendants may be perceived either as morally culpable or as psychiatrically dangerous. The results underscore the importance of evaluating how ethnic stereotypes and attributional frameworks shape psychiatric-legal judgments.