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

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.