|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Tremblay et al. was to compare the public's punishment demands with those of court agents. Specifically, the study compared perceived severity of offenses, responsibility levels of offenders, the expected utility of the sentences imposed, and sentences distributed.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental design using two case sentencing surveys. The first survey was administered in 1984 to a stratified sample of 299 households (how the sample was obtained was not specified); face to face interviews were conducted. The second survey was conducted among four main court actors (judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers) (how the sample was obtained was not specified); face to face interviews were conducted. Jury trial judges were not included because of ethical constraints. Both sets of respondents were presented with descriptions of the actual offenses of burglary, fraud, theft, manslaughter, and felony murder and asked to assess the seriousness of each offense and the culpability level of the offender. Culpability was measured by respondents' perceptions about whether they found certain circumstances of the offense as aggravating, neutral, or extenuating. Respondents were then asked to prescribe an appropriate sentence (probation, fines, prison) and then determine to what extent they felt the sentence would achieve a certain punishment goal (rehabilitation, incapacitation, retribution, or deterrence). All cases reviewed by respondents were real and all offenders were assumed guilty. Court respondents included 33 judges 118 defense lawyers, 48 prosecutors and 35 probation officers. In order to assess the perceived severity of the penalty, both sets of respondents were given a list of 27 penalties and instructed to use one year of imprisonment as a comparison. Using this technique, the authors were able to construct severity scales that allowed for the transformation of all non-custodial sentences into comparable standardized prison terms. Respondents were also asked to rate the seriousness of the crime committed, although the range of the scale used was not specified. Z-tests were used to establish statistical significance.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors reported that both the public and court agents were not inclined to impose fines for street crimes, even for young, first-time offenders; 9% of the public selected fines for case 1 (burglary) compared to 13% of court actors. Sixty-seven percent of the court agents prescribed probation for case 1 compared to 34% of the public respondents. Fifty-one percent of the public selected community work for case 1 while 34% of the court agents selected this option. There was a great deal of correspondence between the public and court agents when prescribing punishments for case 2 (fraud); 61% of the public selected probation compared to 70% of the court respondents. Case 3 (theft) also had a strong correspondence; 86% of both the public and the court agents selected prison time. Prison time was also the preferred punishment for both sets of respondents in cases 4 (manslaughter) and 5 (felony murder). In general, the public was more punitive, handing out larger compensation penalties, and imposing longer prison and community work sentences. Using the standardized severity ratios, the authors discovered that the public was about 1.5 to 2 times more severe than court actors when handing out punishments. For example, in case 4 (manslaughter) the mean years of confinement assigned by the public was 12.9 compared to 2.9 given by court actors. Public respondents prescribed an average of 25 years for case 5 (felony murder) compared to court actors who prescribed a mean of 17.6 years. The authors stated that the more serious the crime, the greater the discrepancy between the two sets of respondents. According to the authors, this could have been due to differences in the perceived severity of the punishment. In cases 1 and 2 (burglary and fraud, respectively) the public and court actors perceived the severity of their respective punishments similarly, although the punishments were themselves different. This indicated to the authors that the public and court actors differ in how they view the severity of prison alternatives. The authors suggested that differences in perceptions of severity may be due to the fact that each set of respondents have different referents for comparison.
According to the authors, in order to understand why a certain sentence is prescribed one must examine the perceived seriousness of the crime as well as the blameworthiness of the offender. Fifty percent of the public respondents found age, sex, and social status of the victim or offender neutral factors in their sentencing decision. However, only one item (gender) was found neutral by court respondents. Additionally, both public and private respondents found the absence of prior record an extenuating circumstance. The authors reported that, overall, what the public found to be an extenuating circumstance court actors found neutral. The authors attributed this difference to the fact that court actors assess blame by comparing a current offender with other offenders while public respondents compare to the average citizen. In terms of punishment rationales, both sets of subjects cited rehabilitation as the primary goal in cases 1 and 3 (burglary and theft, respectively). Incapacitation was consistently cited as the significant goal for cases 4 and 5 (manslaughter and felony murder, respectively). Both sets of respondents gave a lesser sentence when citing rehabilitation as the primary goal. The authors concluded that the discrepancy between the public's demand for punishment and the actual practices of sentencing agents may be due to differences in how criminal justice administrators perceive the ability of punishments to achieve certain goals and their accountability status when over-punishing offenders.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
1980s
Canada
Countries Other Than USA
Public Perceptions
Offender Punishment
Adult Crime
Adult Offender
Crime Intervention
Correctional Decision Making
Justice System Intervention
Criminal Justice System
Violence Intervention
Adult Violence
Crime Effects
Violence Effects
Punishment Perceptions
05-05 |