After reading a murder or theft vignette in which the perpetrator was a 20-, 40-, or 60-year-old man, 95 undergraduates gave sentence and parole recommendations. Punishment was harsher for the murder than for the theft. For murder, participants treated the 20- and 60-year-old men less harshly than the 40-year-old man, which confirms previous archival findings. However, this inverted U-shaped function occurred for murder only. The authors discussed the results in the context of the just-desert and utilitarian rationales that guide sentencing and gave suggestions for future research.

95 undergraduates read a simulated crime vignette about either murder or theft in which the perpetrator was a 20-, 40-, or 60-yr.-old man, then gave recommendations about sentence and parole. Subsequently, they made a second set of recommendations for the other crime and another age. For combined sets of judgments, punishment was harsher for the murder than for the theft. For murder, the 60-yr.-old and the 20-yr.-old were both treated more leniently than the 40-yr.-old, but the difference was greater for the older than for the younger offender. Researchers should examine age in relation to judgments for different crimes with participants exposed to all experimental conditions.