Bridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study

Abstract

This article examines the gap between Dutch judges and the public in terms of preferred severity of sentences. It focuses on one particular explanation usually given for the gap: the lack of case-specific, detailed information on the part of the general public. Findings from three studies are reported and combined: (a) a survey among a sample from the Dutch population (N=2,127), (b) a sentencing experiment with judges in Dutch criminal courts (N=180), and (c) a sentencing experiment, using the same case materials as with judges, but now with a sample from the Dutch population (N=917). Results show that providing the public with detailed case information indeed reduces severity of sentences preferred. Moreover, those members of the public who were given short and unbalanced newspaper reports preferred much harsher sentences than did those who were given the full case files. However, despite such a reduction in punitiveness as a result of information, the public's preferred sentences remain much more punitive than judges' sentences pertaining to exactly the same case files.

Perceiving Pure Evil: The Influence of Cognitive Load and Prototypical Evilness on Demonizing

“…Indeed, it might be the case that these differences in the limited versus full use of cognitive resources may explain why there sometimes is a discrepancy between the general public and legal professionals in justice-based responses to criminal offenders, potentially producing tension in society by means of a public desire for more severe punishment regulations (cf. De Keijser, Van Koppen, & Elffers, 2007). These latter considerations are highly speculative, of course, but they do illuminate that the processes described in the present article may be relevant to understand a variety of human reactions to perpetrators of severe crimes.…”

Information and punitiveness: trial reconstruction in Ireland

“…Respondents who read newspaper accounts were significantly more punitive in their sentencing and also more likely to disapprove of the judge's decision than those who were given detailed court-based information. The essential finding -that the provision of information attenuates punitiveness and moderates criticism of sentencers -has subsequently been replicated in a range of other jurisdictions (see for example de Keijser et al (2007) in the Netherlands and Warner and Davis (2012) in Australia b , ).…”

“…Experimental studies designed to unpick the relationships between knowledge and punitivity have suggested that less punitive attitudes are uncovered when methodologies are used that allow the provision of information and deliberation (Doob and Roberts 1998;Chapman, Mirrlees-Black and Brown 2002;Indermaur and Hough 2002;Hough and Park 2002;Luskin, Fishkin and Jowell 2002;Hutton 2005;Keijser, Koppen and Elffers 2007;Warner and Davis 2012).…”

Knowledge, punitive attitudes and punitive gap: Finnish findings

“…de Keijser et al 2007;Oswald et al 2002;Weiner et al 1997). First, based on the retributive justification of punishment, we discuss how society has a right and duty to punish lawbreakers to ensure that the victim of a crime receives moral restitution for the violation of his/her rights.…”

“…In the literature, discussion is principally focused on how great this impact is and whether the punitive gap can be completely bridged when a sufficient amount of information is provided. For example, de Keijser et al (2007) found that very detailed information concerning a case reduced the punitive gap but was unable to eliminate it completely. Researchers who carried out a study in Switzerland noted that in verdicts given by laypeople and professional judges based on the normal vignette method, no great difference was observed.…”