Factor analysis applied to magnitude estimates of punishment Seriousness: Patterns of individual differences

McClelland, Kent A.; Alpert, Geoffrey P.

doi:10.1007/bf01064638

Cited by 35 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This idea has support in the research on sentencing preferences; several studies have found that many offenders (especially recidivists and single men) report that they would prefer prison due to their belief that probation is stricter or more d&icult to complete (Crouch, 1993;McClelland & Alpert, 1985;Petersilia and Piper Deschenes. 1994).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 87%

Strange Science: Subjective Criteria in Parole Decisions

Meyer

2001

Journal of Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The factors used by a local level parole panel in achieving its decisions are explored. Essentially, acceptance by the panel was a two-stage process in which applicants were first judged "deserving" of parole, and then conditions were fashioned in order to curb recidivism. Decisions were based on a number of mitigating and aggravating factors, including an applicant's perceived level of culpability and county of residence. In addition, three general processes emerged: sponsorship of particular offenders by individuals who advocated parole, reliance on 'magic' variables to explain and influence votes, and attempts to formulate appropriate responses to unknown future actions by others in the justice system.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 87%

Strange Science: Subjective Criteria in Parole Decisions

Meyer

2001

Journal of Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over the past twenty years, evidence had accumulated that indicated offenders' perceptions of punitiveness or severity of criminal sanctions were more complex than previously assumed (e.g., McClelland & Alpert, 1985;Petersilia, 1990;Spelman, 1995;Van Voorhis, Browning, Simon, & Gordon, 1997;Wood, May, & Grasmick, 2005). This growing body of evidence had implications for theoretical explanations of illegal conduct (e.g., deterrence, rational choice, and social learning perspectives) that operate from the explicit premise that people consider rewards and punishments as a prelude to criminal action.…”

Section: Offender Perceptions Of Alternative Sanctionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

A comparison of punishment exchange rates between offenders under supervision and their supervising officers

Flory

May

Minor

et al. 2006

Journal of Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The largest body of literature touching on perceptions of probation concentrates on inmates, arrestees, and probationers' views of incarceration versus alternative sanctions and the severity of criminal justice sanctions in general (McClelland & Alpert, 1985;Crouch, 1993;Apospori & Alpert, 1993;Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994;Spelman, 1995;Wood & Grasmick, 1999;Wood & May, 2003;. In one of the earliest of these studies, McClelland and Alpert (1985) asked arrestees to assign numerical scores to a list of 212 N. F. Springer et al alternative penalties in comparison to incarceration.…”

Section: Probationers' Perceptions Of Probationmentioning

confidence: 98%