Is Mens Rea a Component of Perceived Offense Seriousness?

Sebba, Leslie

doi:10.2307/1142721

Cited by 27 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an elaborate study of perceived offense seriousness, Sebba (1980) hypothesized and adduced some evidence for two hypotheses that are directly pertinent to the present research. First, that greater offense seriousness will be judged for acts committed with a higher level of mental element.…”

Section: Comments On Prior Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Howe

1991

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the problem of how undergraduate students and State Circuit Court Judges combine three specific components of information (pertaining to mitigation, intention, and seriousness of outcome damage) to make a net evaluative judgment of blame. The problem is considered within the framework and philosophy of Anderson's information integration and functional measurement theory. In three experiments, two levels each of the three information components identified were factorially crossed for two independent cases: self‐defense under provocation, and altruistic defense of another. Target stimuli consisted of 100‐word scenarios each embodying one factorial treatment combination. Experiment 1 used an independent group and Experiment 2 a repeated measures design. Experiment 3 replicated the second experiment using Judges as subjects. It was found that students integrated mitigation, intention, and outcome damage information by an adding process, and that the results concerning these three independent variables were essentially similar for both types of design. The most striking differences between Judges' and students' judgments centered on the differential use of mitigation information. Judges showed a far broader range of nonadditive, simple interaction effects between mitigation and both outcome damage and type of case. These results presumably reflect the primary concerns and responsibilities of the Judiciary. Questions of mitigation may thus complicate the otherwise straightforward additive integration of information in the intent‐damage paradigm, and in judgments of seriousness.

show abstract

Section: Comments On Prior Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Howe

1991

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a well known pioneering study using students as subjects Sebba (1980) adduced evidence for two hypotheses. First, that greater offense seriousness will be judged for acts committed with a higher level of mental element.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences¹

Howe

Loftus

1992

J Applied Social Pyschol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments the subjects, who included State Circuit Court Judges, assigned a quantitative judgment of blame to hypothetical offenders as a function of level of intention and seriousness of outcome. In accordance with the findings of numerous other investigators using the Intent x Damage paradigm, averaged subjects appeared to follow an adding rule for the integration of intention and outcome damage information. Furthermore, and in keeping with a key methodological purpose of the research, equivalent averaged results were observed whether student subjects made just one judgment of a single Level of Intention x Level of Outcome Damage treatment combination (independent groups design) or multiple judgments of all possible such factorial treatment combinations (repeated measures design). However, statistical analysis of individual students' and individual judges' repeated measures showed that about half of them adopted an adding rule whereas the judgments of others conformed to an intention‐only rule. Some implications of the findings are: (a) in critical respects students' results are quite generalizable since there were no striking student versus judge differences; (b) averaged outcomes conceal important interpretable individual differences in information processing that are highly commensurate for students and judges; and (c) there is thus a defensible and pragmatically desirable economy in the adoption of repeated measures designs for the study of individual persons in such less accessible categories as the Judiciary.

show abstract

“…Sebba (1980) p 135 writes "The implications of studies of the measurement of offence seriousness have become acutely relevant in contemporary criminal policy in light of the trend away from rehabilitation toward a more retributional justice model of sentencing, with its emphasis on proportionality between the gravity of the offence and the severity of the sentence".…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies are generally described as crime-seriousness rating scales (Sheley, 1980;Walker, 1978;Sebba, 1980) or moral indignation studies (Wilson and Brown, 1973;Scott and Althakeb, 1977). Significant cross cultural differences and similarities are reported in attitudes towards crime.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…\ The placement of crime vignettes was randomised in' order to reduce content effects, although Sheley (1980) p 133 reports "very little evidence is found to suggest that questionnaire form and general and immediate item context distort Average crime seriousness ratings more than minimally." Some allowance was made to vary and allow for "mens rea" (Sebba, 1980) although not all "crime vignettes" specified or referred to the intentions of the offender. Walker's (1978) variance of the description of the offender in terms of social class was not used as, in concert with Walker's findings, this was thought not to be useful discrimination.…”

Section: (B) M Oral Indignation -(Sentencing Attitude)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crime seriousness ratings: The relationship of information accuracy and general attitudes in Western Australia

Broadhurst¹,

Indermaur²

1982

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A sample 278 Western Australians completed questions asking them to suggest penalties for 27 "crime vignettes" based on a cross cultural study by Scott and Aithakeb (1977). A moral indignation score (average number of days in gaol) was then calculated and' compared to other factors such as information about Criminal Justice, general punitive or non-punitive attitude and demographic factors such as location, sex, age, marital status, education, political status, etc. Overall results showed considerable variance in response even with crimes defined as violent or very serious. The sample produced scores (averaged for all crimes) higher than for other comparable data. Non punitive and punitive groups were highly correlated with moral indignation. Information while statistically significant was not a useful predictor of moral indignation score. Assumed penalties also were not a useful predictor of attitude or moral indignation. On average, assumed penalties were approximately half the suggested penalty

show abstract

Is Mens Rea a Component of Perceived Offense Seriousness?

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences¹

Crime seriousness ratings: The relationship of information accuracy and general attitudes in Western Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Is Mens Rea a Component of Perceived Offense Seriousness?

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges1

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges1

Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences1

Crime seriousness ratings: The relationship of information accuracy and general attitudes in Western Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Integration of Mitigation, Intention, and Outcome Damage Information, by Students and Circuit Court Judges¹

Integration of Intention and Outcome Information by Students and Circuit Court Judges: Design Economy and Individual Differences¹