Public views of sentencing: The role of offender characteristics.

Abstract

The equitable allocation of punishment is a major purpose of any judicial system. Perceptions of equity depend in large degree on the correspondence between judicial practice and the attitudes of the community. Specifically, if sentencing judges employ mitigating factors that the public do not support, sentences will be perceived to be inequitable. For example, if judges assign more lenient sentences to employed compared to unemployed offenders, this will disturb members of the public unless they also believe that employment status should be a factor to be considered in sentencing. Two experiments were conducted which manipulated the type of crime, criminal record of the offender, and three offender characteristics (age, employment status, marital status) and observed the effect of each upon sentences recommended by subjects. In the second experiment subjects were also explicitly asked whether these factors should be considered when sentencing offenders. None of the manipulated offender characteristics affected subjects' "sentences." The relevance of these findings for surveys which show negative community reaction to sentencing is clear: the public appears to favour a sentencing model which excludes offender characteristics, even though Canadian case law (see Nadin-Davis, 1982) has upheld their influence over the sentencing process.

What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

“…This study, and most other research, failed to show that public demand led to more severe sentences. Rather, research showed that public opinion was not consistent with the passage of sentencing legislation (Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000;Gebotys & Roberts, 1987;Tonry, 1999). Cullen, Clark, and Wozniak (1985, p. 16) are equally critical of the assumption that sentence practices reflect public attitudes.…”

Assessing the public's demand for hate crime penalties

“…Most of the characteristics of offenders that have been included in models of perceptions of sentencing have had little effect on sentencing decisions (Gebotys & Roberts, 1987). The strongest effect comes from an offender's prior record, which people may view as an indicator of both the entrenchment of the offender in a criminal lifestyle (past behavior), and the potential for future criminal behavior (Zamble & Kahn, 1990).…”

Effects of Defendant Age on Severity of Punishment for Different Crimes

“…In particular, sentencing may be guided by utilitarian rather than just-desert rationales (Gebotys & Roberts, 1987;Steffensmeier et al, 1998). Here, such goals as deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation may determine how the offender is treated (Gebotys & Roberts;Kapardis & Farrington, 1981). A heavier sentence may be given to warn others what will happen to them if they commit the same crime, for deterrence, or to keep the criminal out of public circulation, for incapacitation.…”

“…Actions like this, which Canadian case law has supported (Gebotys & Roberts, 1987), may be justifiable if they are based on empirically demonstrated risk factors for reoffending. In fact, investigators have related race and gender, which are thought to predict recidivism, to processing by the criminal justice system (Wilbanks, 1988) and to judgments that the system has made under experimental conditions (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994).…”