Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions.

Abstract

The cognitive processes underlying sentencing decisions made by college student subjects in a judicial decision-making experiment were examined. Subjects were asked to follow one of three punishment strategies (retribution, rehabilitation, or deterrence). In addition, the type of crime and the physical attractiveness of the offender were systematically varied. Length of recommended prison term, subjects' judgments of seriousness of the crime, likelihood of recidivism, and blame attributed to offender and victim were examined. The pattern of strategy effects on prison term recommendations was generally consistent with that found in other studies involving real judges in their actual cases. Deterrence group sentences were the most severe for all crimes, whereas the rehabilitation group sentences were the least severe for serious crimes only. Surprisingly, the rehabilitation group subjects consistently blamed the victim of the crime more than did the other groups. This finding is discussed with respect to belief in a just world and defensive attribution.The question of what constitutes just, fair, or appropriate treatment of a criminal is among the central ethical and legal questions in any society. Although there exists a great body of literature that addresses the issue, only a small proportion of this literature involves an empirical examination of the factors involved in sentencing decisions. Empirical studies of the sentencing behavior of actual judges have found rather large disparities among judges in sentences for the same crime, but have had difficulty pinpointing the sources of these differences (e.g., Partridge & Eldridge, Note 1). Hogarth's (1971) provocative investigation of the sen-

The function of punishment in the “civil” commitment of sexually violent predators

“…Our findings are highly consistent with previous research showing the importance of retributive desires in punishing criminals (Carlsmith, 2006;Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002;Ellsworth & Ross, 1983;McFatter, 1978). We did not ask the respondents to explicitly justify their support for civil commitment, but had we done so there probably would have been strong consensus that it was based on worries that the perpetrator would commit more crimes if given the opportunity.…”

“…Indeed, the social psychological literature is rife with examples in which people are inaccurate about the basis of their attitudes and behavior (Ellsworth & Ross, 1983;Nisbett & Wilson, 1977;Wilson, 2002). More to the point, recent empirical work has demonstrated that although people frequently articulate incapacitative motivations in sentencing criminal offenders, their behavior is more consistent with the retributive perspective (Carlsmith, 2006;Carlsmith & Simester, 2006;Feather, 2002;McFatter, 1978). For example, Carlsmith (2006) asked participants to punish offenders under a variety of circumstances and found that people were highly sensitive to variation of factors that were relevant to a retributive theory of punishment, but largely ignored variation of factors that were critical to utilitarian perspectives.…”

Revenge, Retribution, and Values: Social Attitudes and Punitive Sentencing

“…Rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence (of the offender or would-be offenders) are the primary goals of sentencing identified by researchers (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002;Carroll et al, 1987;Darley, 2002;Darley & Pittman, 2003;McFatter, 1978McFatter, , 1982McKee, 2005, unpublished doctoral dissertation;Roberts & Stalans, 1998), and surveys indicate that all of these sentencing goals or strategies are endorsed by the public depending on the circumstances (Roberts & Stalans, 1998). The choice of sentencing goal may be influenced by dispositional and situational factors, with contextual factors concerning the offender or the offense influencing which strategy is chosen in any one particular circumstance.…”

Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality.

“…However, we must recognize that finer distinctions among goals are not only possible conceptually, but also that some research has found differences among goals such as punishment and deterrence (McFatter, 1978). We may resolve this In two ways.…”