Thinking about penal equivalents

Abstract

Authors have pointed to multiple dimensions of crime and punishment, and in particular, the need to understand both the roles of instrumental and expressive elements. The latter dimension -the expressive or symbolic purpose of punishment -has been viewed as a specific reason for the relatively low success rate of decreasing the use of imprisonment, particularly with respect to public acceptability. I argue that in addition, there has not been adequate attention paid to the roles of factors such as the nature of the offence and the age of the offender. The purpose of this article is to offer a lens through which to think about penal equivalents, and the nuances of various connections among multiple dimensions of punishment. What is lacking from criminal justice literature and legislation is a broader framework for understanding the relationship among purposes of sentencing, sanctions, offences and offenders -how a specific sanction is seen as accomplishing specific purposes only with respect to certain offences and offenders. The present analysis draws on a random sample of residents in Ontario, Canada about their views of the acceptability of fines and community service orders as penal substitutes for custodial sentences across different offence and offender scenarios.

The public sense of justice in Scandinavia: A study of attitudes towards punishments

“…Crime and punishment have multiple dimensions and the purpose of sanctions will vary with both type of crime and type of offender. The importance of the expressive element of, for example, a prison sentence might get lost in a non-custodial sanction where the purpose is mainly rehabilitation (Marinos, 2005). This might also explain why recommending more than one sanction was the most popular choice in the sub-study of the informed sense of justice.…”

Beyond the retributive public: governance and public opinion on penal policy

“…These views may influence whether people endorse prison or alternative sanctions (Marinos 2005). According to Simon (2007), wanting to incapacitate offenders reflects a victim-centered approach to sentencing that reflects values about citizens' rights to be safe from crime.…”

Three Decades of Public Attitudes Research on Crime and Punishment in Canada

“…Moreover, punitiveness was not a onedimensional measure but was complex and was contingent upon a variety of factors, including whether the respondent was male or female or whether the offender was described as a youth or adult (Sprott 1999). Adding to the nuances of their attitudes, members of the public associated imprisonment with denunciation and deterrence, making it difficult for them to support non-custodial sanctions in situations where they wanted to accomplish these goals -particularly when the offence involved violence (Doob and Marinos 1995;Marinos 2005). Therefore, the relationship among purposes, sentencing goals, offender and offence, and the demographic characteristics of a respondent is related to their sentencing preferences.…”