Community penalties, sentencers, the media and public opinion

Allen, Rob; Hough, Mike

doi:10.4324/9781843926184.ch20

Cited by 8 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the United Kingdom, men, older individuals, citizens with lower levels of educational attainment, and readers of tabloid newspapers seem to be significantly more punitive in their views than others (Allen 2002;Hough and Roberts 2002;Allen and Hough 2007). These patterns tend to hold true internationally with some exceptions (see Mayhew and Van Kesteren 2002).…”

Section: Accounting For Punitivenessmentioning

confidence: 90%

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Maruna

King

2009

Eur J Crim Policy Res

180

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for "belief in redeemability" (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.

show abstract

Section: Accounting For Punitivenessmentioning

confidence: 90%

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Maruna

King

2009

Eur J Crim Policy Res

180

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is not space in this paper to explain this fi nding further, but seeTata (2008).16 National Standards attempt to accommodate expressed judicial wishes by prohibiting ' recommendations ' by report writers whilst at the same time encouraging ' advice ' and ' assistance ' about sentencing. For instance: ' Whilst reports must not include a recommendation as such, report writers may indicate, on the basis of their review and assessment, which non-custodial option is most likely to prevent or reduce reoffending ' ( ScottishExecutive 2006 ).17 There is also the fact that the report can be seen by its subjecta person with whom the report writer may well need to supervise and build up a relationship of trust.18 See alsoAllen and Hough (2007) , who report thatGelsthorpe and Raynor (1995) found a higher rate of concordance when the report writer is known to the court.Allen and Hough (2007: 586) state: ' Senior probation offi cers seem particularly respected by the courts if there is an opportunity to form a relationship over time. '…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assisting and Advising The Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of 'Quality' in Pre-Sentence Reports

Tata

Burns

Halliday

et al. 2008

British Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pre-sentence reports are an increasingly prevalent feature of the sentencing process. Yet, although judges have been surveyed about their general views, we know relatively little about how such reports are read and interpreted by judges considering sentence in specifi c cases, and, in particular, how these judicial interpretations compare with the intentions of the writers of those same reports. This article summarizes some of the main fi ndings of a four-year qualitative study in Scotland examining: how reports are constructed by report writers; what the writers aim to convey to the sentencing judge; and how those same reports are then interpreted and used in deciding sentence. Policy development has been predicated on the view that higher-quality reports will help to ' sell ' community penalties to the principal consumers of such reports (judges). This research suggests that, in the daily use and interpretation of reports, this quality-led policy agenda is defeated by a discourse of judicial ' ownership ' of sentencing.

show abstract

“…According to the British Crime Survey, Measuring Crime for 25 Years report (Jansson, 2008), only around 20 per cent of the British public feels that probation is doing a 'good' or 'excellent' job. This is essentially the same as opinions on the prison service, but considerably less than opinions on the police, who were rated positively by 50 per cent of the public surveyed (see also Allen and Hough, 2007;Feilzer, 2007;Hough, 2002, 2005;Wood and Viki, 2004). Likewise, when members of the public were asked what they thought could help to reduce crime in Britain, the National Probation Service (2002) research found that only 2 per cent of respondents spontaneously mention the Probation Service, compared to 77 per cent who cite the police and 13 per cent who mention schools.…”

Section: (What) Does the Public Think Of Probation?mentioning

confidence: 91%

Selling the Public on Probation: Beyond the Bib

Maruna

King

2008

Probation Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the release of the Casey Report, Engaging Communities in FightingCrime (Casey, 2008), improving public confidence in criminal justice work, and community penalties in particular, has become a central concern for the British Government. Among the other suggestions for improving public confidence in community interventions is to require those doing community service work to wear fluorescent bibs identifying themselves as 'offenders'. In this article, we review what is known about public opinion regarding community penalties, and discuss two possible routes to changing these attitudes: one is cognitive and the other is emotive. We review the research evidence on both, and discuss the likelihood of either being successful. We conclude by returning to the context of the Casey Report and assessing the likelihood that the Casey proposals will be successful on the basis of the evidence reviewed.

show abstract

Community penalties, sentencers, the media and public opinion

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Assisting and Advising The Sentencing Decision Process: The Pursuit of 'Quality' in Pre-Sentence Reports

Selling the Public on Probation: Beyond the Bib

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About