Impact of information about sentencing decisions on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system.

Abstract

Research reveals public dissatisfaction with perceived leniency of the criminal justice system. However, when asked to sentence hypothetical offenders, members of the public tend to choose dispositions similar to what current court practices prescribe. In two studies reported here, subjects completed a mock sentencing exercise and a general attitude survey. In an initial pilot study, they expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but the relative punitiveness of their sentences (in terms of their perceptions of how severe various sentencing options are) was only slightly elevated above a set of reference sentences. Providing a typical judge's sentencing decisions did not decrease dissatisfaction but was associated with an anchoring effect. This effect was explored in the main study by manipulating the provided reference sentences to be either lenient, moderate, or punitive. Again, participants expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but prescribed generally moderate sentences, anchoring their sentences to the information provided. However, only those exposed to moderate "typical" sentences subsequently reported reduced dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system.Public opinion polls, such as those conducted for the Canadian Sentencing Commission (summarized in Roberts, 1988) and those done by Sacco and Johnson (1990), have typically indicated public dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system in Canada. In particular, the public tends to be of the opinion that the system is too lenient, that sentences should be more severe, and that parole boards are too liberal in granting early release.Perceptions of judicial leniency are also found in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia (Roberts, 1992) and they have been on the rise over the last few decades. In Canada, the proportion of survey respondents believing that the system is "too soft" rose from two thirds in 1970 to 82% in 199482% in (Roberts, 1994.

Sentencing and public confidence in Australia: The dynamics and foci of small group deliberations

“…For example, participants acknowledged the need for the specific circumstances of offenders to be considered when sentencing. This complements existing research (Doob & Roberts, 1983; St. Amand & Zamble, 2001) which suggests that when the information deficit, between what is known to the sentencing tribunal and what is known to the public is narrowed, there is the potential for a convergence of the sentencing preferences of both judges and lay persons.…”

“…A significant body of research establishes that people may answer punitively when asked to respond to an abstract question on whether sentences are ‘too tough, about right or too lenient’, but that their responses become far more balanced and nuanced when given more information about the case (Gelb, 2006; Warner & Davis, 2012). Indeed, when provided with more information and greater opportunity for deliberation, initial punitive responses become significantly ameliorated: people prefer punishments similar to those actually imposed by courts (Doob & Roberts, 1983; St. Amand & Zamble, 2001).…”

Investigating the impact of jury sentencing recommendations using procedural justice theory

“…On one hand, researchers argue that juries impose sentences that are more variable (Weninger, 1994;Wright, 1999) and systematically harsher (Ostrom, Kauder, & Kuban, 1996) than sentences imposed by Judges because of their lack of knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system. However, empirical research on jury sentencing is scarce, and in instances where it does exist, mixed results have been found (Smith & Stevens, 1984;St Amand & Zamble, 2001;Sunstein, 2002;Webster, 1960). On the other hand, prosecutors (King & Noble, 2004) and victim support groups (NSWLRC, 2006) are supportive of jury sentencing recommendations as a means of communication and collaboration between the public and the criminal justice system.…”

Confidence in the criminal justice system: Differences between citizens and criminal justice officials in China

“…Criminal justice officials’ views may be more realistic and sometimes cynical, as they have firsthand knowledge and a deeper understanding of every aspect, positive and negative, of the system. In contrast, citizens’ perceptions are limited by their own experiences and could be heavily influenced by mass media or vicarious experiences (Doob and Roberts, 1984; St Amand and Zamble, 2001). Further, Cao and Dai (2006) argue that in an authoritarian society with high policing, public opinion tends to be inaccurate because people are alienated from the political decision-making process, and they are afraid of government repression.…”