Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?

Abstract

Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most

Why sentence? Comparing the views of jurors, judges and the legislature on the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, Australia

“…Moreover, the fact that we did not have any young offenders (offenders under the age of 18) in our study is significant because other studies have consistently found stronger support for rehabilitation in the case of young offenders (e.g. Roberts and Hough, 2005;Spiranovic et al, 2012).…”

“…Several studies have explored public preferences for sentencing purposes in Canada (Roberts et al, 2007), England and Wales (Roberts et al, 2009), New Zealand (Paulin et al, 2003) and Australia (Spiranovic et al, 2012). An earlier Victorian study analysed the views of a random sample of 300 Victorians about the purposes of sentencing and found that their ‘complex and nuanced’ views varied according to the different type of offender and offence; the respondents, like judicial officers, adopted an individualized approach to sentencing and tailored the principal purpose to the circumstances of the specific case (Gelb, 2011: 1).…”

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

“…Recent research in Australia supports this. For instance, rehabilitation was seen as the most important purpose of sentencing for youths and for both youths and adults without criminal records, whereas punishment was more likely to be supported for adults and those who commit more serious offences (Spiranovic, Roberts, Indermaur, Warner, Gelb, and Mackenzie 2012). …”

Stakeholder Sentencing

“…13 The rejection of imprisonment by restorative justice restricts its applicability. The concern is that the public may not support alternatives to imprisonment, such as the use of restorative conferences, for offenders guilty of the more serious violent crimes (Kahan 1996, Khan 2011, Spiranovic, et al 2011. The practice of restorative justice has been generally limited to cases involving youth offenders and minor offences.…”