Some Explorations in the Scaling of Penalties

Abstract

Quantification techniques in criminology have been applied extensively to the measurement of the seriousness of offenses, but the question of the relative severity of different penalities has been neglected. Which, for example, is the more severe penalty, a heavy fine, a long period of probation, or a short term of imprisonment? Is a $1,000 fine twice as severe a penalty as a $500 fine? This topic is not only of theoretical interest in itself It also has immediate practical implications for research on sentencing practices, on the seriousness of offenses, and on deterrence, as well as for the implementation of prevailing notions of proportionality in sentencing policy and for certain other jurisprudential problems.Attempts have occasionally been made to meet the requirements of research in this area by selecting an arbitrary measure of severity, such as imprisonment rates. Other researchers have assigned arbitrary weights to the various penalties. What is required, however, is the development of an empirically based scale, deriving from respondents' perceptions of the relative severity of various penalties. The methodology employed in measuring the seriousness of offenses may be adapted for this purpose.Tentative findings of an exploratory study are considered.In view of the proliferation of sophisticated techniques of quantification currently applied in criminological research, it is rather surprising to observe that in one vital area the development of such techniques seems to have been neglected. That is the problem of the severity of penalties meted out by the criminal courts.The question we are addressing is essentially the following: What is the relative severity of the various penalties commonly imposed by the courts? By way of illustration, we may ask whether a suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment, which may or may not be implemented at some future date, is a more or less severe penalty than a three-month sentence of peremptory imprisonment ? And how do these sentences compare with an order for probation supervision for a period of ten years-or a $10,000 fine? Most controversial of all: Does a sentence of life imprisonment approach the death penalty in terms of severity-or perhaps even surpass it?This type of question does not, of course, arise when considering two prison sentences of different lengths, or two fines of different amounts. Here, how-

Purposes of punishment: Effects of utilities of criminal sanctions on perceived appropriateness.

“…It was important to have subjects rate a wide range of possible penalties that varied substantially in perceived utility for the various purposes and appropriateness to get an adequate idea of the effects of the perceived utilities over the entire range of possible penalties. A set of 30 possible penalties including 9 fines, 6 probation terms, 14 imprisonment terms, and the death penalty was used in the present experiment, These penalties were a subset of the penalties examined by Sebba (1978) who was interested in scaling the relative severity of criminal sanctions. They were selected to cover as much as possible the full range of possible penalties that might be assigned by a sentencing judge.…”

“…They were selected to cover as much as possible the full range of possible penalties that might be assigned by a sentencing judge. The 30 penalties are shown in Figures 1 and 2 where they are placed on the horizontal axis using scale values obtained by Sebba (1978).…”

“…Figure I.Aggregate utility functions for assault and car theft from college students' ratings. Penalties are scaled on abscissa using values fromSebba (1978) in all figures.…”

Tackling selection bias in sentencing data analysis: a new approach based on a scale of severity

“…Subjects are presented with a series of choices; for each choice, they are asked to identify the option they perceive to be more intense (severe, in our case). As such, the rationale of the application of Thurstone's paired comparisons to the estimation of sentence severity resides on the concept of 'penal exchangeability', which points at the existence of overlaps in severity between different disposal types (Erickson and Gibbs, 1979;Harlow et al, 1995;McClelland and Alpert, 1985;Sebba, 1978;Sebba and Nathan, 1984;Leclerc and Tremblay, 2016;Lovegrove, 2001;Petersilia and Deschesnes, 1994a,b;Spelman, 1995;Tremblay, 1988). For example, high community orders with onerous conditions attached might in some instances be more severe than short suspended sentences.…”

Équivalences pénales et solutions de rechange à l’emprisonnement : la métrique pénale implicite des tribunaux criminels

“…L'ensemble de ces correspondances constitue l'objet d'étude de ce qu'on pourrait appeler la «métrique pénale». Un certain nombre de techniques ont été mises au point pour mesurer la sévérité perçue des peines que les tribunaux infligent aux délinquants pour les crimes qu'ils ont commis (Sebba, 1978;Erickson et Gibbs, 1979;Buchner, 1979;Sebba et Nathan, 1984;McClelland et Alpert, 1985;Allen et Benson, 1985).…”