The purposes of sentencing: Public support for competing aims

With reform of the sentencing process a priority in both the United States and Canada, there has been a growth of interest in public attitudes toward the goals of sentencing. Two studies investigated the layperson's view of the appropriate purpose of sentencing offenders. Previous work on this topic has simply provided subjects with a checklist of sentencing purposes and asked them to endorse one. The present research—using both college students and members of the general public—employed a procedure that allows researchers to infer the principle underlying sentencing decisions. In the first study, subjects rated the importance of several sentencing purposes and also assigned sentences to offenders described in scenarios. Severity of assigned sentence was significantly correlated only with the seriousness of the offence. Ratings of the importance of general deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation were not significantly related to severity of recommended penalties. This result contrasts with the importance ratings of these purposes provided by the subjects themselves. These findings were replicated in the second study, which employed an independent sample of subjects. In contrast to the results of opinion polls, it would appear that the public is more concerned with the principle of just deserts than with the utilitarian sentencing aims such as deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation. The methodological implications of this research and the consequences of these findings for sentencing policy are discussed.     

Guidelines are not enough: The need for written sentencing opinions

Guideline sentencing systems, including the new federal guidelines, have not settled on a clear conception of when and how a trial judge should explain sentences. Indeterminate sentencing systems did not have a tradition of written sentencing decisions and recent sentencing reforms do not focus on the trial judge's role. This article suggests the many advantages of written sentencing opinions. Initial experience under the federal sentencing guidelines bolsters the conclusion that written sentencing opinions in appropriate cases—including both sentences “within” guidelines and guideline “departures”—are the next step in the evolving law of sentencing and the best way to recognize trial judges as an essential engine of principled change.     

Sentencing severity with mock jurors: Predictive validity of three variable categories

Previous studies have identified three categories of variables which influence decisions of mock jurors: type of crime, defendant characteristics, and personal characteristics of jurors. This study manipulated the following variables towards the ends of assessing their influence on mock jurors' sentencing severity: premeditated vs. unpremeditated murder, black vs. white defendant, low SES vs. high SES defendant. Only defendant SES predicted sentencing severity: low SES defendants were assigned significantly longer sentences than high SES defendants. None of the measures of juror characteristics correlated with sentencing severity. Failure to replicate significant relationships with most of these variables and sentencing severity suggest that results of studies which manipulate only one variable dimension may overestimate the influence of these variable dimensions in mock jurors' decisions.     

Assumed race moderates spontaneous racial bias in a computer‐based police simulation

We demonstrated that playing the roles of different outgroup races can elicit extrapersonal racial bias associated with respective racial groups. In a modified version of a computer‐based police simulation, the police officer's race was visually manipulated to be either Black or White. Korean participants made quick decisions whether to shoot targets (Black or White, armed or unarmed) on screen. Comparison of behavioral bias in the task revealed that, as expected, playing the role of a White police officer was associated with a stronger bias against Black targets compared to playing a Black police officer's role. The result suggests that when a social category is activated, one's race‐related behavior can reflect one's beliefs about the biases that members of that category hold.     

Another Look at the Impact of Juror Sentiments toward Defendants on Juridic Decisions

Abstract

This experiment tested the hypothesis that jurors' preexisting biases (sentiments) toward an accused would have a much stronger impact on the sentences that jurors recommended than on the verdicts they rendered. Specifically, a balance theory analysis of juridic decisions specifies that predeliberation sentiments toward the defendant would have little if any direct effect on jury verdicts and would be associated with verdicts rendered only if the information establishing these sentiments also implied a unit relation between the defendant and the crime. Six-person juries deliberated the case of an accused robber and murderer who had no prior criminal record, a prior conviction for a dissimilar crime, or a prior conviction for a similar crime. While on the witness stand, the defendant either withheld information or provided answers for all questions. The results provided strong support for the hypothesis. In addition, jurors' predeliberation sentiments toward the accused were unrelated either to the tone of juridic deliberations or to postdeliberation assessments of the defendant's guilt. By contrast, juror sentiments toward the defendant were a solid predictor of the severity of sentences assigned by those who voted to convict the accused.     

How help during pregnancy can undermine self-efficacy and increase postpartum intentions to quit

Pregnancy reflects a common experience for women in today's workforce, yet recent data suggest that some women scale back or leave the workforce following childbirth. Considering these effects on women's careers, researchers have sought to understand the underlying dynamics of these decisions. Here, we explore a paradoxical reason for weakened postpartum career attitudes: help that women receive during pregnancy. We integrate stereotype threat and benevolent sexism theories to explain how the effects of help on postpartum intentions to quit may be transmitted through reductions in work self-efficacy. In doing so, we consider the role of perceived impact—or the extent to which help interferes with versus enables women's perceived ability to continue performing their work role. Results of a weekly diary study of 105 pregnant employees suggest that work-interfering help led to decreased self-efficacy for work during the following week. Furthermore, there was an indirect effect of average help received at work during pregnancy on postpartum intentions to quit the workforce through reductions in work self-efficacy that was stronger insofar as help was work-interfering versus work-enabling. Taken together, our results highlight unintended negative consequences that occur when others provide ineffective support to women at work during pregnancy.     

Group Communication and Decision-Making Performance A Continued Test of the Functional Perspective

The purpose of this investigation was to demonstrate that group decision-making performance is contingent on the effective or ineffective satisfaction of important decisional functions. The investigation involved three related studies. In the first study, an attempt was made to confirm the existence of systematic relationships between the quality of group decisions and the satisfaction of four functional requirements. The results supported the existence of significant positive relationships between group decision-making performance and the satisfaction of these decisional functions. In the second study, an attempt was made to establish the independent main effects of each of those four functions. Using a three-dimensional interaction coding scheme, it was found that variations in group decision quality can be independently accounted for by the quality of interaction in regards to three functions—problem analysis, evaluation of positive qualities, and evaluation of negative qualities. In the third study, an attempt was made to demonstrate that the quality of group decisions can be traced to the effective or ineffective satisfaction of decisional functions. The results provide conclusive evidence (at least at the level of primary reasoning), that the quality of a group's decision is a direct result of the group's ability (or inability) to perform important decisional functions. Taken as a whole, the studies thus offer continued support for the functional perspective.     

Examining Predictors Which May Influence Sentencing Outcomes for Individuals Convicted of Offenses against Children: A Brief Report

Numerous studies examine sentencing decisions, yet little attention has been given to sentencing of child maltreatment and, more specifically, on variables that could impact sentencing outcomes for this form of criminality. Using Pennsylvania Sentencing Data for 2006, this research adds to the existing sentencing research by exploring predictors that might influence sentencing decisions for individuals convicted of crimes against children. The findings indicate that offender sex significantly affects the sentencing decision and offender age significantly affects sentencing length. In addition, all offense characteristics significantly influence the sentencing length decision. Implication of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Toward a Comprehensive Understanding of Officers’ Shooting Decisions: No Simple Answers to This Complex Problem

Police officers make life-or-death shooting decisions in complex situations under extreme time pressure. If officers make a mistake, there are dire consequences—they could kill an innocent or be killed themselves. In contrast to prior work's near-exclusive focus on suspect race, the present study examined features of methodology, officers, suspects, and neighborhoods that may affect officers’ shooting decisions. Empirical exploration of officers’ shooting decisions and mistakes is still in its infancy, and given the seriousness and importance of this phenomenon—and the potential for this research to inform policy decisions—additional research is needed.     

Race,Religion, and Black Lives Matter: Assessing the Association between Sermon Content and Racial Justice Attitudes and Behaviors

We use the 2020/2021 National Politics Study to examine two central questions: 1. How do religious beliefs and clergy sermons about race associate with support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) and racial justice work? And 2. Is the relationship between religion and BLM-related attitudes and activism similar or different across race groups? We found the following: In the months following the summer of 2020 protests in response to George Floyd's murder, African, Hispanic, and White American worship goers who heard sermons about race and policing were more likely than were their co-ethnics to approve of BLM and to engage in racial justice work. Identifying with the religious left and believing that social justice is a core part of one's religaious beliefs is also associated with these groups approving of BLM and engaging in racial justice work. That said, race matters. These forms of religion tend to maintain stronger relationships with White BLM-related attitudes and activism than they do for African Americans and Hispanics.     

Apolitical courts? Rape sentencing in Montana

This analysis examines dockets of the state courts of Montana for the years 1987-1989 in rape cases to determine whether sentencing decisions are significantly related to three political variables: the percentage of women in county executive office as a measure of a relevant judicial constituency, the extent to which the county in which a court is located is Democratic, and whether the judge who enters a decision was appointed or elected. The analysis suggests that two legally relevant facts—the crime rate and multiple charges against a defendant—are significantly related to outcome. Political factors do not appear to influence state court sentencing decisions in rape cases since: (1) sentencing decisions in rape cases are not ‘major’, publicized issues; (2) the selection of state court judges (appointed and elected) is nonpartisan; and (3) interest groups were not involved in rape sentencing cases.     

Sentencing Disparity: Perforce or Perchance?1

Important sources of variability in sentencing judgments are identified by decomposing these judgments in a Crime × Judge analysis of variance into a Crime main effect (representing consensus) and several forms of disparity. Two systematic forms of disparity are (1) the Judge main effect, reflecting differences in overall harshness or leniency of different judges; and (2) the Crime × Judge interaction, reflecting idiosyncracies—perhaps principled—in the way particular judges view particular crimes. A third unsystematic form of disparity is reflected in variations in how the same judge views the same crime/offender on different occasions, that is, unreliability. Data from an experiment in which state district judges made sentencing decisions about the same crime/offenders on two occasions are presented to illustrate application of the model and obtain disparity estimates for 13 crimes. Results reveal that for most of the crimes disparity can be attributed primarily to simple unreliability over occasions rather than principled disagreements among judges. Implications of these results and the importance of distinguishing different types of disparity are discussed.     

Revisions and Regret: The Cost of Changing your Mind

Decision reversals often imply improved decisions. Yet, people show a strong resistance against changing their minds. These are well‐established findings, which suggest that changed decisions carry a subjective cost, perhaps by being more strongly regretted. Three studies were conducted to explore participants' regret when making reversible decisions and to test the hypothesis that changing one's mind will increase post‐outcome regret. The first two studies employed the Ultimatum game and the Trust game. The third study used a variant of the Monty Hall problem. All games were conducted by individual participants playing interactively against a computer. The outcomes were designed to capture a common characteristic of real‐life decisions: they varied from rather negative to fairly positive, and for every outcome, it was possible to imagine both more and less profitable outcomes. In all experiments, those who changed their minds reported much stronger post‐outcome regret than those who did not change, even if the final outcomes were equally good (Experiments 2 and 3) or better (Experiment 1).This finding was not because of individual differences with respect to gender, tendency to regret, or tendency to maximize. Previous studies have found that those who change from a correct to wrong option regret more than those who select a wrong option directly. This study indicates that this finding is a special case of a more general phenomenon: changing one's mind seems to come with a cost, even when one ends up with favorable outcomes. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sentencing Convicted Juvenile Felony Offenders in the Adult Court: The Direct Effects of Race

While research indicates that Black and Hispanic adults sentenced in the criminal court tend to be rendered more severe punishments than their White counterparts, only one prior study has examined whether this finding holds for juveniles tried in the adult system. The findings from this sole study need replication, however, since the effects posed by trial type were not taken into account and it is likely that the results are confounded by measurement error resulting from overlap in criminal sentencing. The current study addressed these issues by assessing whether race has a direct impact on waived juveniles being criminally sentenced to restitution, probation, or jail. Data were derived from a secondary, cross‐sectional national dataset on felony juvenile offenders convicted in the adult system. Three hypotheses were tested. After controlling for a number of important legal and extra‐legal predictors of sentencing, race differences in sentencing outcomes were observed and the findings yielded partial support for the hypotheses. The implications of the research are noted. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Relation of Affect Control Theory to the Sentencing of Criminals

Abstract

Past researchers (A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, S. E. Martin, & M. H. Tonry, 1983; A. Von Hirsch & H. Gross, 1981) have explored legal variables and demonstrated the significance of various criteria (e.g., criminal's prior record, seriousness of offense, influence of victim) on the sentencing of criminals. Affect control theory (D. R. Heise, 1979) focuses on inferences about the identity of the criminal. In the present study, the author examined the influence of the foregoing legal variables and affect control theory in sentencing decisions by using U.S. undergraduates' reactions to statements of criminals and of victims. Results of a 2 (criminal's emotion: sad vs. unconcerned) x 2 (victim's emotion: sad vs. unconcerned) x 2 (prior record: none vs. auto theft) factorial design supported affect control theory and demonstrated the significance of the victim's perceived identity in sentencing decisions, even when information about the prior record was provided.     

Intellectual humility predicts COVID-19 preventive practices through greater adoption of data-driven information and feelings of responsibility

Preventive health practices have been crucial to mitigating viral spread during the COVID-19 pandemic. In two studies, we examined whether intellectual humility—openness to one's existing knowledge being inaccurate—related to greater engagement in preventive health practices (social distancing, handwashing, mask-wearing). In Study 1, we found that intellectually humble people were more likely to engage in COVID-19 preventive practices. Additionally, this link was driven by intellectually humble people's tendency to adopt information from data-driven sources (e.g., medical experts) and greater feelings of responsibility over the outcomes of COVID-19. In Study 2, we found support for these relationships over time (2 weeks). Additionally, Study 2 showed that the link between intellectual humility and preventive practices was driven by a greater tendency to adopt data-driven information when encountering it, rather than actively seeking out such information. These findings reveal the promising role of intellectual humility in making well-informed decisions during public health crises.     

A Comparison of Anglo-American and Mexican-American Jurors' Judgments of Mothers Who Fail to Protect Their Children from Abuse1

Two studies were conducted to determine if people with an individualist cultural background differ from those with a collectivist cultural background (Triandis, 1990) in their adjudication of mothers who fail to protect their children from abuse. In the first study, 452 students evaluated the case of a mother accused of failure to protect her son from physical abuse. In the second study, an additional 334 subjects considered a case of a mother's failure to protect her daughter from sexual abuse. While the verdicts depended on the gender of the juror, female jurors were significantly more likely to convict the defendant; the verdict was independent of ethnicity. However, ethnicity did influence sentencing and whether the juror recommended that the defendant serve time. The results are discussed in terms of cultural influences on discretionary decisions.     

A "change-of-standard" perspective on the relations among context, judgment, and memory

We conducted three studies that tested a "change-of-standard" perspective on the relations among context, judgment, and recall. Each study consisted of two or three sessions held a few days apart. All subjects read about the sentencing decisions of one or two target trial judges and of six nontarget trial judges who consistently gave either higher or lower sentences than the target judge(s). Each study varied both the standard that was available when subjects initially judged the sentencing decisions of a target judge and the standard available when subjects subsequently recalled those decisions. To accomplish this, we varied the context of judgment, the timing of judgment, and the overall category norm for trial judges' sentencing decisions that was available at recall. We found that although subjects had been exposed to the same target information and had initially judged it in the same way, their recall of the information was different depending on whether and how a change-of-standard had occurred between judgment and recall. Unique predictions of the change-of-standard perspective were confirmed that could not be accounted for in terms of other types of context effects on judgment and memory.     

Perspective taking and member‐to‐group generalization of implicit racial attitudes: The role of target prototypicality

Actively considering an individual outgroup member's thoughts, feelings, and other subjective experiences —perspective taking— can improve attitudes toward that person's group. Here, we tested whether such member‐to‐group generalization of implicit racial attitudes is more likely when perspective‐taking targets are viewed as prototypical of their racial group. Results supported a gendered‐race‐prototype hypothesis: The positive effect of perspective taking on implicit attitudes toward Black people and Asian people, respectively, was stronger when the perspective‐taking target was a Black man or Asian woman (gender–race prototypical) versus a Black woman or Asian man (gender–race nonprototypical). These findings identify a boundary condition under which perspective taking may not improve intergroup attitudes and add to a growing literature on social cognition at the intersection of multiple social categories.