| Abstract: | 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. |
