Abstract
In public opinion polls, a substantial proportion of lay respondents report that judges are too lenient. We examine the factors that contribute to this perceived judicial leniency. The majority of lay respondents in our study said that judges are “too lenient” in their sentencing of burglary offenders; yet, their own sentencing preferences were more lenient than the required minimum sentence for residential burglary. Our survey and experimental data suggest that citizens' opinions are formed by their inaccurate impressions of the seriousness of actual criminal cases as well as actual judicial sentencing practices. Our experimental research indicates that opinions of judicial leniency can be changed by providing respondents with an example of the typical case that comes before the court. Directions for future research are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amemiya, T. (1985).Advanced econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public's view.Law & Society Review, 14(2), 223–261.
Cardozo, B. N. (1921).The nature of the judicial process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Carroll, J. S., Perkowitz, W. T., Lurigio, A. J., & Weaver, F. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1, 107–118.
Cullen, F. T., Gilbert, K. E., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Implementing determinant sentencing in Illinois: Conscience and convenience.Criminal Justice Review, 8, 1–16.
Daley, R. M. (1983). Alternative report to the final report of the Governor's task force on prison crowding. Office of the State's Attorney Cook County Illinois.
Diamond, S. S. (1989). Using psychology to control law: From deceptive advertising to criminal sentences.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 239–252.
Diamond, S. S., & Stalans, L. J. (1989). The myth of judicial leniency in sentencing.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7(1), 73–89.
Doob, A. N., & Roberts, J. V. (1984). Social psychology, social attitudes, and attitudes toward sentencing.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science Review, 16(4, 269–280.
Doob, A. N., & Roberts, J. (1988). Public punitiveness and public knowledge of the facts: Some Canadian surveys. In N. Walker & M. Hough (Eds.).Public attitudes to sentencing: Surveys from five countries (pp. 111–133). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
DuMouchel, W. H. (1976). On the analogy between linear and log-linear regression. Technical Report No. 67. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Statistics.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1978). Attitudes towards capital punishment: From application to theory. Paper presented at society of Experimental Social Psychology Symposium on Psychology and Law, Princeton, NJ.
Fagan, R. W. (1981). Public support for the courts: An examination of alternative explanations.Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 403–418.
Flanagan, T. J., McGarrell, E. F., & Brown, E. J. (1985). Public perceptions of the criminal courts: The role of demographic and related attitudinal variables.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(1, 66–82.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gibson, J. L. (1980). Environmental constraints on the behavior of judges: A representational model of judicial decision-makingLaw & Society Review, 14(2, 343–370.
Goodstein, L., & Hepburn, J. (1986). Determinate sentencing in Illinois: An assessment of its policy development and implementation.Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1(3, 305–328.
Graber, D. (1980). Media and public images of criminals and victims. InCrime news and the public (pp. 45–66) New York: Praeger.
Hough, M., & Lewis, H. (1985). Penal hawks and penal doves: Attitudes to punishment in the British Crime Survey.Home Office Research Bulletin, No. 22, London: Home Office.
Hough, M., & Mayhew, P. (1985). Dealing with crime: Public attitudes.Home Office Research Study, No. 85, London: HMSO.
Illinois Revised Statutes (1987), ch. 38, par. 19-3.
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives.Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.),Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Mackie, D. (1984). Attitude prototypes as determinants of attitudebehavior consistency.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6, 1254–1266.
Maquire, M. (1984). Meeting the needs of burglary victims: Questions for the police and the criminal justice system. In R. Clarke & T. Hope (Eds.),Coping with burglary (pp. 219–232). England: Klumwer-Nigloff.
Ragona, A. J., & Ryan, J. P. (1983).Beyond the courtroom: A comparative analysis of misdemeanor sentencing. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Samuel, W., & Moulds, E. (1986). The effect of crime severity on perceptions of fair punishment: A California case study.The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 77(3, 931–948.
Sarat, A. (1977). Studying American legal culture: An assessment of survey evidence.Law & Society Review, 11, 427–488.
Skovron, S. E., Scott, J. E., & Cullen, F. T. (1988). Prison crowding: Public attitudes toward strategies of population control.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(2, 150–169.
Stalans, L. J., & Lurigio, A. (In press). Probation officers' and lay beliefs about criminal events and punishment: A need for theory, perhaps schema theory.Criminal Justice and Behavior. (Special Issue on Decision-making in Criminal Justice Settings).
Stalans, L. J. (1989). Formation of beliefs about criminal events and punishment: Contextual factors and biased recall. Unpublished manuscript.
Thomson, D., & Ragona, A. J. (1987). A revisionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions: Effects of specification.Crime and Delinquency, 33(2, 337–357.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement.Psychological Bulletin, 103(3, 299–314.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude?Law & Society Review, 17(1, 21–45.
Walker, N., Hough, M., & Lewis, H. (1988). Tolerance of leniency and severity in England and Wales. In N. Walker and M. Hough (Eds.),Public attitudes to sentencing: Surveys from five countries (pp. 178–202). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Walker, J., Collins, M., & Wilson, P. (1988). How the public sees sentencing: An Australian survey. In N. Walker and M. Hough (Eds),Public attitudes to sentencing: Surveys from five countries (pp. 149–159). Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Waller, I., & Okihiro, N. (1978).Burglary: The victim and the public. Toronton: University of Toronto Press.
Warr, M., Meier, R., & Erickson, M. L. (1983). Norms, theories of punishment and publicly preferred penalties for crimes.Sociological Quarterly, 24, 75–91.
Williams, K., Gibbs, J. P., & Erickson, M. L. (1980). Public knowledge of statutory penalties: The extent and basis of accurate perceptions.Pacific Sociological Review, 23, 105–128.
Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Attitude-behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 432–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We wish to express gratitude to Patti Vea, who, under the supervision of the first author, collected and entered the data from mass transit riders. We are indebted to Judge Warren Wolfson, Court Administrator Jeff Arnold, Chief Judge Harry Comerford, and Judge Frank W. Barbaro and his jury pool officers who gave us permission and assistance in obtaining juror participation for this research. We would like to thank Tom Tyler and Patrick McAnany for their insightful comments on earlier drafts, and editor Ron Roesch and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
About this article
Cite this article
Stalans, L.J., Diamond, S.S. Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing. Law Hum Behav 14, 199–214 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352749
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01352749