Abstract
The use of intensive supervision programs (ISPs) and other forms of intermediate penal sanctions is increasing in the United States. This paper describes a preliminary investigation of the extent to which informed New Jersey residents believe that intermediate sanctions that are currently being implemented in their state are severe. Using cross-modality matching of magnitude estimation techniques adopted from psychophysics, we obtained severity ratings of 32 sentences across six sentencing modalities (ISPs, probation, imprisonment, home detention, weekend sentencing, and fines) from respondents who had been briefed beforehand about what these sentences entail. Results indicate that our respondents agree that ISPs, weekend sentencing, and home detention have retributive “bite” and may be accepted as sentences in their own right. Probation was seen as being relatively lenient, while imprisonment was seen as highly severe.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ball, R. A., and Lilly, J. R. (1988). Home incarceration with electronic monitoring. In Scott, J. E., and Hirschi, T. (eds.),Controversial Issues in Crime and Justice, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 147–165.
Ball, R. A., Huff, C. R., and Lilly, J. R. (1988).House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Byrne, J. M., and Pattavina, A. (1992). The effectiveness issue: Addressing what works in the adult community corrections system. In Byrne, J., Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (eds.),Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 281–303.
Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (eds.) (1992).Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Cross, D. V. (1973). Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical studies.Percept. Psychophys. 14: 547–552.
Cross, D. V. (1974). Some technical notes on psychophysical scaling. In Moskowitz, H.,et al. (eds.),Sensation and Measurement: Papers in Honor of S. S. Stevens, Reidel Press, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Cross, D. V. (1981). On judgments of magnitude. In Wegener, B. (ed.),Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Doble, J., Immerwahr, S., and Richardson, A. (1991).Punishing Criminals: The People of Delaware Consider the Options, Public Agenda Foundation for the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, New York.
Erikson, M. L., and Gibbs, J. P. (1979). On the perceived severity of legal penalties.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 70: 102–116.
Evans-Skovron, S. (1988). Prison crowding: The dimensions of the problem and strategies of population control. In Scott, J. E., and Hirschi, T. (eds.),Controversial Issues in Crime and Justice, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 183–198.
Gescheider, G. A., Catlin, E. C., and Fontana, A. M. (1982). Psychophysical measurement of the judged seriousness of crimes and the severity of punishments.Bull. Psychonom. Soc. 19: 275–278.
Harland, A., and Rosen, C. J. (1977). Sentencing theory and intensive supervision caseload.Fed. Probat. 51: 33–42.
Hays, W. L. (1981).Statistics, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
Hester, T. (1992). “Home jail”: Parole board places three murderers, rapist, in state's electronic monitoring program.Star-Ledger (New Jersey) Sept. 15: 1, 19.
Lodge, M. (1981).Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (1992). The emergence of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. In Byrne, J., Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (eds.),Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 3–17.
Parton, D. A., Hansel, M., and Stratton, J. R. (1991). Measuring crime seriousness: Lessons learned from the National Survey of Crime Severity.Br. J. Criminol. 31: 72–85.
Pearson, F. S., and Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program.Crime Delinq. 36: 75–86.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982).Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Orlando, FL.
Petersilia, J., Lurigio, A. J., and Byrne, J. M. (1992a). Introduction: The emergence of intermediate sanctions. In Byrne, J., Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (eds.),Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. ix-xv.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., and Deschenes, E. P. (1992b). Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In Byrne, J., Lurigio, A. J., and Petersilia, J. (eds.),Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 18–37.
Prentice, D. A., and Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64: 243–256.
Robinson, P. H. (1987a). Hybrid principles for the distribution of criminal sanctions.Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 82: 19–42.
Robinson, P. H. (1987b). A sentencing system for the 21st century?Texas Law Rev. 66: 1–61.
Robinson, P. H. (1993a). Desert, crime control, disparity, and units of punishment. In Duff, A.,et al. (eds.),Penal Theory and Penal Practice, Manchester University Press, Manchester, England (in press).
Robinson, P. H. (1993b).Is the criminal law just? Studies in community assessments of liability and blame. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University School of Law.
Rossi, P. H., Simpson, J. E., and Miller, J. L. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the crime.J. Quant. Criminol. 1: 59–90.
Sebba, L., and Nathan, G. (1984). Further explorations in the scaling of penalties.Br. J. Criminol. 23: 221–247.
Sellin, J. T., and Wolfgang, M. E. (1964).The Measurement of Delinquency, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Shinn, A., Jr., (1974). Relations between scales. In Blalock, H. M., Jr (ed.),Measurement in the Social Sciences: Theories and Strategies, Aldine Press, Chicago.
Smith, D. A., and Uchida, C. D. (1988). The social organization of self-help: A study of defensive weapon ownershipAm. Sociol. Rev. 53: 94–102.
Stevens, S. S. (1966). A metric for social consensus.Science 151: 530–541.
Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Tyler, T. (1990).Why People Obey the Law, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Vass, A. (1990).Alternatives to Prison, Sage, London.
Wilson, C. (1993). Fatal driver seeks “jail” time at mom's beach house.The Trentonian July 23: 1, 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harlow, R.E., Darley, J.M. & Robinson, P.H. The severity of intermediate penal sanctions: A psychophysical scaling approach for obtaining community perceptions. J Quant Criminol 11, 71–95 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221301
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221301