Exploring Public Attitudes to Sentencing Factors in England and Wales

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511979170.010

Chapter Nine - Exploring Public Attitudes to Sentencing Factors in England and Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 September 2011

Julian V. Roberts and

Mike Hough

Edited by

Julian V. Roberts

Show author details

Julian V. Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Our volume now moves away from the theory and practice of mitigation and aggravation at sentencing to consider the views of the community. The next chapter, by Austin Lovegrove, reports findings from a project involving members of the public and judges in Australia. In this chapter we draw on a number of large-scale quantitative surveys to explore public attitudes to the factors that aggravate or mitigate sentence. The purpose of this essay is to describe recent research findings which illuminate public attitudes to a number of common sentencing factors. These results challenge the view that the public are inflexible, punitive sentencers with little interest in mitigation, and shed light on the model of sentencing to which many people subscribe.

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

The chapter begins by discussing some recent survey trends with respect to public attitudes to sentencing. We then discuss some reasons why we might want to know about attitudes to mitigation and aggravation. Some methodological caveats are issued; different approaches to measuring public attitudes will yield very different responses. This discussion is followed by a presentation of some specific research findings from a study involving a large, representative sample of the public in England and Wales. Finally, we draw some conclusions for the sentencing process.

Type: Chapter
Information: Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing , pp. 168 - 187

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979170.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ashworth, A. 2010 Sentencing and Criminal JusticeCambridge University PressCrossRef Google Scholar

Beetham, D. 1991 The Legitimation of PowerBasingstokePalgrave MacmillanCrossRef Google Scholar

British Crime Survey 2009

Clarke, A.Moran-Ellis, J.Sleney, J. 2002 Attitudes to Date Rape and Relationship Rape: A Qualitative StudyLondonSentencing Advisory PanelGoogle Scholar

Darley, J.Carlsmith, K.Robinson, P. 2000 Incapacitation and Just Deserts as Motives for PunishmentLaw and Human Behavior 24 659CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Home Office 2001 Making Punishments WorkLondonHome OfficeGoogle Scholar

Hough, M.Roberts, J. V. 1998 Attitudes to Punishment: Findings from the British Crime SurveyLondonHome OfficeGoogle Scholar

Hough, M.Roberts, J. V. 2004 Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and WalesBristolThe Policy PressGoogle Scholar

Hough, M.Jackson, J.Bradford, B.Myhill, A.Quinton, P. 2010 Procedural Justice, Trust, and Institutional LegitimacyPolicing 4 203CrossRef Google Scholar

Hough, M.Roberts, J. V.Jacobson, J.Steele, N.Moon, N. 2009 www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Jacobson, J.Hough, M. 2007 Mitigation: The Role of Personal Factors at SentencingLondonPrison Reform TrustGoogle Scholar

Maslen, H. 2011

Roberts, J. V. 1988 Public Opinion and SentencingOttawaDepartment of Justice CanadaGoogle Scholar

Roberts, J. V. 2003 Public Opinion and Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment: A Review of International FindingsCriminal Justice and Behavior 20 1Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. 2008 Aggravating and Mitigating Factors at Sentencing: Towards Greater Consistency of ApplicationCriminal Law Review264Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. 2008 Punishing Persistence: Explaining the Enduring Appeal of the Recidivist Sentencing PremiumBritish Journal of Criminology 48 468CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. 2009 Explaining the Enduring Appeal of the Recidivist Sentencing Premium: The Role of Blameworthinessvon Hirsch, A.Ashworth, A.Roberts, J. V.Principled SentencingOxfordHart PublishingGoogle Scholar

Roberts, J. V. 2011 Community Views of Sentencing: Intuitive and Principled Responses to OffendingTonry, M.Punishment FuturesOxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Roberts, J. V.Gebotys, R. 1989 The Purposes of Sentencing: Public Support for Competing AimsBehavioural Sciences and the Law 7 387CrossRef Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V.Hough, M. 2005 Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal JusticeMaidenheadOpen University PressGoogle Scholar

Robinson, P. 2009 Empirical DesertRobinson, P.Garvey, S.Ferzan, K.Criminal Law ConversationsOxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Robinson, D. T.Smith-Lovin, L.Tsoudis, O. 1994 Heinous Crime or Unfortunate Accident? The Effects of Remorse on Responses to Mock Criminal ConfessionsSocial Forces 73 175CrossRef Google Scholar

Russell, N.Morgan, R. 2001 Sentencing of Domestic BurglaryLondonSentencing Councilwww.sentencingcouncil.org.ukGoogle Scholar

Sentencing Council 2010 www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

Sentencing Guidelines Council 2008 http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/guidelines-to-download.htm

Silvey, J. 1961 The Criminal Law and Public OpinionCriminal Law Review349Google Scholar

Tudor, S. 2008 Why Should Remorse Be a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing?Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 241CrossRef Google Scholar

Tyler, T. R. 2007 Legitimacy and Criminal JusticeNew YorkRussell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar

Tyler, T. R.Huo, Y. J. 2002 Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and CourtsNew YorkRussell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar

von Hirsch, A. 2010 Proportionality and Progressive Loss of Mitigation: Further ReflectionsRoberts, J. V.von Hirsch, A.The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied PerspectivesOxfordHart PublishingGoogle Scholar