Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?

Caroline A. Spiranovic, Lynne D. Roberts, David Indermaur, Kate Warner, Karen Gelb, Geraldine Mackenzie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)289-306
Number of pages18
JournalCriminology and Criminal Justice
Volume12
Issue number3
Early online date26 Dec 2011
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2012

Fingerprint

offender
offense
history
rehabilitation
penalty
assault
regression analysis
logistics
scenario
Law

Cite this

Spiranovic, Caroline A. ; Roberts, Lynne D. ; Indermaur, David ; Warner, Kate ; Gelb, Karen ; Mackenzie, Geraldine. / Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?. In: Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2012 ; Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 289-306.
@article{b1a883ff88a9435b884f65830a00e266,
title = "Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?",
abstract = "Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.",
author = "Spiranovic, {Caroline A.} and Roberts, {Lynne D.} and David Indermaur and Kate Warner and Karen Gelb and Geraldine Mackenzie",
year = "2012",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1748895811431847",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "289--306",
journal = "Criminology and Criminal Justice",
issn = "1466-8025",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make? / Spiranovic, Caroline A.; Roberts, Lynne D.; Indermaur, David; Warner, Kate; Gelb, Karen; Mackenzie, Geraldine.

In: Criminology and Criminal Justice, Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.07.2012, p. 289-306.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?

AU - Spiranovic, Caroline A.

AU - Roberts, Lynne D.

AU - Indermaur, David

AU - Warner, Kate

AU - Gelb, Karen

AU - Mackenzie, Geraldine

PY - 2012/7/1

Y1 - 2012/7/1

N2 - Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.

AB - Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84862668760&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1748895811431847

DO - 10.1177/1748895811431847

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 289

EP - 306

JO - Criminology and Criminal Justice

JF - Criminology and Criminal Justice

SN - 1466-8025

IS - 3

ER -