Measuring Public Perceptions of Appropriate Prison Sentences, Executive Summary

• NCJ Number: 199364
• Author(s): Mark A. Cohen; Roland T. Rust; Sara Steen
• Date Published: October 2002
• Length: 39 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1999-CE-VX-0001
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
• Corporate Author: Vanderbilt University
• Sale Source: Vanderbilt University; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Series: NIJ Research Report
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: See NCJ-199365 for the Final Report

Annotation

This executive summary reports on a study designed to test new methodologies for eliciting information about the public’s preferences regarding sentencing and parole of criminal offenders.

Abstract

The authors explain that their study relied heavily on the well-established method used by Wolfgang, et al. of sampling a portion of the U.S. population and asking them to respond to a series of crime vignettes. The goal of such a method is to gauge public perception of the seriousness of different crimes. In this case, however, the authors used a constrained-choice model designed to force the respondent to first choose which of a series of crimes is more serious, and second, how much they would be willing to pay to reduce crime in their community. Other important aspects of this study included: (1) the focus on crimes normally encountered by local criminal justice agencies; (2) the focus on the parole decision in a constrained-choice model; and (3) the incorporation of explicit tradeoffs of various crimes and sentences to better gauge public preferences. The authors also employed two new methodologies designed to gain information on the public’s willingness to pay for crime prevention and control policies. A nationally representative survey of 1,300 U.S. adults found that, with two exceptions, the public largely agreed with current sentencing decisions concerning incarceration and length of sentence. The authors found strong support for spending more money to further reduce crimes, although most preferred that the money go toward prevention programs and more police officers rather than more prisons. Finally, the authors elicited information about willingness to pay for crime reduction and found that most respondents were willing to pay between $75 and $150 per year for prevention programs that would reduce local crime rates by 10 percent. In conclusion, the authors note that this study is relevant for policymakers who use seriousness-of-crime surveys to decide current criminal justice and police policies. Tables, references