Public Judgement on Sentencing: Final Results From the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study

• NCJ Number: 233649
• Author(s): Kate Warner; Julia David; Maggie Walter; Rebecca Bradfield; Rachel Vermey
• Date Published: February 2011
• Length: 6 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Criminology Research Council
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: AIC Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 407, February 2011

Annotation

This seminal study, which was funded by the Criminology Research Council, is the first reported study to use jurors in real trials to gauge public opinion about sentences and sentencing.

Abstract

Using jurors is a way of investigating the views of members of the public who are as fully informed of the facts of the case and the background of the offender as the judge. Based upon jurors' responses from 138 trials, the study found that more than half of the jurors surveyed suggested a more lenient sentence than the trial judge imposed. Moreover, when informed of the sentence, 90 percent of jurors said that the judge's sentence was (very or fairly) appropriate. In contrast, responses to abstract questions about sentencing levels mirrored the results of representative surveys. The results of the study also suggest that providing information to jurors about crime and sentencing may be helpful in addressing misconceptions in these areas. (Published Abstract)