Public's Concept of the Gravity and Punishability of Different Offenses (From Pafoljdsval, strafmatning och straffvarde, P 72-85, 1980, M Nasberg, ed. - See NCJ-80645)

• NCJ Number: 80649
• Author(s): P Linden; M Simila
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 14 pages
• Sale Source: Liber Distribution Foerlagsorder
• Country: Sweden

Annotation

A cross-sectional survey of 2,865 Swedish citizens tested knowledge of sentencing practices, attitudes towards these practices and the purpose of sentences, and perceptions of the gravity of certain illegal and quasi-legal behaviors.

Abstract

Respondents indicated that Sweden's sentencing practices were too lenient. They felt that sentences should serve to rehabilitate the offender and protect society, and to a lesser degree, deter the criminal from further crime and uphold respect for the law. They felt that the current system mainly worked to protect society and avenge the crime. Respondents' general knowledge of the penal system was relatively good. For instance, they knew which acts were punishable. However, when respondents were asked about the maximum and type of sentences meted out for 12 illegal acts, only 24 percent responded correctly to the first question, 50 percent to the second. Rating 21 illegal and quasi-legal behaviors on a seriousness scale from very mild to very grave, respondents took the victim into account. Personal crimes were rated more serious than victimless crimes and crimes against corporations or institutions. Perceptions of fitting sentences for these 21 behaviors correlated closely with scores ranking the behaviors by moral gravity. Counter to their generalized statement on sentencing laxity, respondents did not call for stiffer sentences for the specific behaviors. When asked why citizens uphold the law, credited fear of the law and of being punished and distaste for living in a lawless environment. Study data are provided.