NCJ Number
114408
Date Published
1988
Length
27 pages
Annotation
Attitudes toward Canadian crime policies and factors affecting punitiveness of attitudes were evaluated in data from a 1984 study (Brillon et al).
Abstract
In general, the public perceived the function of sentences to be deterrent and to protect the public rather than to be expiative, socially reintegrative, reparative, or vengeful. Further, the public appears to define the object of the sentence and the type of sentence in terms of what will best ensure their own safety. Public attitudes toward sentence severity appear geared to the violent and recidivist offender, and because of this, are expressed almost exclusively in terms of imprisonment. The majority of respondents do not feel that long terms of confinement are inhumane, and only a minority of respondents support improvements in prison living conditions. The conception that sentences provide a means of ostracism for ensuring safety is confirmed in attitudes toward the appropriate sentences for various types of crimes, as well as by criteria used in evaluating the appropriateness of the death penalty. Criteria by which appropriateness of the sanction is assessed include the age of the offender, the impulsive or premeditated nature of the offense, the personality of the criminal, and the characteristics of the victim. An examination of factors affecting punitiveness of attitudes failed to find any connection between punitiveness and sex, victimization, or fear of crime. Punitiveness was associated with higher income, home ownership, English Canadian background, older age, rural residence, and less education. Finally, punitiveness of attitudes was associated with greater pessimism about rehabilitation, less favorable attitudes toward improving prison conditions, and more positive attitudes toward repressive sentences. 8 tables, 2 notes, and 7 references.