NCJ Number
86863
Journal
Journal of Applied Psychology Volume: 67 Issue: 3 Dated: (1982) Pages: 255-267
Date Published
1982
Length
13 pages
Annotation
Experiments with college students and judges investigated perceptions of the usefulness of various penalties in serving five commonly discussed purposes of sanctions -- incapacitation, just deserts, rehabilitation, general deterrence, and special deterrence. The study probed how these perceptions affect judgments about the punishment appropriate for a criminal offender.
Abstract
Subjects rated the usefulness of 30 possible penalties (including fines, probation terms, and imprisonment terms) in serving these purposes for 4 crimes. Results showed slight diference in details between the utility functions derived from judges' and college students' responses. The perceived utility of penalties in serving the purposes can change dramatically from crime to crime, especially true of the just deserts purpose. Just deserts was the most influential purpose from the students' viewpoint for all crimes but murder. The rehabilitation function changed from crime to crime for all subjects, and both groups attributed substantial rehabilitiative utility to imprisonment. The perceived appropriateness of penalties depends most strongly on their usefulness in giving offenders what they deserve rather than on incapacitative, rehabilitative, or deterrent utility, especially for the practicing judges. Data tables and graphs, 1 note, and 25 references are included.