NCJ Number
72662
Journal
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Volume: 36 Issue: 12 Dated: (December 1978) Pages: 1490-1500
Date Published
1978
Length
11 pages
Annotation
The cognitive processes underlying sentencing decisions made by college student subjects in a judicial decisionmaking experiment were examined.
Abstract
Small groups of three or four college students were randomly assigned to four strategy groups, three of which were instructed to follow either a retribution, a rehabilitation, or a deterrence strategy in sentencing. The fourth was a control group in which subjects were given no instructions about philosophy or strategy in sentencing. The type of crime and the physical attractiveness of the offender were systematically varied. Length of recommended prison term, subjects< judgments of seriousness of the crime, likelihood of recidivism, and blame attributed to offender and victim were examined. The pattern of strategy effects on prison term recommendations was generally consistent with that found in other studies involving actual cases. Deterrence group sentences were the most severe for all crimes, whereas the rehabilitation group sentences were the least severe for serious crimes only. Surprisingly, the rehabilitation groups subjects consistently blamed the victim of the crime more than did the other groups. If the adoption of a rehabilitation strategy, with its concomitant emphasis on helping the offender, induces subjects to empathize with the offender to a greater degree than do other strategies, then rehabilitation subjects would be expected to blame the offender less. However, if the offender is not completely responsible for the undesirable and threatening crime, the responsibility for the crime must lie elsewhere (e.g., with chance, society, or the victim). Results demonstrate that major differences in sentence lengths imposed may be induced by having judgments made in accordance with differing punishment strategies; thus, these differences can be the direct result of using different sentencing strategies rather than the result of other individual differences among judges. This implies that some of the oft lamented disparities among judges< sentences for the same crime may be due to different purposes judges feel a sentence should serve. Two tables, 1 reference note, and 13 references are provided. (Author abstract modified)