Public Attitudes and Sentencing:

Towards a comprehensive understanding

David Indermaur

Introduction

Members of the general public typically:

– Rely on mass media as the primary source of information on crime and justice issues

– Have little accurate knowledge of crime and the criminal justice system

– Have little confidence in the courts

– Think sentences are too lenient

– Think of violent and repeat offenders when reporting that sentences are too lenient

Key Findings From Literature

Public Opinion Polls• Broad questions posed in a

simplistic way

•Assumes respondents have necessary information to be able to answer OR the questioner is not interested in attitudes that depend on information •Taps into stereotypes• Encourages ‘Top of the head’ responding

• Attitudes reported in opinion polls are essentially print outs of values seen as relevant to the question and the situation

Public Opinion or Informed Public Opinion?

–Furman v. Georgia

• If public opinion is to be used as a basis for policy, and that opinion will be influenced by information, then the only suitable basis for policy is informed public opinion.

Top of head responses VS Considered judgements

What is informed opinion? Three are three distinct elements to informed public

opinion

1. Information

2. A deliberate or decision taking posture

3. A sense of responsibility or accountability for the decision made

Essential it reflects the difference between a considered decision from an uninformed opinion.

3. Informed public opinion

IPO has been tapped through a range of methods including:

‘planning cells’,

‘deliberative polling’,

‘consensus conferences’,

‘citizen panels’ and

‘citizens’ juries’.

Common to all these is the deliberative component - participants are provided with information, encouraged to discuss and challenge the information, and consider each other’s views before making a decision or recommendation

Tony Blair Takes Questions - UK Deliberative Poll

Europe Today: First-ever deliberative poll on Europe

Al Gore Deliberative Poll 1996

Australian Deliberative Poll - Introduction

Comparison of the three types of approach used to measure

informed attitudes to sentencing Manchester Deliberative Poll

Home Office Studies

Death Penalty Attitude Studies

Representative sample? No Yes No

Control group? No Yes Yes

Information isolated? No Yes Yes

Durability tested? Yes No Yes

Expectancy effect controlled?

No Yes No

Deliberation engendered? Yes Partially Yes

Our Research

• Can punitiveness be ameliorated through providing information and encouraging deliberation?

• Builds on previous research by:

–Using large nationally representative sample–Presenting information in ways to engender 3 components of informed public opinion–Including a control group–Measuring the sustainability of any effect over time

Project Team• Chief Investigators;

–Prof Geraldine Mackenzie (Bond) (lead CI)–Dr David Indermaur (UWA)–Prof Rod Broadhurst (ANU)–Prof Kate Warner (UTAS)–Dr Lynne Roberts (Curtin)–Nigel Stobbs (QUT)

• Additional team members/contributors–Dr Karen Gelb, Senior Criminologist, Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council–Research assistance: Dr Caroline Spiranovic (Bond), Dr Thierry Bouhours (ANU), Dr Claire Ferguson (Bond)

Exemplar of Informed Public Opinion on Sentencing: The Jury

• Group of citizens engaged in a particular manner so that they become highly informed and responsible and, as much as possible, they are encouraged to deliberate deeply

Key findings from looking at the effect of information and context

• Information may be important but its effects are heavily conditioned by context and context affects the meaning given to information.

• A better way of understanding the issue is to see it in terms of the role of the public, the posture taken towards the issue. It is indeed perverse to consider the public position independent of these contextual factors.

The Dilemma for Crime Policy

• Expressive emotions provide a magnetic attraction for political leverage.

• It is thus fundamental that the expressive value of punishment needs to be named as such so that it is not confused with a considered or accountable policy.

• We need to find a way of addressing the conflict between responsible policy making and popular punitiveness.

• Here the engagement of the public is vital

Reference

Indermaur, D. , Roberts, L., Spiranovic, C., Mackenzie, G. and Gelb, K. (2012)

A matter of judgment: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment

Punishment and Society 14 (2) 147-165