The Effects of Intention on Ratuigs of

Crime Seriousness and Sentencing

AMTA G. CUMBLETON

A thesis subrnitted to the Department of Psychology

in wnforrnity with the requirements for

the degree of Master of Arts

Queen's University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

August, 1997

Copyright O Anita G. Cumbleton, 1997.

National Library 1*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K I A ON4 Ottawa ON KI A ON4 Canada Canada

YourlYe Vons re~rence

Our nie Notre réUrente

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National L i b r q of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seIl reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in rnicrofoxm, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la foxme de microfiche/film, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

... III

Acknowledgments

1 wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Edward Zamble, my supervisor. His

knowledge, patience, guidance7 and support have been an integrai part to making this thesis

possible. I would also like to thank my cornmittee members, Dr. Lee Fabngar and Dr. Rod

Lindsay. Their assistance and feedback throughout the thesis process were much appreciated.

1 thank my family for aiways providing support, guidance, and love. Although separated

by many miles, their encouragement over these past two years has been a source of strength. I

would especialiy like to thank my parents who have always provided me with the fieeciorn to

strive for my personal goals.

F i y , 1 would like to thank the fiiends that I have made in Kingston over the past two

years. To the other five members of the 'Group of Six'-Susan Ivany, Caroline Kargei, Katherine

Lagrandeur, JoAnn Maseila, and Jeanne Young-who shared many fun times and a few sad times

and who always reminded me that life is to be enjoyed. 1 wodd also like to thank the fiiends

which 1 have made in the psychology department who were always there to discuss data andysis,

course work, and life events in ways that others didn't quite understand.

List of Tables

Page

15

Table

1.

2.

Mean Seventy Scores for Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means for the level of intent assigned to offender by age andintentlevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary for regression mode1 exclucihg intention variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sumrnary of Multiple Regession Analyses for Intention Contrasts' ImpadonPredi&ghtention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Age Contrasts' ImpactonRedi&gIntention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means for the seriousness rating of offenses by age and intent level . . . . . . . . .

Surnmary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Intention Contnists' Impact on Predicting Seriousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Age Contrasts' LmpactonPredictingSenousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mûans for the severhies of sentences assigned to offender by age and intent level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Intention Contrasts' ImpactonPredictingSentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Age Contrasts' Impact on Predicting Sentence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. Answers to Questions Regarding the Young Offenders Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

List of Appendixes

AppendDc Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A CrùneSceaarios 46

B . ConsentFom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

C . Instnictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

D . Questions Foliowing Each Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

E . Young Offenders Act Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

F . DebnehgSheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G . RankiogQuestionnaire 57

Debate still exists regarding the eEect that offender age and intention have on ratings of

crime seriousness and sentencing. Problems in past research include the types of crimes used, the

way intention was manipulated, and whether subjects rated seriousness directly or sentenced the

offender. This study attempted to control these confounding influences. Levels of intention and

offender age (1 1, 16,21) were systematically manipulated to detemine the effects on ratings of

perceived intention, crime seriousness, and sentences assigned, using a set of scenarios that all

result in the death of another individual to equate harm Through multiple regression analyses, it

was determineci that both variables had a signincant impact on all three dependent variables.

Subjects did not differentiate between the three age groups in ratings of intention. Further,

subjects did not differentiate between the 1 1 and 16 year-oId offenders in t e m of crime

seriousness, but did signincantly rate the 2 1 year-old as codtting a more serious crime.

However, ail three age groups significantly differed fiom each other in the sentences assigned to

the hypothetical offenders. Thus, offender intention had a significant impact on both ratings of

seriousness and sentence assigned.

Introduction

Considerations of proportionality underlie popular conceptions of justice.

Sentencing theorists tend to represent either utilitarian (e-g., deterrence, rehabilitation,

incapacitation) or nonutilitarian (e-g., just deserts) traditions. Both perspectives, however,

tie the severity of punishments irnposed to the seriousness of the offense committed. Just

deserts theorists advocate the imposition of a penalty cornmensurate with the seriousness

of the offense, ad, to a lesser extent, the culpability of the offender (von Kusch, 1985).

This implies the necessity of establishg the seriousness of the offense.

One way of assessing seriousness is to measure citizens' perceptions of the gravity

of various offenses. The impetus for empiricai research on crime seriousness came eom

experimentd psychology. The early research by Thurstone (1927% L 927b), Rose and Pren

(1955), and Seilin and WoIfgang ( 1964) largely addressed the issue of consensus in

perceptions of offense senousness, usually measured by the degree of association between

senousness rankings from different groups.

In two eariy works, Thurstone (1 92ïa, 1927b) applied his law of comparative

judgment to the problem of crime perception. Focusing on nineteen offenses, Thurstone

arranged the crimes in such a way that aii possible pairs were represented. Using a paired

cornparison technique, student subjects were required to state which of two crimes was

the more senous. The crimes of rape and homicide were seen as being the most serious.

The remaining %ex offenses' were usually rated as being more serious than the remaining

'injury to the person' offenses and 'property offenses', which were ofien judged to be of

similar seriousness.

Crime Senousness 2

Rose and PreU (1955) selected thineen offenses for which the minimum and

maximum penalties specified under the California pend code were approxhately equal.

Ai possible pairs of offenses (represented by code letters) were presented to subjects who

were instructed to indicate which of the two Mimes was the more serious. Of the thirteen

offenses presented to subjects, the two which involved injury to another person (Le., child-

beating and assault with a deadly weapon) were regarded as being the most senous.

In The Memurement of Deiinpency (1 964), SelIin and Wolfgang outlined three

purposes for the scaling of offenses. These three purposes were: "1. to select fiom

multidimensional feaîures of delinquency a single dimension, t a b g into account the

relative gravity of seriousness of delinquent acts; 2. to produce an empiricai, objectively

ascertained set of components of delinquency that would be examined by socidy

sigruficant groups whose evduations could be used as a bais for scoring; 3. to arrive at a

system of weights for dehquency events for use in the construction of an index." @p.

236-23 7).

S e h and Wolfgang (1964) used different scaling methods. They originaüy

identifid 141 different events which were to be used in their study. For each of these

events, a bief description was typed on a card and presented to a group (N = 17) for trial

testing. Subjects were instnicted to rate the seriousness of each offense on an equal-

interval sale ranping eom 1 - 7. From this trial testing situation, median scores for each

event were determined. The researchers t hen chose three representative offense items for

each of the seven scale divisions resulting in a total of 21 events. The chosen items were

those whose medians were representative of the midpoint of the category and whose

Crime Seriousness 3

variability was at a minimum. These items were used for testing with a larger group of

subjects.

Sellin and Wolfgang (1964) focused on the act itseK and trieci to eliminate most

references to offender or victim variables. They did state that they were concemed with

the influence of offender variables, but a study including these variables would have

required too many subjects.

During the second testing phase, both an 1 1-point category sale and a magnitude

estimation or ratio scale was used. Subjects consisted ofuniversity -dents, police iine

officers, Juvenile Aid Division officers, and juvenile court judges. Each subject received a

booklet in which a description of each offme was presented on a separate page. Included

at the top of the page was a description of the offender-this remaineci constant

throughout each individual booklet. The response area for the chosen scale (category or

magnitude estimation) appeared at the bottom ofeach page.

Sellin and WoIfgang (1964) found that the seriousness of crimes was evaluated in a

sirnilar way by aii the raters. A social agreement about what is considered to be serious

and what is not serious emerges in the results. Further, this consensus was not only

refiected as qualitative agreement, but was also noticeable in the numerical degree of

seriousness estirnated for each offense description. Sellin and Wolfgang stated that it is not

the actual numbers assigned to the crimes that matter, but rather, the ratios between the

numbers assigned to the offenses by each rater. It is these ratios that appear to remain

intact from rater to rater, as in psychophysical ratings using the same sort of scaling

techniques.

Cnme Seriousness 4

A large oversight in the S e h and WoLfgang (1964) study was the lack ofresearch

devoted to understanding why certain judgments of seriousness are made. That is, what

are the cognitive processes underlying these judgments (Le., what factors do people take

into account when deciding upon a level of seriousness). Much research since the Sellin

and WoLfgang study has been devoted to these processes.

Factors affkcting the ratings of crime seriousness and crime punishment that have

been researched extensively by others include such thhgs as gender (Cookie; 1974,

McGlynn, Megas & Benson, 1976), race (McGly~, Megas & Benson, 1976; WoIfgang &

Riedel, 1973), attractiveness (Leventha1 & Krate, 1977; McKelvie, Mitchell, Amott &

Sullivan, 1993; Sigd & Ostrove, 1975), age (Gebotys & Roberts, 1987; Stafford Bi W,

1987), and intent of the criminal (McKelvie, Mitchell, Arnott & Sullivan, 1993; Riedel,

1975; Sebba, 1980) as well as factors associated with the victim such as vulnerability

(Howitt, 1977) and gender (McKelvie, Mitchell, Amott & Sullivan, 1993). Despite al1 the

research, there are some discrepancies among the findings, and the effect that some of

these variables have on ratings of seriousness is still debatable.

One area of interest that seems to have been somewhat overlooked in this research

area is that of the intent or motivation of the criminal. In an earlier study, Riedel (1975),

explored the effect that differing circumstances surroundig the crime and inferences of

intent would have on ratings of seriousness. Riedel manipulateci two classes of variables:

1) environmental constraint s which w nsisted of extemal forces (threat, reward, victirn

precipitation, and alien control) that wuld be used to explain why the person committed

the offense, and; 2) personal dispositions consisting of intemal forces (hostile attitude and

Crime Senousness 5

subwitiiral values) that could also be used to explain the commission of an offense.

Six offenses fiom the onguial 141 offenses used by S e h and Wolfgang (1964)

were used. Each subject was presented with one factor from each class of manipulated

variables (environmentai constraints and personal disposition) for each of the offenses.

That is7 the 'case histories' of the crimes were presented in such a way that both a

'personal disposition' and 'environmental constraint' were attributed to the offender. M e r

reading each of the scenarios subjects were asked to rate its senousness.

Riedel (1975) concluded that Uiferences of intent do not alter judgments of

seriousness, with the exception of his two crime scenarios that involved injury to another

person However, Riedel stated that this latter finding was not due to the experimental

stimulus, but that it reflected chance fluctuations in smali samples. Riedel made the nnal

conclusion that ". . . perceivers assess the senousness of criminal events in ways that make

unimportant inferences of whether the offender intended that act. This suggests that

external aspects of the event . . . is al1 the respondent needs to make a reliable assessrnent

of social injury." (p.208).

Izzett and Fishman (1976) conducted a study in wtiich the external justification for

the criminal behavior was manipulated between de fendants. Each subject was presented

with an abstract of a criminal case involving the embezzlement of fùnds. In the hi&

extemal justifkation manipulation the defendant was describeci as needing the money to

meet the medical expenses of his hospitalized d e . in the low or unspecified extemal

justification manipulation the behavior was explained by stating that the defendant needed

the money to pay off a persona1 debt. Subjects were asked to read the abstract and then

Crime Senousness 6

sentence the defendant to an imprisonment term ranging kom one to twenty years.

izzett and Fishman ( 1975) found that defendants with high extemal justification

were seen to be as responsible in commitang the crime, and as guilty as individuals who

had low extemal justification. However, the individuals with high external justification

were sanctioned more leniently than the low justification individuals. Thus, level of

intention did not appear to be an important factor when sentencing the offenders. Both

offenders had equally thought about and planned the embezzlement, but the offender with

more justification was still sentend more leniently.

McKelvie, Mitchell, h o t t , and SuüÏvan (1993) describeci a crime scenario in

which a man was beaten and murdered. The offender was an unspecified male who was

presented in four conditions (2 intent and 2 motive). The offender was either waiting or

not waiting for the victim (intent) and either did or did not shout that he was avenging

what had happened to his brother (motive). McKelvie et al. found that an assailant seeking

revenge for his brother was trûited more leniently (received a shorter prison sentence)

than an assailant who had no motive. However, they were unable to h d a significant

effect for their premeditation variable, i.e., whether the perpetrator was waiting for the

victim or not. McKelvie et al. do note that the intention variable may not have been

adequately captureci by this manipulation.

In contrast, other evidence indicates that intent might be important for judgrnents

of seriousness. Rossi, Waite, Bose and Berk (19741, although not focusing on the intent of

the crimid, used some crime scenarios that allow inferences about this factor. In the table

of mean scores, it cm be seen that intentional (planned) killings of a spouse, policeman or

Crime Senousness 7

an aquaintance were rated as beiag more serious than impulsive killings of similar victims.

Aiso, Banks, Maloney and Wdcock (1975) noted that a majonty of respondents in Britain

thought that premeditation of an offense was SuffiCient ground for imposing a more severe

sentence7 although they did not test whether this judgment actually affected decisions.

Sebba (1980) conducted a study in which four Mering levels of mental state

accompanying the criminal act were rnanipdated: 1) the offender acted intentionally and

aîtempted to cause a more serious outwme than that which was achieved; 2) the offender

acted intentionaiiy and achieved what was intended; 3) the offender acted in a reckiess

rnanner despite the fact that the possibility of injury was foreseen, but not desired, and; 4)

the offender was negligent but neither intended nor foresaw any harm. Subjects were

asked to read each scenario and then sale the offenses in term of seriousness (car theft

was provided as a modulus).

Sebba (1980) concluded that, wntrolling for the amount of h m inflicted, the

intent of the criminal has a sigrilficant effect on the estimation of offense seriousness.

However, Sebba ais0 States that the degree of harrn uIflicted is more important than the

mental intent of the criminal when estimahg crime seriousness.

F i y , Sinha and Kumar (1985) also manipulateci the intent of the defendant using

four differing levels: implicated in the crime but did not commit the actuai offense;

committed the offense in self-defense; intended to commit a petty crime, but a major crime

resulted; and intentionally committed the crime. For ail cases, the crime resuited in the

rnurder of another individual. Mer reading each description of the crime, subjects were

asked to indicate on an eleven-point sale the magnitude of the punishment that should be

Crime Seriousness 8

given to the person. Sinha and Kumar also reported that an increase in intentionality led to

an increase in the severity of the punishment.

Thus the effect of intent on ratings of crime seriousness has been inconsistent in

the Merature. While it is more often found that increases in intention increase ratings of

seriousness, there still exist contradictory studies. Some of these discrepancies may be due

to the diffierent ways used to measure the seriousness of offenses. While some researchers

asked subjects to rate the seriousness of each offense, others asked subjects to assign a

sentence length to the perpetrator. However, even when wntrohg for these diEerent

ways of m&g seriousness contradictions remain in the literature. Although it is

often assumed that seriousness should affect sentencing it is not apparent that there is an

exact rnapping between the two variables. Ratings of both seriousness and sentence length

for the offender need to be measured.

Another area of concem when comparing past studies is the mering and

sometimes questionable ways in which intention has been operationalized. In some studies,

justification andior motive of the offender have been interpreted as being representative of

intention. In other studies, intention has been manipulated by whether or not the offender

achieved what helshe had wanted to accomplish or ifsomething less or more serious

resulted from the actions. Finaily, issues ofself-defense and alien control (behavior

induced by a foreign or arti f id substance) have dm been implicated in the

operationaiization of intention.

A h , many diEerent crimes were used in past studies, and thus the level of h m

inflicteci is difficult to compare and may htroduce a confound when c o m p a ~ g studies.

Crime Seriousness 9

Level of harm is often associated with seriousness, so ifthe level of harm is not consistent,

it is impossible to compare across studies whether or not intent has a consistent effect on

sentencing or seriousness ratings. In order to avoid these problems, one must

systernatically Vary the intent of the offender while keeping the level of h m across crimes

consistent.

Another factor associated with crime and crime seriousness that has received a lot

of attention both in research and in the media is that of the age of the Ferpetrator. In 1 984

the Young Offenders Act (YOA) replaced the Juvenile Delinquents Act (JDA) as the

governing law for the youth justice system. This new legislation r a i d the climinal age of

responsibility to twelve, as opposed to seven under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, because

it is assumai that children under the age of 12 are unable to form a criminal intention.

Much of the controversy regarding the Young Offenders Act has been in reaction to this

feahre (although the Limtation on sentence length even for homicide has probably

received the most attention).

Since the incorporation of the new act, several papers have been k t t e n cnticizing

many of the new features incorporated under this law. Leschieci and Gendreau (1986)

have stated that under the Young Offenders Act 'the state has legitimized the neglect of

young persons who were previously cared for under the Juvenile Dehquents Acts (JDA)"

(p. 3 15).

The Young Offenders Act, like the Juvenile Delinquents Act, does not provide

clear guidelines in sentencing young offenders in order to limit judicial sentencing. Thus,

although the judge must give a definite sentence, there is nothing stating that the sentence

Crime Seriousness 10

has to be in proportion to the seriousness of the committed offense. Nor does the senzence

have to be similar to sentences handed down for sirndar crimes.

Although it is clear that the public is dissatisfied with the results there is virtualiy

no reliable information on what punishments citizens would actually like to see for juvenile

offenders. Knowing how the public views offenses cornmittecl by juvedes could assist the

courts in forrnuiating consistent policies.

SeLiin and Woifgang (1964) manipulated age by spe-g whether the perpetrator

was 13, 17,27, or of unspecifïed age. They concluded that the age of the offender does

not really impact upon a subject's judgment about offense senousness. Subjects tended to

focus on the act committed rather than on other variables that were present in the

scenario, including age of offender. However, the seriousness of a crime is not the main

factor driving the law behind the Young Offenders Act, but the accountability of the

perpetrator. The sexiousness of a partidar crime is inherent in the amount of darnage

done to property and perron, not to the age of the offender.

The main question to be asked is whether the public would sentence offenders at

different age groups who have committed the same serious crime to sirnilar or difEerent

lengths of imprisonment. Gebotys and Roberts (1987) required subjects to assign a

sentence of specified length to each of several crime vignettes. They concluded that none

of the manipulate. offender characteristics, including age, employrnent, and marital status,

had a significant impact on sentence severity. The ody variables that predicted sentencing

severity were offense seriousness and p s t criminal history of the offender. However, these

researchers manipulated age using either a perpetrator who was 18 or 38 years old.

Crime Seriousness 1 1

Because both of these individuals would be dealt with in aduit courts, there should not

have been a significant difference found between the sentences handed down.

Based on these earlier hdings, and the discrepancies arnong the4 this research

was undertaken to see how strong an effect the intent of the perpetrator has on ratings of

both the seriousness of the crime and sentences assigneci to the perpetrator. In order to

avoid the complication of offenses v-g in seriousness, the cases used ali result in the

death of another individual. Thus, the amount of harm in each of the offenses was equal,

to better see the effect that the intention of the criminal had on ratings of crime

seriousness.

The intent/motivation of the criminal is the main factor studied in this experiment.

Based on the literature, iit was predicted that individuals who more clearly intended to

inflict harm upon their victims would be sentenced more harshly than those who did not

intend to cause harm.

Further, when dealing ody with these crimes, it was hypothesized that the intent of

the perpetrator would have an effect on the seriousness ratings of the crimes committed. It

appeared plausible to predict that a death resulting fiom negligence or recklessness would

be treated as less serious than a premeditated and deliberate homicide. This effect of intent

on ratings of seriousness in interpersonal injury offenses has been noted in the literature,

and appears to be more pronounced in the more extreme and serious crimes.

The impact that the age of the offender has on ratings of seriousness and length of

sentences handed down was also analyzed. It was predicted that the age of the offender

would not affect the ratings of seriousness for each of the crimes. However, due to the

Cnme Seriousness 2 2

fact that younger age groups are not perceived as being equally culpable, it was predicted

that the younger offenders would be sentenced more leniently.

Methods

Participants

Subjects consisted of 102 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory

psychology course at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Subjects

voluntarily signed up for this study, and received course credit for their participation.

F@-seven fernales and 45 males completed the questionnaire. The mean age of

the subjects was 19.8 years (s.d.= 3.5) with 96% of the subjects between 18 and 2 1 years

of age.

MateriaIs

Each crime vignette consisted of a short paragraph, approximately 100- 150 words,

describing a situation which eventuaUy concludes in the death of another individual. Each

of the perpetnitors was identifid as being a male aged 11, 16, or 21 years. Offenders at

each age were described in crime scenarios that depicted four mering levels of intent.

The four levels of intent were represented by scenarios in which the killing was

cornmitteci: 1) by an accident through recklessness or negligence; 2) in the heat of the

moment; 3) with some intention and thought, but no planning; and 4) with premeditation

and planning. These levels were used because they rougbiy parallel the legal categories of

accidenthegligence causing death, manslaughter, second degree murder, and first degree

murder. Three diffierent scenarios were constructed for each level of intent.

Crime Seriousness 13

Procedure

AU three of the age groups appeared in each of the 12 scenarios, resulting in a total

of 36 scenarios (3 x 12) (Appendix A includes the complete set of scenarios). Each subject

received di of the 12 scenarios, with each of the age groups represented across the set.

The 12 scenarios received by each subject were randomized in such a way that each

quartet of scenarios included one scenario fiom each level of intention. Age of the

oEender was completely randomized across subjects. Thus, every subject judged all levels

of intention and age, although the two variables were not strictly orthogonal in the sets of

cases given. That is, although subjects received aü three scenarios for each level of

intention, they did not always receive all three age groups in each level of intention. The

crime scenarios were stapled in bookiet form for presentation to the subject.

Subjects were asked to indicate sex, age, and year of program on the front of the

questionnaire. They then signed the consent form (Appendk B) and r a d the instructions

(Ap pendix C) which Uiformed participants that the experimenter was int erested in peoples'

views of crime seriousness and sentence length for certain crimes. It instnicted them to go

systematically through the crime scenarios and answer the questions foliowing each

scenario. These questions asked the subject to assess the seriousness of the crime on a

sa le of 1 to 100 where 1 was the least senous crime that the subjects could think of and

100 was the most serious crime, and also to select a penalty for the perpetnitor f?om a list

of sentences provided. If they chose a fine, they were asked to indicate a dollar amount ; if

they chose probation or imprisonment they were instnicted to spece the length of tirne

(Appendix D).

Crime Seriousness 14

Ratings of seriousness and selection of sentences were counterbalanced to avoid

any order e f f i s . That is, because determination of sentence may influence ratings of

seriousness (and vice versa), each question appeared first in haif of the test bookiets.

instructions to subjects emphasized that there are no right or wrong answers, but

that the experimenter was interested in what they thought was appropriate. At the end of

the testuig booklet, subjects were asked to briefly descriie how they thought the crime

scenarios dEered fiom one another in order to detemiine ifthey noticed the differing

levels of intention.

As a manipulation check, they were also asked to reread each of the scenarios and

rate the perpetrator's level of intention for co&tting the demibed act on a 7-point

Likert scale. Finally, soine general questions concerning the Young Offenders Act, to

determine level of howledge regardhg this law, were asked (Appendix E). After they had

finished their tasks, a debriefing sheet describhg the reasons for the experirnent was given

to each abject (Appendix F).

Results

Prebinaq Study

Given the various types of sentences assignable, a comrnon metric for cornparison

is not inherent. Therefore, the sentences assigned to the offenders by the subjects in the

main study were assigned numerical severity values using the results of a brief

questionnaire cornpleted by 16 individuals between the ages of 22-26 (Appendu G). This

questionnaire asked individuals to directly rate the severity of various penalties between 1

and 100. The mean value for each penalty was used as the corresponding level of severity

for each of the subjects' responses in the prirnary study. Table 1 presents the categories

Crime Senousness 15

Table 1

Mean Severitv Scores for Sentences

Sentence Category

discharge (no penalty)

fine of $100-$500

fine of $50 1-$2000

1-6 months probation

7-12 rnonths ( les a day) probation

fine o f $2OOI-$5OOO

fine of 500 1 -$10,000

1-3 years probation

1-6 months custody in a juvenile facility

1-6 months custody in an adult facility

7-12 months (less a day) custody in a juvenile facility

7-1 2 months (less a day) custody in an adult facility

1-2 years (les a day) custody in a juvenile facility

1-2 years (iess a day) custody in an adult facility

2-5 years (less a day) custody in a juvenile facility

2-5 years (less a day) custody in an adult facility

5- 10 years (less a day) custody in a juvede facility

10- 15 years (less a day) custody in a juvenile facility

5- 10 years (less a day) custody in an adult facility

Mean Severity Score

0

4.67

9.78

1 1.44

13.67

14.78

18-33

18.33

29.78

32.56

36.89

41 -67

43 -89

47.22

49.22

57.78

61.22

67.33

71.11

Crime Senousness 16

Table 1 (wntinued) Sentence Category Mean Seventy Score

15-20 years (less a day) custody in a juvenile facilty 73 -44

10-15 years Oess a day) custody in an addt tacility 77.22

20-25 years Oess a day) custody in a juvenile facility 80.89

15-20 y e m Oess a day) custody in an adult kcility 82.78

25 years (and over) custody in a juveniie facility 86.1 1

20-25 yean ( l a s a day) custody in an adult fàcility 88.33

25 years (and over) custody in an adult facility 92.78

Crime Senousness 17

and their correspondhg mean severity scores. As can be seen, the severity scores of

probation and fines are intermixecl, but any prison sentence was rated as more severe than

every level of fine or probation. The severity ratings of prison sentences were strictly

ordered by duration, but tenns in a juvenile facility were always rated as less severe than

those of the same length in an adult facility.

Primarv Study

Each of the twelve scenarios assigneci to the subjects, and their comesponding

responses, was coded on a separate line of entry for data anaiysis. Thus, each subject was

represented by 12 sets of observation which corresponded to each of the 12 scenarios to

which they responded. Each entry included the subject's age, sex and year of program,

scenario number, offender age, intent level, the sentence assigne& the perceived

seriousness, and the rating of intention for the offender.

Kigh degrees of correlations among predictor variables in a regression analysis can

introduce problems. Therefore, the subject variable was dummy coded in order to account

for the non-independence of each subject 's twelve sets of observations. A total of 10 1

subject dummy variables were developed in each of which a single subject was represented

by either a one or a zero. The first subject's twelve sets of observations were cuded with

ones under the ikst dummy variable for subject and with zeros for all remahhg dummy

variables. The second subject 's twelve sets of observations were coded with ones under the

second dummy variable for subject and with zeros for al1 other dummy variables. This

procedure was repeated for al1 subjects except the final one because values for this subject

were constrained by the set of al1 others. These dumrny coded variables were included in

each analysis and functioned to remove the variance between subjects, before the effects of

other variables were assessed.

Crime Seriousness 18

The manipulated level of intention, as refiected by scenario, was aiso dummy

coded to allow cornparisons for this megorical variable. Tliat iq three dummy variables

were constnicted in order to represent the four levels of intention. Thus, the sets of

observations h t included a scenario that represented the first level of intention were

coded with ones under the first dummy variable for intention and with zeros for the two

remaining dummy variables. This procedure was repeated for the second and third

intention levels. The values for the fourth intention level were constrained by the set of ail

othen and thus did not require a separate dummy variable.

Three dependent variables, rated level of intention, perceived seriousness, and

sentence assigned were each d y z e d using a simultaneous regession procedure in which

all variables were entered in a singie step.' Thus, all independent variables were forced to

enter the equation d e s s the tolerance level was reached and the cornputer rejected them

fkom the equation. The impact of intention and offender age were each expiored to

determine their importance on the several dependent variables.

Intention

The subjects' perceived intention for each ofthe scenaios was the fkst variable

analyzed as it was necessary to determine if the manipulation of intention had been

successful. If the subjects' perceived intention ratings did not correspond with the

experimental design, further analyses with this variable could not be interpreted.

Table 2 provides the means for all of the primary variables in the study. These

means are only provided for descriptive purposes and are not d i i d y related to the

An emr in reprochicing the experimental materials promiced a situation which prefluded an ANOVA because subjects did not respond to al1 conditions as origmaiiy plamed.

Crime Seriousness 19

Table 2

Meam for the Ievel of intent assimeci to offender bv me and intent Ievel

1 l year-old 16 year-old 2 1 year-old ail ages

intent level 1 1.32 1.30 1.28 1.30

intent level3 5-74 5.84 5 -98 5.86

intent level4 6.72 6.83 6.89 6.8 1

ail intent levels 4.59 4.6 1 4.74 4.65

Crime Senousness 20

statistical analyses.

The d m y coded subject variables, the dummy wded intent variables and the

offender age variables (coded as 1 1, 16, or 2 1) were included in the overall regression

model. This model accounted for 85% of the variance on the measured variable of

intention, F (1 05, 1 1 18) = 58.38, Q< -000 1. Table 3 provides a su- of this overall

model.

A second parallel regression was conducted excluding the dummy coded intent

variables in order to detennine if this set of predictors had a signifiant impact on the

overail results. This regression resulted in a drastic decrease in the proportion of variance

accounted for (R~= -05). Table 4 provides the summary for this model.

Calculations were pesformed to assess the significance of this large change in R~.

Results indicated that the intention variables signincantly contributed to the overaii results

(& = 80, E(3,1118) = 4977.98 g< -01).

A manipulation check was perfomed to determine if the subjects perceived the

scenarios as correspondhg to the level of intention they were designed to indicate.

Contrast analyses were conducted between intention levels 1 and 2, levels 2 and 3, and

levels 3 and 4. For these wntrast analyses, the lower level of intent was coded as 1, the

higher level of intent was coded as -1, and the third level of intent was coded as O. Thus,

three different regression equations were run to determine the statistical merences

between the levels of manipulated intention.

In order to protect against the overd Type I error rate, the Bonfenoni inequality

was used to adjust for the family-wise a-level for these and aiI remahhg contrasts.

Crime Seriousness 21

Table 3

Summarv of overall mode1

Summary for Overd Mode1

Multiple R -92

R~ -85

Adjusted R* .83

Standard Error -96

Crime Seriousness 22

Table 4

S u m for remession mode1 excludine; intention variables

Summary for Mode1

Multiple R .22

Adjusted R*

Standard Error 2.38

Crime Senousness 23

As indicated in Table 5, each manipuiated level of intention was perceived as being

significantly diierent fiom the other levels of intention. Table 5 hcludes entries for the

unstandardized regression weights, the standard error of these regression weights, the

standardized regression weights, and the R~ and adjusteci R~ for the regression mode1

which included the contnist under analysis. The remaining variables (subjects and offender

age) in each of the three analyses are omitted fiom the table.

From these results it can be seen that subjects rated level of offender intention in

ways that matched expectafioos and the experirnental design. An Uicreasing level of

intention was attributed to the offenders as the manipulated variable of intention increased

throughout the study. Therefore, it may be concluded that the manipulation of intent to the

crime scenarios was successful and m e r analyses using these intent levels could be

conducted.

The age of the offender was also a signifiant contributor in the overd mode1 for

intention (t(105,1118)= 2.12, ge -03). Separate contrasts analyses were performed

between ail age groups to determine if the age groups were rated differentidy with

regards to intention In all contrast analyses, the lower age group was assigned a value of

1, the higher age group was assigned a value of -1, and the rernaining age group was

assigned a value of O. Thus three separate regression analyses were conducted to

determine the dserentd impact of separate age groups.

Table 6 presents the results of these analyses. The structure of Table 6 is

comparable to that of Table 5. As before, ail variables (subjects and intent) except the

contrast analyses of interest here have been omitted fiom the table. M e r the Bonferroni

inequality adjustment for planned comparisons, none of the age contrasts remain

Crime Seriousness 24

Table 5

Summary of Mdti~le Remession Analyses for Intention Level Contrasts' Impact on Predictinn Intention

Contrast B -- SE B P R' adj. R'

Intention level 1 vs. Intention level2 - 1 .O23 ** .O69 -.630 -49 -35

Intention level2 vs. Intention level3 -.493** - 116 -.221 .22 -.O1

Intention level3 vs. Intention level4 -.725** -103 -.343 .28 .O7

Crime Seriousness 25

Table 6

S v of Multiple Re-ssion Analyses for Age Contrasts' m a c t on Perceiveci Intention

Contrast B SE B P R' adj. R'

1 1 year-old offender vs. 16 year-old offender -.O05 .O344 -.O02 .85 .83

1 1 year-old offender vs. 2 1 year-old offender -.O73 * .O34

16 year-old offender vs. 2 1 year-old offender -.067* .O34 -.O23 -85 -83

Crime Seriousness 26

statistically sigmficant. The child, teenage, and adult offenders were rated as having sunila.

levels of intention for committing the described crimes. Thus, it appears that subjects did

not make a distinction between adults and children with regards to the level of intention

fonnation of which they are capable.

Another calculation was perfomed to determine if there was a signifiant effect for

an interaction between age of offender and manipulateci level of intention. For this

calculation, three new variables were constructecl to represent the interaction between

these two variables. These three new variables respectively corresponded to the results

obtained by multiplying offender age by the first dummy variable for intention, offender

age by the second dummy variable for intention, and offender age by the third dummy

variable for intention, for d sets of obsewations. Two pardel regression equations, one

including and one excluding these three variables, were then mn. The change in R* was

measured to determine the significance of the interaction. Calculations indicated that the

interaction did not have a significant effect on ratings of intention (AR2 = -0005, E(3,

11 15) = 1.12, ns).

Seriousness

The same type of analyses were conducted using seriousness as the dependent

variable. Again, the means for this variable are provided in Table 7 for descriptive

purposes.

The overall mode1 simcantly accounted for a large proportion of the variance in

rated crime seriousness (R~ = -8 1, F(lO5, 1 1 15) = 45.92, Q< -000 1). Once again, when the

intention variables were removed, the proportion of variance accounted for dropped

Crime Seriousness 27

Table 7

Means for the seriousness rating of offenses by aae and intent level

-

1 1 year-old 16 y&old 2 1 year-old al1 ages

intent level 1 10.59 1 1.72 15.89 12.74

al1 intent levels 59.22 60.43 63 -26 60.98

Crime Senousness 28

considerably (R' = -12). Calculatiow to detemine if the intention variables were playing a

significant role in ratings of intention showed a strong effect (hRZ = -69, E(3, 1 1 15) =

1377.34, g< -01).

Contrast analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the level of intention

on rated seriousness. As can be seen in Table 8, an increase in intention consistently

corresponded to an increase in the rating of seriousness. Further, each categorical change

in level of intention was seen ss being significantly more serious than the preceding level

of intention.

offender age also had a signiscant &ect on ratings of crime seriousness in the

overall model (t(lO5,lll5) = 3 -41, ec .O0 1). Once again age contrasts were conducted to

d e t e d e if signincant ciifferences existed between the age groups. Refening to Table 9, it

can be seen that offenses cornmitteci by the 11 and 16 year-olds were not rated as being

different with regards to seriousness. However, the same offenses committed by offenders

aged 21 were rated as being significantly more serious than the offenses committed by

both 11 and 16 year-olds.

Finally, there was no significant effect for the offender age by intention interaction

(AR2 = .0004, E(3, 11 12) = -07, IIS).

Sentence

Once again, similar analyses were run for this dependent variable. For descriptive

purposes, the means for this variable are presented in Table 10.

The overall regression model accounted for 8 1% of the variance in sentencing,

E(1 OS, 1098) = 43 -43, p= .O00 1. When the intention variables were removed fiom the

equation, the model accounted for only 17% of the proportion of variance. The intention

Crime Seriousness 29

Table 8

Summary of Multiple Reaession Analyses for Intention Level Contrasts' Impact on Predictin~ Seriousness

Contrast B -- SE B P R' adj. R'-

Intention level2 vs. Intention leveI 3 -8.362* * 2.963 -. 140 -29 .O8

Intention level3 vs. Intention level4 -10.189** 2.744 -. 180 -30 -10

Crime Senousness 30

Table 9

Summarv of Multiple Remession Analyses for Coded Ap;e Contrasts' Im~act on Predictinn Seriousness

Conîrasî B - SE B P adj. R'

11 year-old offender vs. 16 year-old offender -.450 .564 -.O1 1 -81 79

1 1 year-oId offender vs. 2 1 year-old offender -1.906** -559 -.O45 .8 1 .79

1 6 year-old offender vs. 2 1 year-old offender - 1 -43 5 * * -5 5 5 4 3 4 -8 1 -79

Crime Seriousness 3 1

Table 10

Means for the severities of sentences assigned to offender bv we and intent level

I 1 year-old 16 year-old 2 1 year-old all ages

intent level 1 6.45 8.99 10.01 8.5 1

al intent Ievels 43.53 52.73 60.14 52.2 1

Crime Senousness 32

variables were determined to account for a signincant amount of the variance (AR2 = -64,

F(3, 1098) = 1 l96.OO, e< -01). -

Contrast analyses indicated that differing levels of intention resulted in sigiilficantly

different seventies of punishments being assigned by the subjects. In Table 1 1 it can be

seen that an increase in intention led to a more severe sentence being assigned to the

offender.

mender age also significantly contributed to the overd mode1 for sentencing

(t(lOS,1098) = 16.13, g< .0001). Age contrasts indicated that there were signifiant

differences in sentencing sewerity between ai l age groups. Thus, in contrast to earlier

analyses, subjects assigned signincantly diffêrent sentences across ail of the age groups,

and even Merentiated between the two juvenile offender groups. Table 12 presents the

results of these analyses.

Once again the age of offender by intention interaction did not have a signincant

effect (AR2= -0005, E(3, 1098) = 1.66, ns) on subjects' sentencing practices.

Concems were raised regard'ig the fàct that coding a response of 'no penalty' for

subjects who stated that no crime had occu~~ed may be accounting for the significant

dxerences for sentenhg between the lower levels of intention. Sentencing data for these

subjects were re-coded as missing data and the resdts were re-analyzed. Results showed

that the pattern of significance remained the same for this data set.

Questions raarciine; Merences in scenarios

AU but two subjects either directly stated that the intention ditterd in the scenarios

or described this ditference through other examples (e.g., accident vs. deliberate). Other

Crime Seriousness 33

Table 11

Summarv of Multiple Remession Analyses for Coded Intention Level Contrasts' h a c t on Predictina Sentence

Contrast B -- SE B P adj. R*

Intention level I vs. Intention level2 - 17.679"" 1.69 1 -.467 -46 -30

Intention level2 vs. Intention level3 -9.009* * 2.574 -. 173 -3 1 - 1 1

Intention level3 vs. Intention level4 -9.3 58 ** 2.346 -. 192 -32 -12

Crime Senousness 34

Table 12

Summaw of Multiple Remession Analyses for Coded Age Contrasts' Impact on Predictine; - Sentence

Contrast B -- SE B P ILZ adj. R'

1 1 year-old offender vs. 16 year-old offender -4.520* * -5 85 -. 1 14 -77 .75

1 1 year-old offender vs. 2 1 year-old offender -8.636* * -53 6 -.2 19 -8 1 .79

16 year-old offender vs. 2 1 year-old offeader -4.09 1 * * .576 -. 104 -77 -75

Crime Seriousness 3 5

things that were rnentioned in addition to intention indudeci such things as age, brutality of

the crime, motivation, type of weapon used, circumstmces before the offense, and

accountability of the offender.

Thus, through self-report, subjects indicated that they consciously used the

intention level of the perpetrator to assist them in detecminiLlg the senousness of the crime

and the type of sentence that the offender should receive. This is not surprising in light of

the results that the Ievel of intention was clearly differentiated across scenarios, and that it

affectai both perceived senousness and sentences assigned.

Questions Rwardina the Young Offenders Act

A considerable lack of knowledge was discuvered when subjects were asked to

m e r questions regardhg the Young Offenders Act. Table 13 presents the major

findings for these questions.

Many abjects responded that they 'did not know' the answer or failed to provide

an answer for many of the posed questions. Conside~g that the majonty of the subjects

had, until recently, been govemed under this act, the results presented in Table 8 are rather

surprising .

Just over one-third of the abjects were able to correctly state that 12 was the

minimum age at which an individual can be prosecuted under the Young Offenders Act.

When the subjects were asked what they thought the minimum age should be, 9 subjects

felt that there should be no minimum and that any person under the age of 18 accused of

wmmitting an offense should be charged, regardless of age.

When asked to indicate the maximum age at which a person can be prosecuted

Crime Seriousness 36

Table 13

Answers to Ouestions Renarding the Young Offenders Act

Correct Question % Correct Mean Range Answer

What is the minimum age of the YOA? 36 12.1 5 - 1 8 12

What shouid be the minimum age of the YOA?

What is the maximum age of the YOA?

What should be the maximum age of the YOA?

What is the rmcimum sentence of the YOA?

What should be the maximum sentence of the YOA? N/A 12.0 1-Life N/A (25 Y=)

Crime Seriousness 37

under the Young Offenders Act, 67% of the respondents stated that people who were 18

years of age could be prosecuted under this act. Ody 20% of the subjects correctly stated

that 17 was the maximum age. When asked to indicate what they felt was an appropnate

maximum age, 41% of the subjects stated that 16 should be the maximum age.

The most common m e r to the question regarding the m e n t maximum

sentence under the Young Offenders Act was 'don't know' (36%). Of those responding,

27% correctly stated that 5 years impnsonrnent is the maximum sentence that can be

implemented. Fourteen students thought that the current maxjmum sentence was 2 years

imprisoment (this was the limit until recently) and one subject thought that a Me sentence

could be irnposed. Twenty-seven percent of the respondents thought that the maximum

sentence shouid be raised to 10 years Unprisonment. Eighteen respondents thought that 25

years to life would be an appropriate maximum sentence.

Discussion

As expected, the intention manipulation correctly mapped on to the subjects'

perceived levels of intent resulting in four distinct levels. n i e non-signifiant effect that the

offender's age had on rated intention was expected. This is not surpnsing, because equal

numbers of offenders at each age level appeared in all the crime scenarios. However, this

is in direct opposition to the Young Offenders Act which raised the minimum age of

prosecution to 12 because it was believed that chiidren under this age are unable to form a

criminal intention. Subjects, unlike the Young Offenders Act, did not indicate that they

thought that 1 1 year-old individuals were less able to fonn criminal intention than 16 or 2 1

year-olds.

Crime Seriousness 38

Intention had a clear e f f i on ratings of crime seriousness: the higher the level of

intention, the higher the rating of crime seriousness. This indicates that when subjects are

deciding on the seriousness of the offense they rely not ody on the outcome or damage

done by the offender, but also on e x t e d and contniuting factors. The outcome of aii the

offenses in this shidy was the same-they ail resulted in deatbs-but not all of the cases

were rated as being equaliy serious.

Subjects tended to correspond with the legal interpretation of these offenses. That

is, deaths that resulted due to an accident through recklessness or negligence were rated as

being less serious than those offenses which were cornmitteci in the heat of the moment.

Furiher these two categories of events were rated as less serious than those offenses that

were cornmineci with some intention and thought, but no planning. The homicides that

were premeditated and planned were rated as being the moa serious offenses in this shidy.

These ciifferences are roughly consistent with the ordering of current legal categories of

accident/negligence causing death, mansiaughter, second degree and fint degree murder.

The results fkom the sentencing questions are sidar. Subjects imposed

increasingly harsher sentences as the intention of the offender increased. That is, the more

intentionai the subjects rated the crime as being, the more likely they were to impose a

longer or more severe sentence on the offender. Thus, unlü<e the contradictory research

titerature, level of intention had a sigdicant impact on both ratings of senousness and

sentencing practices.

The effect of age is more difncult to interpret. This dwiculty arises when trying to

interpret the effect that the age of the offender had on ratings of seriousness. Adults were

Crime Seriousness 39

consistently and significantly rated as being higher on this variable. However, there were

no dxerences noted between the 16 and 11 year-old offenders. Because ratings of

intention did not Wer among the age groups, and ali age groups appeared in an qua1

number of scenarios, the dinerences in ratings of seriousness are ditficuIt to interpret.

Although ratings of senousness were not expected to differ among age groups, the

criminal justice systern mently considers that children under the age of 12 are unable to

form a aiminal intention. However, the abjects did not appear to conair with th is

position and rated the 11 year-old offender as h a h g the same level of intention as both

the teenage and adult offênder. Further, the offenses committed by the 11 year-old were

seen as being of e q d seriousness as those committed by the 16 year-old, although both

are Lower than seriousness for the 21 year-old. From t h , one could herpret that subjects

are assessing 'responsibility' when decidiig upon the seriousness of the crime' as opposed

to focushg only on intent. That is, aibjects may have considered such things as the ability

to look ahead and consider the consequences of one's actions and/or the ability to control

one's behavbr when decidii upon a rathg of seriousness.

From these results, it is not swprising that subjects agree that adults who commit

crimes should be sentenced more harshiy than both juveniles and children. However, ody

using the ratings of seriousness and intention reported by subjects, it would appear that the

juvenile d child offender would be sentenced sirnilarly. Despite this, nibjects ance again

appear to concur with the criminal justice system and differentiate between these two

groups of offenders when aEsigning sentences.

Although the results appear to agree with the criminal justice system, the problem

Crime Senousness 40

lies in the fact that the 1 1 year-old would not be sentenced under the current legal system.

Although the option of not sentencing the inavidual was provided for alI scenarios,

subjects did not tend to choose this option when the intent level was rated as being

moderate to high. Thus although subjects concurred with the criminal justice system in

that they sentenced younger offenders more leniently, they were not wilIing to ignore the

seriousness of the crime committed by the 11 year-old and Vaposed a sentence on him

which they deemed appropriate.

Three cautions need to be mentioned when interpreting this study. The est

conceni is that the subjects used in this study are not representative of the general public,

and the generaiizability of the results are questionable. That is, most subjects were

undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 21. Thus, not ody are they younger

than the rnajority of the general public, but one could also argue that they are more

educable than the general public and thus not representative.

A second caution is that these results can oniy be used when discussing cases that

result in the death of another individual. Although the intention of the offender is seen as

being important with regards to seriousness and sentencing in these cases, it is unclear

whether similar relationships would be found for other offenses. For example, is the

property offense of break and enter seen as more serious and deserving of a more severe

sentence if the offender plans the attack 24 hours in advance, or is this a type of offense Ui

which the damage done (i.e., amount stolen) is seen as more important when deciding

upon these issues? Only further research can determine the effect of each of these things

on different crimes.

Crime Seriousness 4 1

The third caution is wncemed with the experimental design. To better asses the

effects of these variables, a more orthogonal design is required. Due to the non-orthogonal

nature of this experimental design, t is not possible to directly compare effect sizes of the

diEerent variables. Therefore, an orîhogonal design is recommended for future research.

This research provides support for the conclusion that the intention of the offender

is considered to be an important factor when assessing the seriousness of the crime and

when detemüning the sentence that shodd be imposed when deaihg with these types of

offenses. Further, it indicates that the subjects in this study tended to agree with the

s e p d o n of these offenses into four distinct categories. Subjects also agree with the

sentencing practices of the courts in that younger offenders were sentenced more leniently

than older offenders. Although subjects tended to sentence the 1 1 year-old offender to an

imprisonment term, it is unclear whether they would have done so if an explanation of the

Young Offenders Act had been provided for the subjects. That is, fiirther concurrence

between the subjects and the criminal justice system may have been found if the subjects

had been made aware of rasons for and age limits of the Young Offenders Act. Again,

only further research can decide if this assertion is correct.

Future research is needed to assess the degree to which intention affects the

seriousness of a criminal act. An orthogonal design which allows the anaiysis of effect

s k s is a necessary next step in the study of crime seriousness. Further, research needs to

determine ifthis relationship is a signifiant factor in crimes that do not result in the death

of another individuai. That is, would s i d a r results be found for ali crimes, for crimes that

involve interpersonal contact, for crimes that involve interpersonal violence not resulting

Crime Senousness 42

in death, or is this a relationship distinct to cases that eventudy resdt in the death of

another individual? Research on these topics rnay be helpfùl in disentangling some of the

contradictory research findings in which many different types of offenses have been

represented.

Finaily, a study in which subjects are made aware of the governing laws conceniing

both adults and juveniles in order to determine iftheir responses still m e r fiom the

criminal code would be helpfd. The Iack of knowledge conceming the Young Offenders

Act in the present study makes it impossible to determine if subjects are sentencing the

younger offenders based on what they believe the law to be or if they are sentencing the

offenders based on their own beliefi without regard to the law. R m c h to determine the

agreement of citizens with legal practices could help dispel or support reports which

indicate that citizens are dissatisfied with current legal practices.

The issue of crime seriousness is a large component of society's legal fiamework.

Further research is needed in this area to assist in arriving at a consensus regarding what is

considered to be a serious offense and what types of punishments are required for such

offenses.

Crime Seriousness 43

References

Banks, C., Maloney, E., & Wrllcock, H. D. (1975). Public attitudes to crime and the pend

system. British Journal of Crimino1oe;v. 15(3), 228-240.

Cookie, S. (1 974). Sex prejudice in jury simulation. Journal of Psycholom~ 88(2), 305-

3 12.

Gebotys, R J., & Roberts, J. V. (1987). Public views of sentencing: The role of offender

cfiaracteristics. Canadian Jounial of Behaviourai Science. 19,479488.

Ho* D. (1977). Situational and victims' characteristics in simulateci pend judgments.

Pqchological Reoorts. 40-55-58.

Izzett, R, & Fishman, L. (1976). Defendant Sentences as a fiindon of attractiveness and

justification for actions. The Journal of Social Pwcholoav. 100,285-290.

Leschieci, A, & Gendreau, P. (1986). The declining role of rehabilitation in Canadian

juvede justice: Implications of underlying theory in the Young Wenders Act.

Canadian Journal of Criminologx 28,3 1 5-322.

Leventhal, G., & Krate, R (1 977). Physical attractiveness and severity of sentencing.

Pwcholo@cal Reports. 40,3 15-3 18.

McGlynn, R P., Megas, I. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecthg

the attribution of insanity in a murder hial. The Journal of Psvcholo~y. 93,93-99.

McKelvie, S. J., Mitcheil, M., Arnott, R, & Sullivan, M. (1 993). Effects of offenders' and

victims' characteristics on severity of punishment. Psvchological Reports. 72,399-

402.

Riedel, M. (1975). Perceiveci circumstances, inferences or intent and judgments of offense

Crime Seriousness 44

seriousness. The Journal of Criminai Law and Criminolo- 66(2), 20 1-208.

Rose, A M-, & Preli, A E. (1955). Does the punishment fit the crime? A study in social

valuation. Amencan Journal of SocioIow. 61,247-259.

Rossi P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes:

Normative structure and individual differences. American Sociologid Review.

39(2), 224-237. -

Sebba, L. (1 980). 1s mens rea a component of perceiveci offense senousness?. The Journal

of Criminal Law and CriminoIoav. 7 1,lH- 13 5.

Seiiin, T., & WoIfgang, M. E. (1 964). The measurement of delinquenw. New York, NY:

John Wdey & Sons Inc.

Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautifùi but dangerous: Effects of offender

attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Personaiitv

and Social Psvchologv, 3 1 (3), 4 10-4 14.

Sinha, A K., & Kumar, P. (1985). Antecedents of crime and suggested punishment. The

J o d of Social P s y c h o l o ~ ~ 125(4), 485488.

Stafford, E. & HiU, J. (1987). The t a social inquiry reports and the sentencing of

juveniles. British J o u d of Criminolo- 27-4 1 1-420.

Thurstone, L. L. (1927a). Method of paired cornparisons for social values. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Pwcholoq. 2 1 , 3 84-400.

Thurstone, L. L. (1927b). A law of comparative judgment. Pwcholo~cal Review. 34,

273-286.

von Kirsch, A (1985). Past or future crimes: Deservedness and dangerousness in the

Crime Seriousness 45

sentencing of criminals. New B d c k , NJ: Rutgers University Press

Wolfgang, M. E., & Riedel, N. (1973). Race, judicid discretion and the death penalty.

Annals of the American Academv of Political and Social Science. 407, 1 1 9- 1 3 3.

Crime Seriousness 46

A~pendix A: Crime Scenarios

Intent Level l

John, an 1 1 year-old male, was walkllig home with a fiend after fishing school for the day. As they were walking they began horsing around with each other. As a car was approaching, John grabbed his fiend by the collar and pretended to push him into the Street in fiont of the car. The driver of the car, who had been watching the two boys, saw what was happening and slammed on the brakes and tumed the steering wheel. The car wewed into the other lane of trafnc and coUided with another car. Paramedics and police arrivai a few minutes later to assess the situation. The clriver of the first car was quickly removed fiom the car and nished to the emergency room of the nearest hospital, but was proclaimed dead on amval at the hospital.

John, an 11 year-old male, was upset with the noise that his neighboh dog was making. He and his parents had talked with the neighbor several times, but nothing had been done. The night before an important exam, John was awakened because the dog was making too much noise. He got up, g l a n d out his window, and saw that the neighbor was out on his porch. John got dressed and walked over to the neighbor's house. He approached the man and asked him to quiet the dog. The neighbor turned away fkom John and was walhg towards the door when John stepped onto the porch to continue the conversation While trying to avoid John, the neighbor lost his balance, and after a few stumbling steps he feii over the porch railing. When the man hit the ground, bis neck was broken and he was killed.

Mer the fbt major snowfd of the season, John, an 1 1 year-old male, was enjoying himself throwing snowballs at a "stop" sign. He would methodically make each large snowbd and then take aYn at the sign. AIthough being f&îy consistent on hitting the sign, on one of his attempts, the snowbd missed the sign and hit the windshield of an oncoming car. The driver of the car, who was momentariiy blinded by this large blob of snow, slamrned on the brakes. Despite this quick reaction from the driver, the icy conditions of the Street made it impossible to control the car. The car slid across the road, over the sidewak and collided with a street light. The ciriver of the car was kilied Uistantly from the impact of this collision.

Crime Seriousness 47

John, an 11 year-old male, was retuniing home from a school football game when he met another person fkom his neighborhood who had supported the opposing team. The boys began arguing about the game and over a critical decision by the referee. This argument continued to escalate and the other boy teased John about his playing skills and even began to taunt him with ethnic siurs. John became very upset over this and grabbed the other boy by the shoulders. They struggled for several minutes until John hal ly tripped the person and they both feil onto the sidewak As they roiled on the sidewalk, John grabbed the other person's head and hit it upon the cernent. The boy died &om brain damage.

One evening when he was home by himseE John, an 11 year-old male, invited some of his fiiends over for a party. Later, an argument about the televised hockey game started between John and one of his fiends. John was eventualiy pushed ont0 the fhor where he hurt both his head and his pride. Ali the boys Iaughed at what had happened and John became even angrier. John went over to the gun rack and rernoved his father's gun. When the boy who had pushed hirn saw the gun he Iaughed at John and told him that he was too "chicken" to use the gun. He started to slowly approach John and continued taunting him and telling him Yo go ahead and shoot unless he was chicken." John pointed the gun at the other boy and pulled the trigger, shooting him in the chest. The boy died from this wound.

John, an 1 1 year-old male, ran to the sale at the music store to buy a CD he had wanted for a long tirne. When he got there he ran up to the second floor and saw another boy pick up the last copy fiom the stack. John walked over to the boy and asked him if he wuld have the CD. The other boy told John to "get lost" and pushed him out of the way as he walked to the edge of the balcony to look at other CDS. John waiked over and tried to grab the CD out of his hands. They strupgied for several minutes with neither of the boys letting go. Finally, John got possession of the CD, but both boys continued to shout angdy at each other. John pushed the other boy, forcing him over the edge of the balcony. The boy's neck was broken when he feu to the first floor and he died Corn this attack.

Crime Seriousness 48

A boy who had injured John earlier in the week by pushing his cleats into John when sliding into base, was talking to some fiends. John, 11 years old, was retuniing nom a game and saw this kid. He approached the other kids and called out the boy's name. The kid turned around and gave John a disparaging look When John asked for an apology, he laughed and said that it wasn't his fault that John was such a bad player. The boy then himed away and ignored M e r attempts by John to t& with him. John became rnistrated and very angry with this and after about 10 minutes watching he grabbed a nearby baseball bat and hit the other boy in the head with Ït. The boy feil to the ground and John hit Iiim two more times. The beating caused i n t e d injuries and a concussion and r d t e d in the death of the boy.

During a weekend party at a fnend7s place, two 11 year-old males became angry with each other after a dispute over the type of music that should be played. John, the loser of the argument, was upset because he felt embarrassed about losing the argument in b n t ofhis pers . He remained at the party watching the other boy and becoming angrier as he thought about what had happened. When John saw the other boy walk into the backyarâ, he foliowed. As the other boy walked around the pool, John suddenly pushed him into the water and held his head under water und he stopped strugglmg. He left the boy in the pool and retunied to the party inside. The boy drowned and was later discovered in the pool by another penon.

John, an 1 1 year-old boy, was angry at one of his fkiends in the neighborhood who had won two tickets to a hockey game. This boy had asked someone from the "popular crowd" to go with him in the hopes of becorning associated with this group. This reaily made John angry, because he had told this Gend that he wanted to go to the game. John had cded the other boy on the phone that evening to let him know how he felt, but the result was only an argument and angry remarks. The next day, while he was riding in the car with his brother, John saw this fiiend. As the car was approaching this person, John reached over and quickly pulled the steering wheel. The car s w d sharply towards the boy who was unable to avoid the impact. The boy died fiom major intemal injuries.

Crime Seriousness 49

John, an 1 1 year-old r . e , was having problems with another student in school. Both boys were ûyhg to eam the nnal spot on the hockey team As the day of the decision approached, John began to feel that he would not get the position unless something happened to his cornpetitor. John desperately wanted this position and he decided that he would have to do sornething to be sure he got it . The next day after school when he lmew that the other boy would be taking the subway downtown, he followed him. As the boy was waiting for the subway, John placed himseif directly behind him When the train approached, he pushed the boy as hard as he could. The boy feli ont0 the tracks and was kiiled wheu the subway train hit him.

John, an 11 year-old male, was very angry at another boy who had been voted class representative to the student goveniment. John had campaigned hard for the position and beiieved that the other boy had won by bribing people to vote for him, even though John's fiends said that the election had been fair. John was very upset and was still determineci to get this position in order to get some respect from classrnates. John decided that to get this position he must get nd of the other person. Three days later, John hid outside the boy's house waiting for h i . to bring the garbage out. As the other boy came out of the house, John grabbed hirn and pushed him into a corner. John then used a knife and stabbed the boy in the chest several times. The boy died fiom these wounds.

John, an 1 1 year-old male, was very angry at aaother boy in his class who he thought had stolen his bike. John had even threatened the boy that something terrible would happen to him if he did not return the bike, but the other boy protestai that he knew nothhg about John's bike. The strong denial made John believe even more strongly that the other boy was the thief When a week had passed and John stdi had not gotten his bike back, he decided that something needed to be done in order to show the boy who was in charge. Two nights later, he waited outside the boy's house und d the lights had been tumed off for a few hours. He broke into the boy's bedroom and stabbed him in the chest several times with a knife. The boy died from this attack.

Crime Seriousness 50

Appendix B: Consent Form

Consent form:

Queen's University Department of Psychology

This study is being conducted by Anita Curnbleton under the supe~sion of Dr. Edward Zamble of the Department of Psychology at Queen's University.

In this shidy you will be asked to read a number of crime vignettes and then complete questions about each of the scenarios. Participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw at any h e . AU information about you or the answers you give wiU be kept confidential.

If you have any questions, concerns or cornplaints regarding this study, please contact Dr. Zamble, s u p e ~ s o r of the study (545-2892). Mer this, ifyou are still not satisfied, you may contact Dr. R Kalin, Head of the Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Khgst011, ON K R 3N6 (545-2492).

Consent Form

1 have read the above description of this study and give my consent to participate under these conditions.

Signature

Date

Crime Seriousness 5 1

Instmctions:

On the foliowing pages you will be asked to read a number of scenarios adapted

from actual cases, in each of which a person is kiiied. The role of all of the defendants has

been established (Le., the prosecution and defense have agreed on the tacts as describeci in

each case). You are to act as a judge who has been presented with this case and determine

the penalty which you think should be imposeci upon each of the defendants. You will also

be asked to rate the seriousness of each ofthe offenses.

You will be given several choices of the types of penalties you can impose,

(namely, none, probation, fine, or imprisonment).

The option of sentencing a person to a term of probation means that the defendant

must periodically report to a probation officer and continue to remain out of trouble. The

maximum length of probation which can be irnposed upon a defendant is two years.

Ifyou select a h e you will be asked to spec* the arnount in dollars. Note that a

person is ordinarily given a period of tune (e.g., one month) to arrange for payment.

Ifyou select a term in prison you must also specify how long the tenn should be.

Nthough some people get released from prison early, this is not ellsued. You should

specify the length of time for which this person should be irnprisoned before any chance of

release.

When detedning seriousness, you will be asked to rate each scenario on a scale

between 1 and 100, where 1 is the least serious crime that you can think of and 100 is the

most serious crime that you can thkk of

Crime Seriousness 52

There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested in what y o ~ think the

penalty should be, and not in what the law now specifies as the penalty.

Go through the scenarios in the order in which they are presented. Mer you have

cumpleted answering the questions for one scenario, move on to the next one. Do NOT

return to an earlier scenario, but work through the booklet until you have cornpleted aii of

the cases.

Mer completion of the scenarios, you wiU be asked to answer a few more

questions regardhg the scenarios which you have read and some questions regarding parts

of the criminal code.

Please tum to the 6rst page and begin now.

Crime Seriousness 53

Avpendix D: Questions Following Each Scenario

1) What type of penalty should be imposed upon this defendant? None Probation

spece length (maximum of 2 years) Fine

spec* amount $ Imprisonment

specify length (please specify the length of time that the defendant must

remain in prison)

2) In the present system, someone under the age of 18 can be sent to an adult p h n as opposai to a juvenile prison. If sentenced to Unprisonment, in what type offacility should the client be placed?

adult prison juvenile prison N/A

3.a) Was there a crime cornmittecl in this case? yes (answer part b) no ( do not answer part b)

b) Based on a scale between 1 and 100, where 1 is the least serious crime you can think of and 100 is the most serious crime you can think of, where would you rank this case?

Crime Seriousness 54

A~pendix E: Young Offenders Act Quedons

1) What is the minimum age at which a person can be prosecuted under the Young Offenders Act?

2) What do you think the minimum age at which a person can be prosecuted under the Young Offenders Act should be?

3) What is the maximum age at which a person can be prosecuted under the Young Wenders Act?

4) What do you think the maximum age at which a person can be prosecuted under the Young Offeaders Act should be?

5) What is the maximum length of imprisonment that can be imposed upon a defendant under the Young Offenders Act?

6 ) What do you think the maximum length of irnprisonrnent that can be irnposed upon a defendant under the Young Offenders Act should be?

Crime Seriousness 55

Appendix F: Debriefing Sheet

The experiment you have just participated in examines the effect of criminal intent on ratings of seriousness and on the type and severity of punishment. It also hvestigates the effect that age of the offender has on each of these things.

Since the publication of Selh and WoKgang's The Measurement of Deiin~uency in 1964, the issue of crime seriousness has becorne a much researched topic. One area of interest that seems to have been somewhat overlooked in this research area is that of the intent or motivation of the criminal. However, previous studies have problems that limit the conclusions that can be & a m fkom them.

Another factor that has received a lot of attention both in research and in the media is that of the age of the perpetnitor. In 1984 the Young Offenders Act P A ) replaced the Juvede Delinquents Act (IDA) as the goveming Iaw for the youth justice system. This new legislation raised the criminal age of responsibility to 12, as opposed to 7 under the I D 4 because it is assumed that children under the age of 12 are unable to form intentions. Much of the controversy regarding the YOA has been in reaction to this feature (although the limitation of a maximum of 5 years on sentence length, even for homicide, has probably received the rnost attention).

Although it is clear that the public is dissatisfïed with the results, there is vimially no reliable information on what punishments citizens would a M y Wre to see for juvenile offenders. Knowing how the public views offenses comrnitted by jweniles could assist the courts in formulating consistent policies.

This research was undertaken to see how strong an effect the intenthnental state of the perpetnttor has on ratings of both the seriousness of the crime and sentences assigued to the perpetrator when based solely on cases of homicide. The amount of h m in each of the offenses is equal so the effect of the intention of the crimùial on ratings of crime seriousness and sentence severity can be studied directly. It is hypothesized that the intent of the perpetrator will have an effect on the seriousness ratings of the crimes c o d t t e d and the sentences imposai.

The impact that the age of the offender has on ratings of seriousness and length of sentences handed down will also be analyzed. The main question asked is whether the public would sentence offenders at Merent age groups who have committed the same crime to similar or different punishment It is hypothesized that the age of the offender wiU not affect the ratings of senousness for each of the crimes. However, due to the fact that younger age groups are not perceived as being equally culpable, it is hypothesized that the younger offenders wiii be sentenced more leniently.

In order to directly measure these effects, this experiment was designed so that each of the age groups was exposed to al1 of the crime scenarios. This means that for one of the crime scenarios where you had to sentence an 11 year-old, other subjects were reading the sarne crirne, but they were attributed to a 16 or 21 year-oId male. This way, we can see if the clifferhg age groups were sentend to Werent types and severity of sentences and dif5ering ievels of seriousness with regards to the exact same crime, as rated by diierent subjects.

Thank-you for participating in this study. It would be greatly appreciated Sali aspects of this experiment were kept confidentid for the next few weeks. This is necessary

Crime Seriousness 56

as the responses of future participants may be affecteci if they are aware of what is being investigated. If you have any questions, concems or cornplaints regarding this study, please contact Dr. Zamble, supervisor of the study (545-2892). If you are still not satisfied after this, you may contact Dr. R Kalin, Head of the Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6 (545-2492).

Riedel M. (1975). Perceivecl circumsbnces, inferences or intent and judgments of offense seriousness. The Journal of Criminal Law and Crùninologv. 66(2), 20 1-208.

Sebba, L. (1980). Is mens rea a component of perceived off- seriousness?. The Jomal of Criminal Law and Criminolow. 7 1,124- 13 5.

Sellin, T., & WoIfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement of deiinouency. New York, NY: John Wdey & Sons Inc.

Crime Seriousness 57

Appendix G: Ranking Questionnaire

I have recently coilected data for a study investigating public attitudes regardmg sentencing of offenders. This study required subjects to read crime scenarios and then assign a penalty to the offender .

In order to facilitate analysis, the severity of each sentence must be established. Thus, 1 am asking you to read a list of sentences and rank them on a scale fiom O to 100 according to severity. The task should take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary and anonymous. When you are fished, please return this form to rny mdbox.

The following is a List of sentences. Please rate each senterice according to how severe you think it is. Ratings for severity can range nom O to 100, with O being the most lenient punishment ever irnposed and 100 being the most severe punishment ever imposed.

Sentence Severity rating

1-6 months custody in a juvenile fàcility 20-25 (less a day) years custody in a juvenile facility

7- 12 months probation

5-10 Oess a day) years custody in an adult facility

fine of $50 1 -$2000

1 O - 15 (less a day) years custody in a juvenile facility

25 years (and over) custody in a juvenile facility

7- 12 months custody in a juvenile facility

2-5 (less a day) years custody in an adult facility

20-25 (less a day) years custody in an adult facility

1-3 years probation

1-2 (less a day) years cuaody in a juvenile facility 15-20 (less a day) years custody in an adult facility

fine of $100-$500

1 -2 (less a day) years custody in an adult facility 5-1 0 (less a day) years custody in a juvenile facility

15-20 (less a day) years custody in a juvenile facility discharge (no penalty)

fine of $500 1 -$10,000

1-6 months custody in an adult facility

1-6 months probation

25 years (and over) custody in an adult facility

Crime Seriousness 58

2-5 (less a day) years custody in a juvenile facilty fine of $200 1 -$5OOO

7- 12 months custody in an adult facility 10 - 15 (less a day) years custody in an addt facility

Thank you for your time and assistance. Anita Cumbleton