Enhancing the legitimacy of sentences in the minds of the public: Evidence from a public opinion survey in Hong Kong
| Published date | 01 December 2020 |
| Date | 01 December 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474520915595 |
| Author | Sayaka Ri,Natasha Pushkarna,Kevin Kwok-Yin Cheng |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Enhancing the legitimacy
of sentences in the minds
of the public: Evidence
from a public opinion
survey in Hong Kong
Kevin Kwok-Yin Cheng
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Natasha Pushkarna
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Sayaka Ri
The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Abstract
Legal and criminology scholars have devoted a great deal of attention towards measur-
ing public confidence in the courts and sentencing. However, little is known about how
attitudes toward sentencing relate to the more complex concept of legitimacy.
Departing from conventional measurements of the public’s confidence in the courts
and their support for various sentence outcomes, this study centres on the process of
sentencing and its relation to ‘sentence legitimacy’. The central question posed in this
article is what makes sentence outcomes legitimate? Survey responses from the Hong
Kong public revealed that the public viewed court sentences as legitimate through the
courts’ overall adherence to procedural justice when making sentencing decisions and
the perceived effectiveness of those sentences. Distributive justice of sentencing
decisions was not found to influence sentence legitimacy. This article concludes with
implications for the courts when delivering sentences.
Corresponding author:
Kevin Kwok-Yin Cheng, Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong,Shatin, New Territories, Hong
Kong SAR, China.
Email: kevincheng@cuhk.edu.hk
Punishment & Society
2020, Vol. 22(5) 617–636
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474520915595
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Keywords
distributive justice, effectiveness, legitimacy, procedural justice, sentencing
Introduction
Sentencing is an important aspect of the public’s view of criminal justice. Sentencing
serves as a ‘communicative function’ of the criminal justice system which aids in the
‘maintenance ...of basic social norms’ (Durkheim, 1933; Tonry, 2006: 12; see also
Ashworth, 2015). The courts’ sentencing decisions convey the degree of censure
toward the offender and offence to the public. Often, when the public reads or
hears about a criminal case, the focus is likely on what sentence was imposed on
the convicted offender because sentencing decisions attract media attention and are
intuitively easier to understand than more technical legal issues like the admissibility
of evidence (Roberts and Plesni
car, 2015). Although there is a wealth of empirical
studies on public confidence and satisfaction with the courts and sentencing (Cullen
et al., 2000; Gelb, 2011; Hough and Roberts, 2004), scarce attention has been paid to
how attitudes toward sentencing relate to the more complex concept of legitimacy.
Roberts and Plesni
car (2015: 37) observe that: ‘The empirical literature on public
opinion and criminal justice is now substantial. However, no surveys of which we are
aware have directly measured perceptions of the legitimacy of sentencing or the
relative contribution that perceptions of sentencing make to the overall views of
criminal justice legitimacy.’ In other words, public opinion polls typically ask
respondents how confident they are about the courts’ function of sentencing but
not about their opinion or thoughts on the legitimacy of court sentences. The pre-
sent study intends to fill this gap. Here, legitimacy refers to public legitimacy, which
can be broadly defined as ‘people’s beliefs about the right of justice institutions to
hold power and influence’ (Jackson et al., 2015: 2). The recent conceptualizations of
public legitimacy, which will be discussed in more detail later, reveal it to be a much
richer and deeper concept than more straightforward measurements of public con-
fidence
1
(Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012; Jackson et al., 2012, 2015).
In public legitimacy research relating to criminal justice, procedural justice has
been widely seen as the primary antecedent by which legal authorities can enhance
their legitimacy in the minds of the public (Jackson, 2018; Tyler, 2003). The pub-
lic’s view on whether a legal authority, such as the police and the courts, is legit-
imate is based on their assessment about whether that legal authority wields their
powers fairly and justly. Legitimacy in turn has utilitarian benefits as it has been
consistently found to be positively associated with a higher willingness by members
of the public to cooperate with legal authorities and comply with the law (Jackson
et al., 2012; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler and Jackson, 2014).
Procedural justice and legitimacy studies, popularized by Tyler’s procedural
justice theory, continue to gain traction around the world. This is predominantly
true in not only the United States (US; Engel, 2005; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003;
Tyler and Fagan, 2008; Tyler et al., 2014), but also other parts of the world,
618 Punishment & Society 22(5)
To continue reading
Request your trial