Information and punitiveness: trial reconstruction in Ireland
| Pages | 90-98 |
| Published date | 08 June 2015 |
| Date | 08 June 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-04-2015-0005 |
| Author | Mai Sato,Mike Hough |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Information and punitiveness: trial
reconstruction in Ireland
Mai Sato and Mike Hough
Dr Mai Sato is Research Fellow
and Mike Hough is Professor,
both at the Institute for Criminal
Policy Research, University of
London, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to report results from a rape trial reconstruction in Ireland.
Design/methodology/approach –A studio audience of 100 members of the Irish public were selected to
attend a TV programme by the Republic of Ireland’s national broadcasting organisation. This involved the
examination of the sentencing of a rape case. The audience’s sentencing preferences were measured at the
outset, when they had been given only summary information about the case, and later, when full details had
been disclosed.
Findings –Previous research examining changes in public attitudes to crime and punishment has shown
that deliberation, including the provision of new information and discussion with others and experts,tends to
decrease public punitiveness and increase public leniency towards sentencing. An experiment in Ireland,
however, showed that providing information does not invariably and necessarily moderate punitive attitudes.
This paper presents the results, and offers some explanations for the anomalous outcome.
Research limitations/implications –The pre/post design, in which the audience served as their own
controls, is a weak one, and participants may have responded to what they took to be the agenda of the
producers.Due to the quality ofthe sample, the results maynot be generalisable tothe broader Irish population.
Practical implications –Policymakers should recognisethat the public is not uniformlypunitive for all crimes.
Thereis good research evidence toshow that the apparent publicappetite for tough punishmentis illusory, and
is a functionof the way that polls measurepublic attitudes to punishment.Sentencers andthose responsible for
sentencing policy would benefit from a fuller understanding of the sorts of cases which illicit strong punitive
responses from the public, and the reasons for thisresponse. However any such understanding should not
simply translateinto responsiveness to the public’spunitive sentiments –where theseexist. Innovative survey
methods –like this experiment –which attempt to look beyond the top-of-the-head opinions by providing
information and opportunities for deliberation should be welcomed and used more widely.
Originality/value –There have been limited research studies which reports factors which may increase
punitiveness through the provision of information and deliberation.
Keywords Justice, Sentencing, Victims, Evidence based practice, Courts, Custody
Paper type Research paper
Background
Past studies have shown that in many developed industrialised countries, the public consistently
believes sentencing practice to be too lenient. At the same time, they tend to be poorly informed
about the realities of sentencing practice, and to underestimate the severity of court sentences
(Roberts, 1992; Roberts and Stalans, 1997; Cullen et al., 2000; Roberts and Hough, 2002,
2005; Kury et al., 2002). A consistent finding is that the least well informed are the most punitive,
holding negative views about the criminal justice system (Hough and Roberts, 1998; Mattinson
and Mirrlees-Black, 2000).
Experimental studies designed to unpick the relationships between knowledge and punitivity
have suggested that less punitive attitudes are uncovered when methodologies are used that
Received 8 April 2015
Revised 17 April 2015
Accepted 18 April 2015
The authors would like to thank
Paul Loughlin, who produced the
programme for Prime Time,RTÉ,
for agreement to use the data from
the experiment reported here.
PAG E 90
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AN D PRACTICE
j
VOL. 1 NO. 2 2015, pp.90-98, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-04-2015-0005
To continue reading
Request your trial