Public attitudes to the sentencing of drug offences
| Author | Jessica Jacobson,Amy Kirby |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895813494868 |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2014, Vol. 14(3) 334 –350
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895813494868
crj.sagepub.com
Public attitudes to the
sentencing of drug offences
Amy Kirby and Jessica Jacobson
Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Abstract
This article presents the findings of focus group research into public attitudes to the sentencing
of drug offences. The study was commissioned by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales
to inform the development of their new guideline on drug offences. There were two main
findings: first, participants’ responses were generally no more punitive than current sentencing
practice for less serious offences; second, participants’ overriding concerns were about the harms
associated with drug offences rather than the culpability of drug offenders. Thus the findings
of the study indicate that lighter sentences for drug ‘mules’ (as were subsequently introduced
by the Sentencing Council’s new guideline) would be tolerated by the public. However, if the
Council wishes to engage more fully with public opinion it will need to take a closer look at public
concerns with harm.
Keywords
Drug offences, focus groups, public engagement, sentencing, Sentencing Council
Introduction
Public attitudes to sentencing and the treatment of drug offences by the criminal justice
system are both issues that have generated widespread debate among policy makers and
the media alike. This article presents the findings of a study – public attitudes to the sen-
tencing of drug offences – which explored both issues. The study was conducted on behalf
of the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to inform the development of a guide-
line they were creating on the sentencing of drug offences.1 The Sentencing Council was
established in April 2010, at which point its predecessors the Sentencing Advisory Panel
and Sentencing Guidelines Council ceased to exist.2 The Council produces guidelines on
sentencing for the judiciary and aims to increase public understanding of sentencing.
Corresponding author:
Amy Kirby, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of London, UK.
Email: al.kirby@bbk.ac.uk
494868CRJ14310.1177/1748895813494868Criminology & Criminal JusticeKirby and Jacobson
2013
Article
Kirby and Jacobson 335
The study adopted a qualitative approach; specifically, the use of focus groups. The
study found that participants were not punitive in their attitudes towards less serious
offences; they generally did not wish to see custodial penalties for drug possession
offences; nor did they necessarily want substantial custodial penalties for small-scale
supply and small- to medium-scale importation offences – including offences committed
by drug ‘mules’. In fact their preferences for medium-scale importation offences were
often more lenient than current practice. Nevertheless, participants tended to favour sen-
tences that were more punitive than current practice for offences at the more serious end
of the spectrum, and wanted lengthy custodial sentences for medium- and large-scale
importation offences. The punitiveness of attitudes towards serious supply and importa-
tion offences reflects a focus on the harm caused by this kind of offending. Overall the
study’s findings indicate that the lighter sentences for drug ‘mules’, which were subse-
quently introduced by the new Sentencing Council guideline, would be tolerated by the
general public.
This article aims to use this research as a case study of policy engagement with public
opinion. The first part of the article examines the rationale for ‘dealing the public in’ to
decisions surrounding sentencing policy, as Indermaur (2008) put it, and considers prob-
lems associated with public involvement; and potential areas for improved public
engagement. It draws on previous research to examine the limitations to effective engage-
ment. The second part of the article describes how our research was undertaken, what it
found and how it was used by the Sentencing Council. The concluding section offers
some thoughts on how best bodies such as the Sentencing Council and the Ministry of
Justice should make use of research on public attitudes to justice.
Should sentencers accommodate public opinion?
Historical context and the problem of penal populism
When exploring whether or not it is wise for sentencing bodies to engage the public
in debates around sentencing policy, it is useful to consider the recent historical con-
text of these debates. Fifty years ago the concept of ‘dealing the public in’ (Indermaur,
2008) would have seemed somewhat unthinkable from a policy perspective. There
was a consensus among politicians, senior civil servants and the judiciary – ‘Platonic
guardians’, to use Loader’s (2006) term – that public opinion was something to be
managed rather than listened to. The presumption was that the weight of public opin-
ion was unremittingly punitive, and that there could be no meeting between enlight-
ened liberal policy and opinion; thus policy and practice should be insulated from
this punitive pressure, preserving ‘civilized values’ (Loader, 2006: 563) and balanc-
ing effectiveness and humanity and order and liberty. It was felt that the public emo-
tions stirred by crime were dangerous and in need of containing; for the Platonic
guardians, there was no clearer example of the impossibility of responding to public
opinion than debate surrounding abolition and possible reinstatement of the death
penalty (Loader, 2006).
The paternalistic self-confidence of policy elites in criminal justice began to be eroded
in the final two decades the 20th century – from the time of the Thatcher govern ment
To continue reading
Request your trial