Public preferences for sentencing purposes: What difference does offender age, criminal history and offence type make?
| Author | Lynne D. Roberts,David Indermaur,Caroline A. Spiranovic,Kate Warner,Karen Gelb,Geraldine Mackenzie |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895811431847 |
| Published date | 01 July 2012 |
| Date | 01 July 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Criminology & Criminal Justice
12(3) 289 –306
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1748895811431847
crj.sagepub.com
Public preferences for
sentencing purposes: What
difference does offender age,
criminal history and offence
type make?
Caroline A. Spiranovic
Bond University, Australia
Lynne D. Roberts
Curtin University, Australia
David Indermaur
University of Western Australia, Australia
Kate Warner
University of Tasmania, Australia
Karen Gelb
Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria, Australia
Geraldine Mackenzie
Bond University, Australia
Abstract
Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing
purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type
and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most
Corresponding author:
Caroline A. Spiranovic, Bond University – Faculty of Law, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229, Australia
Email: cspirano@bond.edu.au
431847CRJ12310.1177/1748895811431847Spiranovic et al.Criminology & Criminal Justice
2011
Article
290 Criminology & Criminal Justice 12(3)
important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most
important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis
revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age
or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly
increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given
specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing
courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public
preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice.
Keywords
offence history, offence seriousness, offender age, public opinion, purposes of sentencing
Like many western democratic jurisdictions, Australia’s States and Territories have articu-
lated various purposes of sentencing within legislation. However, there is little research
available in Australia on the degree to which these stated purposes are consistent with
public expectations of sentencing. It is important to gauge public opinion in this area given
that public opinion may influence not only sentencing policy (Frost, 2010; Indermaur,
2008; Roberts, 2008a) but also sentencing decisions (Gleeson, 2004; Mackenzie, 2005).
The rapid emergence of sentencing advisory bodies in western nations such as Australia,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom demonstrates there is an increasing recognition that
the public ought to have input into sentencing policy (Indermaur, 2008; Warner, 2010).
This article aims to establish the views of the Australian public1 with regard to the
importance of the purposes currently stated in legislation. In particular, this article seeks to
ascertain whether public perceptions of the importance of sentencing purposes vary accord-
ing to legally relevant offender and offence characteristics.
The principles and purposes outlined in the legislation of each State and Territory
of Australia represent an uneasy compromise between two disparate schools of thought
in relation to the goals of sentencing (Edney and Bagaric, 2007). These two schools of
thought are typically referred to as utilitarian and ‘just deserts’. Utilitarian rationales
are forward looking or consequentialist in the sense that they look at the preventive
consequences of sentencing. Those who hold utilitarian views are concerned with the
benefits to be gained from punishment, including incapacitation (for the purposes
of protecting the community and preventing further crime), deterrence (general and
specific) and rehabilitation as legitimate reasons for punishment. In contrast, just
deserts or retributive theory is backward looking. Its proponents advocate punishment
that acknowledges past wrongs and that is just and in proportion to the offence com-
mitted and the culpability of the offender. Denunciation is typically regarded as a
retributivist rationale, although if its purpose is in part educative, then it is forward
looking (Edney and Bagaric, 2007; Mackenzie and Stobbs, 2010). This brief overview
of the traditional purposes of sentencing over-simplifies the complexity of the debate
as, for example, there are many shades and hues of desert theory. Moreover restorative
approaches have challenged just deserts theory in particular and social theories of
sentencing advocate a different approach (see Ashworth, 2010 for a discussion).
A mix of purposes (incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and retri-
bution) is evident in the sentencing legislation of various States/Territories in Australia
To continue reading
Request your trial