Public perception of sentencing in Perth, Western Australia

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The present study replicates some of the key findings of earlier “revisionist” studies of public attitude towards the punishment of offenders: 554 Perth residents were interviewed from a sample frame of 800. Most respondents overestimated the amount of crime which involves violence, and tended to see the murder rate as “increasing” when it is not. Most (76%) said that sentences “are not severe enough”. However, 80% of these reported that they were thinking of a violent criminal when answering that question. It is suggested that general questions about crime may essentially reflect respondent concern about violence. The second part of the interview involved a split sample designed to test differences in responses to two types of item presentation. Approximately half the sample (288) were asked to chose a penalty they considered appropriate for three offences. The other half were given brief descriptions of the offence and the offender and then asked to choose an appropriate penalty. The minimum sentences were significantly lower for the group given the case descriptions. The results are interpreted as suggesting that public responses to questions of punishment are largely influenced by stereotypes. A good deal of acceptance was found for proposed alternatives to imprisonment. The most popular (75%) said “year, in all or most cases”) was the use of attendance centres. Most respondents also favoured programmes for fine defaulters, on-the-spot fines for petty offences and a day fine system “in all or most cases”. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of survey methodology and sentencing reform.

This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit: