Impact of information about sentencing decisions on public attitudes toward the criminal justice system

Research reveals public dissatisfaction with perceived leniency of the criminal justice system. However, when asked to sentence hypothetical offenders, members of the public tend to choose dispositions similar to what current court practices prescribe. In two studies reported here, subjects completed a mock sentencing exercise and a general attitude survey. In an initial pilot study, they expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but the relative punitiveness of their sentences (in terms of their perceptions of how severe various sentencing options are) was only slightly elevated above a set of reference sentences. Providing a typical judge's sentencing decisions did not decrease dissatisfaction but was associated with an anchoring effect. This effect was explored in the main study by manipulating the provided reference sentences to be either lenient, moderate, or punitive. Again, participants expressed general dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system but prescribed generally moderate sentences, anchoring their sentences to the information provided. However, only those exposed to moderate "typical" sentences subsequently reported reduced dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system.