Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, 22:351 | Cite as

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

  • Raphaël Hammer
  • Eric D. Widmer
  • Christian-Nils Robert
Article

Abstract

Lay sentencing attitudes are considered in the light of two theoretical perspectives. The first perspective views sentencing attitudes as parts of broader sets of social representations anchored in one’s position in the social structure. The second perspective explains sentencing attitudes by their subjective experiences of crime. This paper tests both theories by performing a series of multiple regressions on two dimensions of sentencing: punishment goals and severity of punishment. Empirical data comes from a quantitative survey conducted in Switzerland. Findings reveal that indicators of subjective proximity to crime largely account for sentencing attitudes. Nevertheless, social representations of crime measured by causes of crime also have a significant impact on sentencing attitudes. Implications of these findings for sentencing in Western democracies are discussed.

Keywords

Sentencing attitudes Punishment goals Severity Subjective proximity to crime Social representations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant 100011-112032 (“Les déterminants sociaux des finalités et de l’évaluation d’une juste peine dans les mentalités contemporaines”) of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies. Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, D. M., Woolever, C., & Baba, Y. (1994). Crime and safety-related concerns in a small community. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baba, Y., & Austin, D. M. (1989). Neighborhood environmental satisfaction, victimization, and social participation as determinants of perceived neighborhood safety. Environment and Behavior, 21, 763–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, C. (2004). Pourquoi faudrait-il punir?: Sur l’abolition du système pénal. Lyon: Tahin Party.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Bohm, R. M. (1991). American death penalty opinion, 1936–1986: A critical examination of the Gallup polls. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 113–145). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
  7. Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 305–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 659–683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Deschamps, J. C., & Beauvois, J.-L. (1996). Des attitudes aux attributions. Sur la construction de la réalité sociale. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  12. Doise, W. (1984). Social representations, inter-group experiments and levels of analysis. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Douglas, M. (1994). Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. Glencoe: Free Press [Originally published in 1893].Google Scholar
  16. Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Le concept de représentation sociale. In J. C. Deschamps & J.-L. Beauvois (Eds.), Des attitudes aux attributions. Sur la construction de la réalité sociale. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
  17. Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 116–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1988). Analyses factorielles simples et multiples. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  19. Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. (2001). Annuaire Statistique de la Suisse. Neuchâtel: Federal Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  20. Federal Statistical Office [FSO]. (2006). Annuaire Statistique de la Suisse. Neuchâtel: Federal Statistical Office.Google Scholar
  21. Ferraro, K. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  22. Garland, D. (1998). Les contradictions de la«société punitive»: le cas britannique. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 124, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1991a). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1991b). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Graham, S., Weiner, B., & Zucker, G. S. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O.J. Simpson. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2006). Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 395–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guillarme, B. (2003). Penser la peine. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  29. Heider, E. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hessing, D. J., de Keijser, J. W., & Elffers, H. (2003). Explaining capital punishment support in an abolitionist country: The case of The Netherlands. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 605–622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hewstone, M., & Jaspers, J. M. F. (1984). Social dimensions of attribution. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 379–404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hough, M., & Roberts, J. V. (1999). Sentencing trends in Britain. Public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment & Society, 1(1), 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jasso, G. (1998). Exploring the justice of punishments: Framing, expressiveness, and the just prison sentence. Social Justice Research, 11(4), 397–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jodelet, D. (1997). Représentation sociale: Phénomènes, concept et théorie. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psychologie sociale (pp. 357–378). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  35. Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (1991). Fear of crime and attitudes toward capital punishment: A structural equations model. Justice Quarterly, 8, 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kellerhals, J., Languin, N., & Pattaroni, L. (2000). Ces risques qui nous menacent: Enquête sur les inquiétudes des Helvètes. Swiss Journal of Sociology/Revue suisse de sociologie, 26(2), 297–317.Google Scholar
  37. Kerner, H.-J. (1987). Les sanctions pénales classiques et leurs altérations dans les politiques criminelles européennes. International Annals of Criminology/Annales Internationales de Criminologie, 25(1–2), 91–110.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, J. O., & Müller, C. (1978). Factor analysis, statistical methods and practical issues. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, A. (1993). Attitudes towards punishment. In A. A. del Frate, U. Zvekic, & J. J. M. van Dijk (Eds.), Understanding crime (pp. 271–288). Rome: UNICRI.Google Scholar
  40. Kuhn, A. (2005). Sanctions pénales: est-ce bien la peine? Grolley: Les Ed. de l’Hèbe.Google Scholar
  41. Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. (1999). Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 373–392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lagrange, H. (2003). Demandes de sécurité. France, Europe, Etats-Unis. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
  43. Languin, N., Kellerhals, J., & Robert, C.-N. (2006). L’art de punir. Les représentations sociales d’une “juste” peine. Genève, Zürich, Bâle: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  44. Langworthy, R. H., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology, 24, 575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lebart, L., Morineau, A., & Piron, M. (1995). Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
  46. Lester, D. (1998). The death penalty: Issues and answers. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  47. Lurigio, A. J., Carroll, J. S., & Stalans, L. J. (1994). Understanding judges’ sentencing decisions: Attributions of responsibility and story construction. In L. Heath, S. Tindale, J. Edwards, E. Posavac, F. Bryant, E. Henderson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (Vol. 3, pp. 91–115). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  48. Mansfield, E. R., & Helms, B. P. (1982). Detecting multicollinearity. The American Statistician, 36(3), 158–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCorkle, R. (1993). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 240–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McGillis, D. (1978). Attribution and the law: Convergence between legal psychological concepts. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mears, D. P. (2001). Getting tough with juvenile offenders. Explaining support for sanctioning youths as adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(2), 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller, J. L., Rossi, P. H., & Simpson, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of justice: Race and gender differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law & Society Review, 20(3), 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse, son image et son public. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  54. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Obst, M., Ribeaud, D., & Killias, M. (2001). Punitivität und Sicherheitsgefühl der Schweizer—eine vergleichende Analyse. Bulletin de criminologie, 27(1), 25–41.Google Scholar
  56. Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R. A., & Danner, M. J. E. (2004). What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Robert, Ph. (2000). Le sentiment d’insécurité. In L. Mucchielli & Ph. Robert (Eds.), Crime et sécurité, l’état des savoirs (pp. 367–375). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  59. Robert, Ph., & Pottier, M.-L. (1997). Sur l’insécurité et la délinquance. Revue Française de Science Politique, 47(5), 630–644.Google Scholar
  60. Robert, Ph., & Pottier, M.-L. (2004). Les préoccupations sécuritaires: une mutation? Revue Française de Sociologie, 45(2), 211–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roberts, J., & Gebotys, R. (1989). The purposes of sentencing: Public support for competing aims. Behavioral Science & Law, 7, 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (2000). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  63. Robinson, P. H. (2006). Competing conceptions of modern desert: vengeful, deontological, and empirical. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Paper no. 104. http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn/wps/papers/104
  64. Roché, S. (1993). Le sentiment d’insécurité. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  65. Sanders, T., & Roberts, J. V. (2000). Public attitudes toward conditional sentencing: Results of a national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 32(4), 199–207.Google Scholar
  66. Sapin, M., Spini, D., & Widmer, E. (2007). Les parcours de vie: de l’adolescence au grand âge. Lausanne: Savoir suisse.Google Scholar
  67. Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Fear of crime and criminal victimization: Gender-based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sims, B., & Johnston, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 270–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sprott, J. B. (1999). Are members of the public though on crime?: The dimensions of public “punitiveness”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(5), 467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stack, S. (2000). Support for the death penalty: A gender specific model. Sex Roles, 43, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stewart, G. W. (1987). Collinearity and least squares regression. Statistical Science, 21(1), 68–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sundt, J., Cullen, F., Applegate, B., & Turner, M. G. (1998). The tenacity of the rehabilitative ideal revisited: Have attitudes toward offender treatment changed? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 426–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Toseland, R. W. (1982). Fear of crime: Who is most vulnerable? Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty; instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude? Law & Society Review, 17(1), 21–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. van Dijk, J. J. M., & Mayhew, P. (1993). Criminal victimisation in the industrial world: Key findings of the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Surveys. In A. A. del Frate, U. Zvekic, & J. J. M. van Dijk (Eds.), Understanding crime (pp. 1–49). Rome: UNICRI.Google Scholar
  76. van Dijk, J. J. M., Mayhew, P., & Killias, M. (1990). Experiences of crime across the world. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  77. Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 565–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments: Report of The Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  79. Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 450–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Young, R. L. (1991). Race, conceptions of crime and justice, and support for the death penalty. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(1), 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zeisel, H., & Gallup, A. M. (1989). Death penalty sentiment in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaël Hammer
    • 1
  • Eric D. Widmer
    • 2
  • Christian-Nils Robert
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre d’étude, de technique et d’évaluation législatives (CETEL), Faculty of LawUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Faculty of Economic and Social SciencesUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland
  3. 3.Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of LawUniversity of GenevaGeneva 4Switzerland

Personalised recommendations