for free that law-abiding, low-income citizens cannot
afford.
The public is not well-informed about community-
based sanctions. Research conducted in several coun-
tries, including England, Canada, Australia, the
United States, and Germany, found that the majority
of the public can provide a correct definition of com-
munity service but knows little about other commu-
nity-based alternatives such as conditional sentences,
probation, house arrest, and electronic monitoring.
The public performed at chance level in identifying
the correct definition of a conditional sentence. When
asked about community-based sentences, over two-
thirds of adults mentioned restitution, while only one-
third spontaneously mentioned probation as an
alternative. Moreover, about one-quarter is com-
pletely unaware of probation as an alternative.
Furthermore, research shows that the majority of
respondents who were informed about the alternatives
chose community-based sanctions, whereas unin-
formed respondents chose imprisonment. Thus, when
the public is informed of the existence of alternatives
to incarceration, support for imprisoning offenders
declines considerably. These findings indicate that the
public is unfamiliar with community-based sanctions
but supports such sanctions, especially for nonviolent
felonies. This lack of familiarity is not surprising
given that community-based sanctions are not well
publicized in the media and that prisons are much
more salient, especially with the growth in the number
of prisons and prisoners in recent decades.Impact of Information
on Crime and Justice
Though the public lacks much knowledge about sen-
tencing, research suggests that educating the public
may change its top-of-the-head punitive responses.
Based on deliberative polling after participants took
part in a televised weekend event on the nature of crime
and justice, the more punitive respondents, after receiv-
ing accurate information about crime and the justice
system, became much less punitive and more support-
ive of community-based alternatives, and this attitude
change lasted over a 10-month period. Researchers
found that respondents who initially lacked knowledge
about crime and justice were more likely to change
their attitudes than those who were better informed.General Versus Specific
Questions About Sentencing
How the question is asked also affects the public’s
response. Opinion polls conducted in all Western
nations over the past 25 years have routinely shown
that approximately three quarters of the public says
that sentences should be harsher. Research shows,
however, that people recall atypical violent crimes
when answering this abstract question. When asked
about specific crimes, public views change. It is
important, therefore, to pose specific rather than gen-
eral questions to the public. This can be clearly illus-
trated with respect to the “three strikes” laws in the
United States. Researchers have found strong general
support for this law, which would mandate a lifetime
prison sentence for an offender convicted of a serious
felony for the third time. When specific cases are
examined, the strong support for the “three strikes”
statute remains only for offenders with three violent
felony convictions. The public generally prefers a
more flexible approach to sentencing that allows indi-
vidualized judgments for each specific case and is
uncomfortable with the mandatory lifetime prison
sentence for repeat felony offenders.
An examination of the public’s responses to
detailed cases rather than general questions also
is useful in understanding what goals the public wants
to achieve in sentencing offenders. When asked to
choose between punishment and rehabilitation, at
least two thirds of Americans chose rehabilitation and
prevention programs. At least two thirds of the public,
when asked general questions that do not force a
choice, assigned substantial importance to all five of
the major goals of sentencing: retribution, rehabilita-
tion, individual deterrence, general deterrence, and
incapacitation (prevention of future crimes during the
time in prison). Deterrence is achieved by providing
offenders with severe enough punishment so that con-
victed offenders (individual) or potential offenders in
society (general) refrain from committing future
crimes. Thus, general questions do not provide suffi-
cient information about what the public wants sen-
tences to achieve.
When specific, detailed cases are used, support for
sentencing goals varies by offenders’ criminal history;
offenders’ social, substance abuse, and employment
history; and the type of crime. Much research sug-
gests that the public supports proportional justice, inPublic Opinion About Sentencing and Incarceration——— 659P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 659