Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

public’s rehabilitation orientation and preference for

probation for marijuana possession. Public leniency is

shown in both hypothetical and real cases; many cases

of defendants charged with possession of cocaine,

crack, or marijuana have resulted in jury nullification.

Interviews with jurors who acquitted defendants

despite proof beyond a reasonable doubt indicate that

these jury nullifications occurred because jurors

believed that the federal sentencing guidelines

imposed an unjust, too severe punishment. The major-

ity also is willing to recommend treatment programs to

small-time drug dealers but want prison terms for

major drug dealers or small-time drug dealers who fail

a second time. Americans also disagree with the provi-

sion in U.S. sentencing guidelines that adds a manda-

tory 9 years to drug-trafficking sentences when the

drug is crack cocaine; they believe that drug traffickers

should receive similar prison terms regardless of

whether they are selling heroin, cocaine, or crack

cocaine. The public supports punitive penal policies

only when violence is associated with the drug traf-

ficking and in these cases wants longer sentences than

the U.S. sentencing guidelines allow.

Although a strict retributive justice approach pro-

vides sanctions that are proportional to the amount of

harm done and does not consider the offenders’ crim-

inal history or background, the public supports

harsher sentences (e.g., prison time) for recidivists

than for first-time offenders. At the same time, the

public is more forgiving than federal sentencing

guidelines. When the guidelines’ recidivist premiums

are compared with the public’s sentences assigned to

detailed cases with a different number of prior convic-

tions, the public appears to recommend shorter prison

terms for recidivists than the guidelines allow.

Moreover, the public overwhelmingly does not sup-

port life in prison without parole for an offender

whose third strike is a felony property crime. The pub-

lic clearly wants recidivists to receive more severe

punishments, but its response is more tempered than

recidivist-sentencing statutes.

Loretta J. Stalans

See alsoDeath Penalty; Jury Decisions Versus Judges’

Decisions; Jury Nullification; Public Opinion About Crime

Further Readings

Applegate, B. K. (2001). Penal austerity: Perceived utility,

desert, and public attitudes toward prison amenities.

American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25(2), 253–268.

Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2004). Changing attitudes to

punishment: Public opinion, crime and justice.

Cullompton, UK: Willan.

Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing:

Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice

Research, 17(3), 315–334.

Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indemaur, D., & Hough, M.

(2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from

five countries.Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability &

blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

Rossi, P., & Berk, R. (1997). Just punishments.New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

PUBLICOPINIONABOUT THECOURTS

The study of public opinion about the courts is closely

tied to concerns that date back to the Constitutional

Convention. Then, and subsequently, it has been noted

that while the executive branch has the power of the

sword and the legislative branch the power of the purse,

for compliance with its orders, the judiciary uniquely

must rely on the public’s belief in its legitimacy.

Public opinion today about the U.S. Supreme

Court is different from public opinion about the other,

“lower” courts; the U.S. Supreme Court enjoys con-

sistently higher levels of confidence, support, and loy-

alty. This is often explained by reference to political

and legal socialization, which inculcates loyalty to the

Supreme Court. Other courts do not appear to benefit

from such socialization. For the trial courts, with

which the public can have direct contact, the public

has modest levels of confidence, loyalty, and support.

The lower courts need to continually demonstrate that

they deserve the public’s compliance by making deci-

sions through procedures that the public perceives as

fair. African Americans are less likely than members

of other groups to be persuaded that fair procedures

are being used.

The Public’s Image of the Courts

The level of public support for and confidence in the

courts is best assessed in comparison with other pub-

lic institutions. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the

lower courts tend to be ranked higher than the execu-

tive or legislative branches of government. The rela-

tive advantage is considerable for the U.S. Supreme

Public Opinion About the Courts——— 661

P-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 661