Judicial Support and Criminal Sentencing

Authors

  • Tom N. McInnis

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.1994.15.0.361-373

Abstract

This study examines the hypothesis that one reason why criminal trial courts are supported by the public and seen as acting legitimately is that both members of the public and of the judiciary hold common perceptions regarding the principles upon which sentences should be based. It uses Stephenson's Q-Technique and isolates three separate factor types that describe differing subjective views of the sentencing process.

References

Brown, Stephen R. 1980. Political Subjectivity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Caldeira, Gregory A. 1986. Neither the Purse nor the Sword: The Dynamics of Public Confidence in the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review 80: 1209-1226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400185077 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1960864

__________. 1987. Public Opinion and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDR's Court-Packing Plan. American Political Science Review 81:1139-1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962582

Casey, Gregory. 1989. Public Perceptions of Judicial Scandal: The Missouri Supreme Court 1982- 1988. The Justice System Journal 13: 284-307.

Cook, Beverly B. 1979. Judicial Policy: Change Over Time. American Journal of Political Science 23: 208-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110781

__________. 1977. Public Opinion and Federal Judicial Policy. American Journal of Political Science 21: 567-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2110582

Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Hagan, John and Kristin Bumiller. 1983. Making Sense of Sentencing: A Review and Critique of Sentencing Research. In Alfred Blumstein, ed., Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Handberg, Roger. 1984. Public Opinion and the United States Supreme Court, 1935-1981. International Social Science Review 59: 3-13.

Hardy, Richard. 1985. Missouri Courts, Judges, and Juries. In Richard J. Hardy and Richard R. Dohm. eds., Missouri Government and Politics. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.

Jackman, Robert W. 1981. Political Elites, Mass Publics, and Support for Democratic Principles. In Norman R. Luttbeg, ed., Public Opinion and Public Policy. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

Jaros, Dean and Robert Roper. 1980. The United States Supreme Court: Myth, Diffuse Support, Specific Support, and Legitimacy. American Politics Quarterly 8: 85-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8000800105

Kuklinski, James and John Stanga. 1979. Political Participation and Government Responsiveness: The Behavior of California Superior Courts. American Political Science Review 73: 1090- 1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953991

Neubauer, David W. 1991. Judicial Process: Imws, Courts, and Politics in the United States. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Thompson, G. C. 1966. The Evaluation of Public Opinion. In Bernard Berelson and Morris Janowitz, eds., Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. New York: Free Press.

Stephenson, William. 1953. The Study of Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

__________. 1967. The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tanenhaus, Joseph and Walter Murphy. 1981. Patterns of Public Support for the Supreme Court: A Panel Study. Journal of Politics 43: 24-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130235

Ungs, Thomas D. and Larry R. Baas. 1972. Judicial Role Perceptions: A Q-Technique Study of Ohio Judges. Law and Society Review 6: 343-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3052988

Wilson, James Q. 1962. The Amateur Democrat: Club Politics in Three Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. 1978. Highlights of a National Survey of the General Public, Judges, Lawyers, and Community Leaders. In T. Fetter, ed., State Courts: A Blueprint for the Future. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.

Downloads

Published

1994-11-01

Issue

Vol. 15: Autumn 1994

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.

  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.

  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:

    1. Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;

    2. Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;

    3. Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

  1. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.

  3. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.

  1. The Author represents and warrants that:

    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;

    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;

    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;

    4. the Work has not previously been published;

    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and

    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.

  2. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.