Justifications for the Probation Sanction Among Residents of Virginia: Cool or Un-cool?

• NCJ Number: 204074
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 67 Issue: 3 Dated: December 2003 Pages: 42-48
• Author(s): Brian K. Payne; Randy R. Gainey; Ruth Triplett; Mona J. E. Danner
• Date Published: December 2003
• Length: 7 pages
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Following a literature review that discusses punishment justifications in general and probation as a punitive experience, this paper reports on the findings of a telephone survey of 840 registered voters in Virginia to explore questions related to their attitudes toward probation as a sanction.

Abstract

The survey asked respondents how often they would recommend the probation sanction compared to other sanctions, how they justify the probation sanction relative to justifications for other sanctions, and whether their justifications and sentencing recommendations are consistent across crimes. An analysis of the survey found that probation as a sanction was largely supported by the respondents, even in a State where the public is viewed as punitive, although level of support for probation varied across type of crime. Punishment preferences were found to be strongly related to punishment justifications. Probation was justified by respondents largely on the basis of rehabilitation. On the other hand, those who supported life sentences, such as those called for in the drug-kingpin legislation, tended to cite specific deterrence ideals; those who supported probation tended to support rehabilitative ideals. The authors draw policy implications from the survey findings. First, the public must be informed about the punitive nature of the probation sanction, since probation tends to be justified primarily on rehabilitative grounds rather than as a punitive sanction; this would likely increase support for probation as a sanction. Second, legislators, policymakers, and practitioners should consider ways to enhance the general deterrence potential of the probation sanction. Third, public support for probation based on rehabilitative ideals means that continued and expanded support for probation among this segment of the public requires that probation promote effective rehabilitation practices for those being supervised. 5 tables and 37 references