NCJ Number
80456
Date Published
1978
Length
306 pages
Annotation
The dissertation draws on psycho-ethical theory and attribution theory to test whether sentence severity is a function of the offender's sex and of the nature of the account given by the offender to explain the deviant act.
Abstract
The hypothesis tested holds that justifications admitting responsibility but claiming extenuating circumstances are more effective in reducing sentencing severity when employed by male offenders and that excuses denying personal responsbility are more effective in reducing sentence severity when employed by female offenders. Effects of offender sex and account on sentence severity are assessed by presenting a simulated case of a hit-and-run vehicular offense to two groups, one consisting of professional trial judges and one composed of college students. Sentence severity is measured in terms of prison sentences, probation, and fines given; a weighting of these sentences; and subjects' subjective evaluation of sentence severity. Results do not support the hypothesis. The predicted offender sex and account interaction approaches significance for judges only in the case of probation and for students only in case of fines. Trial judges tend to give more severe sentences to male offenders, while students give more severe sentences to female offenders. It is concluded that certain psychoethical factors more strongly affect reactions to transgression than do others, but that the effects of accounts on these reactions are weaker and more complex than anticipated. Variations in judges' characteristics are important influences on their reactions. Translation of judges' disapproval into sentences is complicated by judges' gravitation toward different types of sentences and variation in their perception of the severity of different sentence types. Appendixes with instruments and references are included.