Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Causal Attributions of Crime and thePublic’s Sentencing Goals1
Laura J. TempletonTimothy F. HartnagelDepartment of Sociology, University of Alberta
Le present article evalue les liens entre les attributions internes et externes dela criminalite et le but vise par le public en ce qui a trait a la determination dela peine (dissuasion, neutralisation, retribution et rehabilitation). Les reponsesde 1 006 Canadiens ont ete obtenues a partir d’entrevues telephoniques.Comme on s’y attendait, les repondants qui ont propose des attributionsinternes ont indique que la dissuasion etait plus importante et la rehabilita-tion, moins importante, tandis que les repondants qui avaient propose desattributions externes ont avance le contraire. De meme, comme nous enavions emis l’hypothese, nous n’avons constate aucune association entre laretribution et les attributions externes, ainsi qu’entre la neutralisation et lesattributions externes. Toutefois, a l’encontre des attentes, les repondants quiavaient propose les attributions internes ont aussi note la neutralisation et laretribution comme etant les elements les plus importants.
Mots cles : but de la determination de la peine, attributions de la criminalite,opinion publique
This article tests linkages between internal and external attributions of crimeand the public’s goals of sentencing (i.e., deterrence, incapacitation, retribution,and rehabilitation). Responses from 1,006 Canadians were obtained from tele-phone interviews. As expected, respondents who made internal attributionsrated deterrence as more important and rehabilitation as less important, whilerespondents who made external attributions did the opposite. Also as hypothe-sized, null associations between retribution and external attributions as wellas between incapacitation and external attributions were found. However,contrary to expectations, respondents who endorsed internal attributionsalso rated incapacitation and retribution as more important.
Keywords: sentencing goals, attributions of crime, public opinion
Attribution theory argues that the public’s understanding of the causesof criminal behaviour influences public attitudes toward criminal sanc-tioning. Those who believe crime is caused by internal attributions –personal choices or individual failings – are more likely to supportpunitive approaches, while those who think crime is caused by external
6 2012 CJCCJ/RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.29
attributions – forces beyond the control of an individual – are morelikely to endorse rehabilitation or social crime prevention programs(Unnever, Cochran, Cullen, and Applegate 2008; Unnever, Cullen,and Jones 2010). In this body of research, public punitiveness is typicallymeasured in terms of the harshness or severity of the desired punish-ment (Chiricos, Welch, and Gertz 2004; Langworthy and Whitehead1986).
However, some researchers (e.g., Mascini and Houtman 2006; Sims2003; Cullen, Clark, Cullen, and Mathers 1985; Unnever et al. 2010)measure punitive attitudes by certain sentencing goals and examinepossible links between these goals and causal attributions of crime.These projects collapse measures of such sentencing goals into a singlescale of punitiveness, which obscures the possibility that respondentssimultaneously support multiple but distinct purposes of sentenc-ing (Roberts, Crutcher, and Verbrugge 2007; Warr and Stafford 1984).Furthermore, prior research has not yet examined how internal andexternal causal attributions of crime may relate to each specific sentenc-ing goal.
The present article proposes linkages between the public’s support foreach of the five sentencing goals of general deterrence, individual de-terrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation, on the onehand, and their causal attributions of crime on the other. In light ofevidence that the public supports multiple sentencing goals (Robertset al. 2007; Doob 2000), relationships between attributions of crime(internal and external) and each of these sentencing goals will be testedseparately, an analysis yet to be carried out when studying sentencinggoals.
Attribution theories of crime
Attribution theory assumes that people seek to make sense of theirworld by attributing actions to internal and external causes (Heider1958; Weiner 1986). While internal factors include aspects of personaldisposition and attitudes, with crime attributed to the offender’s char-acter, a situational or external attribution views the offender’s environ-ment as influencing criminal behaviour (Grasmick and McGill 1994).Individuals who endorse an internal or dispositional attribution be-lieve that crime is a state of mind (Unnever et al. 2010). From this per-spective, criminals are said to perpetrate by choice rather than from
46 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale janvier 2012
being pressured into criminal activities and therefore deserve punish-ment (Jacobs and Carmichael 2002; Cochran, Boots, and Chamlin2006; Young 1991). In contrast, ‘‘individuals who endorse an external,situational attribution style believe that crime originates from externalcauses such as inequitable social arrangements or that, even thoughcriminals may have made a ‘bad choice’, they can be rehabilitated’’(Unnever et al. 2010: 434). Those who adopt external attributions shouldthus support rehabilitation programs and policies to reduce structuralinequities (Unnever et al. 2010; Cochran et al. 2006; Young 1991). AsMascini and Houtman (2006) argue,
Repression assumes that the causes of crime reside within criminals,who are seen as essentially evil people who need to be punishedfor their misdeeds. Rehabilitation instead assumes that criminalscan be reformed, because human nature is essentially open andpliable . . . Those contrasting beliefs about human nature underliethe deep-rooted conviction that repression is the converse of reha-bilitation. (825)
Prior research has shown that individuals who endorse internal attri-butions are more likely to support punitive crime control attitudeswhile external attributions are associated with progressive crime con-trol beliefs (e.g., Carroll and Payne 1977; Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio,and Weaver 1987; Davis, Severy, Kraus, and Whitaker 1993; Grasmickand McGill 1994; Hawkins 1981; Maruna and King 2004; Tyler andBoeckmann 1997; Young 1991). Cullen et al. (1985) and Sims (2003)theorize that classical explanations of crime are synonymous with in-ternal attributions, whereas positivist views are understood by Cullenet al. (1985) to be tantamount to external crime attributions. The resultsof both Sims’s (2003) and Cullen et al.’s (1985) studies suggest thatrespondents’ internal attributions of crime are related to a scale mea-suring the combined sentencing philosophies of retribution, deterrence,and incapacitation. In addition, respondents’ external attributions ofcrime are demonstrated by Cullen et al. (1985) to correlate with thephilosophy of rehabilitation. Mascini and Houtman (2006) report thatinternal crime attribution produces support for repression and aver-sion to rehabilitation; but although external crime attribution stronglyincreases support for rehabilitation, contrary to their expectations, itdoes not detract from support for repression. More recently, Unneveret al. (2010) found that both dispositional and situational attributionalstyles were related to a punitiveness scale, with the former a strongerpredictor.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 47
Attributions of crime and purposes of sentencing
Since the public clearly supports multiple goals for sentencing (Robertset al. 2007; Doob 2000), the present study focuses upon the potentialrelationships between internal and external attributions, on the onehand, and each individual sentencing goal, on the other. Below wereview the basis for the expected link between attributions and eachsentencing goal.
Deterrence theory relies on the logic of a rational actor calculating thecosts and benefits of anticipated behaviour. Criminal behaviour isunderstood as resulting from an individual’s calculation of the relativebenefits generated by committing a criminal act compared to not com-mitting the act. Legal penalties justified in terms of deterrence arguethat punishment is a lesson to the offender (specific deterrence) or pro-vides lessons to others (general deterrence), in this way deterringfuture crime (Manson 2001). Therefore, persons who perceive criminalbehaviour as an outcome of individual choice or dispositions internalto the individual are more likely to support deterrence as a goal ofsentencing than those who endorse situational or external attributionsof crime.
Like deterrence, incapacitation is also utilitarian or instrumental inpurpose. However, instead of focusing on the choices of the individualoffender, incapacitation is more concerned with the protection ofsociety. ‘‘Unlike deterrence theory or rehabilitation, incapacitation doesnot rest on a particular theory of human nature’’ (Easton and Piper2008: 146). The purpose of incapacitation is to reduce or eliminate thecriminal’s ability to re-offend, thereby protecting society from addi-tional victimization (Manson 2001; Brown, Esbensen, and Geis 2001).As Wilson (1975) remarks, ‘‘The purpose of isolating . . . offenders isobvious, whatever they may do when they are released, they cannotharm society while confined or closely supervised’’ (173). Gibbs (1975)comments that incapacitation diminishes opportunities for crime andvirtually all crimes require opportunities (i.e., they cannot be com-mitted in any situation). He goes on to note that ‘‘an emphasis on in-capacitation is one way that ‘social defence’ can be differentiated fromthe older classical theory of justice and its preoccupation with deter-rence’’ (Gibbs 1975: 59). Reducing opportunities for crime shifts thefocus from the motivation or causes of the criminal behaviour to thesituations that are conducive to crime. Thus incapacitation has less todo with attempts to alter the criminal’s internal motivations or thesocietally induced circumstances that allegedly cause her/his criminal
48 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
conduct than with removing the criminal from potential situations ofopportunity for crime. Whether crime is committed out of rationalthought or because of external forces, protection of society is the primarygoal of incapacitation. Therefore, support for incapacitation as a sen-tencing goal should not solely imply either internal or external crimeattributions.
Rehabilitation is also based upon an instrumental philosophy. As withdeterrence, the emphasis of this goal is the individual, but now thefocus is on his or her needs. This sentencing goal reflects a belief thatcrime is committed due to situations or events that have occurred inthe individual’s life, such as an impoverished living situation, a sub-stance abuse addiction, a lack of education or work, or an abusivehome life (Brown et al. 2001). Rehabilitation assumes that remedying orchanging the external or situational causes of an individual’s criminalconduct makes the offender less likely to re-offend in the future. There-fore, those individuals who attribute crime to external causes are morelikely to support the goal of rehabilitation than are those who endorseinternal attributions.
In contrast to the aforementioned instrumental sentencing goals ofdeterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, the goal of retributionstems from a moral philosophy, one that demands punishment for amisdeed (Brown et al. 2001). Retributive thought ‘‘involves the punish-ment of past wrongdoing in order to achieve a moral balance’’ (Brownet al. 2001: 54). Thus, according to a retributive philosophy, the benefitsan individual obtains by committing a crime must be repaid to societyso that social equilibrium may be restored. The quest for justice is therationale; future consequences are irrelevant (Easton and Piper 2008).Since the focus of this sentencing goal is on a past criminal act andnot on the individual having committed the act, we argue that re-spondents’ attributions of the causes of criminal behaviour cannot bedefinitively linked to their support for retribution. The current articlethus proposes that neither internal nor external attributions should cor-relate with people’s support for the retributive purpose of punishment.
Hypotheses
On the basis of this analysis, the hypotheses for the present study are:
H1: Respondents who attribute crime to internal causes are more likelyto rate deterrence as an important or very important sentencingphilosophy, while respondents who attribute crime to external
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 49
causes are more likely to give lower ratings of importance todeterrence.
H2: Respondents who attribute crime to external causes are more likelyto rate rehabilitation as an important or very important sentencingphilosophy, while respondents who attribute crime to internalcauses are more likely to give lower ratings of importance to reha-bilitation.
H3: Respondents’ internal and external attributions of crime causationare hypothesized not to correlate significantly with their ratingsof the importance of retribution or incapacitation as sentencingphilosophies.
Method
Data source
The data set analysed in this study was obtained from the Public Atti-tudes toward Punishment for Crime study. This study was conductedat the University of Alberta between 22 March and 6 June 2005 using aComputer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. A random-digit dialling approach was used to ensure that respondents had anequal chance of being contacted whether or not their household waslisted in the telephone directory. The provinces of British Columbia,Alberta, Ontario, and the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick,Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island were sampled. Sample sizesproportional to the population of each were established (BritishColumbia: 19.2%, Alberta: 14.2%, Ontario: 55.7%, and Maritime area:10.9%, respectively); these provincial quotas were further stratified bygender to obtain an equal proportion of females and males in eacharea. Respondents were eligible for participation if they were at least18 years of age and their quota group was not full. The average inter-view length was approximately 28 minutes. The overall response ratefor the study was 38.4%, calculated by dividing the number of com-pleted interviews (N ¼ 1,006) by the number of completes plus refusals(N ¼ 1410) plus incompletes (N ¼ 27) plus language or communicationbarrier (N ¼ 174) (total N ¼ 2617).2
Sample
The final sample size was 1,006 with approximately equal representa-tion of males and females at 502 and 504 respectively. The average ageof respondents was 48 years. Approximately 28% of respondents be-tween the ages of 25 and 64 years reported having a high school
50 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale janvier 2012
education or less, while 29.9% reported the completion of at least oneuniversity degree. Median gross family income for the sample rangedbetween $60,000 and $64,999 per year, with approximately 25% ofrespondents declaring a gross household income of greater than$100,000 and 6.7% living in a home with less than $18,000 per yearof annual income. Fifty-eight percent of respondents reported havingbeen victimized by crime at some point in the past. Although we arenot attempting to generalize findings to the Canadian population, thissample is older and has more education and a higher annual incomecompared to the overall population in the 2001 Canadian Census.
Measures
Attribution items
Since the present study proposes that individual sentencing goals willrelate differently to internal and external attributions, factor analyseswere conducted on potential internal attribution items and again onpotential external attribution items so as to construct separate attribu-tion indexes.3 Four items were originally considered for the internalattribution score: (1) Crime is a choice – a person’s social circumstancesaren’t to blame; (2) most criminals commit crimes because they knowthey can get away with it; (3) most criminals know fully well whatthey are doing when they break the law; and (4) most people who vio-late the law do so because they know that crime pays in Canada thesedays. Since the first item had a low factor loading score (0.393), therebydecreasing the overall alpha reliability score (0.636), the first item wasdropped. The remaining three internal attribution items were includedin the internal attribution index, resulting in an alpha reliability scoreof 0.66.
Six items were considered in the construction of the external attribu-tion index: (1) Most criminals were abused as children; (2) most crimi-nals are emotionally disturbed; (3) crime is mostly the product of aperson’s circumstances and social contexts; (4) poverty is a major causeof crime in Canada; (5) Most criminals come from broken or disorgan-ized homes; and (6) some people are destined to commit crime due tothe way they were born or raised. After running a factor analysis withvarimax rotation, it was decided to include all six items in an index ofexternal attribution. The alpha reliability score for the external attribu-tion index was calculated as 0.714.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 51
The decision to leave internal and external attributions as two separateindexes was supported by the results of two tests. First, the correlation(see Table 1) between the two indexes was a very low negative corre-lation of �0.088. Second, a factor analysis was conducted with all nineitems considered simultaneously. This factor analysis generated twodistinct dimensions. The first factor contained the internal attributionitems (factor scores ranged from 0.605 to 0.832), while the externalitems loaded on the second factor (factor scores ranged from 0.530 to0.712). Together, these two tests support the use of internal attributionsand external attributions as separate indexes.
Goals of sentencing items
The measure of the dependent variable assessed how important arespondent felt a particular sentencing goal was. Specifically, respond-ents were asked to consider the following statement:
There are many possible objectives or goals in the sentencing ofoffenders. I’m going to read you the five most commonly givengoals, and I’d like you to rate how important you think each goalis on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Not At All Important and 5 isVery Important.
Respondents were then asked to consider the following five sentencinggoals: to rehabilitate the offender; to deter the same offender from com-mitting similar offences in the future; to deter other potential offenders;to make the offender ‘‘pay’’ in some way for what s/he has done; andto protect the community by placing the offender where s/he can dono harm.4
Control variables
The respondent’s age, sex, level of education, victimization history,and gross household income as well as whether crime was a salientissue for the respondent and whether the respondent reported beingfearful of crime were included in the analysis as control variables.These items are similar to those used in previous research to controlfor effect sizes. In this study, crime salience was operationalized as anindex comprised of two items. These items were selected based ona combination of face validity, as well as loading scores as a result offactor analysis with varimax rotation. The crime salience index in-cluded the items (1) the risk of being robbed or assaulted by teenage
52 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
Tab
le1:Correlationmatrixofstudyva
riab
les
Rehab
Deter
(Gen)
Deter
(Ind)
Retrib
Inca
pIntern
Attrib
Extern
Attrib
Female
Age
Educ
Inco
me
Salien
Victim
Hist
Worry
Rehabilitate
1.000
0.203**
0.160**�0.020
0.042�0.164**
0.194**
0.068*�0.002
0.046�0.005�0.099**
0.071*�0.081*
Deter(G
en)
0.203**
1.000
0.485**
0.340**
0.321**
0.220**�0.026
0.057�0.063*�0.103**�0.007
0.233**
0.017
0.044
Deter(Ind)
0.160**
0.485**
1.000
0.456**
0.467**
0.214**�0.024
0.107**
0.055�0.099**�0.033
0.233**�0.023
0.078*
Retribution�0.020
0.340**
0.456**
1.000
0.459**
0.364**�0.051
0.125**
0.104**�0.285**�0.096**
0.361**�0.089**
0.150**
Incapacitation
0.042
0.321**
0.467**
0.459**
1.000
0.266**�0.039
0.136**
0.047�0.157**�0.084*
0.245**�0.057
0.099**
Intern
attrib�0.164**
0.220**
0.214**
0.364**
0.266**
1.000�0.088**�0.012
0.202**�0.258**�0.047
0.414**�0.074*
0.139**
Extern
attrib
0.194**�0.026�0.024
�0.051�0.039�0.088**
1.000
0.096**�0.041
0.028�0.082*
0.004
0.005
0.080*
Female†
0.068*
0.057
0.107**
0.125**
0.136**�0.012
0.096**
1.000
0.047�0.110**�0.204**
0.118**�0.069*
0.163**
Age
�0.002�0.063*
0.055
0.104**
0.047
0.202**�0.041
0.047
1.000�0.047�0.172**
0.099**�0.058
0.013
Education
0.046�0.103**�0.099**�0.285**�0.157**�0.258**
0.028�0.110**�0.047
1.000
0.299**�0.321**
0.086**�0.198**
Income
�0.005�0.007�0.033
�0.096**�0.084*�0.047�0.082*�0.204**�0.172**
0.299**
1.000�0.166**
0.069�0.204**
Salience
�0.099**
0.233**
0.233**
0.361**
0.245**
0.414**
0.004
0.118**
0.099**�0.321**�0.166**
1.000�0.048
0.284**
Victim
Hist‡
0.071*
0.017�0.023
�0.089**�0.057�0.074*
0.005�0.069*�0.058
0.086**
0.069�0.048
1.000�0.025
Worry
�0.081*
0.044
0.078*
0.150**
0.099**
0.139**
0.080*
0.163**
0.013�0.198**�0.204**
0.284**�0.025
1.000
†Reference
category
(0)¼
Male;‡Reference
category
(0)¼
Nohistory
ofvictimization.
*p
a0.05,**p
a0.01,***p
a0.001.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 53
gangs has increased in recent years and (2) the crime problem isgetting worse in Canada these days. Overall, the crime salience indexhas an internal reliability score of 0.690 and factor loadings of 0.874 forboth items. Fear of crime was also included as an additional controlvariable, measured by the following items: (1) I worry about beingrobbed or assaulted in my own neighbourhood at night and (2) I worrythat a thief will break into my home while I am at home. Thesetwo items had factor loadings of 0.927 as well as an internal reliabilityscore of 0.836. Age, sex, level of education, and household incomewere measured in standard ways. For victimization, respondents wereasked if they had ever been a victim of a crime.
Results
Descriptive statistics
The correlation matrix in Table 1 shows that, except for general deter-rence, females more than males viewed each of the sentencing goalsas important, although none of the correlations are very strong. Thisgender relationship is more the case with retribution and incapacita-tion, perhaps reflective of the fact that females worried more aboutcrime (0.163) and found crime more salient (0.118) than did males,despite having been victims less often (�0.069). Older respondentswere slightly less likely to think general deterrence important butwere more supportive of retribution as a sentencing goal. There areinverse relationships between education level of respondents and theirsupport for deterrence, incapacitation, and particularly retribution(�0.285). Weak negative relationships are also evident between theincome level of respondents and their support for incapacitation andretribution. Respondents who worried more about crime and forwhom crime was more salient were less likely to view rehabilitationas important and more likely to think that deterrence, incapacitation,and retribution are important goals. Contrary to common expectations,victims of crime were slightly more supportive of rehabilitation andless supportive of retribution than non-victims. None of the correlationsamong these control variables is strong enough to warrant concernsover multicollinearity.
Respondents for whom crime was more salient were much more likely(0.414) to endorse internal attributions of crime causation. Older re-spondents and those who worried more about crime were also morelikely to make internal attributions while those with more education
54 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale janvier 2012
and those who were crime victims were less likely to attribute crime tointernal causes. Interestingly, there is also a slight positive relation be-tween those who worried more about crime and external attributions.Females were also slightly more likely to make external attributions,while those with more income were less likely to attribute crime tocauses external to the individual.
Consistent with prior research (Doob 2000; Roberts et al. 2007), Table 2reveals that when respondents were queried about each goal in isola-tion from other goals, there was only a small percentage variation withrespect to the degree of importance accorded to each sentencing goal.This result demonstrates that respondents appear to have simultane-ously supported multiple goals of punishment. The mean values forthe importance of each goal are all above 4 (out of a maximum valueof 5), with medians and modes of 5 again demonstrating the impor-tance of multiple goals. Individual deterrence has the highest mean, at4.59, followed by incapacitation (4.50), retribution (4.33), general deter-rence (4.26), and finally, rehabilitation, which was viewed by studyparticipants to be somewhat less important on average (4.17).
A series of paired samples t tests5 reveal that, although respondentsappear to have supported multiple goals of punishment, significantmean differences between most paired combinations do exist, therebyindicating that, while the public may simultaneously support multiplepunishment goals, certain goals are still viewed as more importantthan others. Specifically, respondent mean support scores were foundto be significantly higher for deterrence of the offender compared
Table 2: Mean scores and percentage of respondents identifying withindividual sentencing goals
SentencingGoal
Mean Percentage ofIndividualsReportingImportant
Percentage ofIndividualsReportingVery Important
Percentageof IndividualsReportingImportant orVery Importanta
Deterrence (individual) 4.59 15.6% 74.0% 89.6%
Incapacitation 4.50 16.4% 70.0% 86.4%
Retribution 4.33 17.9% 62.1% 80.0%
Deterrence (general) 4.26 19.4% 58.7% 78.1%
Rehabilitation 4.17 19.5% 55.2% 74.7%
a Valid percentages reported.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 55
to any other punishment goal; significantly higher for incapacitationwhen compared to either retribution, deterrence of other potentialoffenders, or rehabilitation; significantly higher for retribution whencompared to rehabilitation; and significantly higher for deterrence ofother potential offenders when compared to rehabilitation. Respond-ents demonstrated similar support for the punishment goals of retribu-tion and general deterrence, as no significant difference was foundbetween these two mean values.
Correlations in Table 1 between pairs of the five punishment goalsdemonstrate that, while the correlation coefficients among individualdeterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and general deterrence are allin the 0.32 to 0.49 range and statistically significant, the correlationsbetween individual deterrence and rehabilitation and general deterrenceand rehabilitation are relatively low (0.16 to 0.20) and the correlationsof rehabilitation with both retribution and incapacitation are not signif-icantly different from zero.
As previously mentioned, crime attribution items were combined intotwo separate indexes: internal attributions and external attributions.Overall, sample respondents demonstrated greater support for internalattributions of crime than for external attributions. Specifically, with ascore of 5.0 revealing maximum support for either index, the meanresponse score for internal attributions is 3.7, compared to 2.9 forexternal attributions. The zero-order correlations in Table 1 show thatrespondents who made internal attributions of crime causation wereless likely to view rehabilitation as important and more likely to regardindividual and general deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution asimportant sentencing goals. On the other hand, respondents makingexternal attributions were more likely to think rehabilitation is an im-portant goal of sentencing. But attributing crime to external causesappears not to be related to the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, orretribution.
Test of hypotheses
Given the skewed distributions of the dependent variables, they weretransformed from ordinal-level variables into dichotomous variables:(1) members of the public who rated a particular punishment goalas important or very important and (2) members of the public who feltneutral about the importance of a particular punishment goal or rateda particular punishment goal as not important or not at all important. In
56 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
consideration of the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable(Menard 1997), a series of logistic regression tests were run to testhypotheses about respondents’ internal and external attributions ofcrime and their support for individual sentencing goals. The results ofthese tests are presented in Table 3.
As can be seen in Table 3, the logistic regression results fully supportthe first hypothesis. Overall, respondents who attribute crime causa-tion to internal attributions were more likely to support deterrence as apunishment goal, both individual (OR ¼ 1.812, pa 0.001) and general(OR ¼ 1.567, pa 0.001) net of the other variables in the equation. Thefirst hypothesis is also supported by the logistic regression results forexternal attribution. Those who viewed crime as a result of externalattributions were less likely to support deterrence as a sentencinggoal (individual deterrence: OR ¼ 0.664, pa 0.01; general deterrence:OR ¼ 0.779, pa 0.05) net of other predictors. Furthermore, the resultssuggest that female respondents were more likely than men to supportboth individual deterrence (OR ¼ 2.080, pa 0.01) and general deter-rence (OR ¼ 1.892, pa 0.001) as important sentencing goals; whilerespondents who viewed crime as a salient issue were more likely toview deterrence (individual: OR ¼ 1.525, pa 0.001; general: OR ¼ 1.473,pa 0.001) as an important sentencing goal than those for whom crimewas not a salient issue.
The second hypothesis is also fully supported by the logistic regressionresults. Opposite to the relationships between deterrence and internaland external attributions, rehabilitation positively correlates with exter-nal attributions and negatively correlates with internal attributions netof other predictors. Specifically, respondents who believed that internalattributions motivate offenders were less likely to view rehabilitation asan important or very important sentencing goal (OR ¼ 0.732, pa 0.01).However, respondents who were more inclined to believe that externalattributions motivate offenders were also more likely to view rehabili-tation as an important or very important sentencing goal (OR ¼ 1.515,pa 0.001). Table 3 also indicates that respondents who had been pre-viously victimized were more likely (OR ¼ 1.521, pa 0.01) to supportrehabilitation as a sentencing strategy compared to those who had notbeen victimized.
Lastly, results in Table 3 demonstrate only partial support for the thirdhypothesis. As hypothesized, public support for external attributionsfails to significantly correlate either positively or negatively with eitherretribution or incapacitation. This result lends some support to the
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 57
Tab
le3:Logisticregressionresultsforasso
ciationsbetw
eencrim
eattributionsan
deac
hsentencinggoal
Deterrence
(Indiv)
Deterrence
(General)
Rehab
ilitation
Retribution
Inca
pac
itation
BSE
Exp
(B)
BSE
Exp
(B)
BSE
Exp
(B)
BSE
Exp
(B)
BSE
Exp
(B)
InternalAttributions
0.595***
0.153
1.812
0.449***
0.119
1.567�0.312**
0.119
0.732
0.616***
0.127
1.852
0.567***
0.136
1.763
ExternalAttributions�0.409**
0.182
0.664�0.250*
0.138
0.779
0.415***
0.124
1.515�0.137(n.s.)
0.148
0.872�0.017(n.s.)
0.160
0.983
Age
�0.001(n.s.)
0.008
0.999�0.016**
0.006
0.984
0.000(n.s.)
0.006
1.000
0.012*
0.007
1.012
0.002(n.s.)
0.007
1.002
Gender†
0.733**
0.278
2.080
0.638***
0.208
1.892
0.112(n.s.)
0.188
1.118
0.862***
0.227
2.367
0.635**
0.244
1.887
Levelofeducation
0.045(n.s.)
0.054
1.046�0.016(n.s.)
0.041
0.984
0.001(n.s.)
0.040
1.001�0.112**
0.044
0.894�0.112**
0.048
0.894
Household
income
0.000(n.s.)
0.017
1.000
0.002(n.s.)
0.013
1.002�0.011(n.s.)
0.013
0.989
0.018(n.s.)
0.014
1.018�0.004(n.s.)
0.016
0.996
Crimesalience
0.422***
0.127
1.525
0.388***
0.102
1.473�0.012(n.s.)
0.104
0.988
0.425***
0.106
1.530
0.153(n.s.)
0.114
1.166
Victimizationhistory
‡�0.282(n.s.)
0.271
0.754
0.163(n.s.)
0.200
1.177
0.419**
0.183
1.521�0.234(n.s.)
0.216
0.791�0.274(n.s.)
0.237
0.761
Fear
ofcrime
0.026(n.s.)
0.131
1.026�0.093(n.s.)
0.092
0.911�0.114(n.s.)
0.077
0.892
0.058(n.s.)
0.104
1.060
0.003(n.s.)
0.111
1.003
†Reference
category
(0)¼
Male;‡Reference
category
(0)¼
Nohistory
ofvictimization.
*p
a0.05**
pa
0.01,***p
a0.001
58 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale janvier 2012
claim that these two sentencing goals are more focused on the good ofsociety and less on the motivations of the offender. Although externalattributions, as hypothesized, do not associate with either retributionor incapacitation, internal attributions are positively associated withretribution and incapacitation (OR ¼ 1.852, pa 0.001 and OR ¼ 1.763,pa 0.001 respectively), and thus do not support the third study hypo-thesis. Turning to an examination of the control variables and supportfor these two sentencing goals, women were more likely to considerretribution (OR ¼ 2.367, pa 0.001) and incapacitation (OR ¼ 1.887,pa 0.01) as important sentencing goals than men, while individualswith higher levels of education were less likely to view these two sen-tencing goals as important than those with less education (OR ¼ 0.894,pa 0.01; OR ¼ 0.894, pa 0.01). A positive association was also foundbetween crime salience and retribution (OR ¼ 1.530, pa 0.001).
Discussion
This article focuses on examining the connections between the public’sattributions of the causes of crime and their support for the importanceof each of the individual sentencing goals of deterrence (individualand general), incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation. We hypothe-sized that public support of retribution and incapacitation would notassociate with either internal or external attributions, as these twogoals of sentencing are less focused on the motivations of the individ-ual and more focused on restoring or protecting society. We expectedthat deterrence would not be associated with attributions of crimein exactly the same way as retribution or incapacitation. Rather, wehypothesized that respondents who made internal attributions of crimecausation would be more likely to regard individual and general deter-rence as important sentencing goals, while those who made externalattributions would be more likely to rank the importance of deterrencelower. In contrast, respondents who attributed crime to external causeswould rate rehabilitation as a more important sentencing goal, whilethose who attributed crime to internal causes would be more likely togive lower ratings of importance to rehabilitation.
Summarizing the main results, the first and second hypotheses arefully supported by the logistic regression. As hypothesized, belief inthe importance of both general and individual deterrence is shownto be positively associated with respondents’ internal attributions, netof the control variables, and negatively associated with respondents’
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 59
belief in external attributions of crime. The second study hypothesisis also fully supported by the logistic regression results. In this case,respondent support for rehabilitation demonstrates the opposite patternof correlation when compared to deterrence, associating negatively withrespondents’ internal attributions and positively with their externalattributions net of other predictors. Combined, the results from thefirst two tests demonstrate that public support for deterrence or reha-bilitation is linked to an individual’s attributions regarding motivationsof offenders. Specifically, those who attribute the causes of criminalbehaviour to internal dispositions of offenders are more likely to em-phasize the importance of both general and individual deterrence butnot rehabilitation. They may recognize that the goal of deterrencedepends upon the assumption of some degree of internal calculationof the anticipated rewards and costs of crime by a potential offender.On the other hand, those who attribute the causes of crime to factorsexternal to the offender are more likely to value the importance ofrehabilitation as a purpose of sentencing, since they see these causesas amenable to change through deliberate efforts during treatment.In contrast, they are less likely to see much value in punishment forthe purpose of affecting the choices made by criminals, since theserespondents adopt a more deterministic view of criminal behaviour.
Contrary to our expectations in the third hypothesis, individuals whoadopt internal attributions for the causes of crime appear to accordimportance to both retribution and incapacitation as goals of sentenc-ing. They may interpret both of these purposes more in individualisticterms – that is, as exacting ‘just deserts’ from the individual offenderand/or as punishing the offender through incarceration – rather thanin terms of the social functions of these goals of sentencing. With theiremphasis upon individualistic explanations for criminal behaviour,they may not grasp the focus upon protection of society behind thegoal of incapacitation (i.e., ‘social defence’) nor the moral/symbolicemphasis of retribution as a reaffirmation of societal norms. Instead,they may view both purposes through the lens of simply punishingan individual offender. Criminals are regarded as evil or bad actorswho deserve and need to be locked up. However, as hypothesized,respondents emphasizing the importance of external attributions forthe causes of crime, with their focus upon rehabilitation and treatmentto correct the external causes of crime, do not regard retribution orincapacitation as important goals of sentencing. They may adopt thisview because they do not regard either of these goals as contributingto a change in the offender’s behaviour.
60 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
Given the partial support of the third hypothesis, we must questionwhether lay persons actively consider the theoretical underpinnings ofeach sentencing goal. Our study results suggest that the public does notdifferentiate among the different purposes of sentencing in the samemanner as does jurisprudential theory (Doob 2000). The distinctionsbetween incapacitation, retribution, and deterrence that were outlinedat the outset of this article may be too theoretical for the averagerespondent, who may consider them more as varieties of one another,all of which effectively serve the same goal, to accomplish someamount of punishment. Still, this should not be equated with punitive-ness, with its emphasis upon the harshness or severity of punishment.Furthermore, our correlational analysis and paired samples t testsreveal that the public does differentiate the relative importance of thefive purposes of sentencing, notwithstanding the high importanceattached to each, particularly individual deterrence and incapacitation.
Based upon the results of this study, further research should exploreadditional variables that may be linked to the public’s judgementsabout the importance of various sentencing goals. Possible candidatesfor inclusion are measures of various socio-political beliefs and values.In addition, improved measurement of internal and external causalattributions should also be a priority. This could include presentingseveral crime scenarios that provide a variety of descriptive character-istics of the offenders to emphasize either their internal dispositionalcharacteristics or their external social circumstances and situations.Such descriptive scenarios would provide a more specific and realisticbasis for differentiating respondents who favour internal from thosewho favour external attributions for the causes of criminal behaviour.Furthermore, the choice of a particular purpose of sentencing to beobtained could be directly linked to each of these scenarios. This mightresult in greater variability in the importance respondents attach tothe various sentencing goals. Finally, an additional issue to pursueconcerns possible underlying linkages shared by the sentencing goalsof deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. In view of the resultsreported above concerning the positive relationship of internal attribu-tions with each of these goals, it may be useful to attempt to recon-ceptualize the nature of these three goals. For example, it may bethat, for those members of the public who adopt internal attributionsof the cause of crime, these three goals are a manifestation of a com-mon underlying factor, such as a desire for some form of explicit andmandatory punishment for offenders believed to be individually re-sponsible for their conduct. Perhaps support for the importance ofthese three sentencing goals by those who hold internal attributions
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 61
represents a common emphasis upon denunciation of the offender aswell as the offence.
Notes
1 This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the American Societyof Criminology, November 2006. We acknowledge with thanks the assis-tance of the Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta, fordata collection and preparation. The authors also thank the editor andreviewers for their comments and suggestions on a previous version ofthis paper. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciencesand Humanities Research Council of Canada.
2 The average number of telephone call attempts for all telephone numbersin the sample was 4.3, with an average of three attempts to obtain acompleted interview. No answers were attempted an average of 8.3 times,busy numbers were attempted an average of 9.4 times, answering machineswere attempted an average of 7.9 times, call backs were attempted 4.0times, and ‘‘will call lab’’ numbers were attempted an average of 4.5 times.Specially trained interviewers followed up on numbers categorized asinitial refusal, with such numbers attempted an average of 5.2 times. Ofthe 1,006 completed interviews, 92 or 9.1% were initially coded as arefusal call. From the total attempted numbers in the data base (6,646),2,420 were ineligible numbers (e.g., not in service, business, fax, line trouble,etc.); 1,504 were unscreened numbers (e.g., no answer, busy, answeringmachine, etc.); and 105 were undetermined numbers (call back ¼ 103;will call lab ¼ 2). Response rates for telephone surveys have been declin-ing for a number of years. Recent rates in the United States tend to fall inthe 30% range or below (Steeh 2008).
3 Potential items were drawn or adapted from Cullen et al. (1985), Marunaand King (2003), and Carroll et al. (1987) or were created for this survey.
4 The sentencing goals measure is a slightly revised version of one providedby Ian McKee of Flinders University in Australia.
5 Table available from the authors upon request.
References
Brown, Stephen, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Gilbert Geis2001 Criminology: Explaining Crime. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
62 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice penale janvier 2012
Carroll, John S. and John W. Payne1977 Crime seriousness, recidivism risk and causal attributions in judg-
ments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psy-chology 62(5): 595–602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.595.
Carroll, John S., William T. Perkowitz, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Frances M.Weaver1987 Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology and personality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1): 107–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.107.
Chiricos, Ted, Kelly Welch, and Marc Gertz2004 Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures.
Criminology 42(2): 358–89.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00523.x.
Cochran, John K., Denise P. Boots, and Mitchell B. Chamlin2006 Political ideology and support for capital punishment: A test of attri-
bution theory. Journal of Crime and Justice 29: 45–79.
Cullen, Francis T., Gregory A. Clark, John B. Cullen, and Richard A. Mathers1985 Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 12(3): 305–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854885012003003.
Davis, Teresa L., Lawrence J. Severy, Stephen J. Kraus, and J. Michael Whitaker1993 Predictors of sentencing decisions: The beliefs, personality variables,
and demographic factors of juvenile justice personnel. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology 23(6): 451–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01098.x.
Doob, Anthony N.2000 Transforming the punishment environment: Understanding public
views of what should be accomplished at sentencing. Canadian Journalof Criminology 42(3): 323–40.
Easton, Susan and Christine Piper2008 Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gibbs, Jack P.1975 Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 63
Grasmick, Harold G. and Anne L. McGill1994 Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders.
Criminology 32(1): 23–46.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01145.x.
Hawkins, Darnell F.1981 Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior 2(3):
207–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1981.9967554.
Heider, Fritz1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10628-000.
Jacobs, David and Jason T. Carmichael2002 The political sociology of the death penalty: A pooled time-series
analysis. American Sociological Review 67(1): 109–31.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088936.
Langworthy, Robert H. and John T. Whitehead1986 Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology
24(3): 575–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00391.x.
Manson, Allan2001 The Law of Sentencing. Toronto: Irwin Law.
Maruna, Shadd and Anna King2003 Let ’em Rot: Understanding Public Punitiveness and Forgiveness
toward Offenders. Unpublished. Institute of Criminology, Cambridge,United Kingdom.
Maruna, Shadd and Anna King2004 Public opinion and community penalties. In Alternatives to Prison:
Options for an Insecure Society, ed. Anthony Bottoms, Sue Rex, andGwen Robinson. Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Mascini, Peter and Dick Houtman2006 Rehabilitation and repression: Reassessing their ideological embedded-
ness. British Journal of Criminology 46(5): 822–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl014.
Menard, Scott1997 Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
64 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
Roberts, Julian V., Nicole Crutcher, and Paul Verbrugge2007 Public attitudes to sentencing in Canada: Exploring recent findings.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49(1): 75–107.http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/U479-1347-3PL8-5887.
Sims, Barbara2003 The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A national
study. Criminal Justice Review 28(1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073401680302800102.
Steeh, Charlotte2008 Telephone surveys. In International Handbook of Survey Methodol-
ogy, ed. Edith D. de Leeuw, Joop J. Hox, and Don A. Dillman. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tyler, Tom R., and Robert J. Boeckmann1997 Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public
support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review 31(2):237–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053926.
Unnever, James D., John K. Cochran, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K.Applegate2010 The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic re-
lation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly 27(3): 431–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820902855362.
Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and James D. Jones2008 Public support for attacking the ‘‘root causes’’ of crime: The impact of
egalitarian and racial beliefs. Sociological Focus 41: 1–33.
Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford1984 Public goals of punishment and support for the death penalty. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21(2): 95–111.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427884021002002.
Weiner, Bernard1986 An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Wilson, James Q1975 Thinking about Crime. New York: Basic Books.
Young, Robert L.1991 Race, conceptions of crime and justice, and support for the death
penalty. Social Psychology Quarterly 54(1): 67–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786789.
Causal Attributions of Crime and the Public’s Sentencing Goals 65
CANADIANJOURNALOF CRIMINOLOGYAND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REVUECANADIENNEDE CRIMINOLOGIEET DE JUSTICE PENALE
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice is the property of University of Toronto
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
