Exploring the justice of punishments

Framing, Expressiveness, and the Just Prison Sentence

Guillermina Jasso

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    This paper examines views about the justice of punishments for offenders convicted of five major types of offenses-drug, violent, corporate, property, and victimless crimes. We focus on the just punishment and the just dispersion in the punishment distribution, together with observers' framing and expressiveness; and we test for interrespondent differences. Data are drawn from six U.S. samples interviewed in 1982, a probability sample of the adult population of a major city and samples of five special groups, prison inmates, police officers, law-school and high-school students, and Job Corps trainees. Respondents' judgments were obtained using Rossi's factorial survey method. Fictitious offenders were constructed by randomly combining offender, offense, and victim characteristics; and respondents used a line-matching technique to rate the justice of punishments randomly assigned to fictitious offenders. Analysis is guided by the framework for empirical justice analysis, which provides an integrated set of procedures for estimation and testing. Results indicate that respondents in all samples save one disagree with each other on the just punishment; and the six samples yield four distinct average orderings of just prison sentences. However, large majorities in all six samples find the dispersion in the punishments experimentally put into the vignette world to be too small relative to the just dispersion. More broadly, comparing the results obtained here from the probability sample of a major city with results from a comparable study on the justice of earnings, we find two interesting symmetries-approximately 1% of the general population is contrarian, regarding earnings as a bad and time in prison as a good; and approximately 92% to 94% of the population regard earnings inequality as too high and prison-time inequality as too low. Finally, this study provides additional evidence that the general population in the United States exhibits independence of mind informing their ideas about what constitutes the just earnings and the just punishment.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)397-422
    Number of pages26
    JournalSocial Justice Research
    Volume11
    Issue number4
    StatePublished - 1998

    Fingerprint

    imprisonment
    penalty
    justice
    offender
    correctional institution
    offense
    school law
    police officer
    trainee
    drug
    school
    evidence
    Group
    student

    Keywords

    • Empirical justice analysis
    • Goods and bads
    • Interrespondent differences
    • Just reward function
    • Justice evaluation function
    • Rossi's factorial survey method

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Sociology and Political Science
    • Anthropology
    • Law

    Cite this

    Exploring the justice of punishments : Framing, Expressiveness, and the Just Prison Sentence. / Jasso, Guillermina.

    In: Social Justice Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1998, p. 397-422.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{49983f2248984d9bb07dc8187608af5f,
    title = "Exploring the justice of punishments: Framing, Expressiveness, and the Just Prison Sentence",
    abstract = "This paper examines views about the justice of punishments for offenders convicted of five major types of offenses-drug, violent, corporate, property, and victimless crimes. We focus on the just punishment and the just dispersion in the punishment distribution, together with observers' framing and expressiveness; and we test for interrespondent differences. Data are drawn from six U.S. samples interviewed in 1982, a probability sample of the adult population of a major city and samples of five special groups, prison inmates, police officers, law-school and high-school students, and Job Corps trainees. Respondents' judgments were obtained using Rossi's factorial survey method. Fictitious offenders were constructed by randomly combining offender, offense, and victim characteristics; and respondents used a line-matching technique to rate the justice of punishments randomly assigned to fictitious offenders. Analysis is guided by the framework for empirical justice analysis, which provides an integrated set of procedures for estimation and testing. Results indicate that respondents in all samples save one disagree with each other on the just punishment; and the six samples yield four distinct average orderings of just prison sentences. However, large majorities in all six samples find the dispersion in the punishments experimentally put into the vignette world to be too small relative to the just dispersion. More broadly, comparing the results obtained here from the probability sample of a major city with results from a comparable study on the justice of earnings, we find two interesting symmetries-approximately 1{\%} of the general population is contrarian, regarding earnings as a bad and time in prison as a good; and approximately 92{\%} to 94{\%} of the population regard earnings inequality as too high and prison-time inequality as too low. Finally, this study provides additional evidence that the general population in the United States exhibits independence of mind informing their ideas about what constitutes the just earnings and the just punishment.",
    keywords = "Empirical justice analysis, Goods and bads, Interrespondent differences, Just reward function, Justice evaluation function, Rossi's factorial survey method",
    author = "Guillermina Jasso",
    year = "1998",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "11",
    pages = "397--422",
    journal = "Social Justice Research",
    issn = "0885-7466",
    publisher = "Springer New York",
    number = "4",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Exploring the justice of punishments

    T2 - Framing, Expressiveness, and the Just Prison Sentence

    AU - Jasso, Guillermina

    PY - 1998

    Y1 - 1998

    N2 - This paper examines views about the justice of punishments for offenders convicted of five major types of offenses-drug, violent, corporate, property, and victimless crimes. We focus on the just punishment and the just dispersion in the punishment distribution, together with observers' framing and expressiveness; and we test for interrespondent differences. Data are drawn from six U.S. samples interviewed in 1982, a probability sample of the adult population of a major city and samples of five special groups, prison inmates, police officers, law-school and high-school students, and Job Corps trainees. Respondents' judgments were obtained using Rossi's factorial survey method. Fictitious offenders were constructed by randomly combining offender, offense, and victim characteristics; and respondents used a line-matching technique to rate the justice of punishments randomly assigned to fictitious offenders. Analysis is guided by the framework for empirical justice analysis, which provides an integrated set of procedures for estimation and testing. Results indicate that respondents in all samples save one disagree with each other on the just punishment; and the six samples yield four distinct average orderings of just prison sentences. However, large majorities in all six samples find the dispersion in the punishments experimentally put into the vignette world to be too small relative to the just dispersion. More broadly, comparing the results obtained here from the probability sample of a major city with results from a comparable study on the justice of earnings, we find two interesting symmetries-approximately 1% of the general population is contrarian, regarding earnings as a bad and time in prison as a good; and approximately 92% to 94% of the population regard earnings inequality as too high and prison-time inequality as too low. Finally, this study provides additional evidence that the general population in the United States exhibits independence of mind informing their ideas about what constitutes the just earnings and the just punishment.

    AB - This paper examines views about the justice of punishments for offenders convicted of five major types of offenses-drug, violent, corporate, property, and victimless crimes. We focus on the just punishment and the just dispersion in the punishment distribution, together with observers' framing and expressiveness; and we test for interrespondent differences. Data are drawn from six U.S. samples interviewed in 1982, a probability sample of the adult population of a major city and samples of five special groups, prison inmates, police officers, law-school and high-school students, and Job Corps trainees. Respondents' judgments were obtained using Rossi's factorial survey method. Fictitious offenders were constructed by randomly combining offender, offense, and victim characteristics; and respondents used a line-matching technique to rate the justice of punishments randomly assigned to fictitious offenders. Analysis is guided by the framework for empirical justice analysis, which provides an integrated set of procedures for estimation and testing. Results indicate that respondents in all samples save one disagree with each other on the just punishment; and the six samples yield four distinct average orderings of just prison sentences. However, large majorities in all six samples find the dispersion in the punishments experimentally put into the vignette world to be too small relative to the just dispersion. More broadly, comparing the results obtained here from the probability sample of a major city with results from a comparable study on the justice of earnings, we find two interesting symmetries-approximately 1% of the general population is contrarian, regarding earnings as a bad and time in prison as a good; and approximately 92% to 94% of the population regard earnings inequality as too high and prison-time inequality as too low. Finally, this study provides additional evidence that the general population in the United States exhibits independence of mind informing their ideas about what constitutes the just earnings and the just punishment.

    KW - Empirical justice analysis

    KW - Goods and bads

    KW - Interrespondent differences

    KW - Just reward function

    KW - Justice evaluation function

    KW - Rossi's factorial survey method

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0009889066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0009889066&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    VL - 11

    SP - 397

    EP - 422

    JO - Social Justice Research

    JF - Social Justice Research

    SN - 0885-7466

    IS - 4

    ER -