How Do We Judge Policies?

Political science has paid scant attention to the way that citizens judge public policy, assuming that citizens do so, or should do so, in ways familiar to academics themselves, depending upon which of the various schools of thought they endorse. This paper argues that approaching citizens’ judgement realistically requires attention to political psychology. Indeed, our conception of citizen judgement can be enriched by attention to research and theory in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. That work emphasises that much judgement occurs spontaneously and very rapidly, that it is involuntary and non‐semantic and that it depends upon the emotional impact of experience rather than conscious weighing of situations against explicit standards of assessment such as science, self‐interest or moral theory. A moral psychology for public life is sketched out, with implications for judgment by politicians.     

Sentencing

While there is nearly unanimous agreement among social scientists that the defendant's prior record is important in explaining the sentence imposed on the defendant, there is little agreement on the "best" or most appropriate measure of prior record to use in examining sentence disparity. This study provides an assessment of the utility of 11 commonly used measures of prior record. We find that the various measures are not interrelated highly and thus necessarily are not interchangeable. We also find that the measures of prior record affect sentence severity differently and that the relationships between these measures and sentence severity varies for black and white defendants.     

SELF-CONTROL IN A CRIMINAL SAMPLE: AN EXAMINATION OF CONSTRUCT VALIDITY*

Favorable evidence on the validity of the Grasmick et al. (1993) self-control scale has been reported in studies using general population samples. However, the scale has never been tested among persons extensively involved in crime. We assessed the construct validity of this scale, slightly revised, in a heterogeneous sample of drug-using criminal offenders. Factor analyses identified five subscales, mostly congruent with existing formulations of the self-control construct. Also, recent crimes of force and fraud were more frequent among people scoring lower on self-control. However, the five-factor solution was not tenable among women, and the scale was no more closely related to crime than were three subscales representing more specific constructs already established in criminology.