Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing

In public opinion polls, a substantial proportion of lay respondents report that judges are too lenient. We examine the factors that contribute to this perceived judicial leniency. The majority of lay respondents in our study said that judges are too lenient in their sentencing of burglary offenders; yet, their own sentencing preferences were more lenient than the required minimum sentence for residential burglary. Our survey and experimental data suggest that citizens' opinions are formed by their inaccurate impressions of the seriousness of actual criminal cases as well as actual judicial sentencing practices. Our experimental research indicates that opinions of judicial leniency can be changed by providing respondents with an example of the typical case that comes before the court. Directions for future research are discussed.We wish to express gratitude to Patti Vea, who, under the supervision of the first author, collected and entered the data from mass transit riders. We are indebted to Judge Warren Wolfson, Court Administrator Jeff Arnold, Chief Judge Harry Comerford, and Judge Frank W. Barbaro and his jury pool officers who gave us permission and assistance in obtaining juror participation for this research. We would like to thank Tom Tyler and Patrick McAnany for their insightful comments on earlier drafts, and editor Ron Roesch and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.