Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hough 1998
Hough 1998
Attitudes to
punishment: findings
from the British Crime
Survey
by
Michael Hough
Julian Roberts
Home Office
Research and
Statistics
Directorate
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
London: Home Office
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
ii
Foreword
Foreword
DAVID MOXON
Head of Crime and Criminal Justice Unit
Research and Statistics Directorate
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
iii
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Acknowledgements
We should like to thank Pat Mayhew and Catriona Mirrlees-Black for their
consistently helpful advice and suggestions about analysing the British Crime
Survey, and for their comments on earlier drafts of this report. We are also
grateful to the Home Office for funding this study.
MICHAEL HOUGH
JULIAN ROBERTS
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
iv
Contents
Inhalt
Page
Foreword iii
Acknowledgements iv
Summary vii
Knowledge of crime and sentencing vii
Assessments of sentencers and sentences viii
The best ways of tackling crime ix
Victims’ sentencing preferences ix
Policy implications x
1 Introduction 1
The British Crime Survey 4
Outline of the report 4
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
v
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
6 Conclusions 43
References 61
Publications 65
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
vi
Summary
Summary
The British Crime Survey (BCS) has been an important source of information
about attitudes to punishment in England and Wales since it was set up in
1982. This report presents findings mainly from the most recent sweep,
carried out in 1996. This had a nationally representative core sample of
16,348 respondents aged 16 or over, with a response rate of 83 per cent.
One part of the interview was devoted specifically to sentencing issues.
Roughly half the sample were asked a series of questions covering:
Those identified by the survey as victims have been asked since 1984 what
punishment they thought their offender should get. Results for victims of
burglary and car theft are presented here.
The 1996 BCS found widespread ignorance amongst the public in England
and Wales about crime and criminal justice statistics. Misperceptions were
systematic rather than random, in that majorities overestimated the gravity of
crime problems, and underestimated the severity of the criminal justice
system. Findings of particular interest are:
• the mistaken belief amongst the majority that recorded crime had
rapidly increased
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
vii
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
The survey shows that the public in England and Wales take a jaundiced
view of sentencers and sentencing. Eighty–two per cent of the sample
thought that judges we re out of touch with the public; the fi g u re fo r
magistrates was 63 per cent. Four-fifths of people think that sentences are
too lenient, half saying that they are much too lenient. Judges were thought
to be doing the worst job amongst criminal justice professionals. The order
of the ratings of these groups, from top to bottom, was:
• magistrates
• judges.
The BCS has demonstrated equally clearly, however, that at least in part,
public dissatisfaction is grounded in ignorance of current practice, and in
ignorance of current crime trends. Those who were most dissatisfied were
most likely to overestimate the growth in crime and the degree to which
c rime is violent, underestimate the courts’ use of imprisonment and
underestimate the clear-up rate.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
viii
Summary
convicted rapists sent to prison, and owner occupiers more likely than
others to underestimate the use of imprisonment for burglars.
When people were asked about a real case of burglary, their sentencing
p re s c riptions we re, on balance, well in line with current sentencing
practice. They were told that the burglary was committed in daytime by
someone with previous convictions, and involved the theft of a video and
television set from the home of an elderly man who was out at the time.
Fifty-four per cent of the sample wanted a prison sentence, with sentence
lengths averaging less than the two years that the burglar actually got. The
remainder of the sample proposed community service orders (26%), a fine
(21%), a suspended sentence (18%), tagging (11%) or probation (9%). A
l a rge minority (44%) suggested compensation, either by itself or in
combination with imprisonment or another penalty. Those who had been
victims of crime were no more punitive than others; this held true for
victims of burglary as well as for victims of other types of crime.
Most of the sample thought that many different factors underlie current
levels of crime. They believed that sentencing levels were an important
determinant of crime trends. However, they tended to see changes in
parenting and in unemployment levels as more promising ways of reducing
crime. Their attitudes towards greater use of imprisonment was at least
ambivalent, with a widespread belief that imprisonment can stimulate as
well as prevent further crime. Far more people expressed a preference for
tougher community penalties (56%) than for building new prisons (18%) as a
means of tackling prison overcrowding.
The BCS shows that there was a marked increase over the period from 1984
to 1996 in victims’ preference for tough sentencing, at least in relation to
two types of crime, burglary and car theft. There was no evidence to
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
ix
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
suggest that this trend was a function simply of increasing seriousness of the
average crime of this sort. Nor was there any evidence that the experience
of victimisation fuels a desire for tougher penalties. Victims’ preferences did
not seem, on balance, to be substantially out of line with current sentencing
practice.
Policy implications
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
x
Introduction
1 Introduction
The need to sustain public confidence means that public opinion plays an
important, albeit indirect role in sentencing policy and practice. Most
recently, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham (1997) observed that he did
not “consider it would be right, even if it were possible, for judges to ignore
the opinion of the public”. He continued by noting that “the increase in the
prison population is not explained by any recent increase in sentencing
powers, and I have no doubt that it is related to the pressure of public
opinion”. Politicians, too, have frequently referred to the need to reflect or
incorporate the views of the public in the debate surrounding sentencing
policy (see Ashworth and Hough, 1996, for further discussion).
Whatever the precise nature of the linkage between opinion and sentencing
p ractice, there fo re, it is obvious that those who are re s p o n s i ble fo r
sentencing policy require a good understanding of what people know and
think about sentencing. The difficulty is that public opinion manifests itself
to sentencers and policymakers in many different ways. Most obviously, the
media - and the tabloid press in particular – simultaneously reflect and shape
knowledge and opinion. There are politicians’ postbags, and the activities of
formal and informal pressure groups. However, these conduits of public
opinion can provide a distorted image of public views. The only truly valid
measure of opinion is a representative survey. Even with such a survey,
however, problems remain. Researchers must ensure that the questions
posed to the public are adequate to capture the complexities of the
sentencing process. As we shall demonstrate below, simply asking the
public whether they think sentences are too harsh or too lenient is an
inadequate and indeed misleading way of measuring public opinion.
1 Huang and Vaughn (1996) summarise research in America which shows very positive attitudes to the police. For
example, a recent American sur vey found that three-quarters of respondents rated the police as “excellent”. Similar
results emerge in Canada (Roberts and Stalans, 1997).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
1
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Survey research conducted in the 1980s (Hough and Moxon, 1985; Walker
and Hough, 1988) suggests a more qualified interpretation of public opinion
about sentencing. This work indicated that the public were less punitive
th an was ge n e ra l ly supposed . When asked about the appro p ri a t e
punishments for individual crimes, many people’s preferences tended to
reflect the range of sentences actually imposed by the courts. This finding
has been replicated in several other countries such as Australia, Canada, The
Netherlands and the United States (see Diamond and Stalans, 1989; Walker
and Hough, 1988; Roberts and Stalans, 1997; Walker, Collins and Wilson,
1988).
Clearly though, the public are dissatisfied with sentencing practice, or what
t h ey perc e i ve sentencing practice to be. What is re s p o n s i ble for this
d i s s a t i s faction? One explanation is that people simply do not have an
accurate perception of the sentencing process. Recent qualitative work
e m p l oying focus groups (see Hough, 1996) has uncove red systematic
ignorance of current sentencing patterns, and has demonstrated that this is a
factor fuelling public dissatisfaction with the courts.4
2 Similar results emerge with general questions relating to capital punishment. Three-quarters of the public favour re-
introduction of the death penalty (see Jowell et al., 1994).
3 One can speculate that questions using less loaded terms – ‘repeat offenders’ or ‘law-breaker’ rather than ‘persistent
criminals’ – might have generated less consensus.
4 Research in America, Australia, and Canada has also found that the public have little idea of sentencing patterns or
statutory maxima (see Williams, Gibbs and Erickson, 1980; Indermaur, 1987; Canadian Sentencing Commission,
1987).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
2
Introduction
One weakness of Doob and Roberts’ experiment (and with other studies that
have adopted this research strategy) is that the subjects were people who
had been recruited for a social science study. This kind of sample, it can be
argued, is not representative of the general population. A survey carried out
in England for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (Zander and
Henderson, 1993) cannot be criticised on the same grounds. The survey
interviewed actual jurors and came to similar conclusions. Participants were
asked what they thought of the sentence that had been imposed in the case
in which they had served as jurors. Fewer than one juror in four thought
that the sentence imposed was less severe than they had expected.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
3
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
The British Crime Survey (BCS) has been an important source of information
about attitudes to punishment in England and Wales,5 since it was set up in
1982. This report presents findings mainly from the most recent sweep,
carried out in 1996. Details about BCS methodology are given in Appendix
A. The 1996 BCS had a nationally representative core sample of 16,348
respondents aged 16 or over. The response rate was 83 per cent.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
4
Introduction
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
5
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
6
Knowledge of crime and criminal justice
This chapter presents findings from the 1996 BCS on public knowledge
about crime and criminal justice. Respondents were asked about:
Respondents were asked whether the recorded crime rate for the country as
a whole had changed over the previous two years (i.e., 1993–1995). The
number of recorded crimes in 1995 was eight per cent lower than in 1993
(Povey, Prime and Taylor, 1997). As this information had not been published
at the time of fieldwork, people could not have known it. However, crime
figures for England and Wales are published every six months, and the
previous three sets all showed significant falls; figures for the 12 months
ending June 1995 were ten per cent lower than two years earlier (Home
Office, 1995).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
7
Figure 2.1 gives a breakdown of responses (excluding the one per cent who
did not express a view). It shows that three-quarters of the sample “got it
wrong”. Thus well-publicised statistics about falling crime had very little
impact on popular perceptions – a finding in keeping with surveys in other
western nations (see Doble, 1996; Roberts and Stalans, 1997, for a review).
Both this and previous sweeps of the BCS asked respondents about changes
in the crime rate in their area. Whilst three-quarters thought that there was
more crime nationally, just over half (54%) thought that crime in their area
had increased. This proportion was higher in 1994 at 64 per cent and
higher still at 67 per cent in 1992 (Mirrlees-Black et al., 1996).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
Knowledge of crime and criminal justice
There are se veral possible reasons why people disbelieve or fail to attend to
published crime statistics. First, headlines such as “Crime rate soars” have
been such a staple of tabloid journalism for so long that it would probably
take years of falling crime rates before the change became embedded in
public consciousness. Second, large proportions of the population will
simply miss or forget relevant newspaper stories and broadcasts. Third, even
when national crime rates fall, local crime rates may have risen; and
respondents in such areas would reasonably extrapolate from the local
experience in answering questions about national crime rates. Finally the
police figures probably were an unreliable guide to trends over this period.
The BCS provides a better measure for crimes against individuals and their
p ri vate property; the 1996 sweep actually showed a four per cent ri s e
between 1993 and 1995 (Mirrlees-Black et al., 1996). But even if we use the
BCS as a yardstick, almost half (46%) of the sample were wrong in saying that
there was “a lot more crime” nationally than two years before.
1 This in itself is interesting. It suggests that people are confident that their perceptions of criminal justice are
accurate.
2 Comparable trends emerge in other countries. When this same question was posed in Canada, three-quarters of
Canadians estimated the same statistic to lie between 30 and 100 per cent (Doob and Roberts, 1988). Indermaur
(1990) reports the same finding using a sample of Australian respondents.
3 Mitchell (forthcoming) has shown that the public is sensitive to the wide variation in gravity of offences of homicide
– but it is unlikely that public conceptions of what constitutes murder are fully consistent with legal ones. In
responding to this question, people may have a rather different, broader definition in their minds.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
9
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
People had more difficulty with this question than any other. This is
reflected in the relatively large number of people who refused to respond or
who chose “don't know” as a response: over five per cent. When they did
respond, people chose a wide range of responses, many of which were
clearly guesses. Fully one-quarter of the sample estimated under 50, while 3
per cent estimated in excess of 3,000. The average response to this question
was 616. It would be stretching things to conclude that the British public
tends to over-estimate the number of murders – a finding which has been
established in North America (Roberts, 1992).
4 Crimes are regarded as cleared up if they result in one of the following: a charge; a summons; a caution; a request
by the offender that the offence be ‘taken into consideration’ by the courts when sentencing for another crime; or a
formal admission of guilt made whilst serving a prison sentence for another offence.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
10
Knowledge of crime and criminal justice
Total 100
By the time that they reach the age of 40, fully 40 per cent of men in Britain
have a criminal record for a non-motoring offence – a fact little known
among the ge n e ral public. When the y we re aske d to estimate the
percentage of 40-year-old men with a criminal record, almost two-thirds
under-estimated this statistic. The median response was 30 per cent. If we
consider a response between 35 per cent and 45 per cent to be correct, one
in seven (14%) got it right. Over half (56%) under-estimated the statistic,
while 30 per cent overestimated.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
11
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Just over half the sample (56%) were aware of this change. Roughly a
quarter (27%) believed there had been no change while 15 per cent believed
that there had been a fall (the remaining 2 per cent said they did not know
or refused to answer). Widespread news media coverage of the swelling
prison population must account for this finding.
5 This sentence now accounts for only one per cent of the total – though it continues to loom large in public
consciousness (see Hough, 1996).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
12
Knowledge of crime and criminal justice
6 Classification decisions were not made rigidly in accordance with these criteria. For example, we erred on the side
of caution by including as accurate the large numbers who said that 50 per cent of convicted burglars were
imprisoned. Strictly speaking our criteria imply that these were “a bit low”.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
13
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
14
Knowledge of crime and criminal justice
Over-estimate
Rape: not applicable
Mugging: 80–100% – 5% 8%
Burglary: 70–100%
Accurate
Rape: 85–100%
Mugging: 60–79% 18% 12% 22%
Burglary: 50–69%
Small under-estimate
Rape: 60–85%
Mugging: 45–59% 26% 20% 15%
Burglary: 31–49%
Large under-estimate
Rape: 0–59%
Mugging: 0–44% 57% 62% 55%
Burglary: 0–30%
Question: Out of every 100 men aged 21 or over who are convicted of
rape (mugging/ house burglary), how many do you think are sent to
prison?
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
15
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Summary
• the mistaken belief amongst the majority that crime was rapidly
increasing
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
16
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
The 1996 BCS shows that the majority of the public have little regard for
s e n t e n c e rs’ perfo rmance. Respondents we re asked seve ral re l eva n t
questions:
Figure 3.1 shows that four out of five respondents thought sentences were
too lenient to some degree (excluding the 2% who expressed no opinion).
Half said that sentences were “much too lenient”. This result is consistent
with similar research in other common law countries. 1 There is more public
consensus on this issue than any other in criminal justice, including the
death penalty.
As Figure 3.2 shows, people also thought that sentencers were out of touch.
More than four out of five thought judges were out of touch to some degree,
and 46 per cent thought they were very out of touch. Magistrates fared
better: only 21 per cent of the sample viewed them as being very out of
touch. Even so, almost two-thirds thought they were out of touch to some
degree.
1 For example, 80 per cent of the Canadian public and a similar percentage of Americans hold this view, and have
done so for over 30 years (e.g., Flanagan and Longmire, 1996).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
17
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
18
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
Figure 3.3 compares the ratings of the job done by judges and magistrates
with those of other professionals. Judges emerge with the lowest ratings of
all seven groups: excluding “don’t knows”, 32 per cent thought they did a
poor job, 49 per cent a fair job, and 20 per cent thought they did a good job.
Magistrates do marginally better than the probation service and the CPS, but
not as well as the prison or police services.2
Figure 3.3: How good a job are they doing? Sentencers and other
justice agencies
2 The police findings are consistent with other questions in the BCS about the quality of local policing. Eighty-one per
cent of respondents in the 1996 BCS thought that the police in their area did a good job (Mirrlees-Black and Budd,
1997).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
19
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
As a first step in our analysis, we checked that the view that sentencers were
out of touch and did a poor job was indeed associated with a belief that they
were too lenient. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 confirm this to be so for judges: the
more that people thought sentences too lenient, the more likely they were
to believe that judges were out of touch with society, and doing a poor job.
Very similar findings emerged in relation to magistrates. This suggests that
when people express the view that judges are out of touch, they specifically
mean with respect to the leniency of sentences that are imposed.
Judges are:
Sentences are: % % %
Too tough 2 2 3
About right 42 22 7
Too lenient 57 76 90
Sentences are: % % %
Too tough 3 2 3
About right 36 20 6
Too lenient 61 78 92
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
20
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
Sentences are:
Averaging the estimates of imprisonment rates for the three crimes shows
the contrast between respondents who believe sentences are much too
le nient and the rest of the sample. Ave raged ac ross the offe n c e s ,
respondents who felt sentences are much too lenient believed that 38 per
cent of offenders were incarcerated. The average for those who felt that
sentences were a little too lenient was 42 per cent, and those who thought
that sentences were about right or too tough generated an average of 47 per
cent. This suggests that ignorance about current practice is one source of
public dissatisfaction with sentencing.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
21
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Sentences are: % % %
Too tough 2 2 4
About right 11 21 29
Too lenient 88 77 67
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
22
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
These trends also support the interpretation that the public regard judges as
playing an important role in crime control. People tend to think that varying
the severity of penalties will have an impact on crime rates; more lenient
sentences will lead to higher crime rates, harsher to a fall in crime. Here
too, there are international parallels.3
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
23
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
prison, was quite closely intercorrelated with the equivalent variable for
mugging (Pearsons r = +.4); if the latter is excluded from the analysis, the
former emerges as a significant predictor.
Sentences are:
Too tough 2 5 3
About right 12 37 19
Too lenient 86 58 79
Judges are:
In touch 14 29 18
A bit out of touch 34 40 36
Very out of touch 52 31 46
Magistrates are:
In touch 31 53 37
A bit out of touch 42 36 42
Very out of touch 26 11 21
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
24
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
Educational attainment
A levels + 52% 59% 42%
Lower 56% 64% 63%
Newspaper preference
Tabloid 58% 66% 63%
Mail/Express 56% 62% 56%
Local 56% 63% 58%
Broadsheet 49% 58% 41%
None 53% 58% 59%
Social class
Non-manual 55% 62% 52%
Manual 56% 63% 61%
Sex
Males 56% 61% 46%
Females 54% 63% 66%
Age
16–29 47% 62% 53%
30–59 58% 63% 54%
60+ 54% 61% 65%
Housing
Owner 56% 62% 55%
Renter 50% 62% 61%
Household income
Under £15K 54% 62% 65%
£15K + 56% 62% 49%
Ethnic group
White 56% 62% 57%
Black 38% 58% 61%
Asian 46% 62% 54%
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
25
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
The probability that misperceptions about crime and justice are fuelling
p u blic dissatisfaction makes it important to know which demogra p h i c
groups are especially misinformed about sentencing. Table 3.7 shows what
groups are most likely to under-estimate sentencing severity. Overall, those
who make large underestimates are likely to be poorly educated readers of
tabloid newspapers. There are few consistent patterns for age, sex, class,
income and race; however, women, those from manual households, older
people and the least affluent were more likely than others to underestimate
the use of imprisonment for rapists. Whites and owner occupiers were more
likely than others to do so in relation to burglars.
5 The analysis was carried out using weighted data. Similar findings emerged for the unweighted data-set, except that
the order of entry of the last two variables was reversed.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
26
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
The approach followed in the 1996 BCS was to describe a real case, which
went to the Court of Appeal, and to get respondents to select a sentence (or
sentences, as multiple choices were permitted). The details of the case were
presented on a show-card as follows:
The offender had been given a three-year sentence in the Crown Court,
which was reduced on appeal to two years. Had such a case appeared
before magistrates, it would almost certainly have attracted a custodial
sentence, and probably would have attracted the maximum of six months.
Crown Court sentences for similar cases might range from six months to two
years.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
27
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Table 3.8 presents findings for the majority of the sample, excluding the sub-
set of non-victims who “sentenced” without a menu of options. It shows
that imprisonment was the most favoured option. However, only slightly
more than half of respondents favoured imprisonment; a fifth favoured a
fine, and around a third favoured community penalties other than a fine.
These responses are on balance more lenient than either the Court of Appeal
judgement or the Magistrates Association guidelines which suggest that the
‘entry point’ sentence for a domestic burglary of this sort is a short prison
sentence.
Percentage of
respondents choosing
Sentencing option %
Imprisonment 54
Suspended sentence 18
Fine 21
Probation 9
Community service 26
Tagging 11
Compensation 44
Discharge 1
Respondents who chose sentences using the sentencing menu fell into
6 The alternatives were: imprisonment; suspended prison sentence; fine; probation; community service order;
electronic tagging; compensation; conditional discharge.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
28
Opinion about sentencers and sentencing
It can be seen that just over two - t h i rds of the “non-menu” sub-sample
favoured a term of custody, whereas only half of the other group endorsed
i m p risonment as a sanction. This is a highly significant diffe re n c e .
Respondents provided with a list of options were more likely to favour
imposition of a suspended sentence, probation and community service.
Support for compensation was also higher when respondents were aware
that it was an option: almost half (44%) of the “menu” group ch o s e
compensation, compared with 22 per cent of the “non-menu” group.
Percentage of respondents
choosing sentencing options % %
Imprisonment 54 67
Suspended sentence 18 8
Fine 21 19
Probation 9 5
Community service 26 20
Tagging 11 4
Compensation 44 22
Discharge 1 1
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
29
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Summary
This chapter has shown in unusually stark terms that the public in England
and Wales take a jaundiced view of sentencers and sentencing. Judges in
particular are regarded as out of touch with the public, and four-fifths of
people think that sentences are too lenient. The BCS has demonstrated
e q u a l ly cl e a r ly, howeve r, that at least in part, public dissatisfaction is
grounded in ignorance of current practice, and in ignorance of current crime
trends. Those who are most dissatisfied are most likely to overestimate the
growth in crime and the degree to which crime is violent, underestimate the
courts’ use of imprisonment and underestimate the clear-up rate. Those
who are most likely to underestimate the courts’ use of imprisonment have
lower educational attainment than others, and are more likely to read tabloid
newspapers. When people are asked about a specific case, their sentencing
prescriptions are, on balance, well in line with current sentencing practice.
7 The mean length of imprisonment was higher, but this was an instance in which the average was sk ewed by some
very extreme scores: 1% of the sample chose sentence lengths in excess of 20 years. For this reason, we feel that
the median is the most appropriate measure of central tendency.
8 Research has shown that like the courts, members of the public become far more punitive when the offender being
sentenced has several related previous convictions (see Roberts, 1997).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
30
Strategies for controlling crime
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
31
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
sentencing patterns were the most important cause, and 48 per cent saw it
as a major cause, of rising crime (see Table 4.1). If people believe that
lenient sentencing causes crime, then by infe rence they pro b ably also
believe that harsher sentencing would have a preventive effect, resulting in
lower crime rates. These results suggest that a majority of the British public
appear to subscribe to a perception of sentencing as a crime contro l
m e ch a n i s m . 1 Sentencing is accorded rather less weight when similar
questions are asked in different contexts. For example, ONS’s omnibus
survey carried a module of questions about drug-crime. In this, only 37 per
cent of respondents identified lenient sentencing as a ‘main cause’ of crime,
c o m p a re d with 65 pe r cent who opted for d rug misu se (C har les,
forthcoming).
The four per cent of respondents who thought – accurately – that recorded
crime rates were falling were asked whether tough sentencing had played a
part in this. Opinion was divided fairly evenly between those who thought
that sentencing was unrelated, a minor cause and a major cause.
Sentencing is:
100% 100%
1 In this respect their perceptions are at odds with reality. There is general agreement among sentencing scholars that
changes in sentencing severity will have little impact on the overall crime rate. One reason for this is that such a
small percentage of offences are ever prosecuted. In England and Wales, some two per cent of of fences result in the
imposition of a sentence (Home Office, 1994). Increasing the average sentence, sa y, from six months to two years
will have no apprecia ble impact on the overall crime rate. Ashworth (1995) concludes that: “It should therefore be
clear that, if criminal justice policy expects sentencing to perform a major preventive function, it is looking in the
wrong direction” (p. 23).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
32
Strategies for controlling crime
Two questions addressed public opinion regarding the most effective way of
preventing crime. Respondents were first asked which of a series of ways to
prevent crime would be effective. This was not a free response question;
they were given a list of six strategies and were allowed to choose up to six
options. After having identified the crime prevention strategies which in
their view would be effective, respondents who had given more than one
response were then asked to choose the single strategy which in their
opinion would be the most effective. Since the same hierarchy of options
emerged from both questions, for ease of presentation, we shall present the
results from the latter question only (Table 4.2).
In response to the question about the single most effective strategy, the
following hierarchy emerged. “Increase discipline in the family” attracted
the largest number of respondents, 36 per cent of the sample.2 This was
followed by “reduce levels of unemployment” (25%); “make sentences
tougher” (20%); “increase the number of police officers” (9%); “increase
discipline in schools” (8%); and finally “increase the use of community-based
penalties such as fines and community service” (2%). Thus even though
most people believe that lenient sentencing is a major cause of increasing
c rime rates, the public has a broad, multidimensional view of cri m e
prevention, one which does not place exclusive or even primary emphasis
on harsher sentencing. The British public, like their counterparts in North
America3 and Australia, appear to believe that there are several causes of
crime, and that this must be reflected in any crime prevention strategy.
100%
2 The 1997 ONS Omnibus Survey discussed above also found that poor parental discipline was the most frequently
identified ‘main cause’ of crime.
3 When Canadians were given the same list, only 27 per cent chose “making sentences harsher”; (see Roberts and
Grossman, 1991).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
33
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
As with many other issues in this survey, responses to this question were
related to perceptions of sentencing severity. Table 4.3 shows that of those
who felt sentences were too lenient, only 21 per cent favoured reducing
unemployment as the most effective crime prevention strategy. Reducing
u n e m p l oyment was chosen by 49 per cent of those who thought that
sentences were too tough and 39 per cent of those who believed that
sentences were about right.
Increase discipline
in the family 27% 33% 37%
Increase discipline
in schools 5% 8% 8%
Reduce unemployment 49% 39% 21%
Increase number of police 8% 7% 9%
Make sentences tougher 10% 8% 23%
Increase use of community
sanctions 2% 4% 2%
4 The reactions of the public in North America are comparable. In response to a similar question, less than a third of
Canadians regarded criminal justice solutions as the most effective w ay to prevent crime (Roberts and Grossman,
1991).
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
34
Strategies for controlling crime
The ove rc rowded state of British prisons has also been the subject of
c o n s i d e rable news media cove rage, including widespread publ i c i t y
surrounding “prison ships”. Respondents were told that there is some
evidence that the prisons are overcrowded, and were then asked to choose
one of three ways of addressing the problem. One solution emerged with far
more support from the public than the others. “Find new ways to punish
offenders that are less expensive than prison but tougher than probation”
was chosen by over half the respondents (56%), while the next most popular
solution to overcrowding (supported by almost one-quarter of the sample)
was to “release some non-violent offenders from prison earlier than at
present with more probation supervision after release”.
If people’s attention had not been drawn to the cost of prison building, it is
probable that support for this strategy would have been stronger. It strikes
us as more sensible when canvassing opinion not to offer respondents a
“free lunch”; unless their attention is drawn to opportunity costs, the public
generally want more and better public services of every sort.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
35
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Sentences are:
Too lenient About right
100% 100%
This relationship suggests that one reason so many people think sentences
should be harsher is that they believe that imprisonment is not that aversive
an experience for inmates.
One criticism of prisons that has been around for many generations is that
t h e y may in fact promote crim inal behaviou r b y e nc ourag ing the
transmission of ways in which to offend. The public would appear to
subscribe strongly to this view. More than four out of five respondents
(82%) agreed with the statement that “In prison, offenders learn new ways
to commit crime”. Only six per cent of the sample disagreed with the
statement. (A further 11% neither agreed nor disagreed.)
Although many people have strong views about prison life, and how a prison
should be run, few people have any direct ex p e rience with custodial
settings. Respondents were asked “Have you ever been inside a prison, as
a visitor, or for any other reason?”. Four out of five respondents stated that
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
36
Strategies for controlling crime
they had never been in a prison in any capacity. We carried out analysis to
see if direct experience with prison bore any relation to attitudes towards
prison.
Surprisingly, the only significant difference which we found was that those
with direct experience were more likely to agree with the statement that
prisons help inmates to become law-abiding citizens: 44 per cent, compared
to only 35% of respondents without experience of prison.
Summary
Findings presented in this chapter show that most people recognise that
many different factors underlie current levels of crime. They generally
believe that sentencing is an important determinant. However, they tend to
see changes in parenting and in unemployment levels as more promising
ways of reducing crime. Their attitudes towards greater use of imprisonment
is at least ambivalent, with a widespread belief in the negative potential of
i m p risonment in stimulating further crime, and a greater pre fe re n c e
expressed for tougher community penalties than for building new prisons.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
37
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
38
The views of victims
Figure 5.1 shows an increase between 1984 and 1996 from 33 per cent to 48
per cent in the proportion of burglary victims who want their offender
imprisoned. Unlike the findings presented above, these estimates are based
on small numbers (especially in earlier sweeps) and are subject to significant
sampling error.2 Nonetheless, it seems clear that victims of burglary have
become more punitive over the 12 years since 1984. Victims of car theft
show a similar pattern, with the proportion favouring imprisonment rising
from 17 per cent in 1984 to 44 per cent in 1996. It should be remembered
that concern about joyriders was of particular public and political concern
in 1991 and 19923 – though the difference between the 1992 and 1996
figures is not statistically significant.
1 Ninety-two per cent of burglaries with loss and 99 per cent of car thefts (including unauthorised taking) were
reported in the 1992 BCS. If unreported crimes are excluded from Figure 3.3, the proportion of burglary victims
favouring imprisonment increases three percentage points to 44 per cent; there is no change for victims of car
theft.
2 Assuming minimal design effects, the estimate of 33 per cent of burglary victims favouring imprisonment in 1984
may have a true value anywhere between 27 per cent and 39 per cent, and the corresponding figure of 49 per cent
for 1996 may have a true value anywhere between 45 per cent and 53 per cent (p<.05).
3 A series of serious road accidents involving stolen cars coupled with media accounts of joyriding in places such as
the Blackbird Lees Estate near Oxford led to the Aggravated Vehicle Taking Act, 1992.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
39
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
40
The views of victims
than those in the vignettes.4 It is also possible – but not empirically testable
in the 1992 BCS – that people judge that crimes in which they have been the
victim deserve heavier punishment than similar crimes committed against
others.
Crime
Sentence % % % %
Prison 44 36 45 24
Fine 7 12 15 23
Community service 20 13 11 6
Probation, susp. sent 7 11 7 12
Compensation 6 13 16 15
Discharge or caution 6 9 4 18
Other/DK/depends 10 7 2 3
-- -- -- --
Notes: British Crime Survey, 1992. Weighted data. All burglaries involve entry to home and theft of property. Car thefts
include incidents which would be recorded by the police as unauthorised taking.
The 1992 BCS can provide some tentative clues as to whether the
experience of victimisation fuels punitive attitudes towards offenders in
general, as responses to the vignettes can be broken down according to
respondents’ status as victims of crime. Thus for example, 36 per cent of
the 175 burg l a ry victims who completed the sentencing questionnaire
advocated imprisonment for the burglar in the vignette, compared with 30
per cent of the overall sample. Corresponding figures for car theft are 24
per cent of victims, and 20 per cent of the overall sample. These figures may
seem sugge s t i ve of a causal link between victimisation and punitive
attitudes, but the differences do not approach statistical significance. This
finding is consistent with the results from the 1996 survey which we
4 Of those BCS respondents who were victims of burglary involving loss in 1991, 55% suf fered losses of at least £500,
and a further 14% had losses between £250 and £500. The burglary vignette specified the loss of a video-recorder -
whose average value in 1992 was probably lower than this. Similarly, the vignette for car theft specified that the car
was recovered undamaged; in over two thirds of BCS car thefts in 1991, the vehicle suffered at least £100 of
damage or was never recovered.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
41
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Summary
Over time, there has been a marked increase in victims’ preference for tough
sentencing, at least in relation to two types of crime, burglary and car theft.
T h e re is no evidence to suggest that this trend is a function simply of
i n c reasing seve rity of the ave rage crime of this sort. Consistent with
findings reported in Chapter 2, there is no evidence that the experience of
victimisation fuels a desire for tougher penalties.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
42
Conclusions
6 Conclusions
Several themes emerge from this, the most extensive analysis to date of
British attitudes toward sentencing and related criminal justice issues. First,
the general perception of leniency by the courts is widespread, and is clearly
related to evaluations of the judiciary, and to a lesser extent, magistrates.
While the perception persists that sentences are too lenient, criticism of
judges and magistrates will continue. Judges received the most negative
evaluations of all criminal justice professionals in this survey. The lesson
would appear clear: cl a rifying public misperception about sentencing
t rends in this country will promote public confidence in judges and
magistrates. And, since the judiciary occupy such a critical place in the
criminal justice system, increasing confidence in the courts will promote
confidence in the administration of justice. Since the perception of leniency
has been around for two decades now, it constitutes a priority in terms of
public education.
However, the public also need more accurate information about issues
related to sentencing. As we have seen from the BCS results reported here,
part of the public misperception about sentencing involves a link between
sentencing patterns and crime rates. In the light of this connection, it is
important to educate the public about trends in crime and the proportion of
crime that involves violence. Otherwise, people will continue to believe
that crime rates are increasing inex o rably (part i c u l a r ly rates of violent
c rime), and they will be inclined to attribute this increase to lenient
sentencing. In this way, the cycle of disappointment with sentencing and
criticism of the judiciary can only continue.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
43
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
sentencing is seen as being a cause of crime, but tougher sentencers are not
seen as the only or even the primary remedy.
While the public respond to polls by endorsing the view that sentences are
too lenient, this result must be seen in light of the findings reported in this
paper and elsewhere. When asked about sentencing in general, the public
think of the worst kinds of offenders (recidivists) and the most serious
crimes of violence, who represent a small minority of the total offender
population. When presented with a complete description of an actual case,
the public tend to be less punitive. As well, when gi ven adequate
information about the range of legal punishments available, the public are
less likely to endorse the use of imprisonment. Another way of stating this is
to say that when members of the public have a level of info rm a t i o n
comparable to that which is available to a judge in a court, the public
respond in a way that is fairly consistent with judicial practice. This result
has emerged from a wealth of re s e a rch in seve ral countries, and now
emerges from the 1992 and 1996 British Crime Surveys.1
It is worth reiterating the point that the British public are not alone in
holding a number of misperceptions about crime and justice. Throughout
this report we have noted parallels with public reactions to sentencing in
several other western nations. The British public are no less informed, or no
more critical than the public in these other countries.
1 It is also consistent with findings derived from earlier sweeps of the BCS.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
44
Conclusions
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
45
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
46
Appendix A: Organisation and design of the British Crime Survey
Appendix A: Organisation
and design of the British
Crime Survey
The British Crime Survey (BCS) has been carried out six times, in 1982,
1984, 1987, 1992, 1994 and 1996. This appendix summarises the design of
the 1996 sweep. Previous sweeps differed only in minor detail. The 1996
British Crime Survey was carried out in early 1996 by Social and Community
Planning Research (SCPR) 1. Design of the survey was shared between staff
of the Home Office Research and Planning Unit and SCPR. Full details of the
survey’s methodology are to be found in SCPR’s technical report (Hales and
Stratford, 1997), and are summarised in Mirrlees-Black et al. (1996).
Sampling
1 SCPR did the fieldwork in the first survey; NOP Market Research in the second, and a consortium of both companies
in the third; a consortium of SCPR and BMRB did the fourth; and OPCS did the fifth.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
47
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Fieldwork
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
48
Appendix A: Organisation and design of the British Crime Survey
Weighting
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
49
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
50
Appendix B: Extract from the 1996 British Crime Survey questionnaire
CrimUK [ASK ALL] I would like to ask whether you think that the recorded crime
rate for the country as a whole has changed over the past two years.
Would you say there is more crime, less crime or about the same amount
(since two years ago)? PROBE. Is that a lot or a little more/less?
Nvio [ASK ALL] The next few questions are about your perceptions of the level
of crime. If you don’t know an answer, please give us your best guess. We
are equally interested in what you think the answers might be. For several
of these questions we will be asking you to give an answer out of 100, for
example out of every 100 crimes how many are a particular type of crime.
Of every 100 crimes recorded by the police, roughly what number do you
think involve violence or the threat of violence? PROMPT if you don’t
know, please just guess.
0 ... 100
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
51
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Nmurd [ASK ALL] How many recorded mu rd e rs do you think there were in
England and Wales last year? PROMPT if you don’t know, please just
guess.
0 ...99997
ClearUp [ASK ALL] Crimes are recorded as cleared up by the police when the
offender is prosecuted or otherwise admits guilt. Out of every 100 crimes
reported to the police, what number do you think are ‘cleared up`?
PROMPT if you don’t know, please just guess.
0 ....100
M40Rec [ASK ALL] When someone is convicted of a crime, they will have a
criminal record. By the time men reach the age of 40, how many out of
100 do you suppose have a criminal record?
0 ...100
SentSev [ASK ALL] The next few questions are about sentencing by the courts,
that is both the Crown Court and magistrates courts. In general, would
you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too tough, about
right, or too lenient? PROBE Is that a little too tough/lenient or much too
tough/lenient?
SentCrim [ASK ALL] CARD B1 You said earlier that you thought that the recorded
crime rate had increased/decreased over the past two years. What role
would you say that lenient/tough (Sentsev) sentencing by the courts has
p l ayed in this incre a s e / d e c rease? Would you say that sentencing has
been......
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
52
Appendix B: Extract from the 1996 British Crime Survey questionnaire
NPrisCh [ASK ALL] Over the past two ye a rs do you think the pro p o rtion of
offenders sent to prison has increased, stayed the same or decreased?
1. Increased
2. Stayed the same
3. Decreased
TypSent [ASK ALL] CARD B2 This card shows a description of an actual criminal
case. READ OUT IF NECESSARY: A man aged 23 pleaded guilty to the
burglary of a cottage belonging to an elderly man whilst he was out
during the day. The offender, who had previous convictions for burglary,
took a video worth £150 and a television, which he left damaged near the
scene of the crime. ALLOW RESPONDENT TIME TO READ PROPERLY
THEN ASK:
1. Imprisonment
2. Suspended prison sentence
3. Fine
4. Probation
5. Community service order
6. Electronic tagging
7. Have to pay compensation
8. Conditional discharge
9. Other
SentType The courts can impose a number of different types of sentences upon
people convicted of criminal offences. One of these is immediate
imprisonment. Which other types can you think of? PROBE. RECORD
EACH MENTIONED IN ORDER (UP TO 8 MENTIONS). CODE ALL THAT
APPLY
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
53
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
TypSentB [ASK I F Digit (SE RIAL NUMB ER) = 3 OR 7]. CARD B3. ALLOW
RESPONDENT TIME TO READ PRO P E R LY, THEN ASK: There are a
number of possible sentences which could be imposed in this case. What
type, or types, of sentence do you think the offender should receive?
1. Imprisonment
2. Suspended prison sentence
3. Fine
4. Probation
5. Community service order
6. Electronic tagging
7. Have to pay compensation
8. Conditional discharge
9. Other
1. In years only
2. In months only
3. In years and months
PrSentY [ASK IF PrSent = Year only OR Years and months]. CODE NUMBER OF
YEARS
0..30
PrSentM [ASK IF PrSent = Months only OR Years and months]. CODE NUMBER OF
MONTHS
0..30
NRapePr1 [ASK ALL] Now I would like to ask you about the kinds of sentences that
are imposed for rape, mugging and house burglary. First of all, out of
every 100 men aged 21 or over who are convicted of rape, how many do
you think are sent to prison?
0...100
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
54
Appendix B: Extract from the 1996 British Crime Survey questionnaire
0..100
NmuggPr1 [ASK ALL] Now turning to mugging which is theft in the street by means
of force or the threat of force, out of every 100 adults aged 21 or over
who are convicted of mu g ging, how many do you think are sent to
prison?
0...100
0...100
NrBurgPr1 [ASK ALL] Now turning to house burglary out of every 100 adults aged 21
or over who are convicted of house burglary, how many do you think are
sent to prison?
0...100
0...100
JudTouch [ASK ALL] I would now like to ask for your opinions of judges and
magistrates who decide what sentences to give. Firstly, Judges. Do you
think that judges are ge n e ra l ly in touch or out of touch with what
ordinary people think? IF OUT OF TOUCH: Is that a bit out of touch or
very out of touch?
1. In touch
2. A bit out of touch
3. Very out of touch
MagTouch [ASK ALL] Do you think that magistrates are generally in touch or out of
touch with what ordinary people think? IF OUT OF TOUCH: Is that a bit
out of touch or very out of touch?
1. In touch
2. A bit out of touch
3. Very out of touch
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
55
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
InPris [ASK ALL] Now I would like to ask you some questions about prisons.
Have you ever been inside a prison, as a visitor or for any other reason?
1. Yes
2. No
0..
PrSkill [ASK ALL]. CARD B4 I am going to read out some statements about
prison. For each one please choose a phrase from the card to say how
much you agree or disagree with it. READ OUT...
1. Agree strongly
2. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree strongly
PrLawAb CARD B4. In prison, offenders are helped to become law-abiding citizens?
1. Agree strongly
2. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree strongly
1. Agree strongly
2. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree strongly
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
56
Appendix B: Extract from the 1996 British Crime Survey questionnaire
PrCrim CARD B4. In prison, offenders learn new ways to commit crime?
1. Agree strongly
2. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree strongly
OverCrow [ASK ALL]. CARD B5. There is some evidence that the prisons in this
country are overcrowded. Looking at this card which one of these do you
think would be the best way of reducing overcrowding?
1. Find new ways to punish offenders that are less expensive than
prison but tougher than probation
3. Build more prisons and pay for them by raising taxes or cutting
spending in other areas
PrevCr1 [ASK ALL]. CARD B6. Here is some possible ways of helping to prevent
crime in Britain. Which of these ways would in your view be effective in
preventing crime? (Enter at most six cases).
PrevCr2 [ASK IF MORE THAN ONE ANSWER AT PREVCR1]. SHOW CARD B6 . And
which one way would in your view be most effective in preventing crime?
(Enter code). (SCREEN TO SHOW ONLY THOSE CODES RECORDED AT
PREVCR1)
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
57
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
JobPol [ASK ALL]. CARD B7 . This card lists some different groups of people who
collectively form the criminal justice system. We would like to know how
good a job you think each off these groups of people are doing.
How good the Police are doing? Would that be an excellent, good, fair,
poor or very poor job? (Enter code) PROB
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
JobCPS How good the Crown Prosecution Service, that is the body responsible for
making prosecutions, is doing? Would that be an excellent, good, fair,
poor or very poor job? (Enter code)
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
JobJud How good judges are doing? Would that be an excellent, good, fair, poor
or very poor job? (Enter code)
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
JobMag How good magistrates are doing? Would that be an excellent, good, fair,
poor or very poor job? (Enter code)
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
58
Appendix B: Extract from the 1996 British Crime Survey questionnaire
JobPri How good the prison services are doing? Would that be an excellent,
good, fair, poor or very poor job? (Enter code
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
JobProb How good the probation services are doing? Would that be an excellent,
good, fair, poor or very poor job? (Enter code)
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
MediaCov ALL] CARD B9. Now I would like you to think about coverage of crime in
the media, that is television, radio, newspapers and magazines. How good
a job you think the media does in providing you with accurate and
balanced information about crime? Would that be an excellent, good, fair,
poor or very poor job? (Enter code)
1. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
5. Very poor
Newspap [ASK ALL] CARD B9. Which one of the following daily newspapers do you
read most often?(Enter code)
1. Daily Express
2. Daily Mail
3. Daily Mirror
4. Daily Star
5. Daily Telegraph
6. Financial Times
7. The Guardian
8. The Independent
9. The Sun
10. The Times
11. Local daily newspaper
12. Other daily newspaper
13. None
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
59
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
60
References
References
Doob, A. and Roberts, J.V. (1982) Crime: Some Views of the Canadian
Public. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
61
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
Jowell, R., Curtice, J., Brook, L. and Ahrend, D. (1994) British Social
Attitudes: 11th Report. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
62
References
MVA. (1997). The 1996 Scottish Crime Survey: first results. Crime and
Criminal Justice Research Findings No. 16. Edinburgh: Scottish Office
Central Research Unit.
Roberts, J.V. (1992) ‘Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal Justice.’ In (ed.)
M. Tonry, Crime and Justice. A Review of Research. Volume 16. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, J.V. and Stalans, L. (1997) Public Opinion, Crime and Criminal
Justice. Colorado: Westview Press.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
63
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
64
Publications
Publications
A list of research reports for the last three years is provided below. A full list
of publications is available on request from the Research and Statistics
Directorate Information and Publications Group.
151. Drug misuse declared: results of the 1994 British Crime Survey.
Malcom Ramsay and Andrew Percy. 1996.
155. PACE: a review of the literature. The first ten years. David Br own.
1997.
156. Automatic Conditional Release: the first two years. Mike Maguire,
Brigitte Perroud and Peter Raynor. 1996.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
65
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
162 Imprisoned women and mothers. Dianne Caddle and Debbie Crisp. 1996.
163. Curfew orders with electronic monitoring: an evaluation of the first twelve
months of the trials in Greater Manchester, Norfolk and Berkshire, 1995 -
1996. George Mair and Ed Mortimer. 1996..
164 Safer cities and domestic burglaries. Paul Ekblom, Ho Law, Mike Sutton, with
assistance from Paul Crisp and Richard Wiggins. 1996.
165. Enforcing financial penalties. Claire Whittaker and Alan Mackie. 1997.
166. Assessing offenders’ needs: assessment scales for the probation service.
Rosumund Aubrey and Michael Hough. 1997.
172 Drug misuse declared in 1996: latest results from the British
Crime Survey. Malcolm Ramsay and Josephine Spiller. 1997.
Research Findings
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
66
Publications
33. Drug misuse declared: results of the 1994 British Crime Survey.
Malcolm Ramsay and Andrew Percy. 1996.
34. Crack cocaine and drugs-crime careers. Howard Parker and Tim
Bottomley. 1996.
35. Imprisonment for fine default. David Moxon and Claire Whittaker.
1996.
45. Does treating sex offenders reduce reoffending? Carol Hedderman and
Darren Sugg. 1996.
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
67
Attitudes to punishment: findings from the British Crime Survey
49. PACE ten years on: a review of the research. David Brown. 1997.
52 Police cautioning in the 1990s. Roger Evans and Rachel Ellis. 1997.
56 Drug misuse declared in 1996: key results from the British Crime
Survey. Malcolm Ramsay and Josephine Spiller. 1997.
Occasional Papers
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
68
Publications
Home Office Research Studies from 143 onwards, Research and Planning
Unit Papers, Research Findings and Research Bulletins can be requested,
subject to availability, from:
PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d55410/
69