Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals1

Laura J. Templeton Timothy F. Hartnagel Department of Sociology, University of Alberta

Le pre sent article e value les liens entre les attributions internes et externes de la criminalite et le but vise par le public en ce qui a trait a ` la de termination de la peine (dissuasion, neutralisation, re tribution et re habilitation). Les re ponses de 1 006 Canadiens ont e te obtenues a ` partir dentrevues te le phoniques. Comme on sy attendait, les re pondants qui ont propose des attributions internes ont indique que la dissuasion e tait plus importante et la re habilitation, moins importante, tandis que les re pondants qui avaient propose des attributions externes ont avance le contraire. De me me, comme nous en avions e mis lhypothe ` se, nous navons constate aucune association entre la re tribution et les attributions externes, ainsi quentre la neutralisation et les attributions externes. Toutefois, a ` lencontre des attentes, les re pondants qui avaient propose les attributions internes ont aussi note la neutralisation et la re tribution comme e tant les e le ments les plus importants. Mots cle s : but de la de termination de la peine, attributions de la criminalite , opinion publique This article tests linkages between internal and external attributions of crime and the publics goals of sentencing (i.e., deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation). Responses from 1,006 Canadians were obtained from telephone interviews. As expected, respondents who made internal attributions rated deterrence as more important and rehabilitation as less important, while respondents who made external attributions did the opposite. Also as hypothesized, null associations between retribution and external attributions as well as between incapacitation and external attributions were found. However, contrary to expectations, respondents who endorsed internal attributions also rated incapacitation and retribution as more important. Keywords: sentencing goals, attributions of crime, public opinion Attribution theory argues that the publics understanding of the causes of criminal behaviour inuences public attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Those who believe crime is caused by internal attributions personal choices or individual failings are more likely to support punitive approaches, while those who think crime is caused by external

6 2012 CJCCJ/RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.29

46

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pe nale

janvier 2012

attributions forces beyond the control of an individual are more likely 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 typically measured in terms of the harshness or severity of the desired punishment (Chiricos, Welch, and Gertz 2004; Langworthy and Whitehead 1986). However, some researchers (e.g., Mascini and Houtman 2006; Sims 2003; Cullen, Clark, Cullen, and Mathers 1985; Unnever et al. 2010) measure punitive attitudes by certain sentencing goals and examine possible links between these goals and causal attributions of crime. These projects collapse measures of such sentencing goals into a single scale of punitiveness, which obscures the possibility that respondents simultaneously support multiple but distinct purposes of sentencing (Roberts, Crutcher, and Verbrugge 2007; Warr and Stafford 1984). Furthermore, prior research has not yet examined how internal and external causal attributions of crime may relate to each specic sentencing goal. The present article proposes linkages between the publics support for each of the ve sentencing goals of general deterrence, individual deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation, on the one hand, and their causal attributions of crime on the other. In light of evidence that the public supports multiple sentencing goals (Roberts et al. 2007; Doob 2000), relationships between attributions of crime (internal and external) and each of these sentencing goals will be tested separately, an analysis yet to be carried out when studying sentencing goals.

Attribution theories of crime

Attribution theory assumes that people seek to make sense of their world by attributing actions to internal and external causes (Heider 1958; Weiner 1986). While internal factors include aspects of personal disposition and attitudes, with crime attributed to the offenders character, a situational or external attribution views the offenders environment as inuencing criminal behaviour (Grasmick and McGill 1994). Individuals who endorse an internal or dispositional attribution believe that crime is a state of mind (Unnever et al. 2010). From this perspective, criminals are said to perpetrate by choice rather than from

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

47

being pressured into criminal activities and therefore deserve punishment (Jacobs and Carmichael 2002; Cochran, Boots, and Chamlin 2006; Young 1991). In contrast, individuals who endorse an external, situational attribution style believe that crime originates from external causes such as inequitable social arrangements or that, even though criminals may have made a bad choice, they can be rehabilitated (Unnever et al. 2010: 434). Those who adopt external attributions should thus support rehabilitation programs and policies to reduce structural inequities (Unnever et al. 2010; Cochran et al. 2006; Young 1991). As Mascini 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 punished for their misdeeds. Rehabilitation instead assumes that criminals can be reformed, because human nature is essentially open and pliable . . . Those contrasting beliefs about human nature underlie the deep-rooted conviction that repression is the converse of rehabilitation. (825)

Prior research has shown that individuals who endorse internal attributions are more likely to support punitive crime control attitudes while external attributions are associated with progressive crime control beliefs (e.g., Carroll and Payne 1977; Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio, and Weaver 1987; Davis, Severy, Kraus, and Whitaker 1993; Grasmick and McGill 1994; Hawkins 1981; Maruna and King 2004; Tyler and Boeckmann 1997; Young 1991). Cullen et al. (1985) and Sims (2003) theorize that classical explanations of crime are synonymous with internal attributions, whereas positivist views are understood by Cullen et al. (1985) to be tantamount to external crime attributions. The results of both Simss (2003) and Cullen et al.s (1985) studies suggest that respondents internal attributions of crime are related to a scale measuring the combined sentencing philosophies of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation. In addition, respondents external attributions of crime are demonstrated by Cullen et al. (1985) to correlate with the philosophy of rehabilitation. Mascini and Houtman (2006) report that internal crime attribution produces support for repression and aversion to rehabilitation; but although external crime attribution strongly increases support for rehabilitation, contrary to their expectations, it does not detract from support for repression. More recently, Unnever et al. (2010) found that both dispositional and situational attributional styles were related to a punitiveness scale, with the former a stronger predictor.

48

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

Attributions of crime and purposes of sentencing

Since the public clearly supports multiple goals for sentencing (Roberts et al. 2007; Doob 2000), the present study focuses upon the potential relationships between internal and external attributions, on the one hand, and each individual sentencing goal, on the other. Below we review the basis for the expected link between attributions and each sentencing goal. Deterrence theory relies on the logic of a rational actor calculating the costs and benets of anticipated behaviour. Criminal behaviour is understood as resulting from an individuals calculation of the relative benets generated by committing a criminal act compared to not committing the act. Legal penalties justied in terms of deterrence argue that punishment is a lesson to the offender (specic deterrence) or provides lessons to others (general deterrence), in this way deterring future crime (Manson 2001). Therefore, persons who perceive criminal behaviour as an outcome of individual choice or dispositions internal to the individual are more likely to support deterrence as a goal of sentencing than those who endorse situational or external attributions of crime. Like deterrence, incapacitation is also utilitarian or instrumental in purpose. However, instead of focusing on the choices of the individual offender, incapacitation is more concerned with the protection of society. Unlike deterrence theory or rehabilitation, incapacitation does not rest on a particular theory of human nature (Easton and Piper 2008: 146). The purpose of incapacitation is to reduce or eliminate the criminals ability to re-offend, thereby protecting society from additional victimization (Manson 2001; Brown, Esbensen, and Geis 2001). As Wilson (1975) remarks, The purpose of isolating . . . offenders is obvious, whatever they may do when they are released, they cannot harm society while conned or closely supervised (173). Gibbs (1975) comments that incapacitation diminishes opportunities for crime and virtually all crimes require opportunities (i.e., they cannot be committed in any situation). He goes on to note that an emphasis on incapacitation is one way that social defence can be differentiated from the older classical theory of justice and its preoccupation with deterrence (Gibbs 1975: 59). Reducing opportunities for crime shifts the focus from the motivation or causes of the criminal behaviour to the situations that are conducive to crime. Thus incapacitation has less to do with attempts to alter the criminals internal motivations or the societally induced circumstances that allegedly cause her/his criminal

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

49

conduct than with removing the criminal from potential situations of opportunity for crime. Whether crime is committed out of rational thought or because of external forces, protection of society is the primary goal of incapacitation. Therefore, support for incapacitation as a sentencing goal should not solely imply either internal or external crime attributions. Rehabilitation is also based upon an instrumental philosophy. As with deterrence, the emphasis of this goal is the individual, but now the focus is on his or her needs. This sentencing goal reects a belief that crime is committed due to situations or events that have occurred in the individuals life, such as an impoverished living situation, a substance abuse addiction, a lack of education or work, or an abusive home life (Brown et al. 2001). Rehabilitation assumes that remedying or changing the external or situational causes of an individuals criminal conduct makes the offender less likely to re-offend in the future. Therefore, those individuals who attribute crime to external causes are more likely to support the goal of rehabilitation than are those who endorse internal attributions. In contrast to the aforementioned instrumental sentencing goals of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation, the goal of retribution stems from a moral philosophy, one that demands punishment for a misdeed (Brown et al. 2001). Retributive thought involves the punishment of past wrongdoing in order to achieve a moral balance (Brown et al. 2001: 54). Thus, according to a retributive philosophy, the benets an individual obtains by committing a crime must be repaid to society so that social equilibrium may be restored. The quest for justice is the rationale; future consequences are irrelevant (Easton and Piper 2008). Since the focus of this sentencing goal is on a past criminal act and not on the individual having committed the act, we argue that respondents attributions of the causes of criminal behaviour cannot be denitively linked to their support for retribution. The current article thus proposes that neither internal nor external attributions should correlate with peoples 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 likely to rate deterrence as an important or very important sentencing philosophy, while respondents who attribute crime to external

50

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pe nale

janvier 2012

causes are more likely to give lower ratings of importance to deterrence. H2: Respondents who attribute crime to external causes are more likely to rate rehabilitation as an important or very important sentencing philosophy, while respondents who attribute crime to internal causes are more likely to give lower ratings of importance to rehabilitation. H3: Respondents internal and external attributions of crime causation are hypothesized not to correlate signicantly with their ratings of the importance of retribution or incapacitation as sentencing philosophies.

Method Data source

The data set analysed in this study was obtained from the Public Attitudes toward Punishment for Crime study. This study was conducted at the University of Alberta between 22 March and 6 June 2005 using a Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. A randomdigit dialling approach was used to ensure that respondents had an equal chance of being contacted whether or not their household was listed 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 sizes proportional to the population of each were established (British Columbia: 19.2%, Alberta: 14.2%, Ontario: 55.7%, and Maritime area: 10.9%, respectively); these provincial quotas were further stratied by gender to obtain an equal proportion of females and males in each area. Respondents were eligible for participation if they were at least 18 years of age and their quota group was not full. The average interview length was approximately 28 minutes. The overall response rate for the study was 38.4%, calculated by dividing the number of completed interviews (N 1,006) by the number of completes plus refusals (N 1410) plus incompletes (N 27) plus language or communication barrier (N 174) (total N 2617).2

Sample
The nal sample size was 1,006 with approximately equal representation of males and females at 502 and 504 respectively. The average age of respondents was 48 years. Approximately 28% of respondents between the ages of 25 and 64 years reported having a high school

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

51

education or less, while 29.9% reported the completion of at least one university degree. Median gross family income for the sample ranged between $60,000 and $64,999 per year, with approximately 25% of respondents declaring a gross household income of greater than $100,000 and 6.7% living in a home with less than $18,000 per year of annual income. Fifty-eight percent of respondents reported having been victimized by crime at some point in the past. Although we are not attempting to generalize ndings to the Canadian population, this sample is older and has more education and a higher annual income compared to the overall population in the 2001 Canadian Census.

Measures Attribution items

Since the present study proposes that individual sentencing goals will relate differently to internal and external attributions, factor analyses were conducted on potential internal attribution items and again on potential external attribution items so as to construct separate attribution indexes.3 Four items were originally considered for the internal attribution score: (1) Crime is a choice a persons social circumstances arent to blame; (2) most criminals commit crimes because they know they can get away with it; (3) most criminals know fully well what they are doing when they break the law; and (4) most people who violate the law do so because they know that crime pays in Canada these days. Since the rst item had a low factor loading score (0.393), thereby decreasing the overall alpha reliability score (0.636), the rst item was dropped. The remaining three internal attribution items were included in the internal attribution index, resulting in an alpha reliability score of 0.66. Six items were considered in the construction of the external attribution index: (1) Most criminals were abused as children; (2) most criminals are emotionally disturbed; (3) crime is mostly the product of a persons circumstances and social contexts; (4) poverty is a major cause of crime in Canada; (5) Most criminals come from broken or disorganized homes; and (6) some people are destined to commit crime due to the way they were born or raised. After running a factor analysis with varimax rotation, it was decided to include all six items in an index of external attribution. The alpha reliability score for the external attribution index was calculated as 0.714.

52

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

The decision to leave internal and external attributions as two separate indexes was supported by the results of two tests. First, the correlation (see Table 1) between the two indexes was a very low negative correlation of 0.088. Second, a factor analysis was conducted with all nine items considered simultaneously. This factor analysis generated two distinct dimensions. The rst factor contained the internal attribution items (factor scores ranged from 0.605 to 0.832), while the external items loaded on the second factor (factor scores ranged from 0.530 to 0.712). Together, these two tests support the use of internal attributions and external attributions as separate indexes.

Goals of sentencing items

The measure of the dependent variable assessed how important a respondent felt a particular sentencing goal was. Specically, respondents were asked to consider the following statement:
There are many possible objectives or goals in the sentencing of offenders. Im going to read you the ve most commonly given goals, and Id like you to rate how important you think each goal is on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is Not At All Important and 5 is Very Important.

Respondents were then asked to consider the following ve sentencing goals: to rehabilitate the offender; to deter the same offender from committing similar offences in the future; to deter other potential offenders; to make the offender pay in some way for what s/he has done; and to protect the community by placing the offender where s/he can do no harm.4

Control variables
The respondents age, sex, level of education, victimization history, and gross household income as well as whether crime was a salient issue for the respondent and whether the respondent reported being fearful of crime were included in the analysis as control variables. These items are similar to those used in previous research to control for effect sizes. In this study, crime salience was operationalized as an index comprised of two items. These items were selected based on a combination of face validity, as well as loading scores as a result of factor analysis with varimax rotation. The crime salience index included the items (1) the risk of being robbed or assaulted by teenage

Table 1: Correlation matrix of study variables

Retrib Incap Intern Attrib Extern Attrib Female Age Educ Income Salien Victim Hist Worry

Rehab

Deter (Gen)

Deter (Ind)

Rehabilitate 0.340** 0.456** 1.000 0.459** 0.364** 0.051 1.000 0.096** 0.047 0.110** 0.047 0.118** 0.163** 1.000 0.028 0.004 0.005 0.080* 1.000 0.047 0.125** 0.104** 0.096** 0.084* 0.047 0.361** 0.089** 0.057 0.150** 0.099** 0.139** 0.074* 0.245** 0.414** 0.047 0.202** 0.041 0.136** 0.012 0.039 0.088** 0.096** 0.041 0.028 0.047 1.000 0.299** 0.086** 0.013 0.266** 1.000 0.088** 0.012 1.000 0.266** 0.039 0.136** 0.047 0.202** 0.258** 0.047 0.082* 0.172** 1.000 0.099** 0.321** 0.166** 0.069 0.198** 0.204** 0.110** 0.204** 0.459** 0.364** 0.051 0.125** 0.104** 0.285** 0.096** 0.157** 0.084* 0.467** 0.214** 0.024 0.107** 0.055 0.099** 0.033 0.321** 0.220** 0.026 0.057 0.063* 0.103** 0.007

1.000

0.203**

0.160** 0.020 0.042 0.194** 0.046

0.164**

0.068* 0.002

0.005

0.099** 0.233**

0.071* 0.081* 0.017 0.044 0.078* 0.150**

Deter (Gen)

0.203**

1.000

0.485 **

Deter (Ind)

0.160**

0.485**

1.000

0.233** 0.023 0.361** 0.089** 0.245** 0.057 0.414** 0.074* 0.004 0.005 0.118** 0.069* 0.099** 0.058

Retribution

0.020

0.340**

0.456**

Incapacitation

0.042

0.321**

0.467**

0.099** 0.139** 0.080* 0.163** 0.013 0.299** 0.321** 0.166** 1.000 0.048 0.086** 0.198** 0.069 0.048 1.000 0.284** 0.025 0.204** 0.284** 0.025 1.000

Intern attrib 0.164**

0.220**

0.214**

Extern attrib

0.194** 0.026

0.024

Female

0.068*

0.057

0.107**

Age

0.002

0.063*

0.055

Education

0.046

0.103** 0.099** 0.285** 0.157** 0.258**

Income

0.005

0.007

0.033

0.082* 0.204** 0.172** 0.069* 0.058

Salience

0.099**

0.233**

0.233**

Victim Hist

0.071*

0.017

0.023

Worry

0.081*

0.044

0.078*

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

Reference category (0) Male; Reference category (0) No history of victimization. * p a 0.05, ** p a 0.01, ***p a 0.001.

53

54

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pe nale

janvier 2012

gangs has increased in recent years and (2) the crime problem is getting worse in Canada these days. Overall, the crime salience index has an internal reliability score of 0.690 and factor loadings of 0.874 for both items. Fear of crime was also included as an additional control variable, measured by the following items: (1) I worry about being robbed or assaulted in my own neighbourhood at night and (2) I worry that a thief will break into my home while I am at home. These two items had factor loadings of 0.927 as well as an internal reliability score of 0.836. Age, sex, level of education, and household income were measured in standard ways. For victimization, respondents were asked if they had ever been a victim of a crime.

Results Descriptive statistics

The correlation matrix in Table 1 shows that, except for general deterrence, females more than males viewed each of the sentencing goals as important, although none of the correlations are very strong. This gender relationship is more the case with retribution and incapacitation, perhaps reective of the fact that females worried more about crime (0.163) and found crime more salient (0.118) than did males, despite having been victims less often (0.069). Older respondents were slightly less likely to think general deterrence important but were more supportive of retribution as a sentencing goal. There are inverse relationships between education level of respondents and their support for deterrence, incapacitation, and particularly retribution (0.285). Weak negative relationships are also evident between the income level of respondents and their support for incapacitation and retribution. Respondents who worried more about crime and for whom crime was more salient were less likely to view rehabilitation as 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 and less supportive of retribution than non-victims. None of the correlations among these control variables is strong enough to warrant concerns over multicollinearity. Respondents for whom crime was more salient were much more likely (0.414) to endorse internal attributions of crime causation. Older respondents and those who worried more about crime were also more likely to make internal attributions while those with more education

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals Table 2: Mean scores and percentage of respondents identifying with individual sentencing goals
Sentencing Goal Mean Percentage of Individuals Reporting Important Percentage of Individuals Reporting Very Important

55

Percentage of Individuals Reporting Important or Very Importanta

Deterrence (individual) Incapacitation Retribution Deterrence (general) Rehabilitation

a

4.59 4.50 4.33 4.26 4.17

15.6% 16.4% 17.9% 19.4% 19.5%

74.0% 70.0% 62.1% 58.7% 55.2%

89.6% 86.4% 80.0% 78.1% 74.7%

Valid percentages reported.

and those who were crime victims were less likely to attribute crime to internal causes. Interestingly, there is also a slight positive relation between 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 to causes external to the individual. Consistent with prior research (Doob 2000; Roberts et al. 2007), Table 2 reveals that when respondents were queried about each goal in isolation from other goals, there was only a small percentage variation with respect to the degree of importance accorded to each sentencing goal. This result demonstrates that respondents appear to have simultaneously supported multiple goals of punishment. The mean values for the importance of each goal are all above 4 (out of a maximum value of 5), with medians and modes of 5 again demonstrating the importance of multiple goals. Individual deterrence has the highest mean, at 4.59, followed by incapacitation (4.50), retribution (4.33), general deterrence (4.26), and nally, rehabilitation, which was viewed by study participants to be somewhat less important on average (4.17). A series of paired samples t tests5 reveal that, although respondents appear to have supported multiple goals of punishment, signicant mean differences between most paired combinations do exist, thereby indicating that, while the public may simultaneously support multiple punishment goals, certain goals are still viewed as more important than others. Specically, respondent mean support scores were found to be signicantly higher for deterrence of the offender compared

56

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

to any other punishment goal; signicantly higher for incapacitation when compared to either retribution, deterrence of other potential offenders, or rehabilitation; signicantly higher for retribution when compared to rehabilitation; and signicantly higher for deterrence of other potential offenders when compared to rehabilitation. Respondents demonstrated similar support for the punishment goals of retribution and general deterrence, as no signicant difference was found between these two mean values. Correlations in Table 1 between pairs of the ve punishment goals demonstrate that, while the correlation coefcients among individual deterrence, incapacitation, retribution, and general deterrence are all in the 0.32 to 0.49 range and statistically signicant, the correlations between individual deterrence and rehabilitation and general deterrence and rehabilitation are relatively low (0.16 to 0.20) and the correlations of rehabilitation with both retribution and incapacitation are not significantly different from zero. As previously mentioned, crime attribution items were combined into two separate indexes: internal attributions and external attributions. Overall, sample respondents demonstrated greater support for internal attributions of crime than for external attributions. Specically, with a score of 5.0 revealing maximum support for either index, the mean response score for internal attributions is 3.7, compared to 2.9 for external attributions. The zero-order correlations in Table 1 show that respondents who made internal attributions of crime causation were less likely to view rehabilitation as important and more likely to regard individual and general deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution as important sentencing goals. On the other hand, respondents making external attributions were more likely to think rehabilitation is an important goal of sentencing. But attributing crime to external causes appears not to be related to the goals of deterrence, incapacitation, or retribution.

Test of hypotheses
Given the skewed distributions of the dependent variables, they were transformed from ordinal-level variables into dichotomous variables: (1) members of the public who rated a particular punishment goal as important or very important and (2) members of the public who felt neutral about the importance of a particular punishment goal or rated a particular punishment goal as not important or not at all important. In

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

57

consideration of the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable (Menard 1997), a series of logistic regression tests were run to test hypotheses about respondents internal and external attributions of crime and their support for individual sentencing goals. The results of these tests are presented in Table 3. As can be seen in Table 3, the logistic regression results fully support the rst hypothesis. Overall, respondents who attribute crime causation to internal attributions were more likely to support deterrence as a punishment goal, both individual (OR 1.812, p a 0.001) and general (OR 1.567, p a 0.001) net of the other variables in the equation. The rst hypothesis is also supported by the logistic regression results for external attribution. Those who viewed crime as a result of external attributions were less likely to support deterrence as a sentencing goal (individual deterrence: OR 0.664, p a 0.01; general deterrence: OR 0.779, p a 0.05) net of other predictors. Furthermore, the results suggest that female respondents were more likely than men to support both individual deterrence (OR 2.080, p a 0.01) and general deterrence (OR 1.892, p a 0.001) as important sentencing goals; while respondents who viewed crime as a salient issue were more likely to view deterrence (individual: OR 1.525, p a 0.001; general: OR 1.473, p a 0.001) as an important sentencing goal than those for whom crime was not a salient issue. The second hypothesis is also fully supported by the logistic regression results. Opposite to the relationships between deterrence and internal and external attributions, rehabilitation positively correlates with external attributions and negatively correlates with internal attributions net of other predictors. Specically, respondents who believed that internal attributions motivate offenders were less likely to view rehabilitation as an important or very important sentencing goal (OR 0.732, p a 0.01). However, respondents who were more inclined to believe that external attributions motivate offenders were also more likely to view rehabilitation as an important or very important sentencing goal (OR 1.515, p a 0.001). Table 3 also indicates that respondents who had been previously victimized were more likely (OR 1.521, p a 0.01) to support rehabilitation as a sentencing strategy compared to those who had not been victimized. Lastly, results in Table 3 demonstrate only partial support for the third hypothesis. As hypothesized, public support for external attributions fails to signicantly correlate either positively or negatively with either retribution or incapacitation. This result lends some support to the

58

Table 3: Logistic regression results for associations between crime attributions and each sentencing goal
Rehabilitation B SE Exp (B) B SE Exp (B) B Retribution Incapacitation SE Exp (B)

Deterrence (Indiv) B SE Exp (B)

Deterrence (General)

SE

Exp (B)

Internal Attributions 0.138 0.779 0.006 0.984 0.208 1.892 0.001 (n.s.) 0.040 1.001 0.112** 0.425*** 0.112 (n.s.) 0.188 1.118 0.862*** 0.000 (n.s.) 0.006 1.000 0.012* 0.415***

0.595***

0.153 1.812

0.449***

0.119 1.567 0.312** 0.119 0.732 0.616***

0.127 1.852 0.007 1.012 0.227 2.367

0.567***

0.136 1.763 0.002 (n.s.) 0.007 1.002 0.635** 0.244 1.887

External Attributions 0.409** 0.638*** 0.002 (n.s.) 0.013 1.002 0.011 (n.s.) 0.013 0.989 0.388*** 0.163 (n.s.) 0.200 1.177 0.419** 0.102 1.473 0.012 (n.s.) 0.104 0.988

0.182 0.664 0.250*

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**

Gender

0.733**

0.278 2.080

Level of education

0.045 (n.s.) 0.054 1.046 0.016 (n.s.) 0.041 0.984

0.044 0.894 0.112** 0.106 1.530

0.048 0.894 0.153 (n.s.) 0.114 1.166

Household income

0.000 (n.s.) 0.017 1.000

0.018 (n.s.) 0.014 1.018 0.004 (n.s.) 0.016 0.996

Crime salience

0.422***

0.127 1.525

Victimization history 0.282 (n.s.) 0.271 0.754

0.183 1.521 0.234 (n.s.) 0.216 0.791 0.274 (n.s.) 0.237 0.761 0.058 (n.s.) 0.104 1.060 0.003 (n.s.) 0.111 1.003

Fear of crime

0.026 (n.s.) 0.131 1.026 0.093 (n.s.) 0.092 0.911 0.114 (n.s.) 0.077 0.892

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pe nale

Reference category (0) Male; Reference category (0) No history of victimization. * p a 0.05 ** p a 0.01, *** p a 0.001

janvier 2012

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

59

claim that these two sentencing goals are more focused on the good of society and less on the motivations of the offender. Although external attributions, as hypothesized, do not associate with either retribution or incapacitation, internal attributions are positively associated with retribution and incapacitation (OR 1.852, p a 0.001 and OR 1.763, p a 0.001 respectively), and thus do not support the third study hypothesis. Turning to an examination of the control variables and support for these two sentencing goals, women were more likely to consider retribution (OR 2.367, p a 0.001) and incapacitation (OR 1.887, p a 0.01) as important sentencing goals than men, while individuals with higher levels of education were less likely to view these two sentencing goals as important than those with less education (OR 0.894, p a 0.01; OR 0.894, p a 0.01). A positive association was also found between crime salience and retribution (OR 1.530, p a 0.001).

Discussion
This article focuses on examining the connections between the publics attributions of the causes of crime and their support for the importance of each of the individual sentencing goals of deterrence (individual and general), incapacitation, retribution, and rehabilitation. We hypothesized that public support of retribution and incapacitation would not associate with either internal or external attributions, as these two goals of sentencing are less focused on the motivations of the individual and more focused on restoring or protecting society. We expected that deterrence would not be associated with attributions of crime in exactly the same way as retribution or incapacitation. Rather, we hypothesized that respondents who made internal attributions of crime causation would be more likely to regard individual and general deterrence as important sentencing goals, while those who made external attributions would be more likely to rank the importance of deterrence lower. In contrast, respondents who attributed crime to external causes would rate rehabilitation as a more important sentencing goal, while those who attributed crime to internal causes would be more likely to give lower ratings of importance to rehabilitation. Summarizing the main results, the rst and second hypotheses are fully supported by the logistic regression. As hypothesized, belief in the importance of both general and individual deterrence is shown to be positively associated with respondents internal attributions, net of the control variables, and negatively associated with respondents

60

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

belief in external attributions of crime. The second study hypothesis is also fully supported by the logistic regression results. In this case, respondent support for rehabilitation demonstrates the opposite pattern of correlation when compared to deterrence, associating negatively with respondents internal attributions and positively with their external attributions net of other predictors. Combined, the results from the rst two tests demonstrate that public support for deterrence or rehabilitation is linked to an individuals attributions regarding motivations of offenders. Specically, those who attribute the causes of criminal behaviour to internal dispositions of offenders are more likely to emphasize the importance of both general and individual deterrence but not rehabilitation. They may recognize that the goal of deterrence depends upon the assumption of some degree of internal calculation of the anticipated rewards and costs of crime by a potential offender. On the other hand, those who attribute the causes of crime to factors external to the offender are more likely to value the importance of rehabilitation as a purpose of sentencing, since they see these causes as amenable to change through deliberate efforts during treatment. In contrast, they are less likely to see much value in punishment for the purpose of affecting the choices made by criminals, since these respondents adopt a more deterministic view of criminal behaviour. Contrary to our expectations in the third hypothesis, individuals who adopt internal attributions for the causes of crime appear to accord importance to both retribution and incapacitation as goals of sentencing. They may interpret both of these purposes more in individualistic terms that is, as exacting just deserts from the individual offender and/or as punishing the offender through incarceration rather than in terms of the social functions of these goals of sentencing. With their emphasis upon individualistic explanations for criminal behaviour, they may not grasp the focus upon protection of society behind the goal of incapacitation (i.e., social defence) nor the moral/symbolic emphasis of retribution as a reafrmation of societal norms. Instead, they may view both purposes through the lens of simply punishing an individual offender. Criminals are regarded as evil or bad actors who deserve and need to be locked up. However, as hypothesized, respondents emphasizing the importance of external attributions for the causes of crime, with their focus upon rehabilitation and treatment to correct the external causes of crime, do not regard retribution or incapacitation as important goals of sentencing. They may adopt this view because they do not regard either of these goals as contributing to a change in the offenders behaviour.

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

61

Given the partial support of the third hypothesis, we must question whether lay persons actively consider the theoretical underpinnings of each sentencing goal. Our study results suggest that the public does not differentiate among the different purposes of sentencing in the same manner as does jurisprudential theory (Doob 2000). The distinctions between incapacitation, retribution, and deterrence that were outlined at the outset of this article may be too theoretical for the average respondent, who may consider them more as varieties of one another, all of which effectively serve the same goal, to accomplish some amount of punishment. Still, this should not be equated with punitiveness, with its emphasis upon the harshness or severity of punishment. Furthermore, our correlational analysis and paired samples t tests reveal that the public does differentiate the relative importance of the ve purposes of sentencing, notwithstanding the high importance attached to each, particularly individual deterrence and incapacitation. Based upon the results of this study, further research should explore additional variables that may be linked to the publics judgements about the importance of various sentencing goals. Possible candidates for inclusion are measures of various socio-political beliefs and values. In addition, improved measurement of internal and external causal attributions should also be a priority. This could include presenting several crime scenarios that provide a variety of descriptive characteristics of the offenders to emphasize either their internal dispositional characteristics or their external social circumstances and situations. Such descriptive scenarios would provide a more specic and realistic basis for differentiating respondents who favour internal from those who favour external attributions for the causes of criminal behaviour. Furthermore, the choice of a particular purpose of sentencing to be obtained could be directly linked to each of these scenarios. This might result in greater variability in the importance respondents attach to the various sentencing goals. Finally, an additional issue to pursue concerns possible underlying linkages shared by the sentencing goals of deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation. In view of the results reported above concerning the positive relationship of internal attributions with each of these goals, it may be useful to attempt to reconceptualize the nature of these three goals. For example, it may be that, for those members of the public who adopt internal attributions of the cause of crime, these three goals are a manifestation of a common underlying factor, such as a desire for some form of explicit and mandatory punishment for offenders believed to be individually responsible for their conduct. Perhaps support for the importance of these three sentencing goals by those who hold internal attributions

62

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pe nale

janvier 2012

represents a common emphasis upon denunciation of the offender as well as the offence.

Notes
1 This article is a revised version of a paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, November 2006. We acknowledge with thanks the assistance of the Population Research Laboratory, University of Alberta, for data collection and preparation. The authors also thank the editor and reviewers for their comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper. This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. 2 The average number of telephone call attempts for all telephone numbers in the sample was 4.3, with an average of three attempts to obtain a completed interview. No answers were attempted an average of 8.3 times, busy numbers were attempted an average of 9.4 times, answering machines were attempted an average of 7.9 times, call backs were attempted 4.0 times, and will call lab numbers were attempted an average of 4.5 times. Specially trained interviewers followed up on numbers categorized as initial refusal, with such numbers attempted an average of 5.2 times. Of the 1,006 completed interviews, 92 or 9.1% were initially coded as a refusal 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, answering machine, etc.); and 105 were undetermined numbers (call back 103; will call lab 2). Response rates for telephone surveys have been declining for a number of years. Recent rates in the United States tend to fall in the 30% range or below (Steeh 2008). 3 Potential items were drawn or adapted from Cullen et al. (1985), Maruna and 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 provided by Ian McKee of Flinders University in Australia. 5 Table available from the authors upon request.

References
Brown, Stephen, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Gilbert Geis 2001 Criminology: Explaining Crime. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

63

Carroll, John S. and John W. Payne 1977 Crime seriousness, recidivism risk and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology 62(5): 595602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.595. Carroll, John S., William T. Perkowitz, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Frances M. Weaver 1987 Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1): 10718. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.107. Chiricos, Ted, Kelly Welch, and Marc Gertz 2004 Racial typication of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology 42(2): 35889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00523.x. Cochran, John K., Denise P. Boots, and Mitchell B. Chamlin 2006 Political ideology and support for capital punishment: A test of attribution theory. Journal of Crime and Justice 29: 4579. Cullen, Francis T., Gregory A. Clark, John B. Cullen, and Richard A. Mathers 1985 Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior 12(3): 30531. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0093854885012003003. Davis, Teresa L., Lawrence J. Severy, Stephen J. Kraus, and J. Michael Whitaker 1993 Predictors of sentencing decisions: The beliefs, personality variables, and demographic factors of juvenile justice personnel. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23(6): 45177. 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 Journal of Criminology 42(3): 32340. Easton, Susan and Christine Piper 2008 Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbs, Jack P. 1975 Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.

64

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

Grasmick, Harold G. and Anne L. McGill 1994 Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders. Criminology 32(1): 2346. 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): 20730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1981.9967554. Heider, Fritz 1958 The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10628-000. Jacobs, David and Jason T. Carmichael 2002 The political sociology of the death penalty: A pooled time-series analysis. American Sociological Review 67(1): 10931. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3088936. Langworthy, Robert H. and John T. Whitehead 1986 Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology 24(3): 57591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00391.x. Manson, Allan 2001 The Law of Sentencing. Toronto: Irwin Law. Maruna, Shadd and Anna King 2003 Let em Rot: Understanding Public Punitiveness and Forgiveness toward Offenders. Unpublished. Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Maruna, Shadd and Anna King 2004 Public opinion and community penalties. In Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society, ed. Anthony Bottoms, Sue Rex, and Gwen Robinson. Cullompton, UK: Willan. Mascini, Peter and Dick Houtman 2006 Rehabilitation and repression: Reassessing their ideological embeddedness. British Journal of Criminology 46(5): 82236. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/bjc/azl014. Menard, Scott 1997 Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Causal Attributions of Crime and the Publics Sentencing Goals

65

Roberts, Julian V., Nicole Crutcher, and Paul Verbrugge 2007 Public attitudes to sentencing in Canada: Exploring recent ndings. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49(1): 75107. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/U479-1347-3PL8-5887. Sims, Barbara 2003 The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A national study. Criminal Justice Review 28(1): 125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 073401680302800102. Steeh, Charlotte 2008 Telephone surveys. In International Handbook of Survey Methodology, ed. Edith D. de Leeuw, Joop J. Hox, and Don A. Dillman. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tyler, Tom R., and Robert J. Boeckmann 1997 Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review 31(2): 23765. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053926. Unnever, James D., John K. Cochran, Francis T. Cullen, and Brandon K. Applegate 2010 The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic relation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly 27(3): 43157. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/07418820902855362. Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, and James D. Jones 2008 Public support for attacking the root causes of crime: The impact of egalitarian and racial beliefs. Sociological Focus 41: 133. Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford 1984 Public goals of punishment and support for the death penalty. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21(2): 95111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427884021002002. Weiner, Bernard 1986 An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Wilson, James Q 1975 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): 6775. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/2786789.

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

REVUE CANADIENNE DE CRIMINOLOGIE NALE ET DE JUSTICE PE

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.