Characteristics and Justifications for Sentencing

¶ … Drives Punitive Beliefs

Brian K. Payne, Randy R. Gainey, Ruth A. Triplett, and Mona J.E. Danner present a sociological examination of punitive beliefs in the United States in their article "What Drives Punitive Beliefs? Demographic Characteristics and Justifications for Sentencing." In particular the authors address three main research issues: how punitive citizens are and how they view certain criminal sanctions; what factors influence individuals' attitudes toward punishment; and whether differences in attitude are reflected in different races and gender. In their review of literature, the authors appropriately discuss non-scientific, philosophical studies of criminology and punishment, referring to early treatises on the subject such as Beccaria's Essays on Crime and Punishment and Emile Durkheim's mid-twentieth century beliefs that criminology. One of the greatest strengths of "What Drives Punitive Beliefs?" is in fact the author's incorporation of philosophical points in current sociological, empirical research. Mentioning the works of W.E.B. DuBois is a particularly positive reflection on the authors' inclusiveness of a wide and multiracial range of opinions on criminology.

Payne, et. al. outline in plain view the five fundamental functions of punishment for crime: "specific deterrence;" "general deterrence;" "retribution;" "rehabilitation;" and "incapacitation," (196). Stating these five functions report helps establish guidelines for the current research. The authors dedicate the remainder of the in-depth literature review to sentencing attitudes and their sources as well as the importance of studying those attitudes and sources. The literature review is comprehensive and offers ample groundwork for the present study.

Furthermore, the researchers painstakingly distinguish between punishment attitudes and sentencing attitudes. This differentiation is another key strength of the literature review section of "What Drives Punitive Beliefs?" Attitudes toward punishment, according to the authors, determine attitudes about why individuals should be punished whereas sentencing attitudes determine how individuals feel about how individuals should be punished (196). Sources cited are varied and wide-ranging, reflecting the broad-minded yet scholarly scope of the current project.

The research review section of Payne, et al.'s report is by far its greatest strength. In the course of the literature review, the authors take care to point out reasons for differences and inconsistencies in study results, rather than simply stating that conflicting results were found. For example on page 197 they cite methodological differences between studies as one potential explanation for conflicting evidence. The authors also took care to speculate about potentially different theoretical frameworks underlying past research. In fact, the authors' ability to thoroughly and fearlessly incorporate issues of theory alongside empirical research makes "What Drives Punitive Beliefs" an exemplary work of scholarship. The authors also dutifully point out the gaps in past research and provide reasons for undertaking their study on punitive beliefs. One of those gaps is an avoidance of addressing racial or ethnic differences in attitudes toward punishment, which is one of the reasons the current study was warranted.

'What Drives Punitive Beliefs" is a multi-disciplinary approach to criminology that encompasses historical and social issues as well as purely sociological, psychological, and criminological issues. The authors note trends in American penal systems throughout the past century, for example.