Sentencing, Legitimacy, and Public Opinion

Julian V. Roberts,Mojca M. Plesničar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5_2

2014-11-02

Abstract:Much of the scholarship on legitimacy and criminal justice has focused on the ways that perceptions of legitimacy are shaped by contact with criminal justice professionals, notably the police. This chapter explores the relationship between the nature of the sentencing regime and public perceptions of penal legitimacy, or what we refer to as “empirical legitimacy ” (see Hinsch, Political legitimation without morality, (pp. 39–52). London: Springer, 2008). Part I explores public attitudes to sentencing and the reasons why the public in many countries may perceive their sentencing system to lack legitimacy. Part II explores ways of enhancing public perceptions of sentencing legitimacy. This includes the outline of what a “high legitimacy” sentencing regime would look like. In order to be perceived as legitimate, a sentencing regime needs to contain certain essential features. It must be (and must be perceived to be): (a) clear and transparent; (b) consistent in application and therefore predictable; (c) sensitive to the input of all relevant parties; (d) grounded in sound principles. Finally, we argue that the sentencing system must be communicated to the public in an understandable fashion in order to avoid erroneous expectations. The mere existence of sound sentencing principles is insufficient to ensure a high degree of empirical legitimacy.