Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/3675
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Investigating the relationship between justice-vengeance motivations and punitive sentencing recommendations
Authors: Murray, Jennifer
Thomson, Mary E
Cooke, David J
Charles, Kathy E
Contact Email: jennifer.murray@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: justice
vengeance
sentencing
punitive decision-making
Issue Date: Feb-2013
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell / The British Psychological Society
Citation: Murray J, Thomson ME, Cooke DJ & Charles KE (2013) Investigating the relationship between justice-vengeance motivations and punitive sentencing recommendations, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 1-15.
Abstract: Purpose. The present research investigated the relationship between underlying justice and vengeance motivations and sentencing recommendations made by expert clinicians, semi-experts, and lay-people. It was hypothesized that the semi-experts would recommend significantly different sentence lengths from those recommended by the expert and lay-person groups, in line with previous research findings. It was also hypothesized that justice and vengeance motivations would be related to punitive sentencing recommendations, and that these would not be the same across the three levels of expertise. Method. An independent groups design was utilized in the main analysis, with participants belonging to three distinct levels of clinical experience (experts, semi-experts, and lay-people). A questionnaire was administered, with participants being measured on levels of justice and vengeance motivations, and asked to recommend appropriate sentence lengths based on nine separate crime-scenarios. These covariables were correlated and the correlation coefficients were compared across the three levels of expertise. Results. The former hypothesis was not upheld. Findings do, however, support the latter hypothesis, with the key finding indicating that for both justice and vengeance motivations in punitive judgement, it is the lay-participants who appear distinct from the experts and semi-experts. Conclusions. The current findings emphasize that while expert and lay-person judgements may often appear to be the same, different processes and motivations underlying clinical judgements are occurring at the different stages of expertise. With the differences in the relationships between justice and vengeance motivations and judgements found in the current research, it is argued that expert and lay judgements that appear to be the same are, in fact, distinguishable and are related to quite different underlying motivations and decision-making processes.
Type: Journal Article
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/3675
DOI Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02021.x
Rights: The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
Affiliation: NMAHP Research
Glasgow Caledonian University
Glasgow Caledonian University
Edinburgh Napier University

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Investigating the Relationship.pdf562.22 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 31/12/2999     Request a copy

Note: If any of the files in this item are currently embargoed, you can request a copy directly from the author by clicking the padlock icon above. However, this facility is dependant on the depositor still being contactable at their original email address.

This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.