Causal attributions of crime and the public's sentencing goals.

• Author: Templeton, Laura J.
• Position: Canada

Attribution theory argues that the public's understanding of the causes of criminal behaviour influences 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 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 specific sentencing goal.

The present article proposes linkages between the public's support for each of the five 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 offender's character, a situational or external attribution views the offender's environment as influencing 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 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 Sims's (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.

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 benefits of anticipated behaviour. Criminal behaviour is understood as resulting from an individual's calculation of the relative benefits generated by committing a criminal act compared to not committing the act. Legal penalties justified in terms of deterrence argue that punishment is a lesson to the offender (specific 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 criminal's 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 confined 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 criminal's internal motivations or the societally induced circumstances that allegedly cause her/his criminal 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 reflects a belief that crime is committed due to situations or events that have occurred in the individual's 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 individual's 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 benefits 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 definitively linked...