Search

While research has shown magnitude of harm drives punishment decisions for crimes resulting in a prison sentence, many states impose probation rather than incarceration. A two-session experiment investigated how punishment type influences sentence length decisions. In session 1,347 participants answered online questions about their support for punishment justifications (i.e., retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation). In session 2, the online participants read a randomly assigned scenario about a clerk who stole either a smaller or larger amount of money from his employer (magnitude of harm), which the employer was either likely or unlikely to detect (detection), and the clerk received either a term of prison or probation (type of punishment). Results revealed that magnitude of harm influenced punishment severity and sentence length judgments despite participants' self-reported support for retribution as a justification showing no influence. Punishment type also affected sentence length decisions. Furthermore, punishment severity judgments mediated the effect of the magnitude of harm on sentence length after controlling for punishment justifications but only in the probation condition, showing demand for harsher punishment was greater for probation. Thus, we concluded that the retribution motive is prevalent if offenders with a more severe crime receive probation rather than a prison sentence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

In Title VII sexual harassment jurisprudence, U.S. courts use a 2-prong subjective-objective test to determine the viability of a sexual harassment claim: The complainant must show that the employer's conduct was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment because of the complainant's sex from both the complainant's perspective (subjective prong) and a reasonable person's perspective (objective prong). This online study used a diverse national sample (361 MTurk Community Members) to investigate whether people apply the objective prong in a uniform manner, as the law assumes, or show predictable differences. Participants read a vignette about a female interviewee's allegations of sexual harassment following from severe, mild, or no sexual objectification by a male interviewer during a job interview. The interviewee claimed that she was either harassed or not by the interviewer during the interaction, as well as claiming to enjoy or reject sexualization. Participants made judgments about whether the interviewer's behavior was sexually harassing from the interviewee's and a reasonable person's perspective. Overall, participants' sex and enjoyment of sexualization moderated their judgments of sexual harassment when considering the situation from both points of view, demonstrating that there is no convergence on a unified standard for evaluating whether specific behavior is sexually harassing. Drawing comparisons to obscenity law, we argue that the use of data to form social fact evidence may help decision makers in hostile work environment cases to apply a more uniform understanding of what is hostile and abusive. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

This study examined the validity of the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI), as probation officers in the state of Nebraska use the tool. Study 1 evaluated the predictive validity of the LS/CMI by examining 19,344 probationer records over a 5.5-year period (January 2007-July 2013), and found that the LS/CMI total risk score demonstrated moderate predictive validity. Consistent with past findings, logistic regression showed that the total risk score predicted recidivism (return to probation) differently for nonminorities than for minorities. Furthermore, minorities scored higher than nonminorities on seven of the eight criminogenic factors. Study 2, a true randomized experiment, explored probation officer bias as an explanation for these findings, and found that training increased officers’ ratings of scores in some LS/CMI domains and decreased ratings in others. Most importantly, there was no evidence that officers demonstrated racial bias in administering the LS/CMI survey when scoring Black versus White target clients.