Youth Court Judges' Views of the Youth Justice system: The results of a survey
Community influences in sentencing
Judges were asked [31]whether Crown attorneys or others mentioned "public opinion" or public views concerning what should happen to a young person. As can be seen in the table below, the mentioning of "public opinion" occurs more frequently for some judges than for others. No significant provincial or regional variation appeared to exist with regard to the frequency with which "public opinion" or public views were mentioned in court.
| Frequently | Valid Percentage |
Cumulative Percentage |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Valid | ||||
| Yes, frequently | 40 | 17.4 | 17.4 | |
| Yes, occasionally | 102 | 44.3 | 61.7 | |
| Yes, but only rarely | 68 | 29.6 | 91.3 | |
| No, never | 20 | 8.7 | 100 | |
| Total | 230 | 100 | ||
| Missing | 8 | |||
| Total | 238 | |||
Not surprisingly, those judges who reported hearing comments about "public opinion" tended to be the same judges who indicated hearing about the "prevalence of a particular type of offence in the community."
[32]
| Is prevalence of particular kind of offence raised in court? | Total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, frequently | Yes occasionally | Rarely or never | ||||
| Public opinions or views mentioned in relation to disposition? | Yes frequently | Count |
29 72.5 % |
10 25 % |
1 2.5 % |
40 100 % |
| Yes occasionally | Count |
25 24.8 % |
68 67.3 % |
8 7.9 % |
101 100 % |
|
| Rarely or, never | Count |
20 23.3 % |
52 60.5 % |
14 16.3 % |
86 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
74 32.6 % |
130 57.3 % |
23 10.1 |
227 100 % |
|
Chi-Square = 38.95, df=4, p<.001 (1 cell with estimated value<5: 4.05)
Clearly, in some locations, or by some people in the court process, certain judges are likely to receive indications of prevalence and public opinion.
The judges who stated that "public opinion" was frequently mentioned in their courts, as well as those who were told about the "prevalence" of a particular offence, tended to be likely to indicate that they considered the impact that a decision might have on public opinion.
| Consider impact of decision on public opinion | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequently or occasionally | Rarely or never | ||||
| Public opinions or views mentioned in relation to disposition? | Yes, frequently | Count |
24 60 % |
16 40 % |
40 100 % |
| Yes, occasionally | Count |
53 52.5 % |
48 47.5 % |
101 100 % |
|
| Rarely or never | Count |
36 40.9 % |
52 59.1 % |
88 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
113 49.3 % |
116 50.7 % |
229 100 % |
|
Chi square = 4.72, df=2, p<.10; Linear component 4.612, df=1 p<.05, r=.142, unrecoded r=.186, p<.05
| Consider impact of decision on public opinion | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequently or occasionally | Rarely or never | ||||
| Is prevalence of particular kind of offence raised in court? | Yes, frequently | Count |
44 56.4 % |
34 43.6 % |
78 100 % |
| Yes, occasionally | Count |
67 50.8 % |
65 49.2 % |
132 100 % |
|
| Rarely or never | Count |
5 21.7 % |
18 78.3 % |
23 100 % |
|
| Total | Count |
116 49.8 % |
117 50.2 % |
233 100 % |
|
Chi square = 8.66, df=2, p<.05, linear component=6.108, df=1, p<.05, r=.16, unrecoded r=.16, p<.05
Similarly, those judges who indicated that the "prevalence" of a particular kind of offence was likely to be raised were also most likely to indicate that they took into account the prevalence of crime in the community (r=.31, p<.01). [33]
Not surprisingly, the use of the apparent prevalence of youth crime (or the prevalence of a particular type of youth crime) in the community is related to general deterrence. As noted earlier in this report, we asked judges to indicate, for each of three types of offences, the importance of various principles and purposes in determining the sentence for each of them. As an estimate of the importance of "general deterrence" for each judge, we simply combined the "importance" given to general deterrence by him/her for the three offences. As can be seen in the figure below, those judges most likely to take "prevalence" into account indicated that "general deterrence" was more important at sentencing than it was for those who indicated that prevalence "almost never or never"
was relevant.
Note: With "general deterrence" as the dependent variable, F(2,211)=9.39, p<.001
Not surprisingly, those judges who indicated that they were most likely to take prevalence of crime into account were also most likely to indicate that they "consider the impact that a decision (e.g., a sentencing decision) might have on public opinion.
| Consider impact of decision on public opinion | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequently or occasionally | Rarely or never | ||||
| Frequency of taking prevalence into account | Always, usually | Count Row percent |
54 67.5 % |
26 32.5 % |
80 100 % |
| Occasionally | Count Row percent |
54 44.3 % |
68 55.7 % |
122 100 % |
|
| Almost never, never | Count Row percent |
9 29 % |
22 71 % |
31 100 % |
|
| Total | Count Row percent |
117 50.2 % |
116 49.8 % |
233 100 % |
|
Chi square = 16.84, df=2, p<.001
- Date modified: