506 Full

Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
http://anj.sagepub.com/
Public Confidence in the NSW Criminal Justice System: A Survey of the NSW
Public
Craig Jones and Don Weatherburn
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 2010 43: 506
DOI: 10.1375/acri.43.3.506
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://anj.sagepub.com/content/43/3/506
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology
Additional services and information for Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://anj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://anj.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2010

What is This?
Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012
Public Confidence in the NSW Criminal

Justice System: A Survey of the NSW Public
Craig Jones and Don Weatherburn
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Australia
any national and international studies have examined public opinion

towards the adequacy of sentencing. A smaller number of studies,
particularly in Australia, have tended to look more closely at levels of
confidence in specific aspects of the courts. This study describes a survey
of the New South Wales (NSW) public bearing on their attitudes
towards sentencing and other aspects of criminal justice administration.
Consistent with previous research, a high proportion of respondents
reported that sentences are either a little or much too lenient. Most
were either very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system
respects the rights of accused persons (72%) and treats them fairly (75%)
but smaller proportions were confident that the justice system brings
people to justice (54.8%), deals with cases efficiently (43.7%), deals with
cases promptly (29.7%) or meets the needs of victims (34.7%). Critically,
people who know more about trends in crime, court outcomes and
sentencing practices have higher levels of confidence in sentencing and
other aspects of the justice system.
Keywords: sentencing, public attitudes, punitiveness, confidence, lenience
Confidence in the administration of public services is important across the whole of

government, but perhaps no more so than in relation to the criminal justice system.
This is because, as Hough and Roberts (2004, p. 7) point out, a justice system that
fails to command public trust ... may simply fail to function effectively. Other
public services, they argue, continue to deliver outcomes for the public even if
confidence in those services declines. Waning confidence in criminal justice, on the
other hand, may lead to reductions in reporting of crime, reductions in the likelihood that criminal matters will proceed to court and, ultimately, failure to deliver
justice to crime victims and the wider community (Hough & Roberts, 2004, p. 7).
A range of studies in various jurisdictions have found that confidence in criminal
justice is generally fairly low, particularly when it comes to sentencing (e.g., Hough
& Roberts, 1999; Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black, 2000). Approximately 70 to 80% of
the public respond too lenient when asked questions such as do you think
sentences handed down by the judiciary are too harsh, too lenient or about right?
Address for correspondence: Craig Jones, Research Manager, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics
and Research, GPO Box 6, Sydney NSW 2001. E-mail: craig_jones@agd.nsw.gov.au
506
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

VOLUME 43 NUMBER 3 2010 PP. 506525
PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
This trend has been observed across the western world and does not vary much from
one year to the next (e.g., Chapman, Mirrlees-Black, & Brawn, 2002; Hough &
Roberts, 2004; Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black, 2000; Roberts, Crutcher, & Verbrugge,
2007; Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, & Hough, 2003). Research also suggests,
however, that the public at large is often misinformed about trends in crime and
criminal justice (Indermaur, 1987; Weatherburn & Indermaur, 2004) and this lack of
accurate knowledge is associated with lack of confidence in sentencing (e.g., Hough
& Roberts, 1999; Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black, 2000; Roberts & Indermaur, 2009).
Much of the research in this area, however, has come from the United States
and Britain. While some research has been conducted in Australia (e.g., Indermaur,
1987; Roberts & Indermaur, 2009), the Australian research base bearing on these
issues is much more limited. It is not safe to assume that Australian public attitudes
toward the criminal justice system are a mirror image of those found in countries
such as the United States and Britain or, indeed, similar from one Australian state
to the next. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a study designed to
measure public confidence in sentencing and criminal justice in one Australian
state and examine its relationship to public knowledge about crime, conviction and
sentencing. Initial findings from the study were published in a report by the NSW
Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (Jones, Weatherburn, & McFarlane, 2008).
The present discussion advances the arguments in that report by conducting a
multivariate analysis of the relationship between public knowledge of crime and
justice and public confidence in sentencing and criminal justice. We use this analysis to estimate the marginal effect of knowledge about crime and justice on levels of
confidence in various aspects of the criminal justice system. In the next section of
this article we briefly review past research in the area. We then describe the present
study in detail.
Past Research
As noted earlier, research suggests that the public tends to be largely misinformed
about trends in crime and criminal justice (Indermaur, 1987; Roberts & Indermaur,
2009; Weatherburn & Indermaur, 2004) and this misinformation is associated with
a lack of confidence in sentencing (e.g., Hough & Roberts, 1999; Mattinson &
Mirrlees-Black, 2000; Roberts & Indermaur, 2009). For example, secondary analyses
of the 1998 British Crime Survey (BCS) revealed that members of the public who
knew more about patterns of youth crime were much more confident in the
adequacy of sentencing for young offenders than those who knew very little about
trends in youth crime (Mattinson & Mirrlees-Black, 2000). In that study, respondents who were unable to identify the relative involvement of young offenders in
crime, the relative involvement of boys and girls in youth crime, whether male
youth crime was increasing and whether female youth crime was increasing were
deemed to have low knowledge of juvenile offending. Those who were able to
correctly identify three of these four characteristics of youth crime were twice as
likely to believe that sentences are about right than those with lower levels of
knowledge (35% versus 16%). After adjusting for opinions of the police and courts,
views about whether crime is a problem in the area, sex and prior victimisation,

507
CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN
those with low levels of knowledge about youth crime were also significantly more
inclined to think that juvenile courts are doing a poor or very poor job.
Establishing a causal relationship between knowledge and confidence is never
possible on the basis of cross-sectional surveys. It is always possible that the adopted
measure of knowledge instead reflects some other unmeasured characteristic of
respondents. However, there is good reason to suspect that the relationship is causal
in light of experimental research showing that punitive attitudes towards sentencing
are ameliorated when people are provided with more information about crime. In
one classic study on this issue, attitudes to sentencing were compared among people
randomly assigned to one of two groups. Members of the first group were asked to
read a newspaper account of a sentencing decision involving a case of assault.
Members of the second group were given a summary of the court documents. Both
groups were then asked what they thought of the sentence that had been imposed.
Sixty-three per cent of the first group thought the sentence imposed was too
lenient, whereas over half the people that had read the summary of court documents
expressed the view that the sentence was too harsh (Doob & Roberts, 1988).
This suggests that the provision of factual information can increase levels of
confidence in sentencing. While more recent studies suggest that the public still
display more punitive attitudes than members of the judiciary (de Keijser, van
Koppen, & Elffers, 2007), this relationship may be moderated by offence type.
Warner and colleagues (2009) found that jurors were more punitive than judicial
officers in relation to sexual offences but less punitive in relation to property offences.
Maintaining confidence in the adequacy of sentencing is clearly a critical
component of establishing trust in the criminal justice system. However, it is not
the only important component. Members of the public also expect that victims will
be treated respectfully, that the rights of the accused will be upheld and that the
courts will deal with matters expeditiously. Less research has focused on these
aspects of confidence in criminal justice. Perhaps the best source of information
bearing on these specific aspects of public confidence is the annual British Crime
Survey (BCS) conducted by the United Kingdom Home Office. Analyses of the
BCS data have shown that a large proportion of the British public expresses a lack
of confidence that the U.K. criminal justice system is effective in reducing crime,
punishing offenders, bringing people to justice, dealing with cases promptly and
efficiently, dealing with young people accused of crime and meeting the needs of
crime victims (Nicholas, Kershaw, & Walker, 2007).
Studies measuring public attitudes towards sentencing have traditionally made
up only a small component of Australian sentencing scholarship (Warner, 2006). It
is not our intention to exhaustively review all empirical Australian research bearing
on public opinion toward sentencing and the courts (for a more comprehensive
review see Gelb, 2006, 2008). What follows is a brief overview of the empirical
research that bears directly on the aims of the current study.
Early research conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC)
found that public preferences for sentencing options were broadly aligned with
actual sentencing practices by the courts. In a large representative survey of the
Australian public, respondents were asked to nominate the appropriate penalty for a
range of offences. Preferences were remarkably close to the penalties handed down
for these offences by the courts. For example, 88% of respondents suggested that an
508

offender should be imprisoned for armed robbery. In reality, 80% of convicted armed
robbers received a custodial sentence at that time. While most penalties actually
imposed by the courts were broadly consistent with what respondents viewed as
appropriate, there were some discrepancies. For example, one in four survey respondents favoured the death penalty for murder a sentencing option that had not
been available in Australia since 1984. One in five also favoured the death penalty
for heroin trafficking, which is an offence that typically attracts less than a life
prison sentence (Walker, Collins, & Wilson, 1987).
While the AIC study found that public preferences for punishment were largely
consistent with actual sentencing practices, most other Australian research has
found low levels of satisfaction with sentencing practices. In the abstract, members
of the public tend to believe that sentences handed down by the courts are not
severe enough (Indermaur, 1987, 1990). However, when Indermaur asked respondents what sort of criminal they were thinking about when asked about sentencing
leniency, most (70%) responded that they were thinking of a violent offence, such
as a sex offence, murder or an armed robbery. This suggests that members of the
Australian public might have misguided views about the characteristic offences and
offenders dealt with by the courts.
To date, few Australian studies have looked at confidence in other aspects of the
criminal justice system, such as the speed with which matters are dealt with, or the
way in which the courts meet the needs of crime victims. In 2000, the South
Australian Council of the Courts Administration Authority conducted a representative telephone survey of 1000 South Australian residents to assess levels of confidence in South Australian courts and to identify some of the issues that might
underpin this (lack of) confidence. While few respondents reported having a great
deal of confidence in the courts, approximately two-thirds had at least some confidence. A majority (68%) felt that they would be given a fair trial if they went to
court and almost three-quarters were confident that the judicial officer would be
independent of the prosecution. Critically, however, four out of five respondents felt
that the courts are too soft on offenders (Council of the Courts Administration
Authority, 2000). A repeat of this survey in 2006 suggested that these results had
not changed significantly since the 2000 survey (cited by Gelb, 2008).
The best repeated measures estimate of confidence in the courts comes from the
Australian Survey of Social Attitudes (AuSSA) (e.g., Indermaur & Roberts, 2005;
Roberts & Indermaur, 2009). This survey indicates that a large proportion (around
70%) of the Australian public have either a great deal or quite a lot of confidence
in the police but the same proportion report that they have not very much or no
confidence in the courts and the legal system (Indermaur & Roberts, 2005). Most
(71%) of respondents to the 2007 AuSSA also suggested people who break the law
should be given stiffer sentences and more than two-fifths (44%) thought the death
penalty should be the punishment for murder, although trends in both of these
indicators have been declining in recent years. For the first time the 2007 wave of
the AuSSA also asked about confidence in other aspects of the justice system and
found that most (67%) of respondents had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence that the courts have regard for defendants rights. Smaller proportions had
confidence that the courts deal with matters fairly (51%), have regard to victims
rights (47%) or deal with matters quickly (22%; Roberts & Indermaur, 2009).

509
Roberts and Indermaur (2007) used the AuSSA to examine correlates of

punitive attitudes towards sentencing practices, as measured by a composite score
representing respondents views towards the death penalty, perceived sentencing
leniency and whether judges should reflect community attitudes in the sentences
they impose. Having low knowledge about crime trends and negative attitudes
towards the courts and police were the strongest predictors of punitiveness after
adjusting for demographic factors (e.g., sex, age, education) and political orientation. Interestingly, secondary analyses of the most recent wave of the AuSSA
confirmed this relationship between knowledge of crime trends and calls for harsher
sentences but revealed an inverse relationship between knowledge of criminal
justice outcomes and attitudes toward sentencing. Those who correctly believe that
a high proportion of violent offenders are convicted and imprisoned expressed less
desire for stronger penalties than those whose view on this issue were erroneous
(Roberts & Indermaur, 2009).
Other studies have also found that lower levels of education and male gender
predict high levels of punitive attitudes towards sentencing (Kelley & Braithwaite,
1990; Walker et al., 1987). Australian research has also found that older age, lower
income and living in a rural area predicts higher levels of punitiveness at a bivariate
level (Walker et al., 1987), although when multivariate statistical analyses are
employed the relationship between age and punitiveness sometimes disappears (e.g.,
Roberts & Indermaur 2007).
These studies suggest that the public is highly dissatisfied with the sentencing
process. Most survey respondents, however, have had little contact with the police
and legal system and are not well placed to make informed judgments about it.
Some researchers have, for this reason, sampled other populations such as offender
groups or those who have sat on a jury. Indermaur (1994), for example, surveyed
attitudes towards sentencing among a nonrepresentative sample of 53 convicted
offenders. When asked whether they felt their own sentence was fair, 42% agreed
and 58% disagreed. Of those who considered their sentence to be fair, most reported
that they had received a sentence that was less than they had expected or because it
was light for the crime. Among those who felt their sentence was unfair, on the
other hand, most responded in terms of sentencing disparity.
Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues (2007) conducted surveys of members of
the public who had served on a jury and members of the public who had never
served on a jury. Among those who had never sat on a jury, there were low levels of
confidence in the fair treatment of defendants and in the fairness and efficiency of
the criminal justice system. In contrast, these members of the public had higher
levels of confidence in the capacity of judges, defence lawyers and prosecution
lawyers. Importantly, public confidence in the criminal justice system was greater
among those with more experience with the system (i.e., those who had been called
for, or served on, a jury) (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2007; OBrien et al., 2008).
A recent survey of sitting jurors (Warner et al., 2009) found that about half of
all jury members would impose less severe sentences than were ultimately handed
down by the judges presiding over those matters, although a relatively high proportion (46%) would also have imposed a more severe sentence than the judge. Jury
members were significantly more punitive than judges where they had been empanelled for sex offence trials and much less punitive than judges in relation to property
510

offences. As with the general population (Indermaur, 1987), when asked whether
they thought sentences in general were too tough, too lenient or about right, most
jurors responded that sentences are too lenient. These findings suggest that there
may be a significant disjuncture between general attitudes towards sentencing
leniency and attitudes as they pertain to specific cases. Critically, after reading a
booklet containing facts about crime and sentencing and the judges sentencing
remarks about the case over which they presided, a majority of jurors rated the
sentence actually imposed in their case as appropriate. This finding supports the
assertion that the provision of information may improve attitudes towards sentencing leniency (Warner et al., 2009).
The Present Study

Existing knowledge about public confidence in Australian criminal justice systems
contains many gaps. We know very little about which aspects of the criminal justice
system the Australian public is satisfied or dissatisfied with. We know a good deal
about how misinformed the public are about crime (Indermaur, 1987; Roberts &
Indermaur, 2009; Weatherburn & Indermaur, 2004) but little about how this misinformation and other characteristics influence dissatisfaction with specific aspects of
the criminal justice system. We also know very little about the marginal contribution that knowledge about crime and criminal justice makes towards levels of public
confidence in the justice system after adjusting for demographic characteristics that
are also related to these levels of confidence. The present study, therefore, had three
distinct aims:
to assess levels of public confidence in various aspects of the NSW criminal
justice system
to assess the degree to which members of the NSW public are mistaken about
crime and criminal justice outcomes
to determine what marginal contribution greater knowledge about crime and
criminal justice makes towards levels of confidence in the justice system (after
adjusting for important sociodemographic characteristics).
Method
Participants
Participants comprised a random sample of 2002 members of the NSW public who
were interviewed in late August 2007 via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Only English-speaking people aged 18 years or older were eligible
to take part in the study. No attempt was made to contact hard-to-reach populations, such as institutionalised or homeless people. While the nominal response rate
was quite low (15,914 people refused, giving a nominal response rate of 11.2%),
quota sampling was employed to ensure that the sample was representative of the
NSW population in terms of age, sex and residential location.
The sociodemographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.
Population weights for age, sex and residential location were applied to correct for
slight variations resulting from quota groupings. Slightly more than half of the

511
TABLE 1
Sample Characteristics (both Weighted and Unweighted for Age, Sex and Residential Location)
Characteristic
Sample (Unweighted)
Sample (Weighted)
Sex
Female (%)
52
51.4
Age (years)
Mean
Range
46.3
1892
46
1892
Education
% University educated
36.5
37
Income
<$40,000
$40,000$79,999
$80,000+
Refused/dont know
21.3
22.7
33
23
20.8
22.7
33.4
23.1
Residential location
Sydney/Newcastle/Wollongong (%)
70.3
72.3
sample was female, the mean age was 46 years and 37% had attained a bachelor
degree or higher as their highest level of education. One-third of the sample
reported earning $80,000 or more per year. Approximately three in four respondents
reported living in a metropolitan location (defined as Sydney, Newcastle or
Wollongong). The response options for questions relating to education and income
levels could not be directly compared with population estimates from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics, but the education levels of the current sample and the NSW
population appear to be very similar. For example, 37% of the current sample had
achieved at least a bachelor degree as their highest level of education. The corresponding proportion for all NSW residents aged between 15 and 64 years in 2006
was 34.4% (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).
Dependent Variables
Seven measures of confidence in sentencing and other aspects of the criminal
justice system were collected. Five of these measures acted as the dependent
variables in the multivariate regression analysis. The questions were:
1. In general, would you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too
tough, about right or too lenient?
2. How confident are you that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing
people who commit crimes to justice?
3. How confident are you that the criminal justice system meets the needs of
victims of crime?
4. How confident are you that the criminal justice system treats people accused of
committing a crime fairly?
5. How confident are you that the criminal justice system respects the rights of
people accused of committing a crime?
512

6. How confident are you that the criminal justice system deals with cases
promptly?
7. How confident are you that the criminal justice system deals with cases
efficiently?
The response options for question (1) were: much too tough, a little too tough, about
right, a little too lenient and much too lenient. The response options for questions (2)
through (7) were: very confident, fairly confident, not very confident and not at all confident. These questions were either taken verbatim or were adapted from the questions
asked for the BCS. For questions (2) through (7), the order in which response
options were read out was reversed for half of the interviews to avoid order bias.
There was no evidence of any order effect in the responses.
Independent Variables
Six questions were included in the survey to measure respondent knowledge about
crime and criminal justice. Two of these measured knowledge about crime while
four measured knowledge about the criminal justice system. The measures were:
1. ... would you say there is more property crime, less property crime or about the
same amount (since five years ago)? Responses options were: a lot more, a little
more, about the same, a little less and a lot less.
2. Of every 100 crimes recorded by the police, roughly what number do you think
involve violence or the threat of violence?
3. Of every 100 people charged with home burglary and brought to court, roughly
what number do you think end up convicted?
4. Of every 100 people charged with assault and brought to court, roughly what
number do you think end up convicted?
5. Of every 100 men aged 21 or over who are convicted of home burglary, how
many do you think are sent to prison?
6. Of every 100 men aged 21 or over who are convicted of assault, how many do
you think are sent to prison?
Each of these knowledge measures was grouped for the purposes of the analysis
according to how accurate participants were about that particular measure. For the
first measure, participants were categorised as having high levels of knowledge about
property crime if they reported that property crime had decreased by a little or a
lot in the preceding five years. Respondents who suggested that there was a lot
more property crime, a little more property crime or about the same amount of
property crime compared with five years ago were categorised as having low knowledge about property crime trends. This categorisation was made on the basis that
both officially recorded crime statistics and crime victim survey estimates show that
motor vehicle theft and burglary decreased by 40 to 50% in NSW between 2001
and 2006 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006; Moffatt & Goh, 2007).
The remaining five measures of knowledge were grouped according to the
absolute difference between the proportions nominated by the participant and the
true proportions derived from officially recorded statistics. The group of respondents
who had the lowest absolute difference scores were deemed to have high knowl-

513
edge on that measure because their estimates were closest to the true proportion.
The middle group of respondents were deemed to have medium knowledge and the
group of respondents with the highest scores were deemed to have low knowledge
because their estimates were furthest from the true proportion. The correct proportion of crimes involving violence (7%) was defined as the proportion of all recorded
crime incidents in 2006 that fell into the categories of homicide, assault (including
both domestic and nondomestic assault), sexual offences or robbery. The correct
conviction rates for home burglary (73%), conviction rates for assault (74%),
imprisonment rates for home burglary (61%) and imprisonment rates for assault
(14%) were derived from the NSW criminal court data collection maintained by
the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. The proportions were derived
from all people appearing in Local, District and Supreme Courts.
The following sociodemographic characteristics were also collected: residential
location (Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, elsewhere), sex, age, highest level of
education (Year 10 or less, year 11 or 12, TAFE, university) and estimated annual
income (which were subsequently grouped into <$40,000, $40,000$79,999 and
>$80,000).
Analyses
Cross-tabulations were first carried out to assess the bivariate relationship between
each of the independent and the first five of the dependent variables. There was no
a priori reason to assume that there would be any relationship between knowledge
about crime and justice and confidence in the promptness or efficiency of the
justice system and these two measures were not included in the multivariate analyses. The strength of the association between each of the measures of knowledge was
also assessed to ensure that multicollinearity would not be a problem for multivariate analyses. Each variable that was significant at a bivariate level was then entered
into multivariate regression models to assess the independent contribution that
increased knowledge made to the various indicators of confidence in the criminal
justice system.
Ordered probit and ordinal logistic regression models were first assessed but
found to provide a poor fit to the data. Ultimately, binary logistic regression models
regressing dichotomous measures of confidence against each of the independent
variables were found to provide the best fit to the data. The outcome variables for
the regression analyses were the likelihood that participants would view sentences
as about right (versus too tough/lenient) or the likelihood that participants were
very or fairly confident in each measured aspect of the justice system (versus not
very/not at all confident). Dichotomising the outcome variables in this way was
intended to reflect the goals of a well-functioning justice system, which is to provide
sentences that are in line with public expectations (as opposed to sentences that are
too punitive or lenient) and to achieve high levels of confidence in a fair, respectful
and efficient system of justice. A manual backwards elimination modelling strategy
was employed, whereby all significant variables were first entered into the model
and nonsignificant variables removed one at a time, starting with the least significant variable. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was examined to assess
model fit.
514

The marginal effects of having high levels of knowledge on each measure of

confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system were also estimated from
the models. To estimate the probability that an individual with a given set of
characteristics would have the outcome of interest, it is essential to first start with a
base case, or baseline set of characteristics. For the purposes of this analysis, the base
case was set to the modal category of each sociodemographic variable contained in
the model (i.e., less than university educated, income greater than or equal to
$80,000 per annum, aged between 40 and 49). The knowledge measures were all set
to those who had the least knowledge of crime and criminal justice outcomes. All of
the significant measures of knowledge about the criminal justice system were then
added to the equation to assess the additional effect of knowledge on confidence
after accounting for the important sociodemographic characteristics.
Results
Figure 1 shows the population-weighted distribution of attitudes towards sentencing
leniency. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Chapman et al., 2002; Hough &
Roberts, 2004; Indermaur, 1987, 1990; Indermaur & Roberts, 2005; Mattinson &
Mirrlees-Black, 2000; Roberts et al., 2007, 2003), a high proportion (66%) of
respondents indicated that sentences are either a little too lenient or much too
lenient. One in four respondents (25.7%) thought sentences are about right. Only
small proportions of respondents thought that sentences were a little too tough
(2.6%) or much too tough (1.2%).
Figure 2 shows the weighted prevalence estimates of confidence in the other
measured aspects of the criminal justice system. A large proportion of respondents
100
90
Per cent (weighted)
80
70
60
50
37.0
40
25.7
30
29.0
20
10
1.2
2.6
Much too tough
A little too tough
0
About right
A little too lenient Much too lenient
FIGURE 1
In general, would you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too tough, about right, or
too lenient?
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because 4.5% of respondents did not answer the question.

515
20.0
CJS meets needs of victims?

CJS deals with cases
promptly?
22.3
CJS deals with cases

efficiently?
14.6
CJS brings people to justice?
13.4
CJS treats accused fairly?
6.3
CJS respects rights of

accused?
6.8
30.9
42.0
25.2
43.3
6.2
47.9
30.6
6.9
55.2
15.8
19.3
50.9
17.1
20
Not at all
30
4.5
37.5
37.3
10
3.8
40
50
Not very
21.3
60
70
80
Fairly
90
100
Very
FIGURE 2
Weighted estimates of confidence in various aspects of the criminal justice system.
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because some respondents did not answer the question.
indicated that they were either very or fairly confident that the criminal justice
system respects the rights of people accused of committing crimes (72.2%) and
treats them fairly (74.5%). Slightly more than half (54.8%) of the respondents also
indicated that they were either very or fairly confident that the justice system is
effective in bringing people accused of crimes to justice, although it should be noted
that most of these responses fell into the fairly confident category. In contrast, a
much lower proportion indicated that they were either very or fairly confident
that the criminal justice system deals with cases efficiently (43.7%), meets the
needs of crime victims (34.7%) and deals with cases promptly (29.7%).
Figure 3 shows the distribution of participants responses when asked whether
they felt that property crime had increased, decreased or stayed stable in the five
years prior to interview. A substantial majority of respondents (80.8%) thought that
property crime in NSW had either increased or remained about the same in the five
years prior to interview. Only 11.3% correctly identified that property crime had
decreased in the five years prior to interview, while 8% could not estimate recent
trends in property crime.
Table 2 shows the difference between the correct and estimated proportions for
each of the other measures of knowledge about crime and criminal justice.
Participants tended to overestimate the proportion of crimes that involve violence
(mean = 58% cf. the true proportion of 7%) and underestimate conviction rates for
burglary (mean = 43% cf. the true proportion of 73%), conviction rates for assault
(mean = 46% cf. the true proportion of 74%) and imprisonment rates for burglary
(mean = 32% cf. the true proportion of 61%). In contrast, participants were much
more accurate about the proportion of convicted assault offenders who receive a
prison sentence. In fact, contrary to the other measures of knowledge about criminal
justice outcomes, participants overestimated imprisonment rates for assault (mean =
35% cf. the true proportion of 14%).
516

100
Low knowledge
90
High knowledge
Per cent (weighted)
80
70
60
50
40
31.7
29.4
30
19.7
20
9.3
10
2.0
0
Lot more
Little more
About the same
Little less
Lot less
FIGURE 3
Would you say there is more property crime, less property crime or about the same amount (since
five years ago)?
Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because 7.9% of respondents did not answer the question.
Table 3 summarises the results of the five regression models predicting confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system. Turning first to the model
predicting confidence in sentencing, after adjusting for education and age, respondents who correctly identified that property crime had fallen, who were more
accurate about the proportion of crimes involving violence, who were more accurate
about assault and burglary conviction rates, and who were more accurate about
burglary imprisonment rates were more likely to believe that sentences handed down
by the courts are about right. Participants who were more highly educated and who
were younger were also more confident that sentences are about right.
Turning next to the model predicting confidence in the ability of the criminal
justice system to bring people who commit crimes to justice, after adjusting for
education, income and age, participants who correctly identified that property
crime had fallen, who were more accurate about assault and burglary conviction
rates, and who were more accurate about burglary imprisonment rates were more
TABLE 2
Accuracy Regarding Measures of Knowledge About Crime and Criminal Justice
Measure of knowledge
Proportion of crime involving violence
Correct proportiona
Mean (SD) estimated proportionb
58 (22)
Proportion convicted for burglary
73
43 (25)
Proportion convicted for assault
74
46 (22)
Proportion burglars imprisoned
61
32 (23)
Proportion assault offenders imprisoned
14
35 (22)
Note:
From NSW Recorded Crime Statistics and NSW Criminal Courts Statistics databases maintained by the
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
Mean of participants responses (with standard deviation in brackets)

517
likely to be very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system brings people
who commit crimes to justice. There was an interaction between age and knowledge about the proportion of crimes involving violence, whereby having greater
knowledge about the proportion of crime involving violence was positively related
to confidence in the ability of the justice system to bring offenders to justice, but
only among older respondents. Higher knowledge of assault imprisonment rates, on
the other hand, was negatively related to confidence in the ability of the justice
system to bring offenders to justice. More highly educated respondents, those on
higher incomes and younger respondents were more confident in the ability of the
justice system to bring offenders to justice.
After adjusting for education and age, participants who correctly identified that
property crime had fallen, and who were more accurate about the proportion of
crimes involving violence, assault conviction rates and burglary imprisonment rates
were more likely to be very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system
meets the needs of victims. Again, there was a negative relationship between
knowledge of assault imprisonment rates and confidence in the ability of the justice
system to meet the needs of crime victims. More highly educated and younger
members of the public were more likely to have confidence in the ability of the
justice system to meet the needs of crime victims.
Knowledge about crime and criminal justice was less strongly related to confidence in the fair treatment of offenders. After adjusting for income, participants
who were more accurate about assault conviction rates were more likely to be confident that the justice system respects the rights of the accused. After adjusting for
education and income, respondents who knew more about assault conviction rates,
assault imprisonment rates and burglary imprisonment rates were more confident
that offenders are treated fairly by the criminal justice system.
Figures 4a to 4e show the estimated marginal effects of knowledge on confidence
in each of five different aspects of the criminal justice system. The base case for
each of these outcomes was a respondent who was aged between 40 and 49, less
than university educated, earned $80,000 or more per annum and had low knowledge of property crime trends, low knowledge of the proportion of crimes involving
violence, low knowledge of assault and burglary conviction rates, and low knowledge of burglary imprisonment rates (contingent on the characteristic being significant in the model shown in Table 3).
Figure 4a indicates that the probability that a member of the public who had
these characteristics would believe that sentences are about right is about 4%. An
identical respondent who had high knowledge of crime, conviction and sentencing
has a greater than 60% chance of thinking that judges sentences are about right.
Although the effects are less substantial, increased knowledge is also associated with
greater confidence that the criminal justice system brings people to justice (Figure
4b), meets the needs of victims (Figure 4c), respects the rights of accused persons
(Figure 4d) and treats accused persons fairly (Figure 4e).
Discussion
The current study found that, when asked broadly about sentencing adequacy, a
majority of the NSW public believes that the sentences imposed on convicted
518

TABLE 3
Models of Confidence in Sentencing and Various Aspects of the Criminal Justice System
Measure of confidence
Sentences
about right
Measure of knowledge/
respondent characteristics
Intercept
(S..)
CJS brings
people to
justice
(S..)
CJS meets
needs of
victims
(S..)
-2.47 (0.26) -0.70 (0.34) -0.50 (0.24)
Property crime trends

Low
High
Not stated
0.36 (0.17)
0.33 (0.21)
0.53 (0.17)
0.44 (0.19)
0.59 (0.16)
0.46 (0.19)
Crimes involving violence

Low
Medium
High
0.59 (0.16)
1.07 (0.15)
0.78 (0.38)
1.43 (0.36)
0.42 (0.14)
0.51 (0.13)
Assault conviction rates

Low
Medium
High
0.43 (0.15)
0.83 (0.16)
0.47 (0.12)
1.03 (0.14)
0.49 (0.13)
0.77 (0.14)
Assault imprisonment rates

Low
Medium
High
CJS respects
rights of
accused
(S..)
CJS treats
accused
fairly
(S..)
0.41 (0.13)
0.37 (0.20)
-0.10 (0.17)
0.47 (0.23)
0.16 (0.13)
0.46 (0.14)
-0.47 (0.13) -0.25 (0.13)

-0.58 (0.14) -0.37 (0.14)
0.31 (0.14)
0.38 (0.15)
0.14 (0.14)
0.32 (0.16)
Burglary conviction rates

Low
Medium
High
0.32 (0.17)
0.40 (0.18)
0.11 (0.13)
0.34 (0.15)
Burglary imprisonment
rates
Low
Medium
High
0.63 (0.16)
1.03 (0.18)
0.17 (0.13)
0.33 (0.16)
0.30 (0.13)
0.51 (0.15)
-0.04 (0.14)
0.34 (0.17)
0.66 (0.12)
0.55 (0.11)
0.31 (0.11)
0.30 (0.12)
Sex
Live in metropolitan area
University educated
Income
Low (<$40k p.a.)
Medium
($40k<$80k p.a.)
High ($80k + p.a.)
Not stated
Age
Age * Violent crime
Age * medium
Age * high
0.28 (0.15)
0.40 (0.15)
0.28 (0.15)
0.58 (0.15)
0.78 (0.14)
0.43 (0.15)
0.28 (0.16)
0.62 (0.16)
0.19 (0.16)
-0.02 (0.00) -0.01 (0.01) -0.03 (0.00)

-0.01 (0.01)
-0.02 (0.01)

519
Predicted probability
(a) Sentences 'about right'

1.0
0.61
0.5
0.04
0.0
Base case
High knowledge
(c) CJS meets needs of victims
1.0
0.5
0.82
0.34
0.0
Base case
(b) CJS brings people to justice

1.0
0.56
0.5
0.14
0.0
High knowledge
Base case
1.0
0.77
0.83
0.5
0.0
Base case
High knowledge
(e) CJS treats accused fairly

(d) CJS respects rights of accused
High knowledge
0.88
1.0
0.73
0.5
0.0
Base case
High knowledge
FIGURE 4
Marginal effect of knowledge on each measure of confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice
system after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.
offenders are either a little too lenient or much too lenient. A majority of NSW
residents are very or fairly confident that the criminal justice system respects the
rights of accused persons and treats them fairly, and that the justice system is effective in bringing people to justice. On the other hand, a majority of NSW residents
are not very or not at all confident that the criminal justice system deals with
cases promptly and efficiently or that it meets the needs of crime victims.
Confidence in sentencing and the criminal justice system is more prevalent among
younger people, those who are more highly educated, those on higher incomes and
particularly among those who know more about crime and criminal justice
outcomes. Residential location and sex were not found to be predictive of confidence after adjusting for these other respondent characteristics.
One threat to the interpretation of the prevalence estimates reported in this
study is that the sample may not be representative of the NSW population. This is
always a threat when telephone interviews are employed and the sample is certainly
skewed toward people who have a home telephone. While the nominal response
rate was relatively low (11.2%), the amount of error that this introduced into our
520

estimates cannot be identified without knowing how responders differed from

nonresponders. A system of call-backs was implemented to minimise nonresponse
bias and quota sampling was employed to ensure that the respondents represented
the age, sex and residential breakdown of the NSW population. One reason to have
confidence in the representativeness of the current sample, however, is that the
responses to key items were broadly similar to the most recent wave of the AuSSA
(Roberts & Indermaur, 2009). Another is that the methodology employed here is
the same as that used in electoral opinion polling, which usually predict electoral
outcomes with a high degree of accuracy.
This issue aside, the current study adds to those showing that the NSW public is
generally poorly informed about crime and criminal justice (Indermaur, 1987;
Indermaur & Roberts, 2005; Weatherburn & Indermaur, 2004). These low levels of
knowledge and the relationship between knowledge and confidence suggest that
public confidence in criminal justice at least partly reflects a misinformed democratic process (see Roberts et al., 2003 for a discussion of this point as it relates to the
evolution of populist penal policies). Such widespread misinformation is perhaps
not surprising given that most people learn about crime and justice issues through
the media. Violent, unusual crimes and sentences that might seem out of touch with
community expectations are overrepresented in news media coverage of crime by
virtue of their inherent newsworthiness. All too often, of course, media reporting of
crime and justice is also distorted, selective and sensationalist. The net effect of
public reliance on the media for information on crime and justice is a set of misconceptions that tends to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
The one area where our findings run counter to some past studies was the observation that levels of confidence in the fair and respectful treatment of offenders
were low among those who (correctly) thought that the likelihood of imprisonment
for assault was low. Roberts and Indermaur (2009) found a similar pattern between
some of their measures of knowledge and attitudes towards sentencing leniency.
This may reflect a genuine discontent with current levels of imprisonment for
assault. However, the observation is also open to another interpretation. Evidence
from other studies clearly shows that survey respondents tend to think of the most
serious crimes when asked general questions about punishment severity (Cullen,
Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Indermaur, 1987; Roberts et al., 2003). Indermaur
(1987), for example, found that 70% of his respondents were thinking of criminals
involved with rape, murder, armed robbery, child sexual abuse or some other sort of
violence when making general judgments about sentencing leniency. It is possible
that those who lack confidence in the criminal justice system because they believe
the risk of imprisonment for assault is low also have an exaggerated picture of the
seriousness of most assaults coming before the courts. If this interpretation were
correct, the correlation between knowledge of sentencing for assault and lack of
confidence in the criminal justice system would be attributable to a mistaken view
about crime. Consistent with this second interpretation, further exploration of the
responses in the current research revealed that the same participants who were
deemed to have high knowledge of assault imprisonment rates were deemed to have
low levels of knowledge on most of the other criminal justice knowledge measures.
The finding that public confidence in the criminal justice system is linked to
public knowledge might be viewed as a reflection of underlying class differences

521
with those who appear to know more about criminal justice processes simply being
wealthier, more highly educated and therefore more likely to feel the justice system
works in their interests. The fact that the effects of knowledge remain after adjusting for the sociodemographic characteristics of offenders, however, suggests that our
results are not simply a result of class differences, at least insofar as income and
education reflect social class. If we accept that low levels of public confidence are
caused by lack of knowledge about crime and justice, the question naturally arises as
to how public confidence might be increased, especially in those areas where it is
manifestly low (viz., the adequacy of sentencing, dealing with cases efficiently,
dealing with cases promptly and meeting the needs of victims).
On the face of it, the best way to restore or build public confidence in the criminal justice system is through better public education about crime and criminal
justice. Governments in England, Wales, Australia and New Zealand have all taken
steps to educate the public about crime and sentencing, mainly through the establishment of sentencing advisory bodies (Butler & McFarlane, 2009). Many of these
bodies have put forward or implemented strategies through which to better educate
the public on crime and sentencing. The NSW Sentencing Council, for example,
has argued for a three-pronged approach involving:
ongoing public consultation by way of regular surveys
improving and promoting public knowledge of crime and justice issues through
the development of public education programs and ongoing provision of readily
accessible and up to date information
developing a dedicated media strategy to promote cooperation and open
dialogue between the criminal justice system and the press (Butler & McFarlane,
2009, p. 37).
The Sentencing Advisory Council in Victoria has developed a you be the judge
teaching program, intended to acquaint Victorian high-school students with basic
facts about the criminal justice system and sentencing process (Sentencing Advisory
Council, 2007). Butler and McFarlane (2009) highlight a large range of other
similar initiatives in the United States and Britain.
Indermaur (2008) and others (e.g., Green, 2006; Maruna & King, 2004),
however, have argued that education alone will be insufficient to bring about the
wholesale increase in confidence that is clearly required. What is needed, they
argue, are strategies that more effectively deal the public into the sentencingmaking process and to engage in an ongoing dialogue with the public on sentencing
issues. Indermaur outlines four key elements of such a process: effective consultation
with the public, appropriate measures of confidence, integration of these measures
into the sentencing framework and appropriate publication of this integration in an
accessible manner. England and Wales, through a series of reviews on the UK
sentencing framework (e.g., Allen, 2004; Home Office, 2001), are arguably closer to
such an engagement strategy than Australia and New Zealand. As with public
education, however, only comprehensive evaluation of such activities will tell
whether they have any enduring impact on levels of confidence in the criminal
justice system.
522

Conclusion
In summary, the current study aimed to assess levels of confidence in the justice
system in one Australian jurisdiction and to ascertain what marginal effect knowledge about crime and justice has on those levels of confidence. The results suggest
that members of the NSW public have high levels of confidence in the fair and
respectful treatment of offenders but lower levels of confidence in the adequacy of
sentencing, the ability of the justice system to bring offenders to justice and meet
the needs of victims and in the efficiency of the justice system. Levels of knowledge
about crime and justice would appear to exert a very large independent effect on
levels of confidence in these aspects of the justice system. Whether education
strategies that seek to improve public knowledge would, by themselves, be effective
in improving public confidence remains to be seen. However, without making
reforms that effectively establish public confidence in this institution, judicial
officers and governments risk undermining the very legitimacy of the courts that is
required for their effective functioning.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the NSW Sentencing Council for funding this
research, and Kath McFarlane and members of the Council for their comments on
earlier iterations of this research.
References
Allen, R. (2004). Rethinking crime and punishment. London: Esmee Fairburn Foundation.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Crime and Safety, New South Wales. (Cat. 4509.1).
Canberra, Australia: Author.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). New South Wales in Focus 2007 (Cat. 1338.1). Canberra,
Australia: Author.
Butler, A., & McFarlane, K. (2009). Public confidence in the NSW criminal justice system. NSW
Sentencing Council Monograph no. 2. Sydney, Australia: NSW Sentencing Council.
Chapman, B., Mirrlees-Black, C., & Brawn, C. (2002). Improving public attitudes to the criminal
justice system: the impact of information. Home Office Research Study no. 245. London: Home
Office.
Council of the Courts Administration Authority. (2000, November). Courts consulting the community: The survey. Paper presented at the Courts Consulting the Community Conference,
Adelaide, Australia.
Cullen, F.T., Fisher, B.S., & Applegate, B.K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of the research (Vol. 27, pp. 179) Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
de Keijser, J.W., van Koppen, P.J., & Elffers, H. (2007). Bridging the gap between judges and the
public? A multi-method study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 131161.
Doob, A., & Roberts, J.V. (1988). Public punitiveness and public knowledge of the facts: Some
Canadian surveys. In N. Walker & M. Hough (Eds), Public attitudes to sentencing: Surveys from
five countries (pp. 111133). Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Gelb, K. (2006). Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing.
Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
Gelb, K. (2008). More myths and misconceptions. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory
Council.

523
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Brewer, N., Clough, J., Horan, J., Ogloff, J.R.P., Tait, D., & Pratley, J.
(2007). Practices, policies and procedures that influence juror satisfaction in Australia (Research and
Public Policy Series No. 87). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Green, D.A. (2006). Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the comedy
of errors. British Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 131154.
Home Office. (2001). Making punishment work: Report of a review of the Sentencing Framework for
England and Wales. London: Home Office.
Hough, M., & Roberts, J. (1999). Sentencing trends in Britain: Public knowledge and public
opinion. Punishment and Society, 1(1), 1126.
Hough, M., & Roberts, J. (2004). Confidence in justice: An international review. ICPR Research
Paper No. 3. London: The Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Kings College London.
Indermaur, D. (1987). Public perceptions of sentencing in Perth, Western Australia. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 163183.
Indermaur, D. (1990). Perceptions of crime seriousness and sentencing: A comparison of court practice
and perceptions of a sample of the public and judges. Canberra, Australia: Criminology Research
Council of Australia.
Indermaur, D. (1994). Offenders perceptions of sentencing. Australian Psychologist, 29, 140144.
Indermaur, D. (2008). Dealing the public in: challenges for a transparent and accountable sentencing policy. In A. Freiburg & K. Gelb (Eds.), Penal populism, sentencing councils and sentencing
policy (pp. 4567). Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
Indermaur, D., & Roberts, L. (2005). Perceptions of crime and justice. In S. Wilson, G. Meagher,
R. Gibson, D. Denemark & M. Western (Eds.), Australian social attitudes: The first report (pp.
141160). Sydney, Australia: University of NSW Press.
Jones, C., Weatherburn, D., & McFarlane, K. (2008). Public confidence in the New South Wales
criminal justice system (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 118). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research.
Kelley, J., & Braithwaite, J. (1990). Public opinion and the death penalty in Australia. Justice
Quarterly, 7(3), 529563.
Maruna, S., & King, A. (2004). Public opinion and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, S. Rex
& G. Robinson (Eds.), Alternatives to prison: Options for a secure society (pp. 83102). Devon,
UK: Willan Publishing.
Mattinson, J., & Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to crime and criminal justice: Findings from the
1998 British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study No. 200). London: Home Office.
Moffatt, S., & Goh, D. (2007). An update of long-term trends in property and violent crime in New
South Wales: 19902006 (Bureau Brief No. 36). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research.
Nicholas, S., Kershaw, C., & Walker, A. (2007). Crime in England and Wales 2006/07 (Home
Office Statistical Bulletin No. 1107). London: Home Office.
OBrien, K., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Clough, J., & Pratley, J. (2008). Factors affecting juror satisfaction and confidence in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia (Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice No. 354). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Roberts, J., Crutcher, N., & Verbrugge, P. (2007). Public attitudes to sentencing in Canada:
Exploring recent findings. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(1), 75107.
Roberts, J., Stalans, L.J., Indermaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, L., & Indermaur, D. (2007). Predicting punitive attitudes in Australia. Psychiatry,
Psychology and Law, 14(1), 5666.
Roberts, L., & Indermaur, D. (2009). What Australians think about crime and justice: Results from the
2007 Survey of Social Attitudes (Research and Public Policy Series No. 101). Canberra,
Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
524

Sentencing Advisory Council. (2007). You be the judge: Teacher guide. Melbourne, Australia:
Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria.
Walker, J., Collins, M., & Wilson, P. (1987). How the public sees sentencing: An Australian survey
(Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 4). Canberra, Australia: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Warner, K. (2006). Sentencing scholarship in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 18(2),
242265.
Warner, K., Davis, J., Walter, M., Bradfield, R., & Vermey, R. (2009). Gauging public opinion on
sentencing: Can asking jurors help? (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No. 371).
Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Weatherburn, D., & Indermaur, D. (2004). Public perceptions of crime trends in New South Wales and
Western Australia (Crime and Justice Bulletin No. 80). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research.

525

506 Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

506 Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian & New Zealand Journal of

Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology

>> Version of Record - Dec 1, 2010

Downloaded from anj.sagepub.com by cursuri psihologie on October 11, 2012

Public Confidence in the NSW Criminal

any national and international studies have examined public opinion

Keywords: sentencing, public attitudes, punitiveness, confidence, lenience

Confidence in the administration of public services is important across the whole of

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

Roberts and Indermaur (2007) used the AuSSA to examine correlates of

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The Present Study

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The marginal effects of having high levels of knowledge on each measure of

Per cent (weighted)

Much too tough

A little too tough

A little too lenient Much too lenient

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

CJS meets needs of victims?

CJS deals with cases

CJS brings people to justice?

CJS treats accused fairly?

CJS respects rights of

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Per cent (weighted)

About the same

Mean (SD) estimated proportionb

Proportion convicted for burglary

Proportion convicted for assault

Proportion burglars imprisoned

Proportion assault offenders imprisoned

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

-2.47 (0.26) -0.70 (0.34) -0.50 (0.24)

Property crime trends

Crimes involving violence

Assault conviction rates

Assault imprisonment rates

-0.47 (0.13) -0.25 (0.13)

Burglary conviction rates

-0.02 (0.00) -0.01 (0.01) -0.03 (0.00)

THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

CRAIG JONES AND DON WEATHERBURN