Enhancing the legitimacy of sentences in the minds of the public: Evidence from a public opinion survey in Hong Kong

Abstract

Legal and criminology scholars have devoted a great deal of attention towards measuring public confidence in the courts and sentencing. However, little is known about how attitudes toward sentencing relate to the more complex concept of legitimacy. Departing from conventional measurements of the public’s confidence in the courts and their support for various sentence outcomes, this study centres on the process of sentencing and its relation to ‘sentence legitimacy’. The central question posed in this article is what makes sentence outcomes legitimate? Survey responses from the Hong Kong public revealed that the public viewed court sentences as legitimate through the courts’ overall adherence to procedural justice when making sentencing decisions and the perceived effectiveness of those sentences. Distributive justice of sentencing decisions was not found to influence sentence legitimacy. This article concludes with implications for the courts when delivering sentences.