Using data from a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 656), we examined to what extent confidence in the criminal justice system, punitive penal attitudes and political orientation relate to public support for suspended sentences. Mediation and moderation analyses were done to further explore the dynamics behind public support for suspended sentences. Results showed that confidence in the criminal justice system, punitive penal attitudes and political orientation were related to public support for suspended sentences. In addition, support was found for our mediation and moderation hypothesis. In our conclusion we illustrate the importance of examining these factors in determining public support for suspended sentences.
ApplegateBKCullenFTFisherB (1997) Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal77(3): 237–258.
4.
ArmstrongSMcIvorGMcNeillFMcGuinessP (2013) International Evidence Review of Conditional (Suspended) Sentences. Final Report. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research.
5.
BagaricM (1999) Suspended sentences and preventive sentences: Illusory evils and disproportionate punishments. University of New South Wales Law Journal22: 535–563.
6.
BarberJDoobAN (2004) An analysis of public support for severity and proportionality in the sentencing of youthful offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice46(3): 327–342.
7.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6): 1173–1182.
8.
BartelsL (2007) The use of suspended sentences in Australia: Unsheathing the sword of Damocles. Criminal Law Journal31: 113–132.
9.
BeerthuizenMGCJWartnaBSJ (2013) Vrijheid binnen de perken. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de inzet van voorwaardelijke vrijheidsstraffen. The Hague: WODC.
10.
BleichrodtE (1996) Onder voorwaarde: Een onderzoek naar de voorwaardelijke veroordeling en andere voorwaardelijke modaliteiten. Deventer: Gouda Quint.
11.
BleichrodtE (2009) De herontdekking van de bijzondere voorwaarde. Proces88(6): 304–313.
12.
BottomsAE (1995) The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In: ClarksonCMVMorganR (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform. Oxford: Clarendon, 17–50.
13.
BradfordBJacksonJHoughMFarrallS (2008) Trust and confidence in criminal justice: A review of the British research literature. In: JokinenARuuskanenEYordanovaMMarkovDIlchevaM (eds) Review of Need: Indicators of Public Confidence in Criminal Justice. Sofia, Bulgaria: Center for the Study of Democracy, 141–190.
CullenFTFisherBSApplegateBK (2000) Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research27: 1–79.
16.
De KeijserJW (2000) Punishment and Purpose: From Moral Theory to Punishment in Action. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.
17.
De KeijserJWElffersH (2009) Punitive public attitudes: A threat to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system? In: OswaldMEBieneckSHupfeld-HeinemannJ (eds) Social Psychology of Punishment of Crime. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 55–74.
18.
De KosterWVan der WaalJAchterbergPHoutmanD (2008) The rise of the penal state. Neo-liberalization or new political culture?British Journal of Criminology48(6): 720–734.
19.
DekkerPVan Der MeerT (2007) Vertrouwen in de rechtspraak nader onderzocht. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
20.
Directoraat-Generaal Preventie Jeugd en Sancties (2008) Maatregelen recidivireductie: Nadruk op nazorg. The Hague: Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.
21.
DurhamAM (1993) Public opinion regarding sentences for crime: Does it exist?Journal of Criminal Justice21(1): 1–11.
22.
ElffersHDe KeijserJW (2008) Different perspectives, different gaps: Does the general public demand a more responsive judge? In: KuryH (ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research (Crime and Crime Policy, vol. 3). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 447–470.
23.
ElffersHDe KeijserJWVan KoppenPJVan HaeringenL (2007) Newspaper juries. A field experiment concerning the effect of information on attitudes towards the criminal justice system. Journal of Experimental Criminology3: 163–182.
24.
FaulknerD (2005) Parties, politics and punishment. Criminal Justice Matters60(1): 6–39.
25.
FlanaganJT (1996) Community corrections in the public mind. Federal Probation60(3): 3–9.
26.
FreibergAMooreV (2009) Disbelieving suspense: Suspended sentences of imprisonment and public confidence in the criminal justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology42(1): 101–122.
27.
HoughM (1996) People talking about punishment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice35(3): 191–214.
28.
HoughMRobertsJV (1998) Attitudes to punishment: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study, vol. 179. London: Home Office.
29.
HoughMRobertsJV (1999) Sentencing trends in Britain: Public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment & Society1(1): 11–26.
IgnaziP (1992) The silent counter-revolution: Hypotheses on the emergence of extreme right-wing parties in Europe. European Journal of Political Research22: 3–34.
32.
JacobsMJGVan KalmthoutAMVon BerghMYW (2006) Toepassing van bijzondere voorwaarden bij voorwaardelijke vrijheidsstraf en schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis bij volwassenen. Tilburg, The Netherlands: IVA Beleidsonderzoek & Advies.
33.
LaverMBudgeJ (1992) Party Politics and Government Coalitions. London: Macmillan.
34.
LulhamRWeatherburnDBartelsL (2009) The Recidivism of Offenders Given Suspended Sentences: A Comparison with Full-time Imprisonment. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
35.
McCorkleRC (1993) Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime & Delinquency39(2): 240–252.
36.
MacKenzieGSpiranovicCWarnerKStobbsNGelbK. (2012) Sentencing and public confidence: Results from a national Australian survey on public opinion towards sentencing. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology45(1): 45–65.
37.
MarunaSKingA (2004) Public opinion and community penalties. In: BottomsTRexSRobinsonG (eds) Alternatives to Prison: Options for an Insecure Society. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
38.
MasciniPHoutmanD (2006) Rehabilitation and repression: Reassessing their ideological embeddedness. British Journal of Criminology46(5): 822–836.
39.
MatthewsR (2005) The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology9(2): 175–201.
40.
PayneBKGaineyRRTriplettRADannerMJE (2004) What drives punitive beliefs? Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice32(3): 195–206.
41.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers36(4): 717–731.
42.
RobertsJV (1992) Public opinion, crime and criminal justice. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research16: 99–180.
43.
RobertsJV (2002) Public opinion and the nature of community penalties: International findings. In: RobertsJVHoughH (eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, 33–62.
44.
RobertsJVHoughM (2002) Public attitudes to punishment: The context. In: RobertsJVHoughH (eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, 1–14.
45.
RobertsJVHoughM (2005) The state of the prisons: Exploring public knowledge and opinion. The Howard Journal44(3): 286–306.
46.
SandersTRobertsJV (2000) Public attitudes towards conditional sentencing: Results of a national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science32(4): 199–207.
47.
SchwartzIMGuoSKerbsJJ (1993) The impact of demographic variables on public opinion regarding juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. Crime & Delinquency39(1): 5–28.
48.
Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau (2009) De sociale staat van Nederland 2009. The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
49.
SundtJLCullenFTApplegateBKTurnerMG (1998) The tenacity of the rehabilitative ideal revisited: Have attitudes toward offender treatment changed?Criminal Justice and Behavior25(4): 426–442.
50.
ThomasDRRagonaAJ (1987) Popular moderation versus governmental authoritarianism: An interactionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions. Crime & Delinquency33(3): 337–357.
51.
TK 2007/08 24 587 no. 299.
52.
TK 2009/10 32 319 no. 3.
53.
TylerTR (2006) Why People Obey the Law. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Van der BrugW (1999) Voters’ perceptions and party dynamics. Party Politics5(2): 147–169.
56.
Van der EijkCNiemöllerB (1983) Electoral Change in the Netherlands: Empirical Results and Methods of Measurement. Amsterdam: CT-Press.
57.
Van der MeerTLubbeRVan ElsasEElffMVan der BrugW (2012) Bounded volatility in the Dutch electoral battlefield: A panel study on the structure of changing vote intentions in the Netherlands during 2006–2010. Acta Politica47: 333–355.
58.
Van GelderJLAartenPLametWVan der LaanP (2011) Unknown, unloved? Public opinion on and knowledge of suspended sentences in The Netherlands. Crime & Delinquency. doi: 10.1177/0011128711426537.
59.
Van KoppenPJ (2003) Verankering van rechtspraak: Over de wisselwerking tussen burger, politiek, justitie en rechter. Deventer: Kluwer.
60.
WansinkHA (2007) Tussen populisme en rechts-radicalisme. Overeenkomsten en verschillen tussen Leefbaren, de fortuynisten en Wilders. Justitiële Verkenningen33(2): 68–74.
