Public attitudes to sentencing following a guilty plea – Research findings

Guest blog from Dr Jay Gormley, Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, School of Law and Professor Cyrus Tata, Professor of Law and Criminal Justice at the Law School, University of Strathclyde.

A court is required, under section 196 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, to consider the fact of a guilty plea when passing a sentence. Based on reported cases, (focusing on cases which are appealed), the maximum permitted sentence reduction is normally up to one-third for pleas of guilty at the earliest opportunity. Given that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases result in a guilty plea at some stage, this statutory provision, and the associated case law, can have a significant impact.

Research commissioned by the Scottish Sentencing Council explores public knowledge and perceptions of the relationship between sentencing and the type of plea (‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’).

Our mixed-methods research project included focus groups and a quantitative survey.

This blog highlights key findings in our research report [link to www.scottishsentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/2noixozi/sentence-discounting-public-attitudes.pdf].

What does the public think?

The public was nuanced and reflective about the advantages and disadvantages of reducing a sentence because of a guilty plea. Given that sentence reductions (also known as ‘discounts’) potentially apply to all offences where there is a plea of guilty, a broad range of principles and purposes of sentencing may be relevant. Indeed, the diversity of crimes and conduct covered can range from relatively minor to extremely serious. 

Key findings from our research include:

• The focus groups explored views on the aims of sentencing commensurate with those in the sentencing guideline on the Principles and Purposes of Sentencing. The public highlighted cost savings as the key reason they felt the justice system offered guilty plea discounts.
• Sparing victims what might be the ordeal of a trial was perceived as a compelling reason to discount a sentence in appropriate cases. Several felt sparing victims was more important than saving costs, which they tended to believe was the reason for sentence reductions. However, it was also noted that what victims want or need can sometimes be complex, and that some victims may wish to give evidence and be heard in court.
• We asked members of the public whether pleading guilty or not guilty should make a difference to the sentence passed, and if so, how. 56% said it should make no difference. 30% favoured making the sentence more lenient, while 5% thought it should make the sentence tougher. 9% responded ‘don’t know’.
• In focus groups we sought to test whether providing a short explanation of the official reasons for changing sentences because of the plea would make a difference. We did this by asking some survey respondents about their preference after we had provided a brief explanation of the legal justifications for reducing the sentence because of a guilty plea. Providing this information did indeed appear to have an impact and views for and against were more evenly split among the groups given information (35% in favour as opposed to 33% against).  
• There was broad consensus that, if a sentence is to be discounted, then earlier guilty pleas should attract greater discounts than later guilty pleas. This view is in line with current case law. 
• Just under half (43%) of the public estimated the typical discount to be less than 20%, while approximately 60% provided an estimate under 30%. It is worth noting that a sizeable proportion (one quarter) of the sample responded ‘don’t know’. Regrettably, it is not possible to compare public estimates of the typical or average guilty plea reduction in Scotland with the reality of typical or average first-instance sentencing practices because the latter is not presently available in official statistics.
• Focus group participants reflected upon the terminology that might be used and, specifically, whether the terms ‘discount’ or ‘reduction’ should be used. Overall, there was a strong preference for the term ‘sentence reduction’ rather than the term ‘sentence discount’, and it was felt that ‘reduction’ more appropriately communicated the purposes underlying section 196. 

What are the public’s key concerns?

While sentence reductions can achieve desirable ends, a key concern was that the seriousness of an offence should be marked and that a reduction could undermine this. There was also debate over how large sentence reductions could be and what they should be. Many linked sentence reductions to prison release provisions and raised questions about a perceived lack of transparency in sentences.

Going forward

The public views sentences as playing an important role in justice, which sentence reductions have the potential to both aid and hinder. However, there was sometimes a lack of knowledge about what sentences are in fact imposed in Scotland and, thus, how the seriousness of an offence is marked and offenders held accountable. 

In addition, the research with the public also underlines the need for better data about the reality of patterns of sentencing in different kinds of cases. This higher-quality data about the reality of sentencing patterns could then be shared with the public to promote knowledge of and confidence in sentencing.

The development and publication of a sentencing guideline, therefore, offers an opportunity to explore these topics. The requirement on the Council to prepare impact assessments when preparing a guideline can assist in enhancing the level of information available about sentencing.  And the guideline itself can help to explain, in a more accessible way than before, how sentence reductions are applied, the legitimate aims they can serve, and how sentences can nonetheless do justice.