Punishment after Life: How Attitudes about Longer-than-Life Sentences Expose the Rules of Retribution

Abstract

Prison sentences that exceed the natural lifespan present a puzzle because they have no more power to deter or incapacitate than a single life sentence. In three survey experiments, we tested the extent to which participants support these longer-than-life sentences under different decision contexts. In Experiment 1, 130 undergraduates made hypothetical prison sentence-length recommendations for a serious criminal offender, warranting two sentences to be served either concurrently or consecutively. Using a nationally representative sample (N = 182) and an undergraduate pilot sample (N = 260), participants in Experiments 2 and 3 voted on a hypothetical ballot measure to either allow or prohibit the use of consecutive life sentences. Results from all experiments revealed that, compared to concurrent life sentences participants supported the use of consecutive life sentences for serious offenders. In addition, they adjusted these posthumous years in response to mitigating factors in a manner that was indistinguishable from ordinary sentences (Experiment 1), and their support for consecutive life sentencing policies persisted, regardless of the default choice and whether the policy was costly to implement (Experiments 2 and 3). These judgment patterns were most consistent with retributive punishment heuristics and have implications for sentencing policy and for theories of punishment behavior.

Keywords

• punishment
• criminal sentencing
• retribution
• heuristics
• life sentence
• judgment