DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03988.v1
title: Measuring Perceptions of Appropriate Prison Sentences in the United States, 2000
title: Version 1

description: This study examined the public's preferences regarding
 sentencing and parole of criminal offenders. It also investigated the
 public's willingness to pay for particular crime prevention and
 control strategies and tested new methods for gathering this kind of
 information from the public. This involved asking the public to
 respond to a series of crime vignettes that involved constrained
 choice. The study consisted of a telephone survey of 1,300 adult
 respondents conducted in 2000 in the United States. Following a review
 by a panel of experts and extensive pretesting, the final instrument
 was programmed for computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). The
 questionnaire specifically focused on: (1) the attitudes of the public
 on issues such as the number of police on the street, civil rights of
 minority groups, and the legal rights of people accused of serious
 crimes, (2) the randomized evaluation of preferred sentencing
 alternatives for eight different crime scenarios, (3) making parole
 decisions in a constrained choice setting by assuming that there is
 only enough space for one of two offenders, (4) the underlying factors
 that motivate the public's parole decisions, and (5) respondents'
willingness to pay for various crime prevention strategies.
description: This study examined the public's preferences
 regarding sentencing and parole of criminal offenders. It also
 investigated the public's willingness to pay for particular crime
 prevention and control strategies and tested new methods for gathering
 this kind of information from the public. The study's methodology was
 based on that used by Wolfgang et al. (1985) and others, in which a
 sample of the United States public was asked to react to a series of
 crime vignettes. However, this study made a number of modifications to
 those vignettes. With regards to gathering information on the public's
 preferences toward sentencing and parole of criminal offenders, these
 changes were to: (1) focus on crimes normally encountered by local
 criminal justice agencies, such as burglary, robbery, and assault and
 (2) place the parole decision in a constrained choice setting by
 asking respondents to assume that there was only enough space for one
 of two offenders and one had to be let go. With regards to collecting
 information on the public's willingness to pay for crime prevention
 and control, the study's changes were to: (1) use paired comparisons
 in a constrained choice setting where, for example, respondents were
 asked to choose between the expansion of alternative crime prevention
 programs and a tax rebate and (2) elicit information on respondents'
 willingness to pay out of their own pockets for crime reduction
strategies.
description: The study consisted of a telephone survey of 1,300
 adult respondents conducted from May 16, 2000, to August 8, 2000, in
 the United States. After conducting a literature review, an initial
 draft questionnaire was prepared and sent to a panel of experts. The
 questionnaire was also subjected to a thorough pretest, which included
 focus groups and cognitive testing. Three focus groups were held to
 observe participants' reactions to the first draft of the
 questionnaire and to obtain feedback on how to create a more effective
 interview. Focus group participants were screened to obtain a
 cross-section of the general population. Participants were asked
 questions that assessed their ability to comprehend the crime
 scenarios included in the instrument and their ability to make an
 informed judgment about sanctions. After extensive revisions of the
 instrument based on the feedback from the focus groups, 11 cognitive
 interviews were conducted. These interviews allowed researchers to
 test the structure and content of the questionnaire on a one-on-one
 basis with respondents. During a cognitive interview respondents were
 asked to "think aloud" while determining how to answer questions. This
 allowed researchers to uncover how respondents interpreted questions.
 The final stage of survey development was to pretest the revised
 instrument with live telephone interviews. A total of 11 interviews
 were completed with an average length of 27.5 minutes. Modifications
 were then made, primarily to shorten the length of the interview. The
 final survey was programmed for computer-assisted telephone
 interviews (CATI). This approach allowed for complex branches, single
 and multiple responses, open-ended text answers, and random rotation
 of text insertions for the vignettes. It also reduced the frequency of
 invalid data by not permitting answers that were outside the scope of
 the options provided in the question. The interviews were conducted by
 the Social and Policy Division of Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc.
 Training sessions were held to familiarize the interviewers with the
 study and to teach refusal avoidance techniques. A number of quality
 control measures were in place during the interviewing process to
 ensure the accuracy of the data. These measures included the CATI
 system, issuing daily production reports, reviewing interim
frequencies, floor supervision, and monitoring interviews.
description: All seven parts of the dataset include a case
 identification variable that can be used to link the different
 parts. Part 1 and Parts 3-7 contain a weight variable. Variables in
 Part 1 include the actual responses to all of the items on the
 questionnaire. Additional variables are also provided that indicate
 which of several possible scenarios were read to the respondent in
 certain sections of the survey. In Section A, Preliminary Background
 Information, respondents were asked about their views on issues such
 as the number of police on the street, availability of programs
 designed to get people off drugs, civil rights of minority groups in
 the United States, and legal rights of people accused of serious
 crimes. In Section B, Test Screener, respondents were presented with
 two randomly-selected scenarios describing an individual convicted of
 certain crimes and were asked what the man's sentence should be in
 both scenarios. In Part 1, Imprisonment Decisions, respondents were
 presented with three sets of two scenarios out of a stock of eight
 possible scenarios. Each scenario described an individual who was
 convicted of certain crimes and received a specified prison sentence.
 Respondents were asked to compare the individuals described in each
 pair of scenarios and decide which of the two should be released from
 prison based on certain budget and prison capacity constraints. In
 Part 2, Criminal Response Decisions, respondents were presented with
 two more scenarios out of the main stock of eight and were asked what
 they considered appropriate punishments to be for the individuals in
 the scenarios, including type of sentence, length of sentence, whether
 a fine should be paid, how large the fine should be, whether the
 sentence should be reduced if a fine were paid and by how much, and
 who should receive the fine. In Part 3, Crime Prevention Decisions,
 respondents were asked to put themselves in the shoes of their local
 mayor and asked to suppose that the federal government had just given
 their city either 100 or 1,000 dollars per household. Respondents were
 given the option of giving it to local residents or spending it on
 more prisons, more drug and alcohol treatment programs for offenders
 convicted of nonviolent crimes, more police on the street, or more
 prevention programs to help keep youth out of trouble. Respondents
 were allowed to divide the money in any way they wanted among these
 five options. In Part 4, How Much Would You Be Willing to Pay?,
 respondents were asked a series of questions on whether they would be
 willing to pay certain randomly selected amounts of money out of their
 own pockets to reduce certain crimes. Respondents were then asked a
 series of questions on their own history of victimization and
 experiences with the criminal justice system. Respondents also
 supplied demographic information. Parts 2-7 of the dataset contain
 variables that were derived from the variables in Part 1. The primary
 difference between the data in Parts 2-7 and Part 1 is that Parts 2-7
 do not contain a variable for every question that was asked. Instead,
 Parts 2-7 contain one variable for every possible scenario, which
 means that for every question in the survey instrument there could be
 several corresponding variables in Parts 2-7. Part 8 contains verbatim
responses to open-ended survey items.
description: Response Rates: Out of the random-digit dial sample of 4,966 phone
 numbers, a total of 1,300 interviews were completed, a 43 percent
response rate.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: A random-digit dial (RDD) sample, Type B, of 4,966 phone
 numbers in the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, was
 obtained from Survey Sampling, Inc. The sample was produced by
 selecting randomly generated telephone numbers in proportion to the
 number of listed telephone numbers in each working telephone block. A
 block is a contiguous set of 100 telephone numbers within an active
 telephone area code and exchange combination, such as 555-555-3300 to
 555-555-3399. This type of sample yields high efficiency, with the
 chance of selecting working numbers ranging between 55 percent and 75
 percent, in contrast to the 24-percent chance of selecting a working
 number with a pure random-digit sample. Although a potential for bias
 could exist with the Random Digit B sample, no actual bias has been
 encountered. In an effort to select a representative sample of adults
 within each household, the last birthday method of screening was
 used. Upon contacting a potential respondent, interviewers asked to
 speak with the adult in the household over 18 who had had the most
 recent birthday. If the selected person was not available, the
 interviewer arranged a callback, for a specific date and time if
 possible, to speak with the eligible person. Once an eligible
 respondent had been identified in a specific household, there could
never be a substitution.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Data From Survey
DS2: Created Variables - Section B Data
DS3: Created Variables -- Part 1 Data
DS4: Created Variables -- Part 2 Data
DS5: Created Variables -- Part 3 Data
DS6: Created Variables -- Part 4 Data
DS7: Created Variables -- Demographic Data
DS8: Verbatim Responses
description: Adults 18 and over living in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: state
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instrument are provided by ICPSR as separate Portable Document Format
 (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems
 Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as
 the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.