Punitive reactions to completed crimes versus accidentally uncompleted crimes

Previous studies have shown that the harm caused by crime affects punitive reactions even if differences in the degree of harm are merely accidental. However, it remains unclear whether the effect is direct or whether it is mediated by attributed responsibility or blame. Participants were 303 university students who listened to 4 case vignettes (between-subjects design). Half received information about a completed crime and half about an accidentally uncompleted crime. Crime type was either fraud or rape. The results suggest that individuals consider the actual harm to a significantly greater extent than attribution theory would predict. Moreover, the link between harm and punishment was virtually not mediated by attributed blame and not moderated by individual differences in morality. Future studies should investigate whether the harm-punishment link is a result of an automatic act of retaliation or a desire to compensate for the harm done to the victim (restorative justice).

Mikro- versus Makroperspektive der retributiven Gerechtigkeit, Strafziele und die Forderung nach Strafe

Wie Personen auf Straftaten reagieren und welche Strafziele sie dabei verfolgen, war bisher kaum Gegenstand psychologischer Forschung. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird die dimensionale Struktur der Präferenz von Strafzielen untersucht. In zwei Befragungen wurden juristischen Laien Fallgeschichten zur Beurteilung vorgelegt (Raubüberfall, Körperverletzung, Betrug, Vergewaltigung). Die multivariaten Auswertungen weisen eine hohe Übereinstimmung auf: Strafziele lassen sich durch die zwei voneinander unabhängigen Dimensionen Strafhärte und Mikro- versus Makroperspektive klassifizieren. Wird eine Makroperspektive eingenommen, so ist dies mit einer stärkeren Gewichtung von Gesellschaftsinteressen verbunden sowie mit der Präferenz für das Strafziel der positiven Generalprävention. Die Mikroperspektive ist hingegen mit der Überzeugung verbunden, dass Gerechtigkeit insbesondere aus der Perspektive der konkret Beteiligten herzustellen ist. Je nach geforderter Strafhärte geht die Mikroperspektive mit einem Bias entweder für das Opfer und das Strafziel der Vergeltung oder aber für den Täter und das Strafziel der Resozialisierung einher.

Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings

It is conceivable that criminal proceedings cause psychological harm to the crime victims involved, that is, cause secondary victimization. To investigate this hypothesis, negative and positive effects of criminal proceedings were investigated, as perceived by 137 victims of violent crimes who were involved in trials several years previously. Trial outcome and procedure variables were measured as potential causes of secondary victimization. Results show a high proportion of victims reporting overall negative effects. Powerful predictors were outcome satisfaction and procedural justice, but not subjective punishment severity, interactional justice, and psychological stress by criminal proceedings. The practical implications of the results pertain to whether victims should be advised to report the crime to the police or not, and to appropriate prevention and intervention measures of secondary victimization by criminal proceedings.

The Madras Presidency’s Prisons and the British Empire, 1820s–1850s

This paper is based on the observation that projects to reform prisons in British India in the first half of the 19th century were remarkably parallel to those in Britain and other colonies of the British Empire. Therefore, it will be asked to what extent local discussions about imprisonment in India were connected to developments in the metropole, in other parts of the empire, and elsewhere in the colony and how such imperial connections influenced local practices. Recent studies on colonial India’s prisons have focused on the British possessions in north India, whereas the Madras Presidency’s penal history is as of yet mostly unstudied. The paper will look on two initiatives of prison reform undertaken by the Madras Government; firstly, an inquiry made in the 1820s to combat the high mortality in the jails, and secondly, attempts throughout the 1840s and 1850s to construct a penitentiary along the lines of penal systems in other parts of India and the British Empire. The two case studies promise insights into the body of knowledge about punishment that was accumulated in British India, its entanglement with debates in other parts of the empire, and the emergence of ‘imperial standards’ of imprisonment in the course of the 19th century.