New research reveals public attitudes to sentence reductions in Scotland

The Scottish Sentencing Council has today published new research exploring public attitudes towards sentence reductions following guilty pleas in Scotland. The research reveals that the Scottish public holds nuanced views about reducing sentences for guilty pleas, with support varying significantly based on the crime type and timing of the plea. While many recognise potential benefits like cost savings and sparing victims from trials, there are concerns about maintaining appropriate punishment for serious offences.

The study, ‘Public attitudes to sentences following a guilty plea: Findings from a mixed methods research project’ was conducted by researchers from the University of Glasgow, University of Strathclyde, the Sentencing Academy and the University of Leeds, and combines focus group discussions with a representative national survey.

The study found that public support for sentence reductions increases when the benefits are explained. Survey results show 35% are in support when the benefits are outlined, compared to 27% when there is no explanation. However, support varies by offence type, with 51% backing reductions for non-violent crimes like fraud, dropping to 41% for violent offences. Findings also included a unanimous preference among focus group participants for the term 'sentence reduction' over 'sentence discount', with the latter viewed as not always reflecting the significance of criminal proceedings.

While public views of sentencing are complex, many respondents highlighted concerns about transparency in sentencing and that it was not always clear how sentences are calculated and implemented. This illustrates a need for greater transparency of information about sentencing to be available.

The Council will consider these findings as it develops guidelines on guilty plea sentence reductions in Scotland.