An investigation of factors influencing public opinion of property bias in Canadian Criminal Code maximum sentences

The Criminal Code of Canada (Code) provides many statutory maximum sentences (maxima) that are more severe for property offenses than for offenses against people. Past research has shown that, at least in the abstract, people consider offenses against the person as more serious and deserving of more severe sentences than property offenses. The present research investigated whether these results would be replicated when peoples' preferences were assessed under specific conditions. Participants (N = 181) read Code definitions and crime vignettes for 6 offenses that were varied according to locus (infernal versus external) and stability (stable versus unstable) of the cause of the offender's behavior and amount of harm to the victim (severe versus mild). Results demonstrated that offenses against people were considered more serious and deserving of more severe scenario sentences and maxima than property or white-collar offenses. Internal, stable, and severe harm conditions resulted in higher sentences seriousness ratings, and, somewhat less consistently maxima. Under no combination of conditions were preferred maxima greater for property or white-collar offenses than for offenses against people. Participants tended to underestimate property offense maxima and overestimate maxima for offenses against people. It is concluded that while the preferred length of maxima may change under different experimental conditions the relationship between person and property offense preferred maxima does not.