Public support for the courts: An examination of alternative explanations

Abstract

Public opinion surveys consistently show that there are generally high levels of support for the court system. While there exists general public support for the courts, the most often heard criticism is that the courts are too lenient. The purpose of this study is to describe public attitudes toward the courts and examine a number of explanations of public support for, or against, the courts. The article examines five hypotheses: (1) respondents who are pro-punishment would not be supportive of the courts; (2) respondents who are supportive of the police and the correctional system would be supportive of the courts; (3) respondents who are supportive of the police would not be supportive of the courts; (4) respondents who identify themselves as conservative would not be supportive of the courts; and (5) respondents who express fear and/or concern about crime, and/or who have experienced victimization would not be supportive of the courts. It is found that members of the public express diffuse support for the courts, but criticism center around court leniency and plea bargaining. At least partial support is found for all five hypotheses with support for strong punitive sanctions the best predictor of attitudes toward the courts.