Do moral intuitions influence judges' sentencing decisions? A multilevel study of criminal court sentencing in Pennsylvania.

The influence of judges' personal moral values on their sentencing decisions is of longstanding interest to researchers and the public. Few studies, however, have examined this influence empirically. Using a unique data set that combines a survey of 81 criminal court judges with archival data on their 40,385 criminal sentences over a 2-year period, and drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, we hypothesize that judges with strong care and fairness intuitions will sentence defendants less severely while judges with strong loyalty, authority, and sanctity intuitions will sentence defendants more severely. We further hypothesize that these effects will be heightened when the defendant is from a racial minority group. Results show that sentencing outcomes are largely independent of judges' moral intuitions, except that fairness intuitions tend to increase leniency, especially when the defendant is Black, and sanctity intuitions tend to decrease leniency. Implications for future research on sentencing are discussed.

Is compassion the flip side of punitiveness? Incorporating COVID-19 crisis in experimental vignettes to examine support for visitation and vaccination in prison.

Objectives: The public hold both punitive and pragmatic attitudes toward prison policy. Yet it is unclear whether the public supports compassionate efforts that do not directly relate to recidivism. This study explores the role of exclusionary symbolic aims (prioritizing non-prisoner groups), inclusionary symbolic aims (minimizing health risk for the vulnerable), and cost (taxes). Methods: Using a quota-based national sample fielded in spring 2021 (N=1260), we embedded two experimental vignettes to assess support for vaccination priorities and personal protective equipment (PPE) for in-person visitation. We also examine respondent experiences (e.g., exposure to COVID-19, vaccine status, personal or vicarious arrest) and beliefs (e.g., political ideology, racial resentment, stigma). Results: Consistent with dominant exclusionary symbolic aims, respondents showed strong preferences for non-prisoner groups in facilitating safe in-person visits (in long-term care facilities) and vaccine priorities (to prison guards). Inclusionary symbolic aims were less clear when examining risk from vaccine side effects or helping vulnerable populations (the elderly). High cost reduced support for compassionate policy. Conclusions: Public support for policies aimed at maintaining the health of individuals who are incarcerated may be motivated by similar factors as punishment preferences. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11292-022-09523-z.

Why Men (Don't) Buy Sex: Purity Moralization and Perceived Harm as Constraints on Prostitution Offending.

This study explores the moralization of purity and perceptions of harm as constraints on sex buying among men. Purchasing sex has long been considered an offense against public morality. While personal morality provides a powerful constraint on offending, and people may vary in the extent to which they experience moral intuitions about bodily and spiritual purity, research has so far neglected the role of purity moralization in understanding sex buying behavior. We hypothesize specifically that moral intuitions about purity constrain sex buying by leading people to perceive it as inherently wrong and by eliciting perceptions that sex buying is harmful to prostitutes. We test these hypotheses in a nationally representative survey of U.S. men (N = 2,525). Results indicate that purity moralization is associated with reduced sex buying, and that this relationship is mediated fully by perceptions of sex buying as harming prostitutes.