Data came from interviews with 299 residents of Montreal, Quebec in November 1984 and from interviews with 235 judges, attorneys, and probation officers in Montreal's criminal courts in June 1985. Results revealed that court personnel hold significantly less punitive views than the public. This underpunishing bias cannot be explained in terms of differential assessments of perceived crime seriousness the sociodemographic backgrounds of participants, or the presumed irrationality of public opinion. Instead, the crucial factors are that the two sets of respondents differ significantly in the amount of responsibility they attribute to offenders and in how certain they are of achieving their normative goals. Based on cognitive attribution research as well as equity theory, results indicate that the discrepancy in sentencing preferences is intrinsically linked to the participants' cognitive status as actors and observers of just deserts. Tables, notes, and 51 references (Author abstract modified)