Past research has examined individuals’ attitudes about different aspects of punishment. An underlying theme to most of these studies was that a better understanding of citizens’ attitudes towards the punishment of offenders helps criminologists to better understand society in general. This study linked together past research on punishment attitudes by addressing three primary questions. First, how punitive are citizens and to what extent do they support various sanctions? Second, what factors influence individuals’ attitudes toward punishment? Lastly, do the factors that influence attitudes towards punishment differ across race and gender? The study was conducted in the State of Virginia utilizing a sample of Virginia residents. Five offenses were examined to measure the respondents’ attitudes toward punishment or sentencing severity: (1) an offender sells 200 pounds of marijuana; (2) an offender sells just over 2 pounds of a substance containing a detectable amount of heroin; (3) a legally intoxicated individual crashes a car and a passenger is killed; (4) a manufacturer violates occupational safety and health standards causing the death of an employee; and (5) a legal gun dealer sells a gun to a high school student. The findings indicate that the public could be best characterized as mixed, but it was clear that the public was not primarily retributive and the majority of the sample did not support life imprisonment for drug possession with intent to distribute. There were important demographic differences which varied across situations but none were terribly strong predictors of attitudes toward punishment. Punishment justifications were strongly related to sentencing severity, especially for the drug-related situations. While the overall models did not differ much across gender or race, the effect of the general deterrence justification was much stronger among females and African-Americans and was nonexistent among males and Whites. Study implications and limitations are presented and discussed. References