The belief of some judges that the courts' main duty in sentencing is to lead public opinion implies that the choice of sentence influences public approval or disapproval of law-breaking. To test this, 1,055 parents in three English towns were interviewed. Since it is only through the news media that the public can be influenced by sentence, the study asked about subjects' recollections of reports of criminal trials. Only 39 percent could recall a single sentence, and only 13 percent could recall two sentences. In the experimental part of the interview, respondents saw five specially designed newspaper cuttings describing criminal incidents, but not mentioning the courts' sentences. Respondents fell randomly into one of four subsamples, so that after studying each cutting they were given different information about the type of sentence, the judge's view, or the degree of disapproval of their peers. They then indicated, on a seven-point verbal scale, how much they themselves disapproved of what the offender did. Thus, even respondents on whom newspaper reports of sentences made little or no impression had to take note of the sentence. Results showed that information about the type of sentence or the judge's view of the offense did not influence enough respondents to produce a significant difference in mean disapproval scores; telling respondents about the disapproval level of their peers influenced them only when the newspaper cutting involved a morally ambiguous incident. By contrast, when asked how much they disapproved of seatbelt offenses, respondents mean disapproval levels indicated that they disapproved more strongly when it became an offense, rather than at the moment of decision. Five tables, 21 notes, and 8 references are included. The appendixes include examples of research materials and an extract from an interview schedule. (Author summary modified)