A total of 181 participants completed attitude measures for both mandatory sentencing and capital punishment, a right-wing authoritarianism scale, and a scale concerned with sentencing goals (retribution, deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation). Hypothetical scenarios were presented that took one of four forms depending on whether the theft of personal property was committed by a White Australian or by an Aboriginal Australian and whether it was the perpetrator’s first offense or the third offense. The results showed that participants’ responses to the scenario items were strongly influenced by their attitudes toward mandatory sentencing. As predicted, participants that favored mandatory sentencing differed from those that opposed it over a wide range of variables. They perceived the offender as more responsible for the offense and as more deserving of the penalty; judged the offense to be more serious and agreed more with the verdict; and perceived the penalty as fairer and more lenient. They reported more anger about the offense, less anger about the penalty, less sympathy for the offender, and a greater feeling of shame; and they recommended a longer prison sentence as appropriate for the offense. There was no evidence to suggest that participants were more negative in their responses to the Aboriginal Australian offender when compared with the White Australian offender. In fact, participants indicated a general sympathy for the Aboriginal Australian across a number of variables. The results showed a limited number of effects of criminal history, and imply that participants were more concerned about an offender that was starting off on a possible life of crime when compared with a repeat offender that deserved less sympathy. Results show that attitudes toward mandatory sentencing were associated with right-wing authoritarianism and with sentencing strategies that emphasized deterrence and the protection of society. 65 references