ALL OFFENSES USED IN THE STUDY PERTAINED TO FOOD. A SAMPLE OF 205 CONSUMERS WAS ASKED TO JUDGE 6 SELECTED CASES, NOT IN TERMS OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE, BUT IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WOULD TREAT, OR MORE LIKELY PUNISH, THE OFFENDER IN THE CASES. THE CONSUMERS' RESPONSES WERE COMPARED WITH ACTUAL DECISIONS IN THE CASES AND WITH POSSIBLE DECISIONS PROVIDED IN THE FEDERAL LAW. THE GENERAL HYPOTHESIS UNDERLYING THE RESEARCH WAS THAT CONSUMER JUDGMENTS WOULD BE MORE SEVERE THAN ACTUAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS AND WOULD, IN FACT, APPROXIMATE PUNISHMENTS METED OUT FOR MORE CONVENTIONAL OFFENSES SUCH AS LARCENY OR BURGLARY. AN ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES REVEALED THAT 78 PERCENT FELT THAT PENALTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SEVERE THAN THE ACTUAL COURT DECISIONS AND YET FALL WITHIN THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES PROVIDED BY THE FEDERAL LAW. ALMOST 20 PERCENT FELT THAT THE VIOLATORS SHOULD RECEIVE A PRISON TERM LONGER THAN A YEAR, WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH EXISTING LEGISLATION. CONSUMERS REACTED TO VIOLATIONS WITHOUT REGARD FOR THEIR CLASS POSITION OR THE TYPE OF CASE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...ELW