This article examines jurors’ views on sentencing from trials returning guilty verdicts where the offender has been sentenced to a wholly suspended sentence or where jurors have suggested a wholly suspended sentence as the most appropriate sentencing outcome. It challenges the poor public image of suspended sentences and provides further evidence that informed judgement on sentencing issues reveals a public that is not as punitive as is commonly portrayed. However, rather than claiming that the findings support the intrinsic worth of wholly suspended sentences, it is suggested that they indicate a desire to avoid immediate prison sentences in many cases. In other words it shows there is considerable support for non-custodial options in the kinds of cases that attract wholly suspended sentences, even in the case of some crimes of violence.