Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

Society as emergent and more than rational: An essay on the inappropriateness of program evaluation

In considering the efficacy of program evaluation researchers have not put language in proper perspective. They have not acknowledged that information gained from applied research is partly determined by situational factors, that language is selective and goal-oriented, justifying activity as often as it describes it, or that some important action cannot be expressed. The importance of language distinguishes applied social assessment from the natural science models of research from which it was derived. Examples from a wide range of applied situations are used to illustrate that, as an anticedent-consequent model of objective quantified assessment, evaluation is also inconsistent with the complex, resourceful, emergent social processes it is intended to measure. Three alternatives to quantification are discussed to illustrate interventions that may be made when the disadvantages of program evaluation outweigh the advantages.Preparation of the paper was supported by National Institute of Mental Health post-doctoral training grant 5T222-MH00180. Comments and requests for reprints should be sent to Nancy Cochran, Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, State of Illinois, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago. Illinois 6061.     

Structural anomie and crime: a cross-national test

Anomie is a highly prominent theoretical construct in macro-social, particularly cross-national, criminological inquiry. Yet despite its prominence, it has proven to be quite elusive with regard to its measurement and, hence, making it nearly impossible to test theoretical hypotheses regarding its predictive efficacy. Although the concept, whether derived from Merton's classic conceptualization or from its current incarnation in the form of institutional anomie as developed by Messner and Rosenfeld, is multidimensional and complex in its theoretical structure, most researchers have attempted to operationalize it through simple, single-item, often surrogate/proxy measures. The present research note attempts to develop a measure that is more consistent with its multidimensional and complex nature. This more complex operationalization is then examined with regard to its efficacy at predicting cross-national levels of both homicide and theft. Our results suggest that that this new operationalization has considerable predictive efficacy, accounting for approximately one third of the variation in the cross-national level of both homicide and theft.     

Social learning and self-control: assessing the moderating potential of criminal propensity

Social learning theory is one of the most prominent general theories of crime. Yet recent research has called into question its applicability to all offenders. Specifically, the influence of antisocial peers has been found to exert a stronger effect among those individuals evincing higher levels of criminal propensity (deemed social amplification), whereas other components of the theory have either not been shown to interact with criminal propensity or not been tested. This study examines several social learning theory components to determine whether its influence is dependent on an individual's level of self-control. Results suggest little support for the social amplification hypothesis as the components of social learning theory were found to operate similarly across individuals regardless one's level of self-control. Implications for criminological theory are discussed.     

Examining Prison Effects on Recidivism: A Regression Discontinuity Approach

The “get-tough” era of punishment led to exponential growth in the rate of incarceration in the United States. Recent reviews of the literature indicate, however, that limited rigorous research exists examining the effect of imprisonment on the likelihood of future offending. As a result, scholars have called for assessment of this relationship, while using methodologies that can better account for selection effects. This study addresses these calls directly by applying regression discontinuity, a methodology well suited to account for selection bias, on a cohort of felony offenders in Florida. Results suggest that prison, as compared to non-incarcerative sanctions, has no appreciable impact on recidivism. Although no differential effects surfaced across race/ethnicity, the analyses indicated that imprisonment exerts a differential effect by gender with the effect being more criminogenic among males than females.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

Solitary Confinement as Punishment: Examining In-Prison Sanctioning Disparities

Drawing on prior sentencing and prison scholarship, this study examines the use of solitary confinement as a form of punishment. Specifically, it assesses whether, given a prison infraction, minority inmates—and young, male, minority inmates in particular—are more likely to be placed in solitary and to be placed in it for longer durations. Multilevel regression analyses of state prison data suggest little support for the hypothesis that minority males, or young minority, males, are sanctioned more harshly than other inmates. The analyses identify, however, that males are more likely than females to be placed in solitary as a form of disciplinary punishment and that younger females are more likely to be placed in it than older females. The findings highlight that age and sex may interact to influence punishment decisions and raise questions about the precise roles of race and ethnicity in affecting punishment decisions. Implications of the findings for theory, research, and policy are discussed.     

Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research

Purpose

Scholarship suggests that prison visitation is important because it allows inmates access to social ties that, in turn, can offset social isolation and help inmates cope with the transition back into society upon release. Only a small number of empirical assessments of visitation exist, however, and existing studies have typically overlooked how the heterogeneity inherent in visitation may influence whether visitation is beneficial, harmful, or has no effect. The goal of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework for theorizing this heterogeneity and its impacts, evaluating visitation research, and guiding future research aimed at estimating visitation effects.

Methods

The paper reviews theory and research on inmate visitation. In so doing, it systematically examines heterogeneity in visitation and the implications of this heterogeneity.

Results

The paper identifies five dimensions—visitation timing, longitudinal patterns in visitation, visitor type, visitation experiences, and inmate characteristics—that can be used to characterize visitation events or patterns that, themselves, may have varied effects on in-prison outcomes and reentry outcomes.

Conclusions

More nuanced theories of, and empirical research on, inmate visitation are needed both to understand better the implications of visitation, and inmate social ties more broadly, and to advance theory, research, and policy.