TOWARD A NATIONAL ESTIMATE OF POLICE USE OF NONLETHAL FORCE*

Research Summary Despite frequent calls for national data on police use of force, the literature is dominated by unrepresentative samples from a small number of primarily urban jurisdictions, inconsistent definitions of force, and differing universes for the computation of rates. Among 36 publications that report on the amount of nonlethal force used by the police, rates vary from 0.1% to 31.8%. To improve our ability to estimate the amount of nonlethal force in the United States, we employ data from two sources: the Police‐Public Contact Survey (PPCS) and the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ). Using comparable measures from these surveys, we estimate that the police use or threaten to use force in 1.7% of all contacts and in 20.0% of all arrests. The PPCS accounts for 87% of the total force incidents derived from both surveys. Males, youths, and racial minorities report greater rates of police use of force, but multivariate models highlight the role of potentially provoking behaviors on the likelihood and severity of force. Policy Implications Improved estimates from the combined PPCS‐SILJ samples support the proposition that police use force infrequently and at the lower end of the severity scale. Reported amounts of force vary based on respondent race, sex, and age, but greater variation in police use of force is explained by suspect behavior. The combined PPCS‐SILJ sample provides a more representative basis for estimating the rate and correlates of nonlethal force. State and local estimates from less representative samples can be interpreted in light of these findings. National estimates could be improved by devoting sufficient resources to support the collection of agency records of both lethal and nonlethal force.     

ETHNIC THREAT AND SOCIAL CONTROL: EXAMINING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR JUDICIAL USE OF ETHNICITY IN PUNISHMENT*

Research on social inequality in punishment has focused for a long time on the complex relationship among race, ethnicity, and criminal sentencing, with a particular interest in the theoretical importance that group threat plays in the exercise of social control in society. Prior research typically relies on aggregate measures of group threat and focuses on racial rather than on ethnic group composition. The current study uses data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. residents to investigate the influence of more proximate and diverse measures of ethnic group threat, examining public support for the judicial use of ethnic considerations in sentencing. Findings indicate that both aggregate and perceptual measures of threat influence popular support for ethnic disparity in punishment and that individual perceptions of criminal and economic threat are particularly important. Moreover, we find that perceived threat is conditioned by aggregate group threat contexts. Findings are discussed in relation to the growing Hispanic population in the rapidly changing demographic structure of U.S. society.     

PRIVATIZING PUNISHMENT: TESTING THEORIES OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE PRISON AND IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES

The transfer of authority over the supervision of inmate populations from state and federal governments to private corporations is one of the most significant contemporary developments in the criminal justice system. Yet, the controversy surrounding the private prison industry has occurred in U.S. criminal justice policy circles without any understanding of the public's preferences toward these institutions. In this article, we test several theories that potentially explain opinions toward privatizing carceral institutions: the racial animus, business is better, conflict of interest, and problem‐escalation models. These models are tested with original data from the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. The data show that opinions toward the privatization of carceral institutions do not neatly fall along partisan or ideological divisions but are explained by beliefs about racial resentment, corporate ethics, and the potential ability of private companies to provide services cheaper than the public sphere. The results hold important implications for how we understand the future of private carceral institutions in the United States.     

RACIAL–ETHNIC INTOLERANCE AND SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON*

This article tests cross-nationally the minority group threat thesis that public sentiments toward repressive crime-control policies reflect conflicted racial and ethnic relations. Using multiple data sets representing France, Belgium, the Netherlands, East and West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Great Britain, Greece, Spain, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Canada, Ireland, and Portugal, we examine whether racial and ethnic intolerance—animus, resentments, or negative sentiments toward minorities—predicts greater support for the death penalty. Our results reveal that the respondents were significantly more likely to express support for capital punishment if they were racially or ethnically intolerant while controlling for other covariates of public opinion. These findings indicate that the link between support for capital punishment and racial and ethnic animus may occur universally in countries with conflicted racial and ethnic relations.     

IMAGES OF GOD AND PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: DOES A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH A LOVING GOD MATTER?*

This study argues that the nature and intensity of a person's relationship with God creates a transposable cognitive schema that shapes people's views toward public policies such as executing convicted murderers. In this context, we investigate whether Americans who report having a close personal relationship with a loving God are less likely to support the death penalty. We hypothesize that such a relationship tempers the tendency to see punitiveness as an appropriate response to human failings. Individuals who hold a loving God image are more likely to believe that God responds to those who have “failed” or “sinned” by demonstrating unconditional love, forgiveness, and mercy. Accordingly, support for capital punishment is problematic because it contradicts the image of a merciful, forgiving deity; God's purpose—and admonition to believers—is to demonstrate compassion toward those who have trespassed against others. We test these possibilities using the 2004 General Social Survey (GSS). Controlling for a range of religious factors and other known predictors of death penalty attitudes, the results show that Americans with a personal relationship with a loving God are less likely to support capital punishment for convicted murderers.