Contemporary Regional Differences in Support by Whites for the Death Penalty: A Research Note

Despite good theoretical reasons to expect strong differences between Southern whites and non‐Southern whites in death penalty support, prior research with 1990 General Social Survey (GSS) data found only a small difference that lacked statistical significance. This paper investigates the possibilities that this null result was a statistical anomaly due to sampling vagaries or that a regional difference has emerged since 1990. Examining GSS data from 1974 through 2006, we initially found that a South/non‐South regional difference among whites did not exist before 1993 but has existed since then. However, further analysis revealed that a Northeast/non‐Northeast difference among whites has also existed during this same period. These findings suggest that future research on death penalty opinion should use both such differences as regional controls rather than just the customary South/non‐South division.     

The belief that guns deter crime and support for capital punishment

One of the many reasons for gun ownership in the USA is the belief that citizen gun ownership helps to reduce crime. The rationale for this belief can be linked to deterrence – the perception that the threat of harm from confronting someone with a gun outweighs the potential benefit from crime – and will reduce the likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior. Similarly, deterrence is often referenced as a reason to support capital punishment. This is the first study to explicitly link support for the individual threat of lethal violence and the state threat of lethal violence by testing the hypothesis that the belief that guns reduce crime is positively correlated with support for capital punishment. Tests using a 2010 survey support this hypothesis for general support of capital punishment and for support of capital punishment with the life without parole option. The theoretical implications of considering deterrence as a value-expressive argument are explored.     

公众舆论与量刑政策:影响模式和参与机制

当今社会的公众舆论影响量刑政策的制定和实施。获得公众对量刑政策态度的方法有多种。公众一般倾向于认为量刑政策过于仁慈,刑罚裁量过于宽缓。大众传媒是公众了解刑罚裁量的重要信息来源,因而公众对刑罚裁量的了解并不准确。近年来,公众要求国家制定量刑政策时要更多地关注公众舆论的声音。而公众舆论对量刑政策的态度存在各种可变性。各国量刑政策发展中所面临的最大难题,就是如何兼顾公众参与但又不过度受公众舆论的影响。建立一个能够反映公众舆论对刑罚裁量准确态度的中立性咨询机构,乃是明智之举。     

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.     

Turning the Other Cheek: Reassessing the Impact of Religion on Punitive Ideology

Religion has long been recognized as an underlying aspect of correctional policies. Researchers, however, have only recently begun to move beyond considerations of how fundamentalist Christian affiliations might shape preferences for punitive correctional policies. The present study broadens the extant research by examining multiple aspects of religious beliefs and how they affect support for capital punishment and harsher local courts. Analyses of General Social Survey data show that religion has divergent effects. Beyond a mere fundamentalist or conservative religious view, those who have a rigid and moralistic approach to religion and who imagine God as a dispassionate, powerful figure who dispenses justice are more likely to harbor punitive sentiments toward offenders. In contrast, those who have a gracious or loving image of God and who are compassionate toward others—that is, those who take seriously the admonition to “turn the other cheek”—are less supportive of “get tough” policies. In the end, not only is religion a multi‐dimensional phenomenon but also its features likely coalesce to divide believers into opposite camps—with one set of attributes fostering harsh sentiments toward offenders and another set of attributes tempering punitiveness and justifying interventions aimed at helping the criminally wayward.     

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.     

网络舆论引导的必要性研究

网络舆论作为一种新的媒体形式给我国的社会生活带来了日益深刻的影响,同时也带来了如何认识和合理运用网络舆论、如何引导网络舆论等新问题。本文在分析我国网络舆论的现状及存在的问题的基础上,探讨了加强网络舆论引导的必要性。     

Public Support for Preventive/Corrective Remedies Against Miscarriages of Justice in Capital Cases

The present study examines public beliefs of Florida citizens about the prevalence of miscarriages of justice in their state and their level of support for various proposed remedies. The study also examines various correlates of punishment beliefs and death penalty opinions. Using a self-administered survey of venire persons called to jury duty, this study found that the public believes that the prevalence of miscarriages of justice in capital cases is quite high. The public is supportive of nearly all of the proposed remedies measured and they are willing to pay more taxes to support the implementation of such proposals. At the same time, respondents report feeling that the officials responsible for such miscarriages of justice should be severely punished. Importantly, the results show powerful evidence of broad societal consensus on each of these issues. Legal and criminal justice policy implications of these findings are offered.     

网络舆论危机的生成机制探析

网络舆论危机既是公共危机的一种具体表现,也是引发一系列社会危机的重要原因。其生成机制主要有:网络舆论危机的暴发是社会冲突理论的现实反映;网络与网民的自身特性容易导致非理性声音占领网络舆论的主阵地;民主意识的增强与社会诉求机制的短缺导致网络群体极化效应;政府信息公开机制不完善导致网络舆论的蝴蝶效应;社会信用和政府公信力的下降为网络舆论危机的形成埋下了伏笔;基层党委政府应对网络舆论的手段薄弱导致沉默的螺旋效应。     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public

Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a truly global phenomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal landscape, more recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted increased attention. Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of compensation and reconciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention to establishing proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the severity of the sentence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue: public opinion with respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too, have generally overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine which elements of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which features are likely to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related international research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–2002). The review reveals widespread support for restorative sentencing options, such as community service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when applied to young offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for these alternatives to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the offence increases, suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle of proportionality in sentencing.     

地方政府应对网络公共事件能力问题研究

随着五联网成为社会舆论场的重心,网络公共事件不断发生,其不仅成为政府和社会各界关注的焦点。而且也是影响当前社会和谐稳定的关键因素,。因此,探讨网络公共事件的特征,把握网络公共事件的性质,厘清公共事件发生和发展过程中的演化要素,妥善地应对各类网络公共事件,提高地方政府应对、处置、引导和管理网络公共事件的能力,对于维护社会稳定具有重要意义。     

网络公共事件舆论引导问题研究

近年来,网络公共事件连年攀升,双刃剑效应愈发突出。一些地方政府和部门在网络公共事件舆论引导工作中存在许多不到位、不适应的问题,必须继续强调和落实政务公开,完善相关机制,加强行业自律,并探索建立网络发言人制度,以进一步提高网络公共事件舆论引导能力。     

试论卫生行政处罚证明标准的确立

在卫生行政处罚中,由于缺乏明确的卫生行政处罚证明标准,导致案件质量参差不齐,卫生行政机关办理的案件因为待证事实不清而得不到法院支持的情况也屡有发生。卫生行政处罚作为卫生行政执法领域最重要的内容之一,如何进一步规范卫生行政处罚证据制度以及确立卫生行政处罚证明标准问题,尤为重要。本文通过阐释卫生行政处罚证明标准的概念、存在问题等,进而确立卫生行政处罚证明标准。     

“法庭之友”制度的基础与运行机制——以吴英案为中心的分析

"法庭之友"制度的构建、运行及其功能发挥需要司法的独立与权威、有赖于良好的舆论环境和成熟的社会组织的支撑。在民众广泛参与、理性发表法律意见的前提下,出现了社会精英主导舆论走向、主流意见趋于统一、舆论表现出更强的社会责任感的发展趋势,这就为"法庭之友"制度的建构提供了舆论结构基础。"法庭之友"制度有助于疏通政治渠道、凝聚民意、弥补法官知识的缺陷、分担法院责任、推动法律发展,因而具有促进司法的法律效果和社会效果有机统一的制度功能。"法庭之友"制度功能的发挥,在很大程度上有赖于法院通过尊重、评价、吸纳机制所给予的司法支持。"法庭之友"制度在凝练主流民意、优化舆论环境、构建信任基础和消解政治压力方面对我国司法制度的改革与完善具有重要的借鉴意义。我们应该在借鉴国外有益经验的基础上,结合我国的司法国情,合理定位"法庭之友"的功能、框定适用范围、界定合适主体、构筑严密正当的程序,建构中国特色的"法庭之友"制度。     

公众舆论对公共政策的影响述评

公众舆论是公众以内心深处的政治文化价值体系为标准,并经一定渠道由公众自主表达的对当前政治事务和公共政策的意见。公众舆论关注的焦点是公共政策的制定和执行。公众关注的程度越高．表明公众参与的热情越高，对公共政策的影响也就越大。公众舆论对公共政策的影响主要体现在内容、形式、功能和实践四个方面。