Salvation or damnation?: Religion and correctional ideology

Fundamentalist affiliation and religious beliefs are generally related to more punitive attitudes toward criminals. Fundamentalists also tend to attribute criminality to individual dispositional factors, and in turn, such factors are related to punitiveness. Recently, it has also been found that compassionate dimensions of religion are related to treatment-oriented policies. It is still not clear which dimensions of religion are related to punitive or treatment ideology and what effects religious variables may have when tested against secular concerns about crime and crime attributions. In the present research, we test three models of punitiveness and one model of rehabilitation with demographic, secular, religious, and attributional factors. We found that those for whom religion is salient in their daily lives tend to believe that the death penalty should be reserved for older offenders and that those who believe in a punitive God tend to support harsher punishments.     

CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTISM AND THE PERCEIVED WRONGFULNESS OF CRIMES: A RESEARCH NOTE*

This research addresses the relationship between conservative Protestantism and the perceived wrongfulness of crimes. In a recent study, Warr (1989) identified “nondiscriminators”—people who perceived a wide range of crimes to be equally morally wrong. Although lacking measures of religion, Warr hypothesized, based on their written comments, that the respondents used religious beliefs to assess wrongfulness. Since Protestant theology tends to view morality categorically, with no gradations between the extremes, those individuals who most strongly adhere to this doctrine may be the nondiscriminators. This study tests and finds strong support for this hypothesis, which has important implications for the recent shift toward increased punitiveness in sentencing, research concerning public perceptions of crime, and studies of religion.     

THE PRAGMATIC AMERICAN: EMPIRICAL REALITY OR METHODOLOGICAL ARTIFACT?

Scholars widely agree that the public is pragmatic about criminal justice. The empirical basis for this conclusion is the failure in several previous studies to find a sizable negative relationship between dispositional and situational crime attributions, or between support for punitive and rehabilitative crime policies. We suggest, however, that public pragmatism may be an artifact of the use of unidirectional question batteries in prior research to measure attribution styles and policy support. When such questions are used, acquiescent responding can introduce systematic error that is positively correlated across items and scales. Drawing on data from an experiment with a national sample (N = 826) of Internet panelists, we examine how this methodological approach impacts the bivariate correlations and multivariate relationships between attribution styles and between support for punitive and rehabilitative crime policies. The findings reveal that using unidirectional sets of questions to measure these concepts likely results in 1) inflated alpha reliability coefficients, 2) an underestimation of the magnitude of the negative relationships between attribution styles and between punitiveness and support for rehabilitation, and 3) an underestimation of the extent to which punitiveness and support for rehabilitation are driven by the same factors, working in opposite directions.     

Religious fundamentalism,religiosity, and priming: effects on attitudes,perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case

Jurors are asked to use their personal knowledge and experience to make verdict decisions; thus, it is no surprise that their religious beliefs might influence their decisions. During legal insanity trials, jurors might also be exposed to religious stimuli (e.g. crucifix, prayer, Bible, etc.), which could evoke (prime) religious beliefs and thus influence decisions. Two studies examined whether dimensions of religiosity and religious beliefs relate to attitudes and decisions concerning mental health defenses, testing social identity theory against Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis. In Study 1 (attitudes survey) and Study 2 (mock juror decision-making paradigm), religious fundamentalist beliefs consistently predicted punitive attitudes and decisions related to mental health defenses and verdicts, and this was moderated by intrinsic religiosity, such that religious fundamentalist beliefs only predicted punitiveness for individuals low in intrinsic religiosity. Also, priming fundamentalist beliefs increased punitiveness in both verdict and sentencing decisions. Combined, these results suggest that religious beliefs play a role in jurors’ verdict decisions in an insanity case, and that priming fundamentalist beliefs increases jurors’ punitiveness. Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis was supported, but social identity theory was not.     

The Consequences of Knowledge about Elite Deviance

The present study sought to understand the consequences of knowledge about elite deviance. Four hundred and eight participants completed an online questionnaire that measured (1) their level of knowledge about white-collar crime and (2) their perceived seriousness of, and punitiveness toward, it. Results of statistical analyses suggest a positive relationship between knowledge and punitive sentiments toward crimes of the powerful. Conversely, less knowledgeable subjects, comprised disproportionately of men, politically Conservatives, Republicans, and conservative Protestants were often more lenient toward elite offenders, both in terms of perceived seriousness of the offenses and punitiveness toward them, when compared with street crime. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

RACIAL TYPIFICATION OF CRIME AND SUPPORT FOR PUNITIVE MEASURES

This paper assesses whether support for harsh punitive policies toward crime is related to the racial typification of crime for a national random sample of households (N=885), surveyed in 2002. Results from OLS regression show that the racial typification of crime is a significant predictor of punitiveness, independent of the influence of racial prejudice, conservatism, crime salience, southern residence and other factors. This relationship is shown to be concentrated among whites who are either less prejudiced, not southern, conservative and for whom crime salience is low. The results broaden our understanding of the links between racial threat and social control, beyond those typically associated with racial composition of place. They also resonate important themes in what some have termed modern racism and what others have described as the politics of exclusion.     

A model for ranking the punitiveness of the states

There has recently been much interest in the measurement of imprisonment rates. Since this variable has such widespread importance in criminological research and policy, new methods are called for in expanding the procedures for evaluating levels of punitiveness as indicated by imprisonment rates. This paper presents a new model using logarithmic transformations to develop a system for ranking the punitiveness of the states. Comparisons are made between different approaches to specifying imprisonment rates including controls for crime rates and arrest rates. Results of the analyses indicate that the use of this model generates somewhat different rankings of punitiveness compared with those based on sample imprisonment rates or prisoner/arrest ratios.     

Symbolic Racism and Whites’ Attitudes Towards Punitive and Preventive Crime Policies

This study analyzes the determinants of Whites' support for punitive and preventive crime policies. It focuses on the predictive power of beliefs about race as described by symbolic racism theory. A dataset with 849 White respondents from three waves of the Los Angeles County Social Survey was used. In order to assess the weight of racial factors in crime policy attitudes, the effects of a range of race-neutral attitude determinants were controlled for, namely individual and structural crime attributions, perceived seriousness of crime, crime victimization, conservatism and news exposure. Results show a strong effect of symbolic racism on both types of crime policies, and in particular on punitive policies. High levels of symbolic racism are associated with support for tough, punitive crime policies and with opposition to preventive policies. Sub-dimensions of symbolic racism qualified these relationships, by showing that internal symbolic racism (assessing perceived individual deficiencies of Blacks) was most strongly predictive of punitiveness, whereas external symbolic racism (denial of institutional discrimination) predicted opposition to structural remedies. On the whole, despite the effects of race-neutral factors, the impact of symbolic racism on policy attitudes was substantial. Thus, White public opinion on both punitive and preventive crime policies is at least partially driven by racial prejudice.     

Social Capital, Rehabilitation, Tradition: Support for Restorative Justice in Japan and Australia

This paper investigates the attitudes and beliefs that the public hold about criminal behaviour in Japanese and Australian society, with a view to uncovering sources of resistance to, and support for, restorative justice. The study draws on a survey of 1,544 respondents from Japan and 1,967 respondents from Australia. In both societies, restorative justice met with greater acceptance among those who were (1) strong in social capital, (2) believed in offender reintegration and rehabilitation, (3) saw benefits for victims in forgiveness, and (4) were advocates for victims?? voices being heard and amends made. The alternative ??just deserts?? and deterrence models for dealing with crime were grounded in attitudes of punitiveness and fear of moral decay, and reservations about the value of reintegrating and rehabilitating offenders. Like restorative justice supporters, ??just deserts?? and deterrence supporters expressed concern that victims?? voices be heard and amends made. Winning public support for competing institutional arrangements may depend on who does best in meeting expectations for meeting the needs of victims.     

Ideology as determinant of views on the insanity defense

This research explores the hypothesis that an individual's position on the insanity defense is a function of his/her underlying ideology. Fifty-seven clinical psychologists and fifty-five psychiatrists in the United States responded to a questionnaire that measured their beliefs about personal vs. social responsibility for crime, the frequency of their own experience as expert witnesses in insanity cases, and their attitudes toward the insanity defense. As predicted, locus of responsibility for crime was found to have a highly significant curvilinear relationship to attitude toward the insanity defense, with very liberal and very conservative subjects being most anti-insanity defense. Psychiatrists, and those with more expert witness experience, were also significantly more favorable toward the insanity defense.     

Dissecting White-Collar Crime: Offense Type and Punitiveness

It is commonly asserted that the public is indifferent toward white-collar crime and hence is reluctant to “get tough” with more “respectable” criminals. However, such a contention fails to consider that there are many varieties of upperworld criminality and that the punitiveness of the public may differ markedly according to the type of offense involved. Based on a 1981 survey conducted in Galesburg, Illinois, we have attempted to investigate whether the criminal sanctions prescribed by citizens will vary when the broad category of white-collar crime is “dissected” into its component types. The data suggest that (1) there is considerable variation in punitiveness by type of offense; (2) while street crimes are generally given the harshest sentences, violent forms of white-collar illegality are accorded severe sanctions that exceed those meted out for some F.B.I, crimes; and (3) there is little support for the notion that the public responds leniently to upperworld crime.     

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles,Justice-Related Attitudes,and Punitive Judgments

Cross-cultural as well as procedural justice research suggests that an interdependent self-construal is connected to more justice-related concerns, more moral outrage following observed unethical behavior, and a preference for effective but constructive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, is expected to be connected to weaker moral reactions toward injustice, but also to preferring punitive over constructive forms of sanctions. Two studies were conducted in which dispositional self-construal was measured. In Study 2, self-construal was also manipulated with a priming procedure. Results show that interdependent self-construal is connected to stronger emotional reactions toward injustice, to social and moral concerns, to preferences for constructive forms, but also to retribution-oriented goals of punitive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, goes along with fewer moral concerns, lower punitiveness, but more draconic attitudes.     

THE SOCIAL SOURCES OF AMERICANS' PUNITIVENESS: A TEST OF THREE COMPETING MODELS*

The sustained movement to “get tough” on crime, especially through mass imprisonment, has prompted several prominent efforts to explain the public's harshness toward crime. From the extant literature, we demarcate the following three competing theories of public punitiveness: the escalating crime-distrust model, the moral decline model, and the racial animus model. Controlling for other known predictors of crime-related opinions, we test the explanatory power of these perspectives to account for support for the death penalty and for a punitive crime-control approach. Our analysis of a national sample of respondents surveyed in the 2000 National Election Study reveals partial support for each model. Racial animus, however, seems to exert the most consistent effect on public sentiments. This finding suggests that racial resentments are inextricably entwined in public punitiveness and thus should be incorporated into any complete theory of this phenomenon.     

Public Attitudes and Sentencing Policies Across the World

Many Western countries have experienced a boom in prisoners rates, characterised as “carceral hyperinflation” or “new punitiveness”. Politicians and opinion makers assume that this reflects the demand of the public for more severe sentencing. This article analyses data on the attitudes of the population towards punishment from over thirty different countries taken from the International Crime Victim Surveys of 2004/2005. First, some key findings on punitivity are presented showing that in many countries the public prefers non-custodial sentences for recidivist buglars. Next, results are presented from a multi-level analysis of the correlates of punitiveness at both the individual and country level. This multi level analysis shows that individual characteristics explain very little variance in country differences in punitiveness. On country level, the level of common crime and the Gini coefficient, a measure for income differences in the country, have significant explanatory power. The often mentioned tougher attitude towards sentencing in the English speaking/common law countries is fully explained by this. Finally, the relation between the publics attitude towards sentencing and a measure of actual sentencing severity showed a weak and inverse relationship at country level.     

New Labour – New Penology? Punitive Rhetoric and the Limits of Managerialism in Criminal Justice Policy

This paper argues that New Labour's 'tough' stance on law and order has given rise to a criminal justice policy which is based on fundamental contradictions and which involves a substantial retreat from traditional socialist thinking on crime. The continuation of a populist punitive approach ensures the predominance in policy making of a 'criminology of the other' which, in turn, sustains a 'punishment deficit' which fuels public expectations that crime can be controlled effectively by a policy of deterrence through punishment. This populist punitiveness, it is argued, is at odds with another strand of government penal policy, the attempt to secure greater efficiencies and economies by an intensification of managerialism throughout the criminal justice system.     

Perceived threat of crime,authoritarianism, and the rise of a populist president in the Philippines

President Duterte of the Philippines implemented an open “war” on drugs based upon claims of an over-proliferation of illegal drugs in the country. Despite summary killings of suspected users and dealers, Duterte enjoys popular support among Filipinos. This paper assesses reasons behind the support using citizens’ perceptions of the severity of the drugs/crime problem, their punitiveness, and authoritarian attitudes as explanations. A sample of 114 Filipinos across Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao responded to an electronic survey about socio-legal issues. Results show that drugs/crime are perceived as serious problems nationally yet only minor problems locally. This perceived national seriousness is significantly related to support for Duterte. Trust in the law and enforcement agents, an authoritarian attitude, and region are also strongly related to support for Duterte. This paper concludes with reflections on information manipulation as means to advance political ends and the importance of context in furthering theories of authoritarian submission.     

DETERMINISM,INDETERMINISM, AND CRIME: AN EMPIRICAL EXPLORATION*

Most individual-level research in criminology is based on a deterministic model: the factors that constrain individuals to crime or conformity are listed, and those factors are used to predict differences in the level of crime between individuals or groups of similar individuals. This paper explores an empirical model derived from recent work on sop determinism and indeterminism. Behaviors are said to vary in the extent to which they are determined, with behavior being fully determined at one end of the continuum and largely free (indetermined) at the other end. There is a discussion of those factors that influence the extent to which behavior is determined. And it is hypothesized that crime will be more variable and less predictable when conditions favor indeterminism. The empirical model in this paper, then, focuses on those factors believed to foster freedom of action and choice, and it uses those factors to predict differences in the amount of variation (unpredictability) in crime between individuals or groups of similar individuals. Data from two national surveys of adolescents provide tentative support for the hypothesis.     

Lay-Perspectives on Criminal Deviance,Goals of Punishment,and Punitivity

Empirical studies corroborate a relatively close relation between goals of sentencing and punitiveness. However, it is not clear what aspects of sentencing goals motivate harsh punishment. This study analyzes the structure of sentencing goals and scrutinizes in particular whether the idea of retribution is associated with punitiveness, or whether punishment considerations from a societal perspective (macrolevel) are the source of more punitive responses. A questionnaire was mailed to a random sample drawn in Bern, Switzerland. A total of 357 persons responded to items measuring constructs including goals of sentencing, punitiveness, target of justice considerations, and perceived threat to society, after reading one of three short stories about specific crimes (fraud, physical injury, assault). Results of this study reveal a two-dimensional structure of sentencing goals. One dimension represents readiness to punish and exclude the offender socially. The other dimension refers to concerns of the victim versus the needs of the society as a whole. The analysis provides a new interpretation of sentencing goals.     

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

Several studies have sought to link punitive public attitudes to attribution style and/or lay theories of crime. This research finds that those who believe criminal acts are the result of freely chosen and willful behavior are more likely to be punitive than those who feel crime is the result of external circumstances and constraints. These analyses focus on only one dimension of attributions: locus of control (internal/external). In this analysis, we include a second dimension, thought to be a better predictor of attitudes in social psychological research: stability/instability. In addition to measuring lay theories of crime causation, we also test for “belief in redeemability” (or beliefs about the ability of deviants to change their ways). Our hypothesis is that this other dimension of personal attributions (stability/instability) may be as critical in explaining support for highly punitive criminal justice policies as beliefs about criminal responsibility. We find evidence supportive of this model in an analysis of data from postal survey of residents of six areas in England.     

The decomposition and graphical analysis of crime and sanctions data: A cross-national application

This article attempts to illustrate the utility of isoquant map analysis from the field of production theory in microeconomics for the analysis of criminal justice data. Cross-national comparisons of aggregate crime and justice data are used to demonstrate the ability of this technique to reveal important patterns that are often obscured by simple rate comparisons and multivariate treatments such as pooled time-series analysis. For each jurisdiction, aggregate trends in criminal justice processing rates are systematically analyzed as a sequence of two-input production processes: gross imprisonment rates (prison population divided by resident population) can be partitioned in terms of the crime rate and punitiveness (prison population divided by the number of offenses); punitiveness can, in turn, be partitioned in terms of severity and certainty of punishment; certainty of punishment can then be partitioned, seriatim, in terms of the incarceration rate, the conviction rate, and the arrest or clearance rate and the rate at which citizens report crimes. Cross-national data collected by Farrington, Langan, and Wikström are used to illustrate the utility of the method for displaying comparisons of the decomposition of aggregate criminal justice data for the United States, England, and Sweden.