Brandon K. Applegate

Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap?

Differences between men and women in their proximity to crime, moral development, and attitudes toward an array of social issues suggest that a gender gap in crime views may exist. Investigations of this possibility, however, are in short supply. Using a statewide data set and a variety of global and specific questions about crime policy, punishment, and rehabilitation, this study found that men and women tend to hold moderately divergent views. Women tend to express greater support for offender treatment and less support for punishment than men. Implications of these results for the future of correctional and crime policy are discussed.

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.

Public Support for Early Intervention Programs: Implications for a Progressive Policy Agenda

Since the early 1970s, criminologists have embraced the view that only broader social justice will reduce crime—a stance that has largely surrendered criminal justice policy to conservatives. Emerging research shows, however, that early intervention programs prevent crime and are cost effective. Based on a 1997 survey of Tennessee respondents, the article reports further that the public supports early intervention strongly and prefers it to incarceration as a strategy to reduce offending. Thus, the article contends that early intervention programs, which extend services to at-risk children and families, comprise an important progressive policy initiative that criminologists and policy makers should support.

Reconsidering Child Saving: The Extent and Correlates of Public Support for Excluding Youths From the Juvenile Court

The 1990s saw concerted legislative efforts to increase the mechanisms through which juveniles could be transferred to the adult court. Beginning research exists on how the public feels about transferring youths out of the juvenile justice system, but it is somewhat dated and does little to illuminate the reasons people support transfer. Using a statewide sample and factorial survey design, this study assesses how public views are related to multiple factors, including offense and offender characteristics, views on the appropriate aims of juvenile sentencing, perceptions of juvenile maturity, and expectations about the results of transferring juvenile cases to the adult criminal justice system. Our findings suggest that people want transfer used sparingly and selectively and that support is greatest when they believe that the adult system can provide effective rehabilitation as well as punishment. Implications are discussed.

Public Tolerance for Community-Based Sanctions

Based on a factorial design survey of 237 Hamilton County (Cincinnati), Ohio, residents, we assessed not only whether respondents preferred, but also “tolerated” or viewed as acceptable, community-based sanctions. Rating vignettes in which the offender engaged in either burglary or robbery, a slight majority of the respondents favored a sentence involving incarceration. Even so, a sizable minority of the sample preferred to sanction offenders in the community, and tolerance for such a sanction was widespread. There was little support, however, for sanctions that did not involve the close supervision of the offender. We suggest that community-based sanctions will be embraced by the public only to the extent that a persuasive case can be made that the sanction punishes, restrains, and changes offenders—in short, that it “works.”

Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert, and public attitudes toward prison amenities

Several states have reduced or eliminated a variety of amenities for prisoners. It is unclear, however, whether the general public supports making prisons harsher and more austere. Using a sample of 200 citizens from central Florida, the present study finds less support for prison austerity than commonly assumed. In addition, these preferences are linked to particular correctional goals, especially concerns about utility and desert.

The Pragmatic American: Attributions of Crime and the Hydraulic Relation Hypothesis

Attribution theory argues that a “hydraulic relation” exists between dispositional and situational attribution styles, causing people to endorse one style at the expense of the other. That is, attribution theorists predict that there should be a strong negative relationship between attribution styles. We test this prediction using data collected in Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida, and two national polls. Our investigation shows that, rather than a bifurcated view of crime causation, Americans manifest a complex attributional style that views crime emerging from multiple sources. We discuss how these findings reveal that the American public tends to be not ideological but pragmatic in its view of crime causation and, ultimately, in the crime control policies it is willing to endorse.

Victim-offender race and support for capital punishment: A factorial design approach

Existing research suggests that juries are more likely to condemn murderers to death when offenders are black victims are white. It remains to be seen, however, whether these decisions reflect broader racial prejudices in society that are imported into the jury room. If they do, then insuring equity in capital sentencing may be beyond reach. Accordingly, this study uses factorial design methodology to examine whether members of the general public are more supportive of capital punishment when asked to rate a vignette describing a murder involving a white victim and black offender as opposed to other victim-offender racial combinations. Our analyses suggest that the race of the offender, but not the victim, has a significant influence on support for capital punishment. Thus, procedural safeguards alone may be unable to eliminate racial bias in capital sentencing.

Public views on sentencing juvenile murderers: The impact of offender, offense, and perceived maturity

Concerns about juvenile murderers were raised by increases in juvenile homicide rates between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s. Little is known, however, about what level of punishment the public desires for such youths. Using a randomly selected sample of Florida citizens and a factorial vignette survey approach, the present study assesses the impact of characteristics of the offender, aspects of the offense, and perceptions of a youth’s maturity on public preferences for the punishment of juvenile murderers. Our findings show that the public favors short sentences of incarceration or less punitive responses in most cases and that the most salient determinant of punitiveness is the type of murder committed. These results are discussed in light of prior research and current policy directions.

Testing the Deterrent Effects of Personal and Vicarious Experience with Punishment and Punishment Avoidance

Stafford and Warr (1993) reconceptualized general and specific deterrence into a single theory in which peoples tendencies to commit crimes are based on a combination of personal experiences and vicarious experiences with being punished and avoiding punishment. The authors make a significant contribution to the deterrence literature by considering the effect of punishment avoidance when testing deterrence theory. The present study tests the applicability of Stafford and Warrs reconceptualized theory. The results reveal only partial support for deterrence. We discuss the implications of our findings and make suggestions for future research on deterrence theory.