Robert M. Bohm

Knowledge and Death Penalty Opinion: A Test of the Marshall Hypotheses

Three hypotheses about death penalty opinion derived from conjectures made by Justice Marshall in his Furman decision were tested. Findings of the study provide at least qualified support for all three hypotheses. Regarding the first and third hypotheses, subjects generally lacked knowledge about the death penalty and its effects prior to exposure to an experimental stimulus, and, to the degree that retribution provided the basis for support, knowledge had little effect on changing death penalty opinions. The second hypothesis, that an informed public would generally oppose the death penalty, was supported in some tests but not in others. Implications of the findings are discussed.

American death penalty attitudes: a critical examination of recent evidence

Public support for the death penalty is something of an American tradition. Yet the bases of the American tradition of support for the death penalty are not well understood. An understanding of American attitudes toward capital punishment is important, not only because the United States is again executing criminal offenders, but because it provides a rough estimate of the level of maturity of American civilization. This study critically examines the reasons and processes by which Americans come to support the death penalty.

The influence of knowledge on reasons for death penalty opinions: An experimental test

Despite more than 50 years of scientific polling and a substantial body of research, an understanding of American opinion on the death penalty remains problematic. This exploratory study sheds furt...

The effects of classroom instruction and discussion on death penalty opinions: A teaching note

This teaching note examines the influence on death penalty opinions of participation in a college class on the death penalty. The month-long, forty-hour class included regular instruction and discussion, as well as five guest speakers with differing experiences and opinions about capital punishment. At the beginning of the class, eighty-two percent of the fifty students favored the death penalty for some people convicted of first-degree murder and eighteen percent were opposed. By the end of the class, fifty-six percent of the students were in favor, forty-two percent were opposed, and two percent were undecided. At the completion of the class, blacks were the only group to oppose the death penalty (67 percent). Comments by students and suggestions for modifying the classroom experience are provided.

A comparison of factors associated with uninformed and informed death penalty opinions

The study shows that while there are some differences in the factors that are significantly related to uninformed versus informed death penalty opinions, there also are significant factors common to both, that is, certain “core” factors. Whether informed or not, the more subjects favored the death penalty, the more likely they were to be white and to agree with revenge, incapacitation, and general deterrence items (the converse was true for opponents). Death penalty knowledge only made a difference for crime victims (they were less likely to favor the death penalty) and for death penalty proponents (they were less likely to agree that there is a danger of executing an innocent person and that whether a person receives the death penalty depends on such things as the make-up of the jury; the converse was true for opponents). The results of the study suggest that death penalty information is not likely to change core factors, which appear to be assimilated biasedly to support initial positions.

A Comparison of uninformed and informed death penalty opinions: A replication and expansion

This study examines the influence on death penalty opinions of participating in a college class on the death penalty. Students in the class (the experimental group) and in another class offered at the same time (the control group) were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward capital punishment at the beginning and at the end of the semester. They were also asked factual questions that measured their knowledge about capital punishment. Overall, the results of the study suggest that both groups were not well informed during the pretest measure. However, at the end of the semester, the group enrolled in the death penalty class were more knowledgable, less supportive of the death penalty based on general/absrtact questions, and more likely to favor alternatives to capital punishment than were the students in the control group.

Retribution and capital punishment: Toward a better understanding of death penalty opinion

Although retribution appears to be the primary basis of support for the death penalty in the United States, the concept of retribution is ambiguous; thus, it is unclear what people mean when they express support for capital punishment for retributive reasons. This study attempted to discern the meaning of retribution as it relates to death penalty opinion. Two types of retribution were revealed: “vindictive revenge” and “revenge-utilitarianism.” Subjects clearly subscribed to the vindictive revenge conception, one characterized by a strong emotional or visceral component.

The crimes of the homeless or the crime of homelessness? On the dialectics of criminalization, decriminalization, and victimization

This paper is a limited attempt to synthesize the older and newer trends in radical criminology — to integrate the issues of criminalization, decriminalization, and victimization. The object of our endeavor is homelessness and how society responds to it. In the paper, we first examine the dialectics of criminalization, homelessness, and economic crisis in relation to some of the general trends in the developing political economy of welfare capitalism. Second, we argue that criminologists should support and focus on effort to “criminalize” the condition of homelessness and, at the same time, to decriminalize most of the acts of survival of the homeless. In pursuing this end, we urge criminologists to respond by doing things “with” rather than “for” or “to” the homeless. Ultimately, we hope this paper contributes to the ideological and practical struggle for achieving stable institutional methods for satisfying basic human needs.

Crime, criminal and crime control policy myths

This essay examines myths that inform common conceptions of crime and criminals and the implementation of crime control policy. It also explores sources of and reasons for the perpetuation of these myths. A principal thesis is that myths are perpetuated because they serve both the short-term interests of the general public as well as the long-term interests of social elites. Finally, the essay considers contradictions and consequences of beliefs and policies based on myths.

“McJustice”: On the McDonaldization of Criminal Justice

This essay examines the “McDonaldization” of criminal justice or “McJustice.” In doing so, it provides another useful way of understanding the development and operation of criminal justice in the United States. The McDonaldization of various social institutions has succeeded because it provides advantages over other, usually older, methods of doing business. It has made McDonaldized social institutions bureaucratic and rational in a Weberian sense and, thus, more efficient, calculable, predictable, and controlling over people (often by nonhuman technologies). The principal problem with McDonaldized institutions, and another characteristic of the process, is irrationality or, as Ritzer calls it, the “irrationality of rationality.” A primary purpose of this essay is to expose some of the irrationalities of “McJustice” and to suggest some possible responses to them.