In 2009, Maruna and King presented results from a British survey showing that the public’s belief in the redeemability of people who committed offenses curbed their level of punitiveness. Based on a 2017 national survey in the United States ( n = 1,000), the current study confirms that redeemability is negatively related to punitive attitudes. In addition, the analyses reveal that this belief predicts support for rehabilitation and specific inclusionary policies (i.e., ban-the-box in employment, expungement of criminal records, and voting rights for people with a felony conviction). Findings regarding measures for punishment and rehabilitation were confirmed by a 2019 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) survey. These results suggest that beliefs about capacity for change among people who committed offenses are key to understanding crime-control public policy.

No abstract

Research Summary Based on a 2013 survey of 1,001 likely voters in Texas, public support for correctional reform in a “red state” was examined. Four major conclusions were revealed. First, the respondents displayed strong support for rehabilitation. Second, at least for nonviolent and/or drug offenders, the sample members showed a clear preference for the use of alternatives to incarceration as opposed to imprisonment. Third, when asked about a specific policy reform that used treatment rather than prison for nonviolent drug offenders, more than eight in ten Texans approved of the measure, and strong majorities endorsed various rationales for it. Fourth, with some minor variation, the respondents revealed substantial consensus across demographic groups in their embrace of rehabilitation and correctional reform. Policy Implications With the growth of mass imprisonment arguably at its end, the existence of strong public support for correctional reform even in the major red state of Texas, suggests that a new “sensibility” about crime control has taken hold. There is now an emergent national consensus that the overuse of incarceration is unsustainable and that low‐risk offenders no longer should be sanctioned with a prison sentence. The American public, in Texas and beyond, is willing to support a policy agenda that includes offender treatment, prison downsizing, and alternatives to incarceration. The challenge for elected officials is to take advantage of this ideological space and to pursue this agenda. Notably, politicians in Texas and in other red states are using this opportunity to implement correctional policy reforms. The data in this study indicate that they will face no public backlash and, if anything, will gain political capital for their efforts.

James Jacobs detailed how it has become increasingly difficult to escape the mark of a criminal record. One way to "wipe the slate clean" is through the official expungement of criminal records. We assess public views toward this policy using a national sample of American adults (N = 1,000). Public support for expungement is high for persons convicted of property and substance-related offenses, who stay crime free for 7-10 years, and who "signal" their reform through stable employment and completion of a rehabilitation program. Members of the public are also concerned about unfettered public access to criminal records and want to ensure that any available criminal record information is accurate. The strongest predictor of support for expungement is a belief in redeemability. Policy Implications: There is a growing movement in the United States that seeks to curtail the effects of criminal records through their expungement. In recent years, most states have enacted bills creating, expanding, or streamlining criminal record relief. Public opinion is important in this context, because it can motivate or constrain reform efforts. Our findings show that, when the risk to public safety appears low, the American public favors providing second chances by using expungement to wipe clean the record of a criminal offense committed years previously. Further, knowledge about the public's

Recently, "problem-solving" courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called "specialty" courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.