No abstract

ABSTRACT"Get tough" control policies in the United States are often portrayed as the reflection of the public's will: Americans are punitive and want offenders locked up. Research from the past decade both reinforces and challenges this assessment. The public clearly accepts, if not prefers, a range of punitive policies (e.g., capital punishment, three-strikes-andyou're-out laws, imprisonment). But support for get-tough policies is "mushy." Thus citizens may be willing to substitute a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for the death penalty. Especially when nonviolent offenders are involved, there is substantial support for intermediate sanctions and for restorative justice. Despite three decades of criticism, rehabilitation-particularly for the young-remains an integral part of Americans' correctional philosophy. There is also widespread support for early intervention programs. In the end, the public shows a tendency to be punitive and progressive, wishing the correctional system to achieve the diverse missions of doing justice, protecting public safety, and reforming the wayward.In the not-too-distant past, rates of imprisonment were stable and showed no hint of escalating (Blumstein and Cohen Today, however, much has changed-so much so that the policy and ideological landscape of that previous era is unrecognizable. "Get tough" thinking and policies have replaced calls for more humanistic correctional practices, and their dominance appears unassailable. Virtually all contemporary commentaries on correctional policy begin, almost ritualistically, by chronicling-and most often decrying-the seemingly endless roster of policies designed in recent years to inflict increasing amounts of pain on offenders (Clear 1994): prison populations rising sixfold in a quarter century from 200,000 to over 1.2 million; the spread of mandatory prison sentences; the implementation of draconian drug laws that snare big and little "fishes" alike; the passage of three-strikes-and-you're-out statutes; the renewed use of the death penalty; attempts to reduce inmates' amenities, from weight lifting and television to support for college education; the return of chain gangs; and the invention of "scared straight" programs and boot camps.We have moved, in short, from a time in which punishment and prison were unfashionable to a time in which punishment dominates policy discussions and the prison is embraced as the linchpin of the nation's response to crime. But why has this striking shift occurred? The sources of this transformation in thinking and policy are complex (Beckett 1997), but a commonsense, parsimonious explanation for harsher penalties is frequently offered: punitive policies simply reflect what the public wants. Fed up with intractable crime rates-fed up with coddled offenders victimizing them, people they know, and people they hear about-citizens collectively have made the rational assessment that more offenders should be locked up for longer periods (cf. Beckett 1997; Dilulio 1997). In this scenario, then, the mov...

No abstract

No abstract

Using a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of 7,945 college undergraduates, we report on the association between having received Green Dot active bystander behavior training and the frequency of actual and observed self-reported active bystander behaviors as well as violence acceptance norms. Of 2,504 students aged 18 to 26 who completed the survey, 46% had heard a Green Dot speech on campus, and 14% had received active bystander training during the past 2 years. Trained students had significantly lower rape myth acceptance scores than did students with no training. Trained students also reported engaging in significantly more bystander behaviors and observing more self-reported active bystander behaviors when compared with nontrained students. When comparing self-reported active bystander behavior scores of students trained with students hearing a Green Dot speech alone, the training was associated with significantly higher active bystander behavior scores. Those receiving bystander training appeared to report more active bystander behaviors than those simply hearing a Green Dot speech, and both intervention groups reported more observed and active bystander behaviors than nonexposed students.