Beyond Public Opinion Polls: Punitive Public Sentiment & Criminal Justice Policy

Abstract

The punitive turn in criminal justice policy, epitomized by policies like three‐strikes, truth in sentencing, and mandatory minimums, is often attributed in part to demand for harsher criminal justice responses from an increasingly punitive public. It has been argued that public opinion, known to be both largely uninformed and often misunderstood, might both indirectly and directly affect policy. This survey article on punitiveness in public opinion opens with a discussion of competing depictions of the nature of the relationship between a punitive public and increasingly punitive criminal justice policies. The article then focuses on some of the most influential explanations for variations in punitiveness within individuals and across groups. A review of what we know about public attitudes toward punishment and a brief explanation of how we know what we know (e.g. the methodologies by which we gauge public opinion) follow. The article concludes with the observation that as methodologies continue to improve and the literature in this area continues to grow, so too does our understanding of punitive public opinion in all of its complexity.

The Public's Increasing Punitiveness and Its Influence on Mass Incarceration in the United States

“…The punitive opinion index also suggests that the public's preferences for being tough on crime are not “mushy” (Cullen, Fisher, and Applegate ; Durham ) or stable (Roberts et al , 27–28). Instead, we see important over‐time variation (Frost , 165), with rising levels of punitiveness from the mid‐1960s into the 1990s. We also see that public support for being tough on crime appears to have declined since the mid‐1990s.…”

The Emotional Representation of Sexual Crime in the National British Press

“…The internal reliability of each category is generally good (average α = .83; range .28-.98; Pennebaker, Mayne & Francis, 1997), and findings using LIWC have been used in a range of contexts, most successfully by examining a potential link between mood and the linguistic properties of creative writing by mental health patients (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996;Pennebaker, Mayne & Francis, 1997). Given that popular punitiveness is cited as a key driver of the general public's thinking about crime and punishment (Bosworth, 2011;Frost, 2010), and that emotion is considered a strong contributing factor to punitiveness (Johnson, 2009;Vidmar, 2001), three emotionallydriven linguistic variables were identified for in-depth analysis, namely negative emotion, positive emotion, and anger. Negative emotion and anger within press articles were postulated as potentially providing the basis for punitive thinking styles, but it was also considered that the existence of positive emotion could mediate any impact of punitive reporting, hence its inclusion in the analysis.…”

Measuring public perceptions of sex offenders: reimagining the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) scale

“…This claim is supported by the PSO data through the 'sentencing and management' factor's correlation with the GPS. General levels of societal punitiveness are said to be a key driver of the political discourse around crime and punishment (Bosworth, 2011;Frost, 2010). As such, understanding this punitiveness at a deeper level should be a priority for researchers seeking to facilitate better communication between law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and the general public.…”