How fear of crime affects punitive attitudes

Abstract

This article investigates different types of fear of crime as predictors for punitive attitudes. Using data from a Germany-wide representative survey (n = 1272) it examines the reliability and validity of survey instruments through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to explain variations in the level of respondents' punitive attitudes. The results show that different emotional and cognitive responses to crime have a distinctive effect on the formation of punitive attitudes. These effects vary significantly depending on socio-demographic factors and assumed purposes of punishment. A crucial observation of the study is that men's fear of crime works in a different way in the formation of punitive attitudes than women's fear of crime. The perceived locus of control for the crime threat is a possible explanation for this difference.

Victimization, Fear of Crime, and Trust in Criminal Justice Institutions: A Cross-National Analysis

“…The effects of fear of crime on punitive attitudes, however, are typically limited to non-Whites (Cohn, Barkan, & Halteman, 1991; Hogan et al, 2005; Johnson, 2001, 2006; Langworthy & Whitehead, 1986). Fear of crime also remains a consistent predictor of punitive attitudes for both men and women despite women having higher levels of fear of crime than men and fear operating differently between sexes (Armborst, 2017). On the contrary, other research suggests that factors such as education and political ideology play a more prominent role than fear of crime in punitiveness (Barkan & Cohn, 1994; A.…”

Punitive attitudes across geographical areas: Exploring the rural/urban divide in Canada

“…With this in mind, in an effort to explore why it is that the rural areas tend to hold more punitive attitudes than the urban, future research should seek to move beyond the demographic factors controlled for here and explore a number of variables which have been correlated with punitive attitudes and punitiveness more broadly. For instance, fear of crime (see Kury, 2008;Kury & Winterdyk, 2013;Armborst, 2017), the perceptions that crime is rising (Garland, 2001(Garland, , 2013Costelloe, Chiricos & Gertz, 2009) and a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system (Chapman, Mirrlees-Black & Brawn, 2002;Jones & Weatherburn, 2010;Caplow & Simon, 1999;Tonry, 2004;Pratt & Clark, 2005) have also been shown to increase punitivity. Additionally, Durkheimian notions of trust and solidarity (see Kennedy, 2000;Pratt & Eriksson, 2013;Karstedt, 2014Karstedt, , 2015 as well as individual values such as one's religiosity (Unnever, Cullen & Applegate, 2005;Unnever, Cullen & Bartkowski, 2006;Baker & Booth, 2016) or political allegiances (Tonry, 1999;Jacobs & Helms, 1996;Beckett & Western, 2001;Smith, 2004;Yates & Fording, 2005;Loader & Sparks, 2016) have likewise been shown to shape punitive attitudes (Lappi-Seppälä, 2008, 2012.…”

Criminological Explanations, Race, and Biological Attributions of Crime as Predictors of Philadelphia Area Residents’ Support for Criminal Justice Policies

“…Several studies have linked perceived crime causes with support for CJ policies (Green et al, 2006; Sims, 2003; Templeton & Hartnagel, 2012). Armborst (2017), for example, recognized that people who conceptualize criminal behavior as solely the product of an individual’s personal choices display greater punitiveness than people who recognize that criminal behavior is influenced by a variety of factors, many of which are outside of individuals’ control. While this body of literature has advanced scholarly knowledge, many prior studies have used relatively narrow measures of CJ policies.…”