Religious Fundamentalism and Attitudes toward the Insanity Defense: The Mediating Roles of Criminal Attributions and Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill

Yelderman, Logan A.; Miller, Monica K.

doi:10.1080/13218719.2016.1160005

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for observer characteristics, our hypothesis was only partially supported: The only variable that contributed to the prediction of CC support was observer religiosity. As previous studies suggested (e.g., Yelderman and Miller, 2016, 2017; Yelderman et al., 2019), our finding indicates that secular respondents were less punitive and chose CC as appropriate punishment more frequently than religious respondents. The contribution of religiosity is even more distinctive in light of the non-significant association between CC support and observer gender, age, education, ethnicity, economic status, and political affiliation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Regarding the impact of ethnic affiliation, it appears that respondents who are white or belong to an ethnic majority tend to be the more punitive than respondents who are non-white and belong to an ethnic minority (Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010; Leverentz, 2011; Mancini et al., 2010). As for religiosity impact, citizens who rate themselves as more religious tend to be more punitive than their secular counterparts (Yelderman and Miller, 2016, 2017; Yelderman et al., 2019). Also, respondents with an academic-level of education report less punitive views in comparison to those with high school level education (Shahbazov, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics

Levy

Cohen-Louck

Herzog

2021

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current research was to examine the contribution of crime type and severity as well as offender, observer, and victim characteristics to prediction of perception of community correction (CC) as an appropriate punishment. We conducted a telephone survey among Israeli citizens. A random and representative sample of 573 respondents, aged 20 to 74, evaluated the seriousness of crime scenarios and the appropriateness of CC for each scenario. In different versions of crime scenarios, we manipulated offence type as well as offender and victim characteristics. The results of a logistic regression indicate that perceived lower crime severity, a crime that is not murder, older offender age, and being a secular observer are related with an increased likelihood of supporting community corrections. The discussion addresses these findings in the context of punitive goals (e.g., revenge, retribution), public perception of offender dangerousness, and social identity theory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics

Levy

Cohen-Louck

Herzog

2021

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some have argued that heightened punitiveness among religious people is due to their dispositional attribution style, i.e., the belief that crime is the result of an offender's poor moral character (disposition) rather than the structural disadvantages in their environment (situation) (Cullen et al, 1985;Grasmick and McGill, 1994;Heider, 1958; for a review, see Yelderman and Miller, 2016). People with a dispositional attribution style tend to believe that offenders cannot change (Maruna and King, 2009), a belief which likely contributes to punitiveness -if criminals cannot change, they should simply be punished for their behavior.…”

Section: Dispositional Attribution Of Crimementioning

confidence: 99%

Religious perceptions of crime and implications for punitiveness

Seto

Said

2020

Punishment & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tests the role of crime perceptions in mediating the relationship between religiosity and punitive attitudes about criminal justice. Specifically, we estimate the effects of (a) religious affiliation and (b) fundamentalism on punitiveness and assess mediation by dispositional attribution of crime, perceived rising crime rates, perceived immigrant crime, and fear of violent victimization. Data are from the 2014 wave of the Chapman Survey on American Fears, a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States (N = 1,573). We estimated religious effects on punitiveness using ordinary least squares regression and assessed mediation by crime perceptions with the Karlson-Holm-Breen (KHB) method. Punitiveness was positively associated with Mainline Protestant affiliation (vs. non-religious), Catholic affiliation (vs. non-religious), and fundamentalism (fundamentalism also largely accounted for heightened punitiveness among Evangelical Protestants). Perceptions of crime accounted for about 60% of the effects of religious affiliation on punitiveness and nearly 100% of the effect of fundamentalism. Perceptions of crime as caused by evil or moral failure, belief in rising crime rates, and perceptions of immigrant crime were important to explaining religious effects on punitiveness, while fear of violence was relatively unimportant. These findings illuminate the perceptual mechanisms underlying religious effects on criminal justice attitudes.

show abstract

“…Religious fundamentalism is the belief in a single divine God, Biblical truth, sinful human nature, and free will (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004). Fundamentalism is positively related to death penalty support and general punitiveness (Evans & Adams, 2003;Grasmick, Cochran, Bursik, & Kimpel, 1993;Miller & Hayward, 2008;Vogel, 2003;Yelderman & Miller, 2016). In one study, Yelderman and Miller (2017) found that priming fundamentalist beliefs increased punitiveness in verdict and sentencing decisions in an insanity defence case.…”

Section: Religious Fundamentalism and Evaluations Of Aggravating And mentioning

confidence: 99%

Death penalty decision‐making: Fundamentalist beliefs and the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Yelderman

West

Miller

2018

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Jurors’ religious characteristics are related to death penalty attitudes and verdicts. Jurors’ religious characteristics might also relate to endorsements of aggravating circumstances (aggravators) and mitigating circumstances (mitigators)—factors that make a defendant more or less deserving of the death penalty, respectively. The purpose of this research was to assess the extent to which religious fundamentalism was related to endorsement and weighing of aggravators and mitigators and subsequent death penalty decisions while controlling for relevant religious and demographic characteristics. Methods Two studies were conducted. Study 1 included a regression analysis in which participants filled out religious and demographic measures via an online survey. In Study 2, participants acted as mock jurors in a death penalty trial in which the defendant was already found guilty. Mock jurors read the case facts and attorney arguments and then weighed aggravators and mitigators before recommending a sentence for the defendant. Results In Study 1, fundamentalism negatively predicted mitigator endorsement, intrinsic religiosity negatively predicted aggravator endorsement, and orthodoxy positively predicted aggravator endorsement. In Study 2, fundamentalism was related to death penalty sentences, and this was mediated by people's weighing of aggravators and mitigators. Specifically, fundamentalism was related to a lower likelihood of choosing a life sentence because fundamentalism was negatively related to weighing mitigators over aggravators. Conclusions Results support and explain prior research linking fundamentalism with punitiveness in death penalty cases. Such findings support the “eye for an eye” punishment philosophy associated with fundamentalist beliefs. Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.

show abstract

Religious Fundamentalism and Attitudes toward the Insanity Defense: The Mediating Roles of Criminal Attributions and Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill

Cited by 10 publications

References 36 publications

Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics

Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics

Religious perceptions of crime and implications for punitiveness

Death penalty decision‐making: Fundamentalist beliefs and the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About