Simultaneous prediction of punitive and rehabilitation-oriented attitudes towards probation

Abstract

Simultaneous prediction of punitive and rehabilitation-oriented attitudes towards probation: An ecological approach Butter, R.; Hermanns, J.M.A.; Menger, A. Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. AbstractThe concepts punitiveness and rehabilitation orientation in the general public are generally measured by rather broad attitude items that are not directly related to probation. In this study, two separate attitude scales were used that were tailor-made for the probation context and therefore have a high ecological validity. These "ecological scales" were each analyzed with the same predictor set. Cognitive emotive variables showed incremental prediction above demographics. Higher knowledge of probation and more satisfaction with society are related to higher preference for rehabilitation. Less knowledge of probation and a higher feeling of victimization are related to a more punitive attitude.

Portrayal of the Croatian Probation Service's Development in Print Media

“…These misperceptions about crime trends and sentencing practices can lower levels of confidence in the criminal justice system (Mirrlees-Black, 2001). However, media portrayal can also increase visibility and public confidence in probation by providing substantive and reliable information about it 1 (Allen, 2006) and consequently, raising knowledge about probation can incline people to favour rehabilitative approaches more and hold less punitive attitudes (Butter, Hermanns, & Menger, 2013). Thus, when trying to isolate and estimate the influence of media representation on the public, it is very important not to observe crime in the media as a unitary phenomenon but to take into account the diversity among news media organisations and formats, the content of the news, and audience heterogeneity (Doyle, 2006).…”

Gendered views on parole: exploring how emotion and emotion management help to explain gender differences in the Australian public’s views on parole

“…Reflecting these conceptual differences, criminological researchers using quantitative research methods have adopted a variety of broad attitudinal measures to assess individual punitivity, including respondents' attitudes toward punishment or sentence severity (e.g., Payne, Gainey, Triplett, & Danner, 2004;Kleck & Jackson, 2016) and their preferred goal of punishment (e.g., Langworthy & Whitehead, 1986;Mackey, Courtright, & Packard, 2006;Roberts, Hough, Jacobsen, & Moon, 2009). However, due to people's tendency to respond in harsher terms when asked broad questions about punishment (Hough & Roberts, 2002), researchers have also measured punitiveness through respondents' support for specific penal policies, including the use of capital punishment (Borg, 1997), 'three-strike laws' (Applegate, Cullen, Turner, & Sundt, 1996), mandatory life sentences (Mitchell & Roberts, 2012) and probation (Butter, Hermanns, & Menger, 2013).…”

“…In this study, the concept of punitiveness is examined with respect to the release of prisoners on parole. This approach is similar to that of Butter et al (2013), who examined public punitiveness with respect to probation, another form of community supervision for offenders. While some previous studies have included parole-related questions as part of a larger punitiveness scale (Dowler, 2003;Haghighi & Lopez, 1998;Johnson, 2009), few studies could be located where a specific focus was given to measuring punitiveness using the public's support or opposition to the release of prisoners on parole (Cumberland & Zamble, 1992;Samra-Grewal & Roesch, 2000).…”

“…For the most part, these studies have focused on the influence of fear of crime on the public's punishment attitudes (Baker et al, 2015;Costelloe, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2009;Hartnagel & Templeton, 2012;Hurwitz & Smithey, 1998;Langworthy & Whitehead, 1986). Here, studies generally find support for a positive relationship between fear of crime and punitiveness, with more fearful individuals less likely to support rehabilitative crime policies (Baker et al, 2015) and more likely to oppose the early release of prisoners through probation or parole (Butter et al, 2013;Dowler, 2003).…”

“…There, it was identified that studies have tended to focus on the relationship between public punitiveness and three distinct emotions: fear, anger and empathy. These studies have generally found a positive relationship between punitive public views and fear of crime (Baker et al, 2015;Butter et al, 2013;Dowler, 2003) and anger (Hartnagel & Templeton, 2012;Johnson, 2009), and a negative relationship with empathy (Courtright et al, 2005;Unnever & Cullen, 2009). Since these three emotions appear most salient to public punitiveness, it is these emotions that will form the focus of this study.…”