The Influence of Values on Consensus and Contentious Morality Policy: U.S. Death Penalty Reform, 1956-82

Abstract

We know that policy makers respond more directly to citizen values on morality policy than on nonmorality policy (Haider-Markel and Meier 1996;Mooney and Lee 1995), but how is their response different when morality policy is favored by a clear majority (consensus policy) than when public opinion is more closely divided (contentious policy) (Meier n.d.)? Which values and whose values are responded to under each of these conditions? To address these questions, we conduct an event history analysis on the adoption of two states' death penalty reforms within very different public opinion contexts: the abolition of the death penalty , and its reestablishment in the 11 years after Furman v. Georgia (1972). We find that when public opinion is closely divided on a morality policy issue, policy makers follow its contours closely, to the exclusion of most other influences. But when public opinion is one-sided, political elite ideology has almost exclusive influence on the timing and extent of policy change.Several studies have found that U.S. state policy on morality issues is largely determined by characteristics reflecting a state's values rather than the economic and demographic characteristics that have been long understood to influence nonmorality policy (Haider-Markel and Meier 1996;Mooney and Lee 1995; Mooney n.d.; Norrander and Wilcox n.d.; Smith n.d.). For many people, policies such as those regarding abortion and pornography regulation, gambling, the death penalty, and sex education symbolize the basic moral values affirmed by the state, and because these policies are often nontechnical and highly salient to the pub-

State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges

“…As noted above, the death penalty is a morality policy and these policies are notable for their saliency (Mooney and Lee 2000). Moreover, the framing of crime issues in judicial campaigns and elsewhere probably elevated public support for the punishment independent of levels of violent crime (Baumer, Messner, and Rosenfeld 2003, 866).…”

Dynamic Representation(s): Federal Criminal Justice Policy and an Alternative Dimension of Public Mood

“…Policies related to crime and punishment are an ''easy'' issue for the public and one they tend to care a great deal about (Carmines and Stimson 1980). Issues that are less complex are characterized by higher levels of citizen participation (Gormley 1986) and have been described as ''ideal conditions for democratic responsiveness'' (Mooney and Lee 2000). The public is less likely to allow policy-makers discretion in formulating simple and highly visible policies and are more likely to invest their own time and resources into understanding and getting involved in the policy process.…”

Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes*

“…A new focus on measurement issues (Brace et al, 2002;Jones and Norrander, 1996;Norrander, 2001;Park, Gelman, and Bafumi, 2004) has allowed researchers to tap public attitudes about particular policies and government responsibilities in the states. Consequently, researchers have demonstrated that attitudes about narrower issues are linked to specific policies and outcomes in the states (Goggin and Wlezien, 1993;Mooney and Lee, 2000;Norrander, 2000;Putnam, 2000).…”