The National Punishment Survey and Public Policy Consequences

Abstract

Research into the criminal justice policy formation process has made it clear that public preferences are important influences. While public preferences about punishment are often strong and well-articulated, they are largely unconstrained by the consequences associated with those choices. This study examines these policy issues as they relate to a recent national survey of public attitudes concerning punishment for criminal offenses. The potential policy consequences of the preferences expressed in the survey were estimated by applying the punishment preferences to a recent conviction cohort from New York State. Comparisons were then made between the actual outcomes in New York with those that would have occurred if the survey results had applied. As anticipated from prior research concerning public attitudes about punishment, the survey respondents were more punitive than actual practice. The additional correctional costs that would have been associated with applying those preferences to the New York offenders were also estimated and found to be very high. The implications of these results for public policy formulation are discussed.

Attitudes about rehabilitating sex offenders: Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences

“…While some research showed that the public holds rehabilitative ideals for some offenses (Cullen, Skovron, Scott, & Burton, 1990;McCorkle, 1993), many studies showed that members of the public hold fairly punitive values (Payne, Gainey, Triplett, & Danner, 2003;Zimmerman, Van Alstyne, & Dunn, 1988). Failing to support rehabilitative ideals may simply result from a general reluctance to support rehabilitative ideals for any type of offense.…”

What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

“…Though some research showed support for community-based sanctions (see Brown & Elrod, 1995;Payne & Gainey, 1999), other research showed that the public preferred relatively long sentences for convicted offenders (Zimmerman, Van Alstyne, & Dunn, 1988). A quote from McCorkle (1993, p. 251) reconciles these seemingly disparate findings as far as punishment preferences are concerned: ''[The public's] priorities seem clear: Incarcerate first, then rehabilitate if possible.''…”

“…Of course lengthy sentences can be costly. Research by Zimmerman et al (1988) found that if the public's preferred sanctions (from the 1987 U.S. National Punishment Survey) were given to a cohort of offenders convicted in New York, the cost of punishment would increase by 2.5 billion dollars in New York alone.…”

Assessing the public's demand for hate crime penalties

“…First, research has shown almost universally that an individual's estimation of the seriousness of the offense plays a central role in his or her decision about appropriate punishments. Specific offense characteristics that generally have significant effects on decision making include (1) the amount of harm inflicted on a victim (Applegate et al, 1996;Rossi, Simpson, & Miller, 1985;Turner, Cullen, Sundt, & Applegate, 1997), (2) the dollar amount of property stolen (Applegate et al, 1996;Hamilton & Rytina, 1980;Rossi et al, 1985;Stalans & Diamond, 1990;Turner et al, 1997), and (3) whether or not the offender was carrying and/or used a weapon (Applegate et al, 1996;Turner et al, 1997;Zimmerman, Van Alstyne, & Dunn, 1988).…”