The Pragmatic Public? The Impact of Practical Concerns on Support for Punitive and Rehabilitative Prison Policies

Vuk, Mateja; Applegäte, Brandon K.; Ouellette, Heather M.; Bolin, Riane M.; Aizpurúa, Eva

doi:10.1007/s12103-019-09507-2

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our pattern of results aligns closely with other research, including studies of sentencing attitudes [18][19][20][21]38], showing that cost prompts can induce people to trade off these so-called sacred values [39]. The present results extend these previous findings by demonstrating that the effect of cost-benefit salience on punishment judgments may be specific to costs and may represent an implicit effect of cognitive availability, as opposed to a calculated response to gaining new insight about the costs of incarceration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Slippery scales: Cost prompts, but not benefit prompts, modulate sentencing recommendations in laypeople

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do people punish more than they would if the decision costs were more transparent? In two Internet-based vignette experiments, we tested whether juvenile sentencing recommendations among U.S. adults are responsive to variation in the salience of the taxpayer costs and public safety benefits of incarceration. Using a 2 Cost (present vs. absent) x 2 Benefit (present vs. absent) factorial design, Experiment 1 (N = 234) found that exposure to information about the direct costs of incarcerating the juvenile offender reduced sentencing recommendations by about 28%, but exposure to the public safety benefits had no effect on sentences. Experiment 2 (N = 301) manipulated cost-benefit salience by asking participants to generate their own list of costs of incarceration, benefits of incarceration, or an affectively neutral, unrelated word list. Results revealed a similar selective effect whereby sentencing recommendations were reduced in the cost condition relative to the benefits and control conditions, but sentences in the benefit condition did not differ from the control. This combined pattern suggests that laypeople selectively neglect to factor cost considerations into these judgments, thereby inflating their support for punishment, unless those costs are made salient. These findings contribute to the debate on transparency in sentencing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Slippery scales: Cost prompts, but not benefit prompts, modulate sentencing recommendations in laypeople

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also predicted that, reflecting instrumental concerns, respondents would be more supportive of policies that were less costly to taxpayers. Consistent with other research showing sensitivity to cost for prison and reentry services (Garland et al, 2013;Johnston & Wozniak, 2021;Vuk et al, 2020), we found that respondents were more supportive of PPE for institutionalized individuals when the cost was lower (although the results were non-significant in the prisoner condition they were still in the expected direction). We interpret this finding as suggesting that, when crime prevention is not a policy goal, direct monetary costs are an important instrumental concern.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…What is not clear is whether this pragmatism extends to more compassionate treatment that is not directly aimed at reforming criminal behavior. Often research showing endorsement of progressive approaches frames it in terms of helping those individuals refrain from crime (e.g., rehabilitation) (Thielo et al, 2016;Vuk et al, 2020). Support for health-related priorities, if not viewed as directly impacting criminal behavior, may be lower on the list.…”

Section: Public Attitudes About Compassionate Criminal Justice Policiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considerable research suggests that the public holds stigmatized views toward the (formerly) incarcerated as evidenced by lack of support for opportunity in varied domains, including housing, employment, and public assistance (Bandara et al, 2020;Denver et al, 2017;Johnston & Wozniak, 2021;Lehmann et al, 2020;Ouellette et al, 2017;Socia et al, 2019). Further, support may depend upon (saving) costs (Bandara et al, 2020;Garland et al, 2013;Johnston & Wozniak, 2021;Socia et al, 2019;Thielo et al, 2016;Vuk et al, 2020) or concerns that individuals in prison are given some benefit that the public is not (Garland et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is compassion the flip side of punitiveness? Incorporating COVID-19 crisis in experimental vignettes to examine support for visitation and vaccination in prison

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe public hold both punitive and pragmatic attitudes toward prison policy. Yet it is unclear whether the public supports compassionate efforts that do not directly relate to recidivism. This study explores the role of exclusionary symbolic aims (prioritizing non-prisoner groups), inclusionary symbolic aims (minimizing health risk for the vulnerable), and cost (taxes). Methods Using a quota-based national sample fielded in spring 2021 (N=1260), we embedded two experimental vignettes to assess support for vaccination priorities and personal protective equipment (PPE) for in-person visitation. We also examine respondent experiences (e.g., exposure to COVID-19, vaccine status, personal or vicarious arrest) and beliefs (e.g., political ideology, racial resentment, stigma). Results Consistent with dominant exclusionary symbolic aims, respondents showed strong preferences for non-prisoner groups in facilitating safe in-person visits (in long-term care facilities) and vaccine priorities (to prison guards). Inclusionary symbolic aims were less clear when examining risk from vaccine side effects or helping vulnerable populations (the elderly). High cost reduced support for compassionate policy. Conclusions Public support for policies aimed at maintaining the health of individuals who are incarcerated may be motivated by similar factors as punishment preferences.

show abstract

“…But punishing others is risky and costly, so why do we so readily engage in it? Research in social psychology has suggested that typical individuals espouse multiple punishment motives (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008; Gromet & Darley, 2009; Vidmar & Miller, 1980), including the desire for retribution (McFatter, 1982; Orth, 2004; Vidmar, 1974; Warr et al, 1983) and consequentialist aims like deterrence (Crockett et al, 2014; Ellsworth & Ross, 1983; Vuk et al., 2020), and rehabilitation (Gromet & Darley, 2009). However, when tested in rivalrous contexts, retribution may play a dominant role (Aharoni & Fridlund, 2012; Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002; Carlsmith, Monahan, & Evans, 2007; Darley, Carlsmith, & Robinson, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Painful Message

Aharoni

Simpson

Nahmias

et al. 2022

Zeitschrift für Psychologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This preregistered experiment examined two proximate drivers of retributive punishment attitudes: the motivation to make the perpetrator suffer, and understand the wrongfulness of his offense. In a sample of 514 US adults, we presented criminal case summaries that varied the level of suffering (absent vs. present) and understanding (absent vs. present) experienced by the perpetrator and measured punishment judgments and attitudes. Our results demonstrate, as predicted, that participants were more satisfied by the sentence and less punitive when they believed that the perpetrator had suffered from the punishment or that he understood the wrongfulness of his actions. This pattern held across crimes of varying seriousness (theft vs. aggravated robbery) and across two narrative perspectives (participant as victim vs. participant as third party). However, joint evidence of suffering and understanding did not strengthen this effect, contrary to predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for leading philosophical theories of punishment.

show abstract

The Pragmatic Public? The Impact of Practical Concerns on Support for Punitive and Rehabilitative Prison Policies

Cited by 13 publications

References 75 publications

Slippery scales: Cost prompts, but not benefit prompts, modulate sentencing recommendations in laypeople

Slippery scales: Cost prompts, but not benefit prompts, modulate sentencing recommendations in laypeople

Is compassion the flip side of punitiveness? Incorporating COVID-19 crisis in experimental vignettes to examine support for visitation and vaccination in prison

A Painful Message

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About