Do We Still See the Human? Public Perceptions of People Incarcerated in America

Introduction

Although remnants of the “get-tough era” remain, most notably the precipitous number of people incarcerated in America, a noticeable and reform-oriented shift is taking place in many areas of the criminal justice system (Hannan et al., 2023; Lattimore, 2022). These changes have occurred in tandem with the public’s shifting perspectives toward crime control policies and the individuals most impacted by them (Enns, 2016; Pickett, 2019). The focus of the current study, the U.S. prison system and the individuals it incarcerates, only recently has begun to experience significant reform efforts (Burton, Cullen, et al., 2025). With public opinion serving as a drive wheel of change in the criminal justice system (Pickett, 2019), continued and expanded reform of the U.S. prison system will, at least in part, hinge on public attitudes toward people incarcerated.

For decades, television shows, movies, news stories, and prominent commentators have depicted and labeled incarcerated individuals as evil, barbaric, and animalistic (Yousman, 2009). Some individuals might argue these labels are deserved; these individuals have committed offenses that were serious enough to land them in prison. However, 95% of all people who go to prison will be released at some point (Hughes & Wilson, 2004). Thus, this added stigmatization often is consequential and damaging to their reentry and reintegration back into society. In conceptualizing those behind bars, terms like “dehumanized others,” “superpredators,” and “convicts” have been used to create a clear distinction between “us” and “them” (Dilulio, 1995; D. Garland, 2001; Goffman, 1961). As Wilson (1975, p. 235) noted, “Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people.” In other words, those who engaged in crime historically have been viewed as fundamentally different than those who with criminal involvement.

More recently, there appears to be a broader shift in public opinion toward more humanistic values across many areas of society (Pinker, 2018). For example, research has found increased support for the rights of women and people of color (Atkinson et al., 2021; Hannan et al., 2021), greater concern about curtailing violence by law enforcement (Reny & Newman, 2021), and growing support for assisting rather than arresting unhoused individuals (Burkhardt et al., 2023). These developments suggest the public may view individuals in prison more favorably than in the past. However, it would be overly simplistic to characterize the current moment as uniformly humanistic. Although some evidence points to declining punitiveness and greater support for rehabilitation (Hannan et al., 2023), recent political developments and heightened concern about crime suggest that punitive attitudes may also be resurging. Because public opinion is responsive to perceived crime trends and political rhetoric (Enns, 2016; D. Garland, 2001), attitudes toward incarcerated individuals are likely complex and evolving. Accordingly, the current study uses national-level survey data to examine whether the public still “sees the human” in people who are incarcerated and the factors associated with these attitudes.

The Rise of Humanistic and Whole-Person Frameworks

Across many fields, a movement is growing that seeks to affirm the humanity of individuals in the care of others. Specifically, service providers are moving away from using labels to define people solely by their actions, illnesses, or behaviors, and instead viewing and treating them as their whole selves. For example, in the medical field, philosophies like “whole person healthcare” and “patient centered care” describe approaches whereby individuals and their needs are viewed holistically (e.g., their physical, mental, spiritual health) and not just for their illness (e.g., diabetes, cancer) (Reddy & Wisneski, 2022). In the education field, the term “holistic education” is used to describe an approach to learning that focuses on developing the whole person, encompassing intellectual, emotional, social, physical, and spiritual aspects. More specifically, it emphasizes nurturing students’ individual strengths and potential, not just academic achievement, to prepare them for success in all areas of life (Lauricella & MacAskill, 2015).

There is evidence to suggest this shift has begun to permeate the field of criminal justice. One notable example are the efforts to reduce the stigmatizing language to describe those involved in crime. The importance of language dates to Mead (1934), who argued that the meanings attached to labels and symbols influence how people perceive and respond to others. Thus, an effort has been made by many in the justice system such that label-specific language has been challenged and replaced with person-first language (e.g., “prisoners” are now called “persons incarcerated” and “felons” are called “persons convicted of a felony”) (Bryant, 2021; Denver et al., 2017). This is a significant shift from what was conventional in the not-so-distant past. Summarizing the depiction of law breakers in the mid- to late-1900s, D. Garland (2001, p. 136) noted “offenders are treated as a different species of threatening, violent individuals for whom we can have no sympathy and for whom there is no effective help.” A noteworthy example of this language shift can be seen with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. In 2016, their Secretary of Corrections announced the agency would be adopting person-first language to describe those in their care. Specifically, he stated “I’m embracing ‘people first’ language for everyone—including those who committed a crime” (Jackman, 2016).

Why are we observing humanistic shifts in all these sectors including the field of criminal justice? One reason might be the expanding role of empathy and humanism in society (Pinker, 2018). Increasingly, societies are prioritizing human wellbeing—emphasizing health, happiness, freedom, knowledge, and rich life experiences (Pinker, 2018). In Enlightenment Now, Pinker (2018) outlines the many ways in which modern life has improved, citing dramatic gains in public health, safety, wealth, and education. For example, where nearly 70% of the global population lived in extreme poverty a century ago, that figure has dropped to below 10% today (Bourguignon & Morrisson, 2002). Public investment in social services also has risen sharply, especially among democratic nations such as those in NATO, where spending on health care, education, and welfare has grown significantly (Lindert, 2004). At the same time, working conditions have improved markedly, contributing to a notable decline in workplace injuries and fatalities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

In parallel with these material gains, cultural attitudes have also shifted in more humanistic directions. Over the last several decades, public opinion has become more supportive of equal rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ communities (Atkinson et al., 2021; Hannan et al., 2021). Meanwhile, public enthusiasm for harsh punitive measures has waned. Support for the death penalty has fallen by nearly a quarter and calls for tougher courts have declined even more sharply (Enns, 2014; Hannan et al., 2023). Further evidence of progressive change can be seen in the adoption of a variety of criminal justice policies and practices, including the Second Chance Act of 2007, the REDEEM ACT of 2017, and the First Step Act of 2018. Another example is trauma informed care for those in the justice system, which recognizes that individuals have a history and past that could have impacted their present, and promotes a holistic approach to care addresses those prior experiences (Walker, 2021). These policies and practices seek to shift away from punitive approaches and instead emphasize humanism, rehabilitation, reintegration, and redemption (Burton et al., 2020, 2021). That is, the goal is to equip people with the tools and skills needed to return to society and become a whole person again, not just someone with an eternal stigmatizing label (Butler et al., 2020).

Labeling and Stigmatizing People Incarcerated

Although shifts in public perceptions are being observed in a variety of other sectors of society and toward other groups of people, there is a longstanding history of labeling and stigmatizing people incarcerated. Labeling theory provides a useful framework for understanding these perceptions. At its core, the theory argues that societal reactions to deviance can result in individuals being defined primarily by a socially imposed label (e.g., convict, inmate) rather than by their broader identities and personal characteristics (Lemert, 1951). Moreover, according to the theory, once a deviant label is applied, the public may begin to view the individual solely through the lens of that status, reducing the perceived humanistic qualities and characteristics of the individual (Lemert, 1951) (e.g., a capacity to feel guilt, concern for others).

The central question of the current study closely aligns with this perspective: When Americans think about people incarcerated, do they continue to “see the human” and recognize common qualities possessed by humans, or does the label of incarceration overshadow those characteristics? Labeling theory also provides an important foundation for understanding stigma. “Stigma” generally refers to the process by which individuals are labeled, stereotyped, separated, and ultimately subjected to status loss and discrimination (Link & Phelan, 2001). From the context of incarceration, those who have served time might be seen as fundamentally different, such as lacking morals or humanity, compared to those without such involvement. Research indicates that stigma is multi-faceted, operating across individual, interpersonal, and structural domains (Howell et al., 2022). At the individual level, stigma can result in shame, a reduced level of self-worth, and inhibited reintegration opportunities (Mak et al., 2007). At the interpersonal level, stigmatizing beliefs held by others could lead to discrimination, including a reluctance to hire, rent to, or otherwise interact with individuals who have experienced incarceration. At a structural level, stigma can influence institutional practices and policies, which can in turn go on to restrict opportunities for employment and housing, among other resources (Howell et al., 2022).

A large body of research exists documenting the consequences of stigma. For example, a systematic review on the topic found that stigma associated with criminal legal involvement can lead to decreased access to healthcare, reluctance to seek treatment among those with system involvement, and declined health outcomes (Martin et al., 2020). Moreover, a meta-analysis also revealed the role of stigma on mental health (Mak et al., 2007). The authors found that greater levels of stigma were associated with adjustment issues, which ties directly to the criminal justice field and the topic of reentry. Put differently, reentry is already challenging for a variety of legal and logistical reasons. Add the impact of stigma, and the adjustment back into society becomes even more challenging. Together, these findings demonstrate that stigma extends beyond attitudes and experiences and in fact can produce real-world consequences for individuals with criminal legal system involvement (Martin et al., 2020).

Taken together, the labeling and stigma literatures provide important theoretical foundations for understanding the importance of humanistic perceptions of people incarcerated. If the public views those involved in the criminal legal system through labeled and stigmatizing lenses, they may be less likely to attribute humanistic qualities to them. Conversely, less stigmatizing perceptions could signal empathy and recognition of shared humanity between those with legal system involvement and those without it. Thus, examining whether the public “sees the human” in people incarcerated represents an important extension of the broader literature on criminal justice stigma.

Theoretical Sources of Public Attitudes Toward People Incarcerated

The public nearly never reaches a consensus on any topic pertaining to criminal justice. Generally, the public’s attitudes tend to be divided down a variety of factors. The topic of the current study is no exception. Thus, humanistic perceptions of those serving time in prisons are unlikely to be shared universally by all. This section reviews probable theoretical sources of division as to why some might still see the human in someone incarcerated, and others might simply see someone who committed serious crime and is nothing more than that single action.

One germane predictor of attitudes toward those serving time in prisons is punitiveness. It long has been a correlate of public attitudes toward a range of criminal justice policies, especially those pertaining to incarceration (Enns, 2016). This is likely because people with punitive views tend to see crime as a reflection of some form of personal evil or failure, rather than as a cause of social situation (Maruna & Mann, 2006). Thus, it is reasonable to believe that those with greater punitive attitudes fail to see the human and instead, perceive someone in prison as deserving of punishment without resolve.

Maruna and King’s (2009) concept of “belief in redeemability” also is relevant to this discussion. At its core, a belief in redeemability coveys that someone believes that an individual is not incorrigible. That is, with the right conditions, help, and hard work, a person previously involved in crime can go on to lead a productive life (Maruna & King, 2009). Research demonstrates that a belief in redeemability is associated with a variety of criminal justice policy attitudes such as the death penalty, expungement, and restoring voting rights, among others (Burton et al., 2020, 2021). The core idea behind why this construct should matter is that those who endorse redeemability recognize offenders as people with futures, which in turn fosters empathy and moral inclusion. In this regard, redeemability functions as a psychological bridge that restores an offender’s status as a human being deserving of dignity and social reintegration.

Another theoretically germane variable when considering humanistic views of those incarcerated is fear. Fear of crime (and by extension fear of those who commit crime) is a robust predictor of a variety criminal justice policy attitudes. It is associated with support for the death penalty (Cullen et al., 2000), police use of force and increased surveillance practices (Gerber & Jackson, 2016; Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008), and reduced empathy toward justice involved persons (Metcalfe et al., 2015; Unnever & Cullen, 2009), among other issues. The theory goes that as peoples’ fear toward crime and those who commit it increases, they seek policies that make them feel safer, and also to punish those responsible for causing the fear (Warr, 2000). Thus, it is expected that those with greater levels of fear will be less empathetic toward those incarcerated in prisons and less likely to views them in a humanistic way.

Two other highly interconnected correlates of attitudes toward crime policies and those they impact are conservative political ideology and racial resentment. Both variables generally predict support for a range of punitive justice system policies, such as state level death sentences (Baumgartner et al., 2022), death penalty policies (Brace & Boyea, 2008), increased law enforcement spending (Morris & LeCount, 2020), mandatory sentencing (Cullen, Butler, et al., 2021), and more stringent prison release policies (Ivanov et al., 2021). Several notable explanations as to why those with more staunchly held conservative and racially prejudiced attitudes lean this way exist. One the “social dominance orientation,” which is linked to right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice toward ethnic groups (Cohr & Asbrock, 2009). Put simply, individuals with a high social dominance orientation believe some groups should be “on top” and others “below,” which makes them more accepting of unequal or discriminatory treatment. There is also the “in-group” versus “out-group” thesis, whereby those from the in-group feel that those who commit crime are in the out-group, which, in turn, leads the in-group to hold greater prejudice against the out-group (Unnever & Cullen, 2010). It is expected that those with stronger racial animus and conservative ideology will perceive those behind bars in less humanizing ways.

Another notable correlate of perceptions toward those behind bars and concern for them is religion (Cullen, Graham, et al., 2021). Although findings have been mixed, there exists a sizeable amount of literature that finds those with stronger religious affiliations and involvement are more supportive of helping incarcerated people (Unnever et al., 2005). For example, B. Garland et al. (2015) found that those with greater religious forgiveness and less belief in a punitive God were more likely to support transitional programming and housing for those reentering society compared to less religious respondents. Furthermore, Chui and Cheng (2014) found that religious students held more favorable attitudes toward incarcerated people than non-religious students. Of note, significantly higher levels empathy one the Attitudes Toward Prisoners scale items were reported among the religious students. It is assumed that those with greater religiosity are more empathic toward those behind bars and thus see them in a more humanistic way.

The Current Study

Over the past several decades, public opinion has shifted noticeably in more humanistic directions across a vast number of fields (Pinker, 2018). Despite this trend, it remains unclear whether the public extends this humanistic zeal to one of the most stigmatized groups in society: individuals serving time in prison (Moran, 2012). This question is critical because approximately 95% of people in prison will eventually return to their communities (Hughes & Wilson, 2004), meaning public perceptions of their humanity may shape both the scope of prison reform and the willingness of communities to support reintegration efforts (Weiman, 2007).

The current study examines whether the public “sees the human” in those who are incarcerated, rather than simply as someone whose whole identity is their incarcerated status. It is posited that if the public views people in prisons in more favorable and humanistic ways, they would support polices tied to reentry and prison reform. To investigate this topic, the current study relies on national-level survey data (n = 1,000) to assess the extent to which the public attributes humanistic traits to individuals who are incarcerated (e.g., feeling appreciation, experiencing guilt, caring for others, needing affection). In addition, the study seeks to identify the factors that shape these perceptions. Prior research suggests there will be substantial variation in attitudes, and several theoretical perspectives point to potential sources of this divergence.

Methods

The current study uses national-level survey data (N = 1,000) collected by YouGov from July 24, 2023, to July 30, 2023. The survey achieved an 87.9% response rate, which is nearly double the typical rate for online surveys (Wu et al., 2022). The data collection and the questionnaire was approved by The University of Texas at Dallas Institutional Review Board (IRB# IRB-23-662). Due to YouGov’s reputation for methodological rigor in opt-in survey research, its data have been widely used in high-impact journals across a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., Almeling & Gadarian, 2014; Boudreau & MacKenzie, 2013).

YouGov’s sampling frame consists of more than two million U.S. adults who are eligible to complete surveys in exchange for incentives. Due to this large and diverse respondent pool, the likelihood of obtaining samples that align with established demographic benchmarks, such as those provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) (a truly representative sample of the U.S. population) is enhanced. The sampling process for the present study followed three distinct stages. First, a synthetic sampling frame was constructed using data from the 2019 ACS, a probability-based sample representative of the U.S. adult population. Next, YouGov employed nearest-neighbor matching techniques to select a sample from its panel that closely corresponded to the ACS-derived frame in terms of age, race, gender, and educational attainment (Stuart, 2010). In the final stage, YouGov applied post-stratification weights to further align the matched sample with ACS benchmarks and correct for any remaining discrepancies (Rivers, 2007).

Although concerns have been raised regarding selection bias in opt-in panels (i.e., that people who take surveys for money are different than people who do not partake in that behavior), empirical assessments suggest that YouGov data yield results comparable to probability-based surveys, such as the General Social Survey (GSS). Specifically, Graham et al. (2021) found that YouGov estimates tend to align closely with those from the GSS, with less than 10% of coefficients exhibiting statistically significant differences. Furthermore, YouGov has recently demonstrated greater accuracy than Gallup in predicting electoral outcomes (FiveThirtyEight, 2021), despite Gallup’s assertion that its panel is one of the few truly representative research panels in the United States (Gallup, n.d..). These findings underscore the robustness of YouGov’s methodology and the generalizability of its data to the broader U.S. population (Ansolabehere & Schaffner, 2014).

To assess and show the representativeness of the YouGov sample, demographic distributions were compared to estimates from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (in parentheses). The weighted sample closely mirrors national figures on a variety of demographic benchmarks: non-Hispanic White, 62.8% (60.8%); male, 48.7% (49.2%); age 65+, 21.2% (22.2%); college degree, 33.7% (33%); Northeast, 17.7% (17.5%); Midwest, 21.3% (20.6%); South, 37.7% (38.4%); West, 23.2% (23.6%) (“QuickFacts,” 2023; U.S. Census Bureau, n.d..). Similarly, the weighted sample’s political composition aligns with Pew Research Center’s estimates for party identification among registered voters: Republican, 33.1% (30%); Democrat, 36.2% (27%). These comparisons affirm the external validity of the study’s findings and their applicability to the broader U.S. adult population.

Measures

Independent and Control Variables

The analyses include a variety of theoretically germane variables that are expected to divide public views toward people incarcerated (See Table 1). Punitiveness is a four-item mean index (factor loadings: .702 to .790, α = .855) that assesses support (1 = strongly oppose, 5 = strongly support) for four policy statements. The policies include (1) making sentences more severe for all crimes; (2) increasing the use of the death penalty for murderers; (3) increasing the use of mandatory minimum sentencing laws (e.g., an automatic five-year-sentence for drug possession, laws requiring life imprisonment for repeat offenders); and (4) trying more juvenile offenders as adults in adult courts. The items were coded such that higher values on the scale correspond with greater levels of punitiveness.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sample Descriptive Statistics and Demographic Characteristics (N = 1,000).

Variables	Mean or %	SD	Min–Max
Humanization of Incarcerated People	2.41	.68	1–4
Punitiveness	3.12	1.04	1–5
Belief in Redeemability	3.51	.71	1–5
Fear of Crime	3.16	.96	1–5
Victimization Experiences (%)	15.80	−	0–1
Racial Resentment	2.98	1.09	1–5
White Nationalism	2.09	1.03	1–5
Conservatism	3.04	1.13	1–5
Republicanism	3.75	2.09	1–7
Religiosity	.01	.89	−1.43–1.47
Education	3.45	1.56	1–6
Southerner (%)	37.73	−	0–1
Rural (%)	16.75	−	0–1
Married (%)	46.27	−	0–1
Age	47.93	18.20	18–96
Male (%)	48.66	−	0–1
White (%)	62.78	−	0–1
Income	6.57	3.51	1–16

Belief in Redeemability is a three-item mean index (factor loadings: .481 to .684, α = .657) ¹ that assesses the extent to which someone believes that people previously involved in crime can turn their lives around and change for the better. This construct was drawn from the work of Maruna and King (2009). An example item from the scale includes “most criminal offenders are unlikely to change for the better.” The response options ranged from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The items were coded such that higher values on the scale indicate a greater belief in redeemability.

Fear of Crime was also controlled for in the analyses. Specifically, respondents were asked how afraid or unafraid they were that in the next five years, someone will try to “steal money or property from you,” “break into your house,” “rob or mug you on the street,” “rape or sexually assault you,” or “murder you.” This variable has been used in prior research examining public perceptions toward crime-related policies (Burton, Cullen, et al., 2025). These items were combined into a mean-index (factor loadings: .676 to .821, α = .863). Additionally, the respondents were asked whether they have had previous victimization experiences in the form of anyone in their household being the victim of a crime in the past five years (1 = Victimization experiences).

Regarding racial attitudes, Racial Resentment is a five-item mean index (factor loadings: .719 to .853, α = .901) adapted from Kinder and Sanders (1996) that is included in the model. An example item from the scale is “It is really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as Whites.” Politically, the respondents’ levels of Conservatism (1 = very liberal, 5 = very conservative) and Republicanism (1 = strong Democrat, 7 = strong Republican) are captured with two ordinal variables.

Religiosity ² also is included as a control variable. It is measured as a standardized three-item mean index (factor loadings: .736 to .866; α = .870) based on questions about the importance of religion in respondents’ lives, their frequency of church attendance, and their frequency of prayer. Other control variables consist of Education (1 = no high school, 6 = graduate degree), the respondents’ region of residence (1 = Southerner), urbanicity (1 = Rural), marital status (1 = Married), Age (in years), sex (1 = Male), race (1 = White), geographic location of residence (1 = Rural), and a linearly imputed measure of Income (1 = <$10 K, 16 = $500K). Linear imputation was used because for the income variable, approximately 10% of the respondents selected “prefer not to say.” The imputation estimated the incomes of those who said “prefer not to say” by drawing on their responses to all the other variables in the model. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for all the variables.

Analytic Strategy

The analyses proceed in the following way. First, the weighted frequencies are calculated to assess public views toward people incarcerated. Second, multivariate analyses assess the sources of these attitudes. Specifically, an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression framework using robust standard errors are used. As a prelude to the OLS models, all the assumptions of OLS regression were assessed and do not appear to be violated. Regarding multicollinearity, variance inflation factors (VIF) ranged from 1.03 to 2.32, with a mean of 1.44. These numbers suggest multicollinearity is not a concern in the model.

Results

Table 2 presents the samples’ opinions toward the 6 items that capture whether the public still “sees the human” in people incarcerated in prison. Put directly, an examination of the “Total Extent” column indicates that most of the sample feels that people incarcerated possess humanistic qualities. The qualities that the public felt strongest about were that people incarcerated need affection and praise just like anybody else (89.7% of the sample believes this), have feelings of guilt (87.6%), and appreciate when others do kind things for them (86.4%). The humanistic quality that the sample felt least strongly about is whether individuals in prisons share the same values as members of civil society (76.7% of the sample believe they have the same values). However, even at the lowest level of endorsement, more than three in four respondents believe this to be true.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Public Opinion Toward Humanistic Concerns for Incarcerated People (N = 1,000).

Humanistic qualities	Total extent	Large extent	Some extent	Small extent	Not at all
Question Stem: In thinking about inmates in prison, to what extent do you think that most prisoners:
1. Possess the same values as members of civil society?	76.7	8.2	27.7	40.8	23.3
2. Appreciate when others do kind things for them?	86.4	15.2	34.6	36.5	13.6
3. Have feelings of guilt?	87.6	9.8	36.5	41.4	12.4
4. Care about others?	82.1	7.8	32.1	42.2	17.9
5. Need affection and praise just like anybody else?	89.7	26.0	35.3	28.4	10.3
6. Are nice people?	82.7	6.2	30.0	46.5	17.3

Note. These data are weighted.

Table 3 presents the multivariate results of the OLS regression analysis. The coefficients are shown for the predictor variables and robust standard errors were used to address any possible heteroskedetasticity. A total of five variables were associated significantly with humanizing views toward people incarcerated. As expected, punitiveness and racial resentment were both significantly associated with a lower likelihood of perceiving humanistic qualities in incarcerated population (b = −.128, p < .001 and b = −.093, p < .001, respectively). The only other variable in the model that was negatively associated with the outcome was age. Older respondents in the sample were less likely to believe those behind bars possess humanistic qualities (b = -.006, p <.0001).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Sources of Attitudes Toward Whether People Incarcerated Possess Humanistic Qualities.

Variables	b	(RSE)	ß
Punitiveness	−.118***	(.025)	−.185
Redeemability	.393***	(.034)	.415
Fear of crime	−.026	(.022)	-.037
Victimization experiences	.118	(.052)	.064
Racial resentment	−.090***	(.024)	−.146
Conservatism	.024	(.028)	.041
Republicanism	−.008	(.013)	−.026
Religiosity	.046**	(.027)	.061
Education	.024	(.015)	.055
Southerner	.014	(.013)	.029
Rural	−.046	(.051)	−.025
Married	−.030	(.043)	−.022
Age	−.006***	(.001)	−.152
Male	.024	(.042)	.018
White	.073	(.043)	.052
Income	.015	(.007)	.082
N		892
R-squared		.428

Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficients; RSE = robust standard error; = standardized regression coefficients.

*

p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Approximately 10% of the sample selected “prefer not to say” for income. The cases were dropped and a binary logistic regression model was used to assess whether those choosing “prefer not to say” differed significantly than those who provided their income. The outcome was a binary variable where 0 = provided their income level and 1 = prefer not to say. Demographic variables served as the predictors and the only significant effects were observed with education level and age. More educated and older respondents were less likely to select “prefer not to say.” This finding makes intuitive sense: Older and more educated Americans generally make more money and, as a result, would likely not feel embarrassed or ashamed to report their income in a survey. No other differences were observed.

Regarding factors that were positively associated with possessing humanizing views of people incarcerated, belief in redeemability and religiosity both exerted significant effects. In fact, belief in redeemability was the strongest predictor in the model (ß = .253). The impact of religiosity was modest, but significant (b = .054, p < .01). No other variables were found to significantly impact ones’ views of people incarcerated. Overall, the model explained a large portion of the variation (41.4%) in attitudes toward people incarcerated (R-squared = .414).

Discussion

Stevenson’s (2014) reminder that “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done” provides a powerful frame for interpreting the results of this study. For decades, people incarcerated have been portrayed and labeled as irredeemable and fundamentally different from the rest of society (D. Garland, 2001). However, the findings presented herein suggest that the public does not wholly accept this narrative. Instead, a strong majority of the sample perceives people in prison in a humanistic way. That is, they do not see persons behind bars solely based on their carceral label and status. Rather, the believe they are capable of appreciation, feeling guilt, express care for others, and possess emotional needs just like the rest of us.

This shift corresponds with broader societal trends whereby people are being seen not as labels, statuses, or afflictions, but for who they really are as people (Bazemore & Maruna, 2009; Pinker, 2018). The goal of the current study was to assess whether the public, when thinking of people incarcerated, still “sees the human,” or does the public see this group solely for their label of being incarcerated. The results reveal that although most Americans believe that those in prisons still possess many humanistic traits, there are meaningful divisions in opinion which will be expanded upon below.

Conclusion

The United States remains the world leader in imprisoning its citizens (Prison Policy Initiative, n.d..). The prison population consists of people from all walks of life that have committed a variety of crimes ranging from drug crimes, white collar crimes, and murder, among others. Do those who are locked up still possess qualities like the rest of us? Do they have care for others, feel guilt, and possess the same values as those in civil society? The key question addressed in this study was whether the public still sees the human in those incarcerated. Results suggest they do, but policy and practice do not always reflect public perceptions. People incarcerated still face prison conditions today that include poor nutrition, polluted air, dilapidated facilities, severe overcrowding, and in some states no air conditioning (Chen, 2018). Moreover, stigma expressed toward those with criminal records is still high (Shi et al., 2022). The hope is that this study contributes to the growing movement to reform the corrections system.