Punitive attitudes: Towards an operationalization to measure individual punitivity in a multidimensional way

Abstract

Although several empirical studies on punitivity have appeared in the last few decades, this body of research stays under-theorized and rather vague because of the lack of a clear definition of the concept of punitivity and the different methodologies used to measure it. Focusing on individual punitivity (punitive attitudes), this literature review article presents some important substantive and methodological achievements of and challenges to this body of research. Despite existing knowledge and the already extensive literature on the topic, this article aims to add an innovative element by (a) providing a clear, thorough and multidimensional operationalization of the concept of punitive attitudes that can be used in future research, by (b) not only reviewing the existing literature, but also being critical of and nuancing some of the main research findings, and by (c) making concrete suggestions to advance research in this area.

Keywords

Literature review operationalization punitive attitudes punitivity

Introduction

The words ‘punitive populism’, ‘punitive turn’, ‘punitive segregation’ and ‘new punitiveness’ appear frequently in the recent literature on crime and punishment (Daems, 2010), and several empirical studies on punitivity have appeared in the last few decades. However, there is no clear definition of what exactly punitivity means. ‘Punitivity is a broadly used and vague concept’ (Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008a: 109). The concept of punitivity stays rather undertheorized (Mathews, 2005), and different researchers give different meanings to the term. The concept of punitivity only ‘snuck’ officially into the criminological literature in the 2005 Sage Dictionary of Criminology, but even here a clear definition failed to appear (Daems, 2010). Strictly, the term punitiveness describes ‘attitudes towards punishment’ (Kury et al., 2004: 52), but even this definition remains rather vague.

Researchers of the German Max Planck Gesellschaft took the first step in conceptualizing punitivity by developing the ‘onion model’ (Kury et al., 2004). The onion consists of three skins, each of which represents a different level of punitivity: a macro level, a meso level and a micro level. The macro level of punitivity refers to the social debate, the media messages and/or the political discourse on punishment, and at the meso level we find judicial punitivity, which contains the concrete actions of judicial actors, and thus represents the sentencing mentality of the judicial system.¹ The micro level of punitivity stands for an individual person in a particular society’s need for punishment, personal beliefs, perceptions, values, emotions, etc. about punishment. This is what we call ‘punitive attitudes’ and what will be the centre of attention in this article.²

Research on punitive attitudes can be situated in opinion research in general,³ since an opinion is a verbal expression of an (aspect of an) attitude (Billiet, 2003; Thurstone, 1928).⁴ In criminological research, public opinions about crime and punishment constitute an important area of investigation. The way people perceive crime and punishment is a central aspect of normative culture in general and of formal social control in particular (Stylianou, 2003). As Flanagan (1996: 5) noted, public opinion polls on crime and justice can act as a ‘social barometer to measure satisfaction with important government services’ and they reflect ‘the public’s mood and priorities for criminal justice reform’. Moreover, in most Western countries, influential politicians (for example, Tony Blair) hold the view that penal policies and practices should be adjusted in accordance with public views on sentencing. Sentencing criminals in a way that does not reflect public opinion would surely have undesirable consequences (for example, decreasing confidence in the courts). This, however, does not mean that sentencing policies should be determined exclusively on the basis of public opinion. Solely following the public’s view when sentencing criminals would entail obvious risks as well (for example, disproportional sentencing practices, resulting in high financial costs as well) (Ryberg, 2010). This whole debate is a matter of finding the right balance between public opinion and sentencing policies.

The first empirical study that explored public attitudes towards punishment was conducted in 1909 in the USA (Sharp and Otto, 1909). Since then, numerous criminological studies have examined individuals’ attitudes towards different aspects of punishment. But, as with the concept of punitivity, one of the problems in research on punitive attitudes is the lack of conceptual definitions. Previous studies examining punitive attitudes have operationalized this construct in a number of ways. In addition, the research methods used to measure punitive attitudes have varied considerably. This review presents some important substantive and methodological achievements of and challenges to this body of research. Despite existing knowledge and the already extensive literature on the topic, this literature review article aims to add an innovative element by (a) providing a clear, thorough and multidimensional operationalization of the concept of punitive attitudes that can be used in future research, by (b) not only reviewing the existing literature, but also being critical of and nuancing some of the main research findings, and by (c) making suggestions to advance research in this area. We will fulfil these promises by reviewing the existing literature on punitive attitudes. We have searched for up-to-date English-language research articles in peer-reviewed journals and chapters in academic books on individual punitivity. Articles and chapters on the macro or meso level of punitivity were excluded from the analysis. An overview file helped us to structure over one hundred useful sources.

Conceptualization: Dimensions of punitive attitudes

A review of research must begin with a definition of the subject matter. By reviewing the different dimensions used to conceptualize individual punitivity in previous studies, we will come to a multidimensional definition.

There are several studies measuring punitive attitudes by asking one or more general questions, such as ‘In general, would you say that the sentences handed down by the courts are too severe, about right, or not severe enough?’ (for example, Doob and Roberts, 1988: 112). No matter how easy to construct and to analyze, these types of question are too broad and do not give us an adequate picture of the punitivity level of an individual person (Roberts et al., 2003). It can hardly represent such a complex construct as punitiveness (Gelb, 2008; Simonson, 2011). Because the concept of punitivity contains various dimensions, a broad question cannot capture all these dimensions and no nuancing would be possible. Moreover, people answering a general question respond punitively (in part because they have the worst kinds of cases and offenders in mind) as opposed to answering a specific, delineated question (Hough and Roberts, 2002).

Over the years, researchers started to realize that asking more specific questions would better capture the complex and nuanced public attitudes towards punishment (Gelb, 2008). We can distinguish between four groups of studies that measure a person’s punitive attitudes. First, researchers often examine the goal of punishment that a person prefers the most (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Courtright and Mackey, 2004; Doob and Roberts, 1988; Mackey et al., 2006; Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2009). In general, individuals who are supportive of retribution, incapacitation and deterrence are considered more punitive than people who are in favour of rehabilitation and restoration.

Secondly, studies have been conducted measuring support for specific forms of penal sanctions,⁵ such as the death penalty, imprisonment, community-based sanctions and/or others (for example, Bohm and Vogel, 1991, 1994; Borg, 1997; Cochran and Chamlin, 2005; Grasmick et al., 1993; Howells et al., 1995; Ramirez, 2013; Robbers, 2006; Sandys and McGarrell, 1997; Unnever et al., 2005; Young, 1992), whereas others have looked at punitiveness on a continuum of penal sanctions. Penal sanctions on the left side of the continuum (for example probation) are considered less punitive than penal sanctions on the right side of the continuum (for example imprisonment) (Doob and Roberts, 1988; Hough and Roberts, 2002; Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008b; Lane, 1997; Payne et al., 2004; Ramirez, 2013).⁶ This dimension of punitive attitudes is what Ramirez (2013) calls ‘punitive sentiment’.

Furthermore, some researchers consider the intensity of the penal sanction as an important indicator of a person’s level of punitivity. King and Maruna (2009a: 108), for example, define punitivism as ‘the desire to see greater number of people punished (i.e. too many offenders “get away with it”) for greater durations (i.e. longer prison sentences) and with increased severity (i.e. no more “holiday camp” prisons, more “boot camps” and harsher conditions)’.⁷ Individuals opting for longer prison sentences with harsh conditions, higher fines, etc. are considered more punitive than people who prefer less long prison sentences with mild conditions or lower fines.

Lastly, studies have explored respondents’ support for specific (non-)punitive sentencing policies, such as the three strikes legislation, mandatory life sentence, parole or disenfranchisement (for example, Applegate and Cullen, 1996; Mitchell and Roberts, 2012; Roberts and Hough, 2005a; Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997). Respondents in favour of the death penalty, disenfranchisement or the three strikes law are considered to have greater punitivity levels than people who prefer parole.

These four groups of studies, however, measure only one or two element(s) of punitive attitudes, while ignoring the multidimensionality of the concept. The strategy of using several items to measure the concept of punitiveness is seldom used (Simonson, 2011). We will try to fill this gap by giving a multidimensional definition to the concept of punitive attitudes. Out of the previous conceptualizations, we can distil four essential elements to be incorporated in the definition of punitivity in the sense of punitive attitudes. We define the multidimensional concept of punitive attitude as: ‘an attitude towards the goals of punishment, specified forms of penal sanctions, the intensity of penal sanctions and specific sentencing policies’.

Methodology: Measurement of punitive attitudes

In recent years, researchers have hypothesized that findings on punitiveness levels are merely a methodological artefact – a result of the way in which public opinion has been measured (Gelb, 2008). Punitive attitudes can thus differ according to the method used to measure the concept. We distinguish between surveys, focus groups, case studies, oral interviews, ethnographic research, deliberative polls, experiments, real life situations and the multi-method research design.

The representative survey, situated in the quantitative research tradition, has been the most common method of measuring public opinion on sentencing. Using representative samples of the public, researchers ask respondents several questions that provide an indication of their punitivity level. This allows researchers to generalize the findings to the broader community (Gelb, 2008). Researchers should, however, be aware of the fact that the survey design has to be set up carefully. As researchers started to realize that traditional survey questions were too broad and unspecific, many researchers have moved from traditional survey questions to the case vignette approach (Roberts and Stalans, 2000). Before asking the respondents for a response, information about the offence, the offender, the victim and/or the sentence is provided (Gelb, 2008; Simonson, 2011). This allows respondents to consider the specific circumstances of the offence before expressing their sentencing opinion. However, when conducting survey research, one should keep in mind that the results of classic surveys and case vignette surveys (and of survey experiments, see below) depend heavily on the structure of the questionnaire, the setting in which it takes place, the wording of the questions, the provision of adequate response alternatives, the time allowed to fill out the questionnaire, and so on (Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008b; Roberts and Hough, 2005a; Simonson, 2011).

Although qualitative methods are applied only rarely to measure punitive attitudes (Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008b), a few researchers have used focus groups to gather detailed in-depth information about participants’ punitive attitudes (for example, Hough, 1996; Jacobson et al., 2011). Unfortunately, the qualitative nature of focus groups implies that results cannot be generalized to the broader community. The aim of such qualitative research methods to measure punitivity is to contribute to a better understanding of the complex concept of punitivity (Simonson, 2011). The same is true of oral interviews, but only a few researchers have used this data collection method (for example, Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008b). Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs (2008b) emphasize that the choice of data collection methods is crucial: punitiveness levels were considerably lower when using oral interviews in comparison with a survey questionnaire. Verfaillie (2012) pleads for an ethnographic design that allows researchers to study the process of how opinions are shaped. He analyzed people’s narratives, conversations and the interactions they engaged in to understand their attitudes towards crime and punishment.

In so-called case studies, people are given a single case to consider (quantitatively or qualitatively or both) and are then asked to impose a sentence. This sentence will finally be compared with the actual sentence imposed (for example, Mitchell, 1998; Nicholls et al., 2012). For example, Mitchell and Roberts (2012) combined a quantitative research design with focus groups, while giving respondents a specific case of murder to consider and discuss the sentencing options for this case (for example, mandatory life sentencing).

A fourth method to measure public attitudes is a hybrid of the qualitative focus group and the quantitative representative survey (Gelb, 2008): the deliberative poll (for example, Hough and Park, 2002; Mirrlees-Black, 2002). Deliberative polls are based on the fact that the public has very little knowledge about crime and sentencing issues. In the pre-test phase, people’s opinions are measured, after which they are provided with information on the subject. In the post-test phase, their opinions are measured again. Although deliberative polls have only a limited number of methodological disadvantages, only a few have been conducted because of the cost and time involved.

Some researchers who hold the opinion that punitive attitudes can be measured only in real life situations have studied jurors and juries in actual criminal cases. Field research has the advantage of increasing external validity and providing a wealth of in-depth information about a case (Warner and Davis, 2012). Furthermore, respondents such as members of the jury are involved in the case and therefore more engaged in thinking about the topic of punishment (Warner and Davis, 2012) and the sample is representative. However, there are also disadvantages: it is an inflexible methodology and no manipulations are possible (Warner and Davis, 2012).

Other researchers have set up experiments that allow researchers to study causal relations (Loosveldt, 2003). Furthermore, several researchers use mock jurors to explore citizens’ punitive attitudes (for example, Abwender and Hough, 2001). Others used the experimental design with an experimental group and a control group to study the relationship between punitive attitudes and other variables, such as news media use or the amount of information respondents receive about the punishment and the context (for example, Roberts and Doob, 1990) or racial stereotypes (for example, Peffley and Hurwitz, 2002). However, when using the experimental research design, the Hawthorne effect can occur: the subjects of the experiment change their behaviour because they realize that they are being studied (Loosveldt, 2003). Researchers can overcome this limitation by combining the experimental approach with the survey design. Indeed, to test the causal relationship between punitive attitudes and the amount of information respondents receive about the specific circumstances and other additional information about the offence and the offender, some researchers have set up so-called survey experiments (for example, Doob and Roberts, 1983; Roberts and Hough, 2005b). This is a combination of the survey design and the experimental design, in which an experiment is included in the survey questionnaire. For example, in Roberts and Hough’s (2005b) survey, in some cases respondents were randomly assigned to receive different versions of the same questions. They concluded that when respondents are given additional information about the offence, the offender and the circumstances, they react less punitively compared with respondents who are given only some general information.

Roberts and Stalans (2000) and Roberts and Hough (2005b) suggest that a comprehensive picture of public opinion can be obtained only by a multi-method approach, as Hutton (2005) and as Mitchell and Roberts (2012) did in their case study design. Combining a quantitative design and a qualitative design allows researchers to have a full picture of punitive attitudes, because they can collect a lot of information on a representative basis as well as in-depth information about attitude formation and dynamics.

Substantive findings

In this section the results from studies conducted with different research methods in both European and non-European countries will be tackled, following the structure of our definition. We made the choice to organize this section according to the four elements in our definition of punitive attitudes, supplemented with a general findings part; it is, however, possible to organize the substantive findings in the punitive attitudes research field in a different way.

General findings

According to Gelb (2008), some consistent conclusions can be drawn from the research conducted on public opinion on crime and justice, despite the use of different methodological designs.

Gelb’s first conclusion is that, in general, the public considers sentences to be too lenient. People desire harsher responses to crime. This finding has been consistent over time and across different countries. Although many researchers have come to this same conclusion, Gelb nuances it: punitive attitudes are too complex to measure using a single abstract general question (see above).

Second, somewhat contradictory to the first conclusion is the finding that, based on a single severity question, public sentencing preferences are very similar to those expressed by the judiciary or actually used by the courts (see also Roberts and Hough, 2005b). According to the previous statement, one would think that the public is more punitive than judges. However, this hypothesis is not confirmed: in general, the public is not harsher than judges. On the contrary, some studies show judges to have more punitive attitudes than members of the general public (for example, Beyens 2000). Sessar (1999) found that criminal judges are more punitive than civil judges, and that the latter hold more punitive views than the public. However, for the most serious offences such as rape or child sexual abuse, opposite opinions between the public and the courts emerge: in such cases the public favours harsher sentences than the courts (Roberts and Hough, 2005b).

Third, Gelb (2008) concluded that people have very little accurate knowledge about crime and the criminal justice system. With regard to punishment, researchers found that respondents have misperceptions about the nature and extent of crime, about court outcomes and about the use of imprisonment and parole. For example, the public tends to overestimate the imprisonment rate for specific offences compared with actual rates, and underestimate the length of sentences of imprisonment (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Furthermore, findings indicate that people tend to know little about sentencing alternatives and focus instead on imprisonment, underestimate the severity of maximum penalties and underestimate the severity of sentencing practices. Studies revealed that this lack of knowledge has a significant impact on punitive attitudes (see below).

Attitudes towards the goals of punishment

A number of studies have asked respondents to state which sentencing goal is most important to them. Since research evidence has made clear that the notions of proportionality and just deserts as well as of crime prevention and rehabilitation are seen as important by the public, we can conclude that the public favours a mixed model in terms of sentencing purposes. The public does not favour one sentencing goal over all the others when given the choice (see Roberts and Stalans, 2000).⁸ Furthermore, support for different sentencing goals varies from offence to offence. More specifically, it depends on the nature and seriousness of the offence (for example, Roberts and Hough, 2005b; Roberts et al., 2009).

Attitudes towards specified forms of penal sanctions

When respondents are asked about their specific sentencing preferences, a bifurcation emerges. On the one hand, offenders who committed crimes that involve violence or a threat of violence provoke a punitive response, whereas a non-punitive public emerges for offenders who are convicted of economic or property crimes (Roberts and Stalans, 2000). Here too, support for different penal sanctions varies from offence to offence.

Consistent with this is the finding that public attitudes towards community penalties versus imprisonment can best be seen in terms of a crime seriousness continuum (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Public support for alternative sanctions is considerable for less serious offences, whereas public opposition is strong for the most serious offences. We can derive from this finding that community-based sanctions are seen by the public as too lenient for serious offences (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Furthermore, Roberts and Hough (2005b) stated in their literature review that many respondents are unaware of the possibility of imposing non-custodial sentences⁹ and that the most popular community-based sanctions are paying compensation to the victim or working in the community.

Furthermore, we see that attitudes towards specified forms of penal sanctions differ in different global regions. International comparisons based on the data of the International Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) show that support for imprisonment is highest in Africa and Asia, and lowest in East and Central Europe and Western Europe, and the opposite is true of support for community service (Mayhew and Van Kesteren, 2002).¹⁰ We should, however, consider the specific penal policies of the countries being compared. In some countries, particular sanctions do not exist (for example, the death penalty in European countries) or they are only rarely used (for example, day fines in the USA). This could have an effect on an inhabitant’s attitudes towards these specified forms of penal sanctions. Moreover, Ramirez (2013) points out that attitudes towards specific penal policies are driven by the political environment, which implies that inhabitants of different countries could hold different attitudes towards specific penal sanctions.

Lastly, as a recent study by Ramirez (2013) shows, attitudes towards specific forms of penal sanctions vary over time. His study focused on the evolution in punitive attitudes in the period 1951–2006 in the USA. The results showed a decline in public support for penal policies during the 1950s, 1960s and late 1990s, and the most substantial increases in public support for penal policies occurred during the 1970s.

Attitudes towards the intensity of penal sanctions

Regarding the intensity of penalties or sanctions in the sense of a longer duration for prison sentences, public attitudes differ. Support for longer or shorter prison sentences, higher or lower fines, etc., seems to vary according to the country in which respondents live (for example, Hough and Roberts, 1999). In the ICVS a question was included asking respondents who opted for imprisonment about the preferred length of incarceration for the crime of burglary.¹¹ Making international comparisons, Mayhew and Van Kesteren (2002) concluded that greater preferences for shorter prison sentences were shown by respondents in Western Europe (average length of the sentence recommended 17 months) and the New World (21 months) compared with those living in Africa (69 months), Asia (43 months), Latin America (38 months) and East and Central Europe (36 months). We should, however, be aware of the differences in penal policies between the countries included in the study. For example, the prison environment and the exact practice of the prison sentence in a Latin American prison is totally different from a prison in Northern Europe. This could have an effect on an inhabitant’s attitudes towards the intensity of specific sanctions.

In their definition of punitivity, King and Maruna (2009a) also refer to public attitudes towards prison conditions. A general finding is that the international public believes that prison conditions are too soft (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Despite this finding, people do not think that prison conditions should be made more harsh, because of their expectation that prisons will serve as a setting that can help prisoners improve their lives (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Also Applegate (2001) concluded that there is less support for prison austerity than assumed, because the goal of rehabilitation should be achieved.

Attitudes towards specific sentencing policies

With regard to the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ laws, the finding emerges that people become less punitive when more information is given. For example, when Applegate and his colleague (Applegate and Cullen, 1996) asked respondents whether they supported or opposed the implementation of this law in their region, almost 90 percent were in favour. However, when respondents were given a specific case, on average only 17 percent would impose the three strikes sentence. More specific analyses revealed that respondents did not like the mandatory nature of the law; they prefer a flexible application.

Because in some countries offenders can be sentenced to death, whereas in other countries this penal sanction has been abolished, we consider it as a specific sentencing policy of a country. As the public debate shows, there are many opponents but also many proponents of this particular sentencing policy. Nevertheless, we can conclude that, when the alternative of life in prison without the possibility of parole is given, support for the death penalty seems to diminish (for example, McGarrell and Sandys, 1996).

Prison policies in most industrialized countries contain some form of executive release, or parole (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). In general, the public holds negative views on parole. However, compared with the policy of prisoners serving the full term of their sentence, parole receives more public support. Furthermore, research results indicate that respondents are not in favour of abolishing parole, especially not for non-violent offenders (Roberts and Hough, 2005b). Here, too, the seriousness of the offence is an indicator of support or opposition.

In the USA and other jurisdictions, a policy of disenfranchisement exists, which means that most prisoners have no right to vote when they are in prison. The most important conclusion of the few studies on this topic is that most respondents are in favour of disenfranchisement for prisoners, but not for ex-prisoners on parole or serving their sentences in the community (Roberts and Hough, 2005b).

Most of the research on punitive attitudes is conducted in the context of ordinary crimes, and only a few studies have appeared in the context of human rights violations (Kiza, 2008). However, the political debate on how to address past human rights violations is still going on. The results of the People on War Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC, 1999) show that people in post-war settings support high punitivity levels: 76 percent of all respondents think that those who have broken the rules of war should be prosecuted, whereas only 7 percent prefer amnesty and 5 percent are in favour of forgiveness.

Correlates of punitive attitudes

A number of factors have been found to have a significant impact on people’s punitive attitudes.¹² It may be noted that the literature in this research area has yielded inconsistent results. Before drawing major conclusions, we should bear in mind that the inconsistency between the findings is probably related to the different conceptualizations of punitivity, the different research designs that were set up, the cultural and policy differences between the countries and regions in which the research has taken place, the inclusion or exclusion of other important variables, and so on. Five groups of correlates can be distinguished: socio-demographics, personal values, victimization experiences, emotions and knowledge about crime. Where socio-demographics are fixed, the other correlates are influenced by a person’s (in)formal environment. We should also note that this overview of correlates of punitive attitudes is non-exhaustive.

Socio-demographics and punitive attitudes

First, several socio-demographic factors are associated with punitiveness levels. A number of studies have examined the relationship between punitive attitudes and gender. Some studies have found females to be more punitive than males (for example, Miller et al., 1986; Payne et al., 2004; Tsoudis, 2000), whereas others came to the opposite conclusion (for example, Applegate et al., 2002; Evans and Adams, 2003; Pfeiffer et al, 2005; Roberts and Indemaur, 2007; Spiranovic et al., 2012) or could not find any significant difference between males and females (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; King and Maruna, 2009b; Kutateladze and Crossman, 2009; Mackey and Courtright, 2000; Serrano-Maillo and Kury, 2008).

Some studies have looked at the relationship between age and punitiveness. Most of the findings show a positive relationship between the two variables: younger people tend to be less punitive, compared with older people (for example, Jan et al., 2008; Payne et al., 2004; Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Young and Thompson, 1995). However, some studies have found younger respondents to be more punitive (for example, Borg, 1997; Serrano-Maillo and Kury, 2008) or have found no relationship (for example, King and Maruna, 2009b; Roberts and Indemaur, 2007).

Regarding race, many researchers found whites to be more punitive than blacks, preferring more severe prison sentences, being less supportive of rehabilitation and being more likely to be in favour of the death penalty (for example, Cochran and Chamlin, 2006; Johnson, 2008; Miller et al., 1986; Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011). Researchers agree that the reasons for these differences between blacks and whites can be linked to racial prejudice on the part of whites and perceived injustice among blacks (for example, Cohn et al., 1991; Johnson, 2008).

Numerous studies have explored the relationship between education and punitive attitudes. Here a more consistent finding emerges. Higher education seems to have a tempering effect on levels of punitivity (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; King and Maruna, 2009b; Payne et al., 2004; Roberts and Indemaur, 2007; Serrano-Maillo and Kury, 2008; Spiranovic et al., 2012; Tsoudis, 2000; Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997). Mackey and Courtright (2000) explored the relationship between grade level and punitiveness and found a negative relationship: students in their senior year were less punitive compared with freshmen students. Some researchers have examined the relationship between punitiveness and students’ chosen field of study. Among those studies, the results are mixed. Whereas some found that criminology and criminal justice students were less punitive (for example, Payne et al., 2006; Tsoudis, 2000), others concluded that they were more punitive (for example, Lambert, 2004; Courtright and Mackey, 2004; Shelley et al., 2011) or did not find any significant differences.

We should note that socio-demographic factors are relatively weak predictors of punitive attitudes, as they have been found to account for only 15 percent or less of the explanatory value (for example, Roberts and Indemaur, 2007; Spiranovic et al., 2012).

Personal values and punitive attitudes

A number of studies have investigated the relationship between political ideology and punitivity. The findings in the area of research are quite consistent. Most of the studies came to the conclusion that democrats and liberals have less punitive attitudes in comparison with republicans, conservatives and people with high degrees of authoritarianism (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Hirtenlehner, 2008; Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008b; Mackey and Courtright, 2000; Payne et al., 2004; Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011; Serrano-Maillo and Kury, 2008; Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997; Unnever et al., 2005).

In addition, some researchers have explored the relationship between religion and punitiveness. It has repeatedly been found that traditional Christian fundamentalists are more punitive overall, compared with other religious people or atheists (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Hirtenlehner, 2008; Kutateladze and Crossman, 2009; Unnever et al., 2005).

Furthermore, a few studies have included a variable that measures one’s belief that good things will happen to good people and bad things will happen to bad people. This belief in a just world seems to be positively related to a person’s punitive attitudes (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Freeman, 2006).

Victimization experiences and punitive attitudes

With regard to the relationship between previous victimization and punitive attitudes, the results are rather unclear. Some studies did not find a significant relationship between the two variables (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Hirtenlehner, 2008; King and Maruna, 2009b; Nikolic-Ristanovic et al., 2011; Payne et al., 2004; Varona, 2011). However, the bulk of studies found more evidence countering the finding that victims are more punitive than non-victims (for example, Costelloe et al., 2009; Hirtenlehner, 2008; Kutateladze and Crossman, 2009). These studies refute the so-called instrumental theories of crime (Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997),¹³ which suggest that punitive views are the outcome of personal experiences of crime. Furthermore, Applegate and colleagues (2002) found a significant relationship, suggesting that previous victimization was a predictor of women’s punitive attitudes more than of men’s. Others distinguish between types of crimes in their results (for example, Nellis and Lynch, 2008). Some researchers state that victimization experiences and punitive attitudes are indirectly related through fear of crime (for example, Langworthy and Whitehead, 1986) or that indirect rather than direct victimization is positively associated with punitiveness (for example, Zarafonitou, 2011).

Emotions and punitive attitudes

Some study results suggest that fear of crime and punitiveness are positively related: respondents who are anxious about crime have greater punitivity levels than those who are not (for example, Evans and Adams, 2003; Hough et al., 1988; Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Nellis and Lynch, 2008; Serrano-Maillo and Kury, 2008; Spiranovic et al., 2012). Other researchers, however, did not find any relationship between these two variables (for example, Applegate et al., 2000; Nikolic-Ristanovic et al., 2011) or found the relationship to be negative (for example, Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011). Because the concept of fear of crime is also difficult to measure in a valid and reliable manner (Vanderveen, 2008), it is difficult to draw any conclusions on this.

Additionally, some researchers have investigated the link between anger about crime and punitive attitudes, and most of them concluded that a positive relationship exists between these two variables (for example, Johnson, 2009).

Knowledge about crime and punitive attitudes

People’s perceptions and knowledge about crime and punishment are also important factors that can have an impact on their punitive attitudes (Hough and Roberts, 2012). High estimations of the prevalence of crime in society are related to higher levels of punitivity, and vice versa (for example, Hartnagel and Templeton, 2008; Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Roberts and Indemaur, 2007; Spiranovic et al., 2012). Research has also indicated that increasing public awareness of alternative sanctions promotes public support for these (for example, Hough and Park, 2002). Although people rely heavily on the media for information about crime and sentencing (Gelb, 2008; Roberts and Stalans, 2000), only a few researchers have investigated the link between media use and punitive attitudes.

Hough and Roberts (1999) argue that the media influence public knowledge and attitudes through the selection (for example, stories about a judge imposing a lenient sentence) and framing of stories about sentencing practices. Other researchers hold the opinion not only that selection and framing influence knowledge and attitudes, but also that the volume of crime reporting has an impact on public opinion about crime and sentencing (Roberts et al., 2002).

The more hours of television watched, the higher the scores on the punitiveness scale (Rosenberger and Callanan, 2011; Spiranovic et al., 2012). Roberts and Doob (1990) concluded that reading shorter newspaper stories about sentencing is more a predictor of holding punitive beliefs compared with reading more detailed newspaper articles. Related to this issue is the finding of Spiranovic et al. (2012) that using commercial/tabloid media as a main source of news media is associated with higher punitiveness scores.¹⁴ Furthermore, Pfeiffer et al. (2005) and Callanan (2005) concluded that media use and punitive attitudes are indirectly related through other variables such as fear of crime.

Conclusion: Suggestions for future research

In this article we have tried to elaborate a coherent conceptual framework in order to provide a clear and thorough operationalization of the concept of punitive attitudes. This has been done on the basis of an extensive literature review of punitive attitudes (individual punitivity). Some important conclusions can be drawn and suggestions for future research are formulated concerning the multidimensionality of individual punitivity, the correlates and the different research designs that are used to measure it.

The multidimensionality of individual punitivity

From this literature review we can conclude that, despite the overwhelming number of studies on punitive attitudes that have been conducted, many of these studies are of limited validity. In particular, the way in which the concept of individual punitivity is operationalized and the methods used to measure it are sometimes questionable. Jumping to conclusions about the public being highly punitive and wanting harsher sentences is therefore too premature. One should always bear in mind that results are dependent on the definitions used, the way in which the concepts are operationalized, the data collection methods used and the context in which the research has taken place.

Four main elements to measure punitive attitudes were found to recur in all studies: respondents were asked their opinion about the goals of punishment, about specific forms of penal sanctions and their intensity or about specific sentencing policies. We operationalized the concept of punitive attitude as: ‘an attitude towards the goals of punishment, specified forms of penal sanctions, the intensity of penal sanctions and specific sentencing policies’. This will allow researchers to study individual punitivity in a thorough and multidimensional manner.

More concretely, we suggest researchers should construct a research instrument based on these four dimensions. By using this multidimensional operationalization of punitive attitudes, a punitivity index can be developed. A punitivity index would be the sum of the data the researchers obtain from the four dimensions of punitivity.

Correlates

First, since the strongest predictor of having high punitiveness levels is having the perception that crime levels are increasing (Spiranovic et al., 2012), researchers should pay more attention to this area of investigation. After all, the media are the main source of information about crime and punishment and people heavily rely on the media to form their opinions on these topics. More research on the effect of the media on punitive attitudes is thus needed. However, as is confirmed by research conducted abroad, the media tend to over-represent some forms of crimes (for example murder and interpersonal violence), offer a distorted, unrealistic representation of the facts (for example, Dorfman and Schiraldi, 2001; Marsh, 1991; Reiner, 2007) and provide only limited information about sentencing practices and processes (Berry et al., 2012). By investigating the relationship between punitive attitudes (individual punitivity) and the media (societal punitivity), reference is also made to the conceptualization of punitivity of Kury and his colleagues et al. (2004). Since they state that there is a relationship between the different levels of punitivity (individual, societal and judicial) but do not indicate what this relationship looks like or how it is established, studying the relationship between media use and punitive attitudes would be pioneering. We therefore appeal for future multidimensional research that investigates respondents’ media use as one of the variables that can help explain a person’s punitivity level.¹⁵

Next, instead of investigating the relationship between punitive attitudes and several (complex) independent variables (for example, fear of crime) within one research study, it would be better to select one or two variable(s) and study the link with punitive attitudes in depth. After all, some variables are complex and difficult to measure with only a couple of questions on this item in a questionnaire.

Research design

After reviewing the different data collection methods used in international research, we and some other researchers make a plea for a multi-method approach to be used when studying individual punitive attitudes. A combination of a qualitative and a quantitative research design will provide a comprehensive picture of public attitudes towards punishment. More specifically, the crime vignette approach combined with qualitative interviews or focus groups will provide the most satisfactory information.

Lastly, as Mayhew and Van Kesteren (2002) and Roberts and Hough (2005b) point out, researchers rarely explore punitive attitudes across different countries. Instead of exploring international differences, almost all researchers focus on punitive attitudes within jurisdictions. Although already stated by Mayhew and Van Kesteren a decade ago, we also noted in our review that there is a lack of studies that go beyond the borders of a single country. Since it would be useful to know if punitive attitudes vary across countries and if certain findings hold up in a wider range of judicial contexts (Mayhew and Van Kesteren, 2002), more cross-national research is needed. The ICVS and the European Crime and Safety Survey (EU ICS)¹⁶ make comparisons between countries possible, but here the problem arises that punitive attitudes are being tapped by a single question (see note 11) and that the countries included in the ICVS are being compared, regardless of their specific penal policies.

The above mentioned suggestion to set up a punitivity index, which would give researchers an indication of individuals’ punitive attitudes, is also relevant here. A punitivity index would be the sum of the data the researchers obtain from the four dimensions of punitivity, by using one or more data collection method(s) (quantitative and qualitative). This index could be used cross-nationally. Like the ICVS, it would be of great value to organize an international survey every three years, so that comparisons over time are possible as well.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Abwender

Hough

(2001) Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants’ judgment and sentencing recommendations. Journal of Social Psychology 141(5): 603–615.

Applegate

(2001) Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert, and public attitudes toward prison amenities. American Journal of Criminal Justice 25(2): 253–268.

Applegate

Cullen

(1996) Assessing public support for three-strikes-and you’re-out laws: Global verses specific attitudes. Crime & Delinquency 42(4): 517–535.

Applegate

Cullen

Fisher

(2002) Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 89–100.

Applegate

Cullen

Fisher

Vander Ven

(2000) Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology 38(3): 719–753.

Berry

Philo

Tiripelli

Docherty

Macpherson

(2012) Media coverage and public understanding of sentencing policy in relation to crimes against children. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 14 February .

Beyens

(2000) Straffen als sociale praktijk. Een penologisch onderzoek naar straftoemeting. Brussels: VUB Press.

Beyens

(2010) De calvarietocht van de (re)constructie en verklaring van punitiviteit. In: Aertsen

Beyens

Daems

Maes

(eds) Hoe punitief is België? Antwerp: Maklu, 209–220.

Billiet

(2003) De gestandaardiseerde vragenlijst. In: Billiet

Waege

(eds) Een samenleving onderzocht. Methoden van social-wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Antwerp: De Boeck, 223–284.

10.

Bohm

Vogel

(1991) Educational experiences and death penalty opinions: Stimuli that produce changes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 2(1): 69–80.

11.

Bohm

Vogel

(1994) A comparison of factors associated with uninformed and informed death penalty opinions. Journal of Criminal Justice 22: 125–143.

12.

Borg

(1997) The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(1): 25–46.

13.

Breckler

(1984) Empirical validation of affect, behavior and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(6): 1191–1205.

14.

Callanan

(2005) Feeding the Fear of Crime: Crime-related Media and Support for Three Strikes. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

15.

Cochran

Chamlin

(2005) Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice 33: 573–584.

16.

Cochran

Chamlin

(2006) The enduring racial divide in death penalty support. Journal of Criminal Justice 34: 84–99.

17.

Cohn

Barkan

Halteman

(1991) Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Racial consensus or racial conflict? Social Problems 38(2): 287–296.

18.

Costelloe

Chiricos

Gertz

(2009) Punitive attitudes toward criminals. Exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society 11: 25–49.

19.

Courtright

Mackey

(2004) Job desirability among criminal justice majors: Exploring relationships between personal characteristics and occupational attractiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 15(2): 311–326.

20.

Daems

(2010) Punitiviteitshypotheses in de criminologie: Slaan ze de nagel op de kop? In: Aertsen

Beyens

Daems

Maes

(eds) Hoe punitief is België? Antwerp: Maklu, 11–26.

21.

Doob

Roberts

(1983) Sentencing: An Analysis of the Public’s View of Sentencing. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

22.

Doob

Roberts

(1988) Public punitiveness and public knowledge of the facts: Some Canadian surveys. In: Walker

Hough

(eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company, 111–133.

23.

Dorfman

Schiraldi

(2001) Off Balance: Youth, Race and Crime in the News. Building Blocks for Youth. Washington DC: Berkeley Media Studies Group for Building Blocks for Youth. URL (accessed 30 April 2014): http://cclp.org/building_blocks.php.

24.

Evans

Adams

(2003) Salvation or damnation? Religion and correctional ideology. American Journal of Criminal Justice 28(1): 15–35.

25.

Flanagan

(1996) Public opinion on crime and justice: History, development, and trends. In: Flanagan

Longmire

(eds) Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1–15.

26.

Freeman

(2006) Socioeconomic status and belief in a just world: Sentencing of criminal defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36: 2379–2394.

27.

Gelb

(2008) Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing. In: Freiburg

Gelb

(eds) Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy. Devon: Willan Publishing, 68–82.

28.

Glynn

Herbst

O’Keefe

Shapiro

(1999) Public Opinion. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

29.

Grasmick

Bursik

Blackwell

(1993) Religious beliefs and public support for the death penalty for juveniles and adults. Journal of Crime and Justice 16(1): 59–86.

30.

Hartnagel

Templeton

(2008) Perceptions, emotions & experiences of crime: Effects on attitudes toward punishment in a Canadian sample. In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 349–370.

31.

Herbst

(1993) The meaning of public opinion: Citizens’ constructions of political reality. Media, Culture and Society 15: 437–454.

32.

Hirtenlehner

(2008) Which sentencing goals do victims of crime in Austria support? Impressions from an urban victim cohort. In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 425–446.

33.

Hough

(1996) People talking about punishment. The Howard Journal 35: 191–214.

34.

Hough

Park

(2002) How malleable are attitudes to crime and punishment? Findings from a British deliberative poll. In: Roberts

Hough

(eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Devon: Willan Publishing, 163–183.

35.

Hough

Roberts

(1999) Sentencing trends in Britain: Public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment & Society 1: 11–26.

36.

Hough

Roberts

(2002) Public knowledge and public opinion of sentencing. In: Tata

Hutton

(eds) Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, 157–176.

37.

Hough

Roberts

(2012) Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. In: Maguire

Morgan

Reiner

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Fifth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 279–297.

38.

Hough

Lewis

Walker

(1988) Factors associated with ‘punitiveness’ in England and Wales. In: Walker

Hough

(eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Company, 203–217.

39.

Howells

Flanagan

Hagan

(1995) Does viewing a televised execution affect attitudes toward capital punishment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 22(4): 411–424.

40.

Hutton

(2005) Beyond populist punitiveness? Punishment and Society 7: 243–258.

41.

ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) (1999) The People on War Report. ICRS Worldwide Consultation on the Rules of War. Report by Greenberg Research, Inc. URL (accessed 30 April 2014): http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0758.pdf.

42.

Jacobson

Kirby

Hough

(2011) Public Attitudes to the Sentencing of Drug Offences. Research conducted by the Institute for Criminal Policy Research. Sentencing Council Research Series 01/11. URL (accessed 30 April 2014): http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Drugs_research_report.pdf.

43.

Jan

Ball

Walsh

(2008) Predicting public opinion about juvenile waivers. Criminal Justice Policy Review 19: 285–300.

44.

Johnson

(2008) Racial prejudice, perceived injustice, and the Black–White gap in punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice 36(2): 198–206.

45.

Johnson

(2009) Anger about crime and support for punitive criminal justice policies. Punishment & Society 11(1): 51–66.

46.

King

Maruna

(2009a) The function of fiction for a punitive public. In: Jewkes

(ed.) Crime and Media. Volume 1: Theorizing Crime and Media. London: Sage Publications, 107–118.

47.

King

Maruna

(2009b) Is a conservative just a liberal who has been mugged? Exploring the origins of punitive views. Punishment & Society 11: 147–169.

48.

Kiza

(2008) Post-war societies and punitivity: The inquiry into an underexplored field of research. In: Kury

Ferdinand

(eds) International Perspectives on Punitivity. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 139–160.

49.

Kühnrich

Kania

(2005) Attitudes towards Punishment in the European Union. Results from the 2005 European Crime Survey (ECSS) with Focus on Germany. EU ICS working paper series. Brussels: Gallup Europe. URL (accessed 30 April 2014): http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/icvs/files/2012/11/Punitiveness.pdf.

50.

Kury

Obergfell-Fuchs

(2008a) Punitivity in Germany: Attitudes to punishment, sentencing and prison rates. In: Kury

Ferdinand

(eds) International Perspectives on Punitivity. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 107–138.

51.

Kury

Obergfell-Fuchs

(2008b) Methodological problems in measuring attitudes to punishment (punitivity). In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 277–302.

52.

Kury

Kania

Obergfell-Fuchs

(2004) Worüber sprechen wir, wenn wir über Punitivität sprechen? Versuch einer Konzeptionellen und empirischen Begriffsbestimmung. Kriminologisches Journal 36: 51–88.

53.

Kutateladze

Crossman

(2009) An exploratory analysis of gender differences in punitiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review 19: 322–343.

54.

Lambert

(2004) Assessing the crime and punishment views of criminal justice majors: How different are they from other majors? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 17: 245–57.

55.

Lane

(1997) Can you make a horse drink? The effects of a corrections course on attitudes toward criminal punishment. Crime & Delinquency 43(2): 186–202.

56.

Langworthy

Whitehead

(1986) Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology 24(3): 575–591.

57.

Loosveldt

(2003) Experimentele designs. In: Billiet

Waege

(Eds) Een samenleving onderzocht. Methoden van sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Antwerp: De Boeck, 157–180.

58.

McGarrell

Sandys

(1996) The misconception of public opinion toward capital punishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death penalty support. American Behavioral Scientist 39(4): 500–513.

59.

Mackey

Courtright

(2000) Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. The Justice Professional 12: 423–441.

60.

Mackey

Courtright

Packard

(2006) Testing the rehabilitative ideal among college students. Criminal Justice Studies 19(2): 153–170.

61.

Marsh

(1991) A comparative analysis of crime coverage in newspapers in the United States and other countries from 1960–1989: A review of the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice 19: 67–79.

62.

Mathews

(2005) The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology 9: 175–201.

63.

Mayhew

Van Kesteren

(2002) Cross-national attitudes to punishment. In: Roberts

Hough

(eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing, 63–92.

64.

Miller

Rossi

Simpson

(1986) Perceptions of justice: Race and gender differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law & Society Review 20(3): 313–334.

65.

Mirrlees-Black

(2002) Improving public knowledge about crime and punishment. In: Roberts

Hough

(eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime and Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, 184–197.

66.

Mitchell

(1998) Public perceptions of homicide and criminal justice. British Journal of Criminology 38: 453–472.

67.

Mitchell

Roberts

(2012) Sentencing for murder: Exploring public knowledge and public opinion in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology 52: 141–158.

68.

Nellis

Lynch

(2008) Crime, fear, and the demand for punishment in the United States. In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 33–54.

69.

Nicholls

Mitchell

Simpson

Webster

Hester

(2012) Attitudes to sentencing sexual offences. Sentencing Council Research Series 01/12. UK Sentencing Council. URL (accessed 30 April 2014): http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/Attitudes_to_Sentencing_Sexual_Offences_%28web%29.pdf.

70.

Nikolic-Ristanovic

Dimitrijevic

Stevkovic

(2011) Feelings of insecurity, victimization experience, and students’ attitudes toward punishment. In: Kury

Shea

(eds) Punitivity. International Developments. Vol. 2: Insecurity and Punitiveness. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 357–378.

71.

O’Neil

Patry

Penrod

(2004) Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10(4): 443–470.

72.

Payne

Gainey

Triplett

Danner

MJE

(2004) What drives punitive beliefs? Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice 32: 195–206.

73.

Payne

Time

Gainey

(2006) Police chiefs’ and students’ attitudes about Miranda warnings. Journal of Criminal Justice 34: 653–660.

74.

Peffley

Hurwitz

(2002) The racial component of ‘race-neutral’ crime policy attitudes. Political Psychology 23(1): 59–75.

75.

Pfeiffer

Windzio

Kleimann

(2005) Media use and its impacts on crime perception, sentencing attitudes and crime policy. European Journal of Criminology 2(3): 259–285.

76.

Ramirez

(2013) Punitive sentiment. Criminology 51(2): 329–364.

77.

Reiner

(2007) Media-made criminality: The representation of crime in the mass media. In: Maguire

Morgan

Reiner

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 302–337.

78.

Robbers

(2006) Tough-mindedness and fair play: Personality traits as predictors of attitudes toward the death penalty – an exploratory gendered study. Punishment & Society 8(2): 203–222.

79.

Roberts

Doob

(1990) News media influences on public views on sentencing. Law and Human Behavior 14(5): 451–465.

80.

Roberts

Hough

(2005a) Sentencing young offenders: Public opinion in England and Wales. Criminal Justice 5(3): 211–232.

81.

Roberts

Hough

(2005b) Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

82.

Roberts

Indemaur

(2007) Predicting punitive attitudes in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law 14(1): 56–65.

83.

Roberts

Stalans

(2000) Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

84.

Roberts

Stalans

Indemaur

(2002) Penal Populism and Public Opinion: Lessons from Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

85.

Roberts

Hough

Jacobson

Moon

(2009) Public attitudes to sentencing purposes and sentencing factors: An empirical analysis. Criminal Law Review 11: 771–782.

86.

Roberts

Stalans

Indemaur

Hough

(2003) Penal Populism and Public Opinion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

87.

Rosenberger

Callanan

(2011) The influence of media on penal attitudes. Criminal Justice Review 36(4): 435–455.

88.

Ryberg

(2010) Sentencing and public opinion. In: Ryberg

Corlett

(eds) Punishment and Ethics. London: Macmillan Publishers, 149–168.

89.

Sandys

McGarrell

(1997) Beyond the Bible belt: The influence (or lack thereof) of religion on attitudes toward the death penalty. Journal of Crime and Justice 20(1): 179–190.

90.

Serrano-Maillo

Kury

(2008) Insecurity feelings and punitivity: Relationship in a national sample of adolescents and young adults in Spain. In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 321–348.

91.

Sessar

(1999) Punitive attitudes of the public: Reality and myth. In: Bazemore

Walgrave

(eds) Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 287–304.

92.

Sharp

Otto

(1909) A study of the popular attitudes towards retributive punishment. International Journal of Ethics 20: 123–133.

93.

Shelley

Waid

Dobbs

(2011) The influence of criminal justice majors on punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22: 526–545.

94.

Simonson

(2011) Problems in measuring punitiveness – Results from a German study. In: Kury

Shea

(eds) Punitivity. International Developments. Vol. 1: Punitiveness – A Global Phenomenon? Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 277–302.

95.

Spiranovic

Roberts

Indemaur

(2012) What predicts punitiveness? An examination of punitive attitudes towards offenders in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 19(2): 249–261.

96.

Stylianou

(2003) Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know? Journal of Criminal Justice 31(1): 37–56.

97.

Thurstone

(1928) Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology 33(4): 529–554.

98.

Tsoudis

(2000) Does majoring in criminal justice affect perceptions of criminal justice? Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11(2): 225–236.

99.

Tyler

Boeckmann

(1997) Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review 31(2): 237–265.

100.

Unnever

Cullen

Roberts

(2005) Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes about capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice 29(2): 187–216.

101.

Van Dijk

Van Kesteren

Smit

(2007) Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key Findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

102.

Vanderveen

(2008) How to measure ‘fear of crime’ in a valid and reliable way? In: Kury

(ed.) Fear of Crime – Punitivity. New Developments in Theory and Research. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer, 33–52.

103.

Varona

(2011) Citizens and punitive attitudes: A pilot study of Spanish university students. In: Kury

Shea

(eds) Punitivity. International Developments. Vol. 2: Insecurity and Punitiveness. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 295–326.

104.

Verfaillie

(2012) Punitive needs, society and public opinion: An explorative study of ambivalent attitudes to punishment and criminal justice. In: Snacken

Dumortier

(eds) Welfare, Human Rights and Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge, 225–246.

105.

Vidmar

Dittenhoffer

(1981) Informed public opinion and death penalty attitudes. Canadian Journal of Criminology 43: 43–56.

106.

Warner

Davis

(2012) Using jurors to explore public attitudes to sentencing. British Journal of Criminology 52: 93–112.

107.

Young

(1992) Religious orientation, race and support for the death penalty. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31(1): 76–87.

108.

Young

Thompson

(1995) Religious fundamentalism, punitiveness, and firearm ownership. Journal of Crime and Justice 18: 81–98.

109.

Zarafonitou

(2011) Punitiveness, fear of crime and social views. In: Kury

Shea

(eds) Punitivity. International Developments. Vol. 2: Insecurity and Punitiveness. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 269–294.