This paper explores the relationship between liberalism, victimization experience (both direct and vicarious), fear of victimization, and attitudes towards purposes of incarceration. The study makes use of a national public opinion poll conducted for ABC News in 1982. The major findings are that both fear and liberalism contribute to punitiveness but, more importantly, individual demographic characteristics are ambiguously related to punitiveness. It appears that demographic characteristics are related to punitiveness through a complex of other attitudinal associations—in this instance, fear and liberalism. Neither direct nor vicarious victimization had a direct effect on punishment attitudes. To the extent that victimization experience affects punitiveness, the effects are indirect through fear.

A path model of job burnout among correctional officers from a southern state is examined. The analysis shows that direct contact with inmates is not distressing; however, administrative practices are bothersome to officers. The findings may be interpreted as supporting the recently advanced double-bind theory of correctional officer stress (Cheek and Miller, 1983)—which ascribes officer distress to administrative practices—and/or being consistent with street-level bureaucracy theory (Lipsky, 1980), which attributes worker distress to managerial control strategies. Implications for intervention are discussed.

No abstract

Debate over the effectiveness of correctional treatment has been raging for over a decade. The view that “nothing works” dominates in the mind of the public and relies on many early reviews of the literature for support. The most contemporary approach to analyzing the state of the evidence on correctional treatment is the use of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a technique that reanalyzes data found in original research reports and arrives at a common measure for all of the studies. The present analysis of research reports published from 1975 to 1984 does not provide encouraging results. The results show that interventions have little positive impact on recidivism and many appear to exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the analysis in this article could be considered overly lenient in its interpretation of the results. It appears that the earlier evaluations that claim that “nothing works” are close to the conclusion to be drawn from more recent evaluations of juvenile treatments.

No abstract