In this article, we further the understanding of both changes in public opinion on capital punishment in the United States and changes in the factors associated with public opinion on the death penalty. Support for the death penalty may be motivated by events happening during specific time periods, and it can vary across birth cohorts as a result of cohort‐specific socialization processes, demographic changes, and formative events that are specific to each generation. An explication of the sources of and variation in death penalty attitudes over time would benefit from the accounting for the age of the respondent, the year of the survey response, and the birth cohort of the respondent. We improve on previous research by using multiple approaches including hierarchical age–period–cohort models and data from the General Social Survey (N = 41,474) to examine changes in death penalty attitudes over time and across birth cohorts. The results showed curvilinear age effects, strong period effects, and weak cohort effects on death penalty support. The violent crime rate explained much of the variation in support for the death penalty across periods. The examination of subgroup differences suggests that support for the death penalty is becoming concentrated among Whites, Protestants, and Republicans.

Nationwide moral panic has long served as a primary explanation for sex offense laws. These laws, however, remain primarily left to state legislatures, which implies potential variation in their content over time. Variation in legislative content, to the degree that it represents implementation, not only suggests differential consequences for registrants and communities, but also it would raise questions to the sufficiency of moral panic as a sole explanation for sex offense policy change. I build upon earlier work by exploring variation in the content and timing of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) reform in all 50 states over time. After documenting variation in these laws, I present the ways in which SORN legislative content has evolved differently across states. In addition, the timing of legislative reforms differed not only across states but also within states over time. These findings have implications for existing theoretical assertions regarding criminal justice policy.

We examined cross‐national variation in the gender differential in offending, which is often referred to as the gender gap in crime. Analyses were directed toward two empirical questions: 1) Is the gender gap narrower in less patriarchal sociocultural settings, and if so, 2) is this outcome a result of higher levels of offending on the part of girls, lower levels of offending on the part of boys, or some combination thereof? To address these questions, we compiled a multilevel, cross‐national data set combining information on self‐reported offending from the second International Self Report Delinquency Survey (ISRD‐2) with normative and structural indicators of societal levels of patriarchy. The results from regression equations showed the gender gap in delinquency to be narrower at reduced national levels of patriarchy. The predicted probabilities calculated from regression coefficients suggested that this narrowing is a result of increased offending among girls and, to some extent, of decreased offending among boys in less patriarchal nations. Sensitivity checks with alternative model specifications confirmed these patterns but also identified a potential outlier. We discuss the implications of these descriptive findings for etiological research and theory.

Variation in Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification (SORCN) policies may suggest differences in public fears of sexual crimes as well as differences in state-level policy-making. This study explored the standardization of SORCN policies across a sample of five midwestern states. A thematic content analysis showed that states varied in how registrants were defined, what information was selected for public notification, and how sex offender laws are maintained. A typology of revisions emerged, which may inform our understanding about policy-making. Ultimately, existing research provides limited explanations for these results, serving as an impetus for future research on context and process of criminal justice policy change.

No abstract