The United States is one of the few nations that permits the execution of offenders for murders committed while under the age of 18. The juvenile death penalty has received considerable media and public attention both nationally and internationally. Yet despite the extensive literature on public attitudes toward the death penalty, little research exists on public attitudes toward the juvenile death penalty. This article examines attitudes toward this penalty, using data collected in a telephone survey of two midwestern cities. A substantial majority of those surveyed opposed the death penalty for juveniles above the age of 14 convicted of murder. The implications of these findings are discussed.
This article examines public attitudes toward policies to reduce prison crowding. Public attitudes were assessed through telephone surveys of adult residents of two major midwestern cities: Cincinnati and Columbus, Ohio. Substantial public support for community-based corrections and incentive good time was found. Prison construction received only moderate support while high levels of public disapproval were found for shortening sentences and increasing parole board authority. Probit regression analysis of the relationship between respondent characteristics and support for policies to reduce prison crowding revealed that attitudinal variables were more consistently related to public opinion than were demographic variables. The broader issue of the relationship between public attitudes and prison policy is also raised and discussed within the context of this research.
For the past decade or so, scholars have joined with politicians in suggesting that citizens manifest little support for correctional treatment. Based on a 1986 survey of Cincinnati and Columbus residents, we present data that question this broad assumption. The data indicate that rehabilitation receives considerable support, though this is most pronounced for certain offenders and for certain treatment modalities. In general, the study reinforces the finding of a growing body of revisionist research that the public retains faith in rehabilitation as a legitimate goal of the correctional process.
This paper examines whether a random sample of adults can apply local contemporary community standards regarding the acceptability of explicit sexual material. Inasmuch as the legal test employed in the U,S. for determining obscenity requires a jury to apply such standards, the research examines the practicality of such an approach. The analysis indicates that the best predictor of what an individual will perceive the community standards to be is the individual's own standards concerning sexual material. The implications of these findings are examined from both a legal and social science perspective. In addition, the consequences of not providing jurors information concerning local standards are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.