What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

Payne, Brian K.; Gainey, Randy R.; Triplett, Ruth; Danner, Mona J. E.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.02.007

Cited by 119 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of their stronger fear of violence, whites are significantly more supportive of the death penalty than blacks (Bohm, 1991). However, Payne, Gainey, Triplett, & Danner (2004) stress the weak and inconsistent correlations found in empirical research punishment attitudes and respondents' demographic characteristics, especially gender and age.…”

Section: Sentencing Attitudes and Subjective Proximity To Crimementioning

confidence: 84%

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lay sentencing attitudes are considered in the light of two theoretical perspectives. The first perspective views sentencing attitudes as parts of broader sets of social representations anchored in one's position in the social structure. The second perspective explains sentencing attitudes by their subjective experiences of crime. This paper tests both theories by performing a series of multiple regressions on two dimensions of sentencing: punishment goals and severity of punishment. Empirical data comes from a quantitative survey conducted in Switzerland. Findings reveal that indicators of subjective proximity to crime largely account for sentencing attitudes. Nevertheless, social representations of crime measured by causes of crime also have a significant impact on sentencing attitudes. Implications of these findings for sentencing in Western democracies are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Sentencing Attitudes and Subjective Proximity To Crimementioning

confidence: 84%

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The interviewees were asked about their attitudes, (Billiet 1996;Payne et al 2004) and the elements that play a role in them, in semi-structured face-to-face interviews. A semistructured interview allows for the interviewee to express himself in a free manner, but the use of the questionnaire guarantees that all necessary information is obtained (Wester 1991).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

All in Favour? Attitudes of Stakeholders and Drug Users Towards Judicial Alternatives

Wree

Ruyver

Verpoest

et al. 2008

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Different judicial alternative sanctions and measures exist on the three levels of the criminal justice system. These alternative sanctions and measures can be applied to a specific target group, namely drug users. The current study is a qualitative assessment of the application and execution of alternative measures and sanctions for drug users, based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews in which stakeholders (magistrates, judicial assistants and social workers) and drug users were asked for their attitudes towards these sanctions and the factors that influence them in their convictions and beliefs. In conclusion we can state that the interviews have increased the insight in the attitudes of decision makers, social assistants, judicial assistants and drug users towards alternative sanctioning. From the interviews we learn that there are strong similarities between the three profiles, which provide for a strong basis for the continued functioning of alternative sanctioning.

show abstract

“…Studies therefore focused on alternative explanations for punitivity, such as justifications for sentencing (Payne et al 2004), fear (Dowler 2003) and anger (Johnson 2009) about crime. Building on the results of previous research into fear of crime and punitivity this study investigates how different cognitive and emotional experiences of crime are linked to punitive attitudes, and how these links vary depending on other known predictors of punitivity such as gender, age, education, and assumed purposes for sentencing.…”

Section: Previous Research On Punitivity and Fear Of Crimementioning

confidence: 99%

How fear of crime affects punitive attitudes

Armborst¹

2017

Eur J Crim Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates different types of fear of crime as predictors for punitive attitudes. Using data from a Germany-wide representative survey (n = 1272) it examines the reliability and validity of survey instruments through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to explain variations in the level of respondents' punitive attitudes. The results show that different emotional and cognitive responses to crime have a distinctive effect on the formation of punitive attitudes. These effects vary significantly depending on socio-demographic factors and assumed purposes of punishment. A crucial observation of the study is that men's fear of crime works in a different way in the formation of punitive attitudes than women's fear of crime. The perceived locus of control for the crime threat is a possible explanation for this difference.

show abstract

What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing

Cited by 119 publications

References 56 publications

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

Subjective Proximity to Crime or Social Representations? Explaining Sentencing Attitudes in Switzerland

All in Favour? Attitudes of Stakeholders and Drug Users Towards Judicial Alternatives

How fear of crime affects punitive attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About