This article was downloaded by: [University of York] On: 24 August 2013, At: 04:19 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wecj20 Crime Salience, Perceived Racial Bias, and Blacks' Punitive Attitudes Devon Johnson a a George Mason University Published online: 23 Sep 2008. To cite this article: Devon Johnson (2007) Crime Salience, Perceived Racial Bias, and Blacks' Punitive Attitudes, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 4:4, 1-18, DOI: 10.1300/J222v04n04_01 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J222v04n04_01 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 24 August 2013, At: 04:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal JusticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wecj20
Crime Salience, Perceived Racial Bias,and Blacks' Punitive AttitudesDevon Johnson aa George Mason UniversityPublished online: 23 Sep 2008.
To cite this article: Devon Johnson (2007) Crime Salience, Perceived Racial Bias, and Blacks' PunitiveAttitudes, Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 4:4, 1-18, DOI: 10.1300/J222v04n04_01
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J222v04n04_01
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
When it comes to criminal justice policy, black Americans face an“impossible dilemma” (Loury, 1996). On the one hand, black commu-nities benefit from pro-active policing and criminal penalties designedto rid their neighborhoods of crime, drugs, and violence. On the other,residents of black communities bear the brunt of aggressive police tac-tics and harsh policies that draw “their youngsters” into a criminal jus-tice system they view as racially discriminatory (Loury, 1994). Thisdilemma may result in a deep sense of ambivalence among AfricanAmericans when the subject is how best to respond to crime (Loury,1994; Pattillo, 1998; Venkatesh, 1997).
Despite their greater rates of criminal victimization and incarcera-tion, comparatively little is known about the punishment preferences ofblack Americans. Much of the previous research on African Americanopinion relies on national survey data with few black respondents orlimited crime control measures, or involves localized, nonrepresen-tative samples. Although this work has provided some broad stroke in-dications of differences in opinion between blacks and whites, withAfrican Americans more critical of the criminal justice system (Hagan &Albonetti, 1982; Henderson et al. 1997; Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005;Wortley, Hagan & Macmillan, 1997), and more wary of harsh policies(Browning & Cao, 1992; Cohn, Barkan & Halteman, 1991; Secret &Johnson, 1989; Young, 1991), sources of division in opinion within theblack community are poorly understood. This research adds to our un-derstanding of the views of blacks by examining the factors influencingAfrican Americans’ punitive attitudes.
UNDERSTANDING THE SOURCES OF BLACKS’PUNITIVE ATTITUDES
The punitive attitudes of blacks may largely be shaped by two fac-tors: crime salience and perceived racial bias in the administration ofjustice. Exposure to crime and violence may lead blacks to supportharsh crime policies; in contrast, perceptions of racial bias in the justicesystem may encourage blacks to prefer less punitive policies. In addi-tion to the effects of crime salience and perceived racial bias, previousresearch and theory suggest that blacks’ criminal justice attitudes mayalso vary by their causal explanations for crime, political ideology, con-tact with the justice system, and demographic characteristics. Given the
2 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
small body of research examining blacks’ attitudes toward criminalpunishment, the present research is partly exploratory.
Crime Salience and Punitiveness
Crime is a palpable concern for African Americans and their commu-nities, as blacks are overrepresented among victims of both violent andproperty crimes. For example, even though crime rates have beendeclining in recent years, data from the 1993-1998 National Crime Vic-timization Survey show that the serious violent crime victimization rate(robbery, aggravated assault, rape, and sexual assault) for blacks was al-most twice the rate for whites, and double the rate for Asians. This pat-tern was true for both black men and women, and was consistent acrossresidential locations (urban, suburban, and rural) and income levels(Rennison, 2001). Homicide statistics from the Uniform Crime Reporttell a similar story. In 2002, blacks were six times more likely thanwhites to be murdered (Fox & Zawitz, 2004). That same year, almostone-half of all murder victims (48%) were black (Maguire & Pastore,2005), though African Americans only constitute about twelve percentof the U.S. population.
In addition, property crime victimization rates were higher for blacksthan for whites in virtually every category (e.g., household burglary, cartheft, theft over $50) (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Within theblack population, victimization rates also vary; the violent crime vic-timization rate between 1993 and 1998 was higher for younger blacks,for African Americans living in urban areas, and for blacks with in-comes under $25,000 than for their respective counterparts (Rennison,2001). Moreover, many African Americans live in poor neighborhoodscharacterized by “incivilities” (such as trash or graffiti) and low socialintegration, both of which increase fear of crime among residents(Covington & Taylor, 1991; Greenberg, 1986; Roundtree & Land,1996; Skogan, 1990; Taub, Taylor & Dunham, 1984; Will & McGrath,1995).
A number of commentators argue that because African Americansare disproportionately the victims of crime, harsh criminal justice poli-cies aimed at locking up offenders are beneficial to the black commu-nity (DiIulio, 1994; Kennedy, 1997; Loury, 1994). To the extent thatpunitive attitudes are a rational and instrumental response to crime, it isreasonable to expect that those who are exposed to higher rates of crimeand disorder, who are fearful of crime, and who have been victims willbe more punitive than their respective counterparts. The harsh treatment
Devon Johnson 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
of criminals, therefore, may receive significant support among blackAmericans for whom crime is salient.
And indeed, previous research has linked fear of crime and victimiza-tion to blacks’ punitive attitudes. Fear of crime increases support for har-sher courts among African Americans (Cohn et al., 1991; Langworthy &Whitehead, 1986). Similarly, Combs and Comer (1984) find that fear ofcrime and victimization is positively associated with blacks’ support forcapital punishment. There is some evidence, however, that vicarious vic-timization (losing a loved one to homicide) decreases death penalty sup-port for African Americans (Borg, 1998). Taken together, previousresearch suggests that crime salience may increase blacks’ support forpunitive criminal punishments.
Perceived Racial Bias and Punitiveness
Perceptions of racial discrimination in the administration of justiceare widespread in the black community, and have prompted many Afri-can Americans to refer to the criminal justice system as the “Just-Us”system (Hunt, 1999). Such perceptions are rooted in historical and con-temporary realities. Throughout our nation’s history, black victimshave been denied equal protection of the laws and black offenders havefaced unequal enforcement of the laws (Chambliss, 1999; Jaynes &Williams, 1989; Kennedy, 1997; Mann, 1993). Moreover, in recentyears, black communities have borne the brunt of the simultaneous“wars” on crime and drugs, which have been waged most vigorously inpoor, inner-city communities.
The emergence of zero-tolerance policing and the use of aggressivepolice tactics have prompted accusations of racial profiling, and con-tributed to tense relationships between law enforcers and residents ofhigh-crime areas (Anderson, 1990). In addition, the expansion of policeand prosecutorial powers, and the introduction of strict sentencing guide-lines for drug offenses, have had a disproportionate impact on blackAmericans and helped fuel an extraordinarily high rate of incarcerationfor black males (Cole, 1999; Donzinger, 1996; Kennedy, 2001; Mauer,1999; Parenti, 1999; Tonry, 1995; Walker, Spohn & DeLone, 2000).Although the extent to which racial discrimination in the administrationof justice actually occurs remains the subject of academic debate (Mann,1993; Weitzer, 1996; Wilbanks, 1987), perceptions of racial bias on thepart of police, or in administration of justice more generally, are com-mon among African Americans.
4 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Indeed, previous research has found that blacks hold more negativeviews of the police than do other groups (Smith & Hawkins, 1973; Tay-lor et al. 2001; Tuch & Weitzer, 1997), and that a large percentage of theblack population perceives racial bias in the administration of justice(Hagan & Albonetti, 1982; Henderson et al. 1997; Hurwitz & Peffley,2001; Wortley et al. 1997). Perceiving racial bias in the criminal justicesystem likely affects African Americans’ attitudes about a variety ofcrime-related issues (Secret & Johnson, 1989); prior research demon-strates that such perceptions reduce blacks’ support for harsh criminalpunishments.
Several studies of African Americans’ crime control attitudes haveincluded measures of trust in the police or perceived racial bias in thejustice system. For example, Hurwitz and Peffley (2005) used survey-based experiments to examine how beliefs about the (racial) fairness ofthe criminal justice system influenced interpretations of police behav-ior. They found that blacks who believe the criminal justice system isunfair express more cynical assessments of police actions, especiallywhen those actions target blacks.
More relevant to the current analysis is Young’s (1991) examination ofpublic support for capital punishment. He argued that blacks’ support forthe death penalty was linked to trust in the police (who serve as visiblerepresentatives of the entire criminal justice system), and the belief thatthe criminal justice system metes out equitable sentences. He found thattrust in the police was positively related to support for the death penaltyamong blacks, but that the equitable sentencing variable did not have asignificant effect. Young suggests that the sentencing variable may havehad a significant effect if it had specifically referenced racial disparities insentencing. In sum, previous research and theory indicates that percep-tions of racial bias should reduce blacks’ support for punitive policies.
Causal Attributions, Political Ideology, and Punitiveness
Research shows that views about the causes of crime influence thepolicies people support to fight crime (Carroll et al. 1987; Cullen et al.1985; Hawkins, 1981; Sims, 2003). African Americans who view crimeas the result of individual failings may prefer harsh punishments forcriminal offenders. Blacks who view crime as the result of social factorssuch as poverty and inequality, in contrast, may be less supportive ofharsh criminal penalties and more supportive of rehabilitative pro-grams. Young (1991) finds that causal attributions for crime are notimportant predictors of support for death penalty among blacks. Al-
Devon Johnson 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
though this suggests that causal attributions may not be an importantpredictor of blacks’ attitudes toward punitive policies, I have neverthe-less included measures of causal attributions as control variables in theanalyses that follows.
Previous research shows that political ideology is often a strongdeterminant of punitive attitudes. Although this is especially true forwhites (Johnson, 2001; Langworthy & Whitehead, 1986), political viewsmay also have an effect on blacks’ criminal justice policy preferences(Combs & Comer, 1984). Blacks who are more conservative are morelikely to favor harsh criminal penalties.
Background Characteristics and Punitiveness
Although socioeconomic status may influence blacks’ views in othercriminal justice domains, it appears that punitive attitudes are consistentacross education, occupation, and income. According to prior research,blacks’ support for harsh courts does not vary by education (Cohn et al.1991) or across occupational categories (Wilson & Dunham, 2001).Similarly, the effect of income on blacks’ support for the death penaltyhas varied across time (Combs & Comers, 1984).
To date, research has shown that black women are more punitive thanblack men (Miller, Rossi & Simpson, 1986; Cohn et al. 1991), but stud-ies have not found a significant effect for age (Cohn et al. 1991). Per-sonal and vicarious exposure to incarceration is related to blacks’ viewsof formal social control (Rose & Clear, 2004), and may therefore be re-lated to their support for punitive crime policies. Urban and southernresidence may also help explain variation in blacks’ punitive attitudes,and are controlled for in the analyses below.
Based on this review of the literature, it is likely that crime salienceand perceived racial bias influence blacks’ punitive attitudes, thoughthey are predicted to have opposite effects. Crime salience should in-crease support for punitive policies, while perceived racial bias shoulddecrease support. Other factors, considered here as control variables,may also help explain variation in blacks’ support for harsh criminaljustice policies.
DATA AND MEASURES
The data for these analyses come from the 2001 Race, Crime andPublic Opinion Study (Bobo & Johnson, 2001). The RCPOS is a repre-
6 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
sentative national sample of 978 non-Hispanic white and 1,010 non-Hispanic black respondents living in U.S. households. The survey datawere collected by Knowledge Networks using a new Internet-based sur-vey technology.1 Due to the length of the questionnaire, the data werecollected in two waves. The first wave of the survey was conductedfrom June 4 to 20, 2001 with a within-panel response rate of 72 percentfor blacks and 61 percent for whites. These respondents were contactedfor the second wave of the survey, from August 7 to 20, 2001. The sec-ond wave included 725 blacks and 783 whites, with a re-interview re-sponse rate of 72 percent and 80 percent, respectively.2 Only blackrespondents who completed both waves of the survey are included inthe following analyses; the data are weighted to account for nonres-ponse bias and sampling error. Descriptive statistics for all variables inthe analyses are shown in Table 1, and Pearson correlation coefficientsare shown in Table 2.
The Punitiveness Index. Unlike many of the prior studies on punitiveattitudes, which focus on only one or two single-item measures (such assupport for the death penalty or for harsher courts), the dependent vari-able in this study is a multiple-item index of punitiveness. The Puni-tiveness Index was created by averaging responses from four items:(1) favor trying juveniles as adults; (2) favor harsher punishments forviolent offenses; (3) favor stricter parole; and (4) favor “three strikes”laws. To measure support for trying juveniles as adults, respondentswere asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the follow-ing statement: “Juveniles between the ages of 14 and 17 accused of vio-lent crimes should be tried and sentenced in adult courts rather than injuvenile courts.” This variable ranges from “strongly disagree” (coded1) to “strongly agree” (coded 4). Respondents were asked whether cur-rent penalties for criminals who commit violent offenses are “too harsh”(coded 1), “about right” (coded 2), or “too light” (coded 3). This ques-tion included a “don’t know” response option; for all analyses “don’tknow” is coded at the midpoint (2) in order to maximize cases. Respon-dents were asked whether parole boards should be “less strict” (coded1), “the same they are now” (coded 2), or “more strict” (coded 3) ingranting parole. Finally, respondents were also asked the extent towhich they favored sentencing a criminal to life in prison if he or shehad committed three violent felonies; responses ranged from “stronglyoppose” (coded 1) to “strongly favor” (coded 4). The PunitivenessIndex ranges from 1 to 3.5, with high scores indicating greater punitive-ness.
Devon Johnson 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Crime Salience. Although most studies only measure fear of crimeand recent victimization, I have included a variety of crime saliencemeasures, including fear of crime, recent victimization, and neighbor-hood disorder, as well as perceptions of the crime problem in one’sneighborhood, and in the U.S., overall. Respondents rated the crimeproblem in their neighborhood on a scale from “not a problem at all”(coded 1) to “a serious problem” (coded 4). They also rated the crimeproblem in the United States on a scale from “not a problem at all”(coded 1) to “an extremely serious problem” (coded 5). Neighborhooddisorder is an index created by averaging the responses to two items; re-spondents were asked to rate how serious the problems of “trash and lit-ter lying around” and “vacant houses and unkempt lots” were in theircommunities. Response options ranged from “not a problem at all”(coded 1) to “a serious problem” (coded 4). The Pearson correlation be-tween the two disorder measures is .65. Fear of crime is an index created
8 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Punitiveness index 695 1 3.5 2.66 .52
Black 725 1 1 1.00 0
Age 725 18 92 41.87 15.08
Female 725 0 1 .55 .498
Education 724 1 9 3.47 1.607
Income 725 1 17 9.21 4.26
Metropolitan residence 725 0 1 .94 .24
Southern residence 725 0 1 .55 .50
Previous incarceration 716 0 1 .12 .33
Friend/relative incarcerated 717 0 1 .49 .50
Crime problem in neighborhood 724 1 4 2.80 .92
Disorder index 707 1 4 2.19 .96
Fear of crime index 718 1 4 2.17 .83
Recent victimization 720 0 1 .07 .26
Crime problem in the U.S. 724 1 5 4.50 .65
Individual failings index 710 1 4 2.62 .75
Social causes index 708 1 4 2.65 .78
Political conservatism 725 1 5 2.83 .74
Perceived bias index 712 1 4 3.11 .70
Source: Race, Crime and Public Opinion Study, 2001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
by averaging the responses to two other items; respondents were askedhow often they feared being robbed or feared having their house bur-glarized. Response options ranged from “never” (coded 1) to “very of-ten” (coded 4). The Pearson correlation between the two fear of crimemeasures is high (r = .71). Previous victimization is a dummy variable,coded 1 if a respondent was the victim of a violent crime or a burglary inthe previous year. For each measure, higher scores indicate greatercrime salience (e.g., more fear of crime, more perceived disorder, andrecent victimization).
Perceived Racial Bias Index. The analyses also include a PerceivedRacial Bias Index, which measures respondents’ perceptions of racialbias on the part of police, prosecutors, and judges. The Perceived RacialBias Index was created by averaging responses to three items: (1) Howmuch confidence do you have in the police in terms of treating blacks andwhites equally? (2) How much confidence do you have in prosecutors interms of treating blacks and whites equally? and (3) How much confi-dence do you have in judges in terms of treating blacks and whitesequally? Cronbach’s alpha for the index is .78; the index ranges from 1 (alot of confidence in racial fairness) to 4 (no confidence in racial fairness).
Causal Attributions for Criminal Behavior and Political Ideology.The survey asked respondents the extent to which they agreed or dis-agreed with several items measuring causal attributions for criminalbehavior. The Social Causes Index measures the extent to which re-spondents blame societal factors for criminal behavior and was createdby averaging the responses to two items: (1) “Poverty and low incomein our society are responsible for much of crime,” and (2) “People turnto crime because our society does not guarantee that everyone has regu-lar employment.” The Pearson correlation between these variables is.41. This index ranges from one (low societal blame) to four (blamessocial causes). The Individual Failings Index measures the degree towhich respondents hold individuals responsible for criminal behaviorand was created by averaging the responses to two other items: (1)“People become criminals because they don’t care about the rights ofothers or their responsibility to society”; and (2) “People turn to crimebecause they are lazy.” The Pearson correlation between these variablesis .34. This index ranges from one (low individual responsibility) tofour (blames individual failings). The weak relationship between thetwo attribution indexes (r = –.04) indicates that most respondents do notendorse both social and dispositional causes of crime. Political conser-vatism is a five-category variable, ranging from very liberal (coded 1) tovery conservative (coded 5).
Devon Johnson 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
TA
BLE
2.P
ears
onC
orre
latio
nC
oeffi
cien
ts
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
1516
1718
(1)
Pun
itive
ness
inde
x1.
00–.
02–.
00–.
02.0
7–.
07.0
3–.
00–.
12–.
04–.
03.1
0–.
02.0
6.3
0.0
2.0
5–.
19
(2)
Age
1.00
.05
–.02
.11
–.08
–.09
–.03
–.19
.02
–.10
–.06
–.08
.04
.03
–.12
.02
–.01
(3)
Fem
ale
1.00
.06
–.09
.08
.01
–.22
–.00
.00
.13
.03
–.05
.07
.03
–.01
–.01
–.02
(4)
Edu
catio
n1.
00.2
7.0
1.1
0–.
10–.
15–.
08–.
14–.
07–.
07–.
03–.
05–.
05–.
09.0
7
(5)
Inco
me
1.00
.04
–.06
–.07
–.14
–.04
–.19
–.03
–.09
–.07
–.05
–.12
–.06
.13
(6)
Met
ropo
litan
resi
denc
e1.
00–.
04.0
7.0
1.0
5–.
06–.
11–.
05–.
01–.
09–.
08–.
06.0
9
(7)
Sou
ther
nre
side
nce
1.00
–.07
.04
–.11
–.04
–.08
–.11
–.01
.02
–.03
.12
–.05
(8)
Pre
viou
sin
carc
erat
ion
1.00
.08
.05
.02
.05
.11
.00
–.11
.05
–.01
.01
(9)
Frie
nd/r
elat
ive
inca
rcer
ated
1.00
.20
.17
.11
.12
.04
–.02
.06
.04
.11
(10)
Crim
epr
oble
min
neig
hbor
hood
1.00
.50
.35
.05
.13
.05
.07
–.02
.09
(11)
Dis
orde
rin
dex
1.00
.39
.13
.03
.12
.07
.01
.01
(12)
Fea
rof
crim
ein
dex
1.00
.17
.13
.10
.18
.01
.03
(13)
Rec
entv
ictim
izat
ion
1.00
.04
.03
.09
.03
.02
(14)
Crim
epr
oble
min
the
U.S
.1.
00.1
5.1
0–.
08.0
7
(15)
Indi
vidu
alfa
iling
sin
dex
1.00
.08
.01
–.13
(16)
Soc
ialc
ause
sin
dex
1.00
–.00
.13
(17)
Pol
itica
lcon
serv
atis
m1.
00–.
01
(18)
Per
ceiv
edbi
asin
dex
1.00
Sou
rce:
Rac
e,C
rime,
and
Pub
licO
pini
onS
tudy
,200
1.
10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Background Variables. I have included standard demographic vari-ables in the multivariate analyses, including age, gender, education, in-come, and metropolitan and Southern residence. Age and education arecontinuous variables. Gender is a dummy variable (coded 1 for female,0 for male), metropolitan residence is a dummy variable (coded 1 forresidence in an MSA, 0 otherwise), and southern residence is a dummyvariable (coded 1 for residence in DE, MD, DC, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA,FL, KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, OK, or TX, 0 for other). Income is a setof categories coded from 1 to 17, corresponding to categories of incomefrom less than $5,000 to $125,000 or more.3 In addition, I have includedtwo measures of personal and vicarious exposure to incarceration:whether the respondent has ever been incarcerated (coded 1 for yes, 0for no), and whether the respondent has a close friend or relativecurrently incarcerated (coded 1 for yes, 0 for no).
RESULTS
Support for Punitive Policies
Figure 1 shows support for punitive crime policies, by race. Consis-tent with a variety of recent opinion polls and previous research, I findthat black Americans are generally less supportive of harsh policiesthan are whites, though in three of the four cases, a majority of blacksfavor the punitive penalty. Sixty-two percent of the black respondentsagree that juveniles charged with a violent crime should be tried andsentenced in adult courts (combining the “strongly agree” and “mostlyagree” categories), and two out of five blacks believe that penalties forviolent crimes are “too lenient.” When asked if parole boards should bemore strict, less strict or the same as they are now, 65 percent of blacksagree that parole boards should be “more strict.” Similarly, a large per-centage of blacks (68%) strongly or mostly favor three strikes laws. Al-though the pattern here shows that whites are more punitive than blacks,African Americans are hardly soft on crime. Indeed, when it comes topunishing violent crime, the majority of both white and black Ameri-cans support harsh treatment for lawbreakers.4
The Sources of Blacks’ Punitiveness
Multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the relative effectsof crime salience and perceived racial bias on the punitive attitudes ofblacks. The results from the ordinary least squares regression analysis
Devon Johnson 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
predicting black Americans’ punitive attitudes are shown in Table 3.The model includes measures of crime salience, perceived racial bias,causal attributions, and demographic characteristics, and the table re-ports both unstandardized and standardized coefficients.
An examination of the unstandardized coefficients (Bs) shows thatcrime salience and perceived racial bias influence blacks’ punitive atti-tudes. Two of the crime salience measures in the model are significantlyrelated to blacks’ punitiveness. However, they have opposite effects.Fear of crime is associated with increased punitiveness, while neighbor-hood disorder exerts a negative influence on blacks’ support for harshpolicies. The positive association between fear of crime and punitive at-titudes was predicted, and is consistent with previous research (Cohn etal. 1991). The direction of the disorder effect is contrary to expecta-tions. Neither perceptions of the crime problem in one’s neighborhoodor in the U.S., nor recent victimization, had a significant impact onblacks’ punitiveness. Consistent with expectations and previous research,perceived racial bias is negatively associated with blacks’ punitiveness.Blacks who believe the criminal justice system is racially biased are lesslikely to favor punitive policies.
Several of the control variables are also significantly related topunitiveness. The results of the regression analysis indicate that blackswho attribute crime to individual failings are more supportive of harshpunishments than those who do not. This finding is consistent with pre-dictions, but differs from Young’s (1991) study, which found no signif-icant effect of causal attributions on blacks’ support for the deathpenalty. Income is also a significant factor; blacks with higher incomes
12 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
100P
erce
ntag
e
79
62
78
65
84
66 67
44
80
40
20
Favor TryingJuveniles as Adults
0
60
Favor Stricter Parole
Whites Blocks
Favor Three Strikes Favor HarsherPunishments forViolent Crimes
FIGURE 1. Support for Harsh Criminal Justice Policies by Race
Source: Race, Crime and Public Opinion Study, 2001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
are more punitive than those with lower incomes. In contrast, vicariousexposure to incarceration is negatively associated with punitive atti-tudes; blacks who have a friend or relative currently incarcerated aresignificantly less likely to support harsh penalties than their counter-parts. This finding mirrors the results from Rose and Clear (2004), whofound exposure to incarceration was linked to blacks’ views of formalsocial control. Outside of income and vicarious exposure to incarcera-tion, none of the other background characteristics were significantly re-lated to blacks’ punitive attitudes. Thus, the results show that blacks’
Devon Johnson 13
TABLE 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Predicting Blacks’ Punitiveness
UnstandardizedCoefficients (B)
StandardErrors
StandardizedCoefficients
(Beta)
Constant 2.37*** .23
Background Characteristics
Age –.001 .001 –.044
Education –.013 .012 –.041
Female .033 .040 .032
Income .009*** .005 .079
Metropolitan residence –.031 .080 –.015
Southern residence .025 .040 .024
Previous incarceration .055 .062 .035
Friend/relative incarcerated –.093* .040 –.091
Causal Attributions and Ideology
Individual failings index .176*** .027 .254
Social causes index .015 .026 .023
Political conservatism .044 .025 .066
Crime Salience
Crime problem in neighborhood –.011 .025 –.021
Disorder index –.051* .025 –.095
Fear of crime index .080** .026 .128
Recent victimization –.070 .075 –.036
Crime problem in the U.S. .018 .031 .022
Perceived Racial Bias
Perceived bias index –.117*** .029 –.159
Adjusted R Square .123
N (640)
Source: Race, Crime, and Public Opinion Study, 2001.* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
support for punitive policies does not vary across education levels, resi-dential locations (urban, suburban, south), or by age.
Standardized regression coefficients (Betas) are also shown in Table3. A review of the standardized coefficients shows that the perceived ra-cial bias and fear of crime measures are the second and third strongestpredictors in the model, following the Individual Failings Index. Fi-nally, the R-Square for the regression analysis indicates that the vari-ables in the model account for about 12 percent of the variance in blacks’views.
CONCLUSIONS
The problematic intersection of race and crime in America points to avery concrete dilemma for African Americans (Loury, 1996). Whileblacks suffer disproportionately from crime and depend on the criminaljustice system to punish offenders and protect their neighborhoods, theyrealize that black individuals and communities will be most affected bypunitive crime policies and aggressive policing. The results reportedabove reflect this dilemma: while fear of crime significantly increasessupport for punitive crime policies among blacks, perceived racial biasin the criminal justice system decreases support.
These findings also indicate that approximately two out of three blackAmericans favor punitive crime policies such as “three strikes and you’reout” or trying juvenile offenders in adult courts. Support for these types ofharsh penalties is linked to fear of crime, but also to ideology and classstanding. Blacks who hold individualistic explanations for criminal be-havior are more likely to favor punitive policies than those who do nothave such views (and in fact, the Individual Failings Index is the strongestpredictor in the model). Similarly, blacks with higher incomes are morepunitive than their lower-income counterparts. Blacks’ support for harshpolicies is tempered, however, by the belief that they may be applied in aracially biased manner. Other factors that decrease punitiveness includeneighborhood disorder and vicarious exposure to incarceration.
These results have implications for policymaking, and for future re-search. Because both crime and criminal justice policy disproportionatelyaffect black communities, and perceptions of racial bias in the administra-tion of justice are widespread among African Americans, policymakersmust consider the preferences and concerns of blacks when crafting re-sponses to crime. It is important, therefore, that we have an accurate assess-ment of African Americans’ opinion on criminal justice matters. By
14 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
examining the factors that influence blacks’ punitive attitudes, this study isa step in that direction. However, much more research is needed to developa complete and nuanced understanding of blacks’ attitudes toward criminaljustice policies, as well as the underlying sources of those views.
NOTES
1. Knowledge Networks has created an innovative research design that allows sur-vey questionnaires to be administered over the Internet to a representative sample of allU.S. households. Knowledge Networks employs a Random Digit Dialing (RRD) tele-phone methodology to develop a representative sample of households for participationin its panel. Every participating Knowledge Networks household receives free hard-ware, free Internet access, free e-mail accounts and ongoing technical support. Surveysare delivered by e-mail on the same standardized hardware, through a television set,about once a week.
2. Under the most stringent assumptions (taking into account the panel recruitmentresponse rate, the household connection rate and the within-panel completion rate), theoverall response rate was 22 percent for whites and 25 percent for blacks. A detailedcomparison of the demographic characteristics of the Knowledge Networks panel andof the RCPOS sample with national census figures indicates that the samples mirror theU.S. population as a whole. Moreover, the demographic characteristics of the respon-dents who completed Wave 2 closely match those of the respondents who completedWave 1, indicating that there was no systematic bias in the cases that were lost to attri-tion (see Bobo and Johnson (2004) for more detailed information).
3. In most cases, respondents provided income data to Knowledge Networks. As iscommon in survey research, some respondents refused to provide information abouttheir income. For those cases where income data were unavailable from respondents,Knowledge Networks imputed household income based on the median income fortheir census block.
4. Although punitive attitudes are the focus of this paper, it is important to note thatthe public is not uniformly punitive (Applegate, Cullen & Fisher, 1997; Cullen, Cullen& Wozniak, 1988; Thomson & Ragona, 1987). Researchers have long found that pub-lic opinion on criminal justice issues is complex, and that Americans support harshpunishments at the same time as they favor some types of progressive policies (Cullen,Fisher & Applegate, 2000).
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Applegate, B., Cullen F. & Fisher, B. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment:The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77, 237-258.
Bobo, L.D. & Johnson, D. (2001). Race, crime and public opinion study. Departmentof Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Devon Johnson 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Bobo, L.D. & Johnson, D. (2004). A taste for punishment: Black and white Americans’views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review: Social ScienceResearch on Race, 1, 151-180.
Borg, M.J. (1998). Vicarious homicide victimization and support for capital punish-ment: A test of Black’s theory of law. Criminology, 36, 537-567.
Browning, S.L. & Cao, L. (1992). The impact of race on criminal justice ideology. Jus-tice Quarterly, 9, 685-701.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2003:Statistical tables. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice. Report released July,2005.
Cullen, F.T., Cullen, J.B. & Wozniak, J.F. (1988). Is rehabilitation dead? The myth ofthe punitive public. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 303-317.
Cullen, F.T., Fisher, B.S. & Applegate, B.K. (2000). Public opinion about punishmentand corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol-ume 27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
DiIulio, J.J. (1994). The question of black crime. The Public Interest, 117, 3-32.Donzinger, S.R. (1996). The real war on crime: The report of the national criminal jus-
tice commission. New York: HarperPerennial.Fox, J.A. & Zawitz, M. (2004). Homicide trends in the United States, 2002 update.
Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. Report re-leased November, 2004.
Greenberg, S.W. (1986). Fear and its relationship to crime, neighborhood deteriora-tion, and informal social control. In J. Bryne and R. Sampson (Eds.), The socialecology of crime. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hagan, J. & Albonetti, C. (1982). Race, class, and the perception of criminal injusticein America. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 329-355.
Hawkins, D.F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior.2, 207-230.
Henderson, M.L. et al. (1997). The impact of race on perceptions of criminal injustice.Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 447-462.
Hunt, D.M. (1999). O.J. Simpson facts and fictions: News rituals in the construction ofreality. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
16 JOURNAL OF ETHNICITY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Hurwitz, J. & Peffley, M. (2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions offairness in the U.S. criminal justice system. The Journal of Politics, 67, 762-783.
Jaynes, G. & Williams, R. (1989). A common destiny: Blacks and American society.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Johnson, D. (2001). Punitiveness on crime: Economic insecurity, racial prejudice, orboth? Sociological Focus, 34, 33-54.
Kennedy, R. (1997). Race, crime and the law. New York: Pantheon.Kennedy, R. (2001). Racial trends in the administration of criminal justice. In N.
Smelser, W.J. Wilson & F. Mitchell, (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends andtheir consequences. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Langworthy, R.H. & Whitehead, J.T. (1986). Liberalism and fear as explanations ofpunitiveness. Criminology, 24, 575-591.
Loury, G.C. (1994). Listen to the black community. The Public Interest, 117, 33-37.Loury, G.C. (1996). The impossible dilemma. The New Republic, 214, 21.Maguire, K. & Pastore, A.L. et al. (2005). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 2003.
(31st Edition). Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.Mann, C.R. (1993). Unequal justice: A question of color. Bloomington IN: Indiana
University Press.Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: New Press.Meares, T.L. & Kahan, D.M. (1998). Law and (norms of) order in the inner city. Law
and Society Review, 3, 805-838.Miller, J.L., Rossi, P.H. & Simpson, J.E. (1986). Perceptions of justice: Race and gen-
der differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law and Society Re-view, 20, 313-334.
Parenti, C. (1999). Lockdown America: Police and prisons in the age of crisis. NewYork: Verso.
Pattillo, M.E. (1998). Sweet mothers and gangbangers: Managing crime in a blackmiddle-class neighborhood. Social Forces, 76, 747-774.
Rennison, C. (2001). Violent victimization and race, 1993-1998. Washington D.C: Bu-reau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. Report released March, 2001.
Roberts, J.V. & Doob, A.N. (1990). News media influences on public views of sen-tencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 451-468.
Roundtree, P.W. & Land, K.C. (1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empiricalevidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74,1353-1376.
Rose, D. & Clear, T. (2004). Who doesn’t know someone in jail? The impact of expo-sure to prison on attitudes toward formal and informal controls. The Prison Journal,84, 228-247.
Secret, P.E. & Johnson, J.S. (1989). Racial differences in attitudes toward crime con-trol. Journal of Criminal Justice, 17, 361-375.
Sims, B. (2003). The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A nationalstudy. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 1-25.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in Americanneighborhoods. New York: MacMillan.
Smith, P.E. & Hawkins, R.O. (1973). Victimization, types of citizen-police contacts,and attitudes toward the police. Law and Society Review, 8, 135-152.
Devon Johnson 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Y
ork]
at 0
4:19
24
Aug
ust 2
013
Taub, R.P., Taylor. D.G. & Dunham, J.D. (1984). Paths of neighborhood change: Raceand crime in urban America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, T.J., Turner, K.B., Esbensen, F. & Winfree Jr., L.T. (2001). Coppin’ an atti-tude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of CriminalJustice, 29, 295-305.
Thomson, D.R. & Ragona, A.J. (1987). Popular moderation versus governmental au-thoritarianism: An interactionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanc-tions. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 337-357.
Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Tuch, S.A. & Weitzer. R. (1997). Trends: Racial differences in attitudes toward the po-lice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 642-663.
Venkatesh, S. (1997). The social organization of street gang activity in an urban ghetto.American Journal of Sociology, 103, 82-111.
Walker, S., Spohn C. & DeLone, M. (2000). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity andcrime in America. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
Weitzer, R. (1996). Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system: Findings andproblems in the literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 309-322.
Wilbanks, W. (1987). Myth of a racist criminal justice system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Will, J.A. & McGrath. J.H. (1995). Crime, neighborhood perceptions, and the under-class: The relationship between fear of crime and class position. Journal of Crimi-nal Justice, 23, 163-176.
Wilson, G. & Dunham, R. (2001). Race, class, and attitudes toward crime control: Theviews of the African American middle class. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28,259-278.
Wortley, S, Hagan, J. & Macmillan, R. (1997). Just des(s)erts? The racial polarizationof perceptions of criminal injustice. Law and Society Review, 31, 637-676.
Young, R. (1991). Race, conceptions of crime and justice, and support for the deathpenalty. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 67-75.
