SALVATION OR DAMNATION?: Religion and Correctional Ideologyt T. DAVID EVANStt University of North Carolina at Wilmington MIKE ADAMS University of North Carolina, at Wilmington ABSTRACT: Fundamentalist affiliation and religious beliefs are generally related to more punitive attitudes toward criminals. Fundamentalists also tend to attribute criminality to individual dispositional factors, and in turn, such factors are related to punitiveness. Recently, it has also been found that compassionate dimensions o f religion are related to treatment-oriented policies. It is still not clear which dimensions o f religion are related to punitive or treatment ideology and what effects religious variables may have when tested against secular concerns about crime and crime attributions. In the present research, we test three models o f punitiveness and one model o f rehabilitation with demographic, secular, religious, and attributional factors. We found that those for whom religion is salient in their daily lives tend to believe that the death penalty should be reserved for older offenders and that those who believe in a punitive God tend to support harsher punishments.
INTRODUCTION Notwithstanding the generally perceived trend from sacred to secular in modern societies, Garland (1990) asserted that "from the medieval period onwards, Western legal systems have increasingly separated themselves from religious authorities and conceptions, but something of that earlier, religious culture remains, and religious belief has been an important force in shaping the practice and evolution of punishment" (p. 203). The precise nature of religious effects and the process by which religion impacts on correctional attitudes is yet to be determined. Nonetheless, researchers, perhaps prompted by recent trends of harsher criminal sentences, have begun to search for the origins of public attitudes about how to deal with crime and criminals and for individual t The authors would like to thank Jammie Price, Mike Maume, and Stephen McNamee and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which made this a better paper. t t Direct all correspondence to: T. David Evans, Department o f Sociology and Criminal Justice, University o f North Carolina at Wilmington, 601 S. College Avenue, Wilmington, N C 28403. Email:
[email protected]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Vol. 28 No. 1, 2003 9 2003 Southern Criminal Justice Association
16
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
factors that lead to variation in support of punishment. Our research seeks to explain the role of religion in the "punishment response" increasingly manifested in such policies as longer sentences, sentencing guidelines, mandatory sentences, three-strikes laws, enhanced penalties, and the general diminution of judicial discretion. Previous studies of religion and correctional attitudes have generally found little variation among religious groups (Protestant, Catholic, and Jew) or across Protestant denominations (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 1996; Barkan & Cohn, 1994; Blumstein & Cohen, 1980; Bohm, 1991; Durham, Elrod, & Kinkade, 1996; Hindelang, 1974; Tyler & Weber, 1982). However, when researchers began to focus on diversity within Protestant groups, they found that fundamentalists were generally more punitive than other Protestants (Grasmick, Bursik, & Blackwell, 1993a; Grasmick, Cochran, Bursik, & Kimpel, 1993b; Grasmick, Davenport, Chamlin, & Bursik, 1992; Grasmick & McGill, 1994). As a complementary approach to the work of Grasmick and his various colleagues (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994), a new line of research found that general religious beliefs, in their compassionate expression at least, were also predictive of support for rehabilitation (Applegate, Cullen, Fisher, & Vander Ven, 2000). Similar to Grasmick and colleagues (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994), Applegate et al. (2000) also found that fundamentalism (specifically, Biblical literalism and belief in a punitive God) was positively associated with more punitive attitudes. More importantly, however, the compassionate side of religion ("forgiveness") was associated with decreased punitiveness and more support for rehabilitation. In light of Applegate et al.'s (2000) report that religiosity p e r se, not simply fundamentalism, influences correctional attitudes, we believe that the exploration of general religiosity on both punitive and compassionate attitudes toward criminals merits further investigation. We also believe that, in view of the dearth of findings for a religious effect by broad categories of religious groups, research emphasis should be placed on the direct measurement of individual religious beliefs and experiences as a primary predictor of punitiveness. Since strong evidence has been advanced in support of fundamentalism as a significant predictor of punitiveness, it is also necessary to control for the more conservative expression of religiosity. We believe that our approach, positing religiosity as the primary independent variable and controlling for fundamentalism, also allows us to explore the general effects of religiosity on a range of correctional attitudes, both punitive and treatment-oriented. Following Grasmick and colleagues (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994) and Applegate et al. (2000), our research builds on earlier investigations of religion and punitiveness. We measure religiosity in three ways: beliefs,
EVANS A N D ADAMS
17
experience, and salience. Consistent with Grasmick and his colleagues, who found that religious fundamentalists/literalists were more punitive than moderate or liberal Protestants - largely because they were more likely to attribute criminality to individual moral flaws as opposed to environmental factors - we include a measure for beliefs about causes of crime. "Situational attributors" are more likely to believe the crime is strongly influenced by the social situation unlike "dispositional attributors" who place less emphasis on individual choices and moral character. Also, similar to Applegate et al. (2000), we explore religious support for rehabilitation along with more explicitly punitive responses. Our objective in this research is to combine elements from both major lines of recent research in an effort to determine what influence religiosity has on correctional attitudes, both punitive and treatmentoriented, and the extent to which the effect is mediated by fundamentalism, secular concerns about crime, and ideas about what causes crime (attributions of criminality). Our models of religion and punitiveness are more comprehensive than those of most prior studies. We include a range of religiosity and punitiveness indicators as well as measures of punitiveness toward both adult and juvenile offenders. Finally, in addition to the variables controlled by Grasmick et al. (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994), we include measures of fear of crime victimization and actual victimization experiences which have been shown in other studies to influence punitiveness.
LITERATURE REVIEW Religion and Punitiveness Investigators have recently begun to explore and find a relationship between religion and punishment attitudes. However, as Applegate et al. (2000) noted, "many, if not most, studies of public attitudes toward crime-related policy issues have not included religion as an independent variable in the analysis" (p. 722). Research that included religion as a predictor of public penal attitudes (and, for that matter, as a predictor of criminality) may have been retarded due to the belief that religion plays only a minor role in modern Western societies (Hadden, 1987). However, Garland (1990) claimed that religion still had power to influence public attitudes and public policy. Grasmick et al. (1993a) also suggested that the convergence of increased punitiveness in the criminal justice system and the influence of the religious right on public policy was not a coincidence. In early work on this topic, Hindelang (1974) found no significant differences between Protestants and Catholics on "get tough policing" and support of the death penalty. Not surprisingly then, due to varia-
18
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
tion within such large groups and failure to segregate fundamentalists or evangelicals by denomination or beliefs, early research detected little evidence of the effects of religion on correctional attitudes. More recent research on religion and punitiveness found little difference in attitudes toward the death penalty by religious affiliation or denomination (Flanagan & Longmire, 1996). Similarly, Tyler and Weber (1982) and Blumstein and Cohen (1980) found no difference among Catholics, Jews, and Protestants by types of sentences or severity recommended. Those with no religious affiliation, however, were less punitive. Other recent and sophisticated studies have used membership in conservative or fundamentalist denominations and/or individual religious beliefs to indicate fundamentalism. This research generally found a positive association between affiliation with fundamental denominations or fundamental beliefs and several measures of punitiveness. Members of fundamental denominations were especially more likely than mainstream affiliates to support capital punishment (Borg, 1997; Grasmick et al., 1993b; Young, 1992; Young & Thompson, 1995) and, in general, supported harsh punishments (Leiber & Woodrick, 1997). Further specifying the relationship between religion and correctional attitudes, Grasmick and colleagues (1992, 1993a, 1993b, & 1994), who have done the most extensive work in this area, found that regardless of denominational affiliation, those who held literal Biblical beliefs tended to support retribution as a goal of sentencing more than those who were not "literalists." Grasmick et al. (1993b) also found that those who believed in a punitive God, as well as those who were literalists, tended to be more supportive of the death penalty for juveniles and 9adults. Using five distinct measures of punitiveness toward juveniles and adults, Grasmick et al. (1993a) found that members of fundamentalist denominations and Biblical literalists were generally, but not consistently, more punitive than members of other denominations. An exception to their findings was in the approval for use of police deadly force, where there were apparently no significant differences between fundamentalists and others. Biblical literalists were also more generally punitive in their correctional attitudes toward juveniles than those who did not hold such literal religious beliefs. Finally, it is important to note that a fully specified correct model must include controls for religiosity, since fundamentalists tend to be more involved with religion and it appeared to be more salient for them than for other groups (Grasmick et al., 1993b). In seeking an answer as to why fundamentalists were more likely to favor harsh punishments, Grasmick et al. (1994) constructed a more fully specified model and concluded that it was not fundamentalism p e r
EVANS A N D ADAMS
19
that leads to punitiveness, but rather the fundamentalist belief in the literalness of Biblical teachings. These beliefs were, in turn, associated with an attribution of crime to individual causes (see Cullen, Clark, Cullen, & Mathers, 1985a). An important premise of fundamentalism is that people are personally and morally culpable for their own behavior, especially deviance and crime. This view fits well, of course, with the classical, rational choice school of thought in criminology and is contrary to positivist theories that stress situational and environmental factors beyond the immediate control of the individual. Since in the fundamentalist view, criminals have no excuse for their misdeeds, they must be held personally and fully accountable in this life and in the afterlife. Fundamentalists were thus found to adopt a dispositional (individual) vs. situational (environmental) attribution style to explain criminality and justify punishment (Grasmick et al., 1994). Attribution style was the variable that mediated the effect of fundamentalist beliefs, such as a tendency toward Biblical literalness on the issue of punishment of sinners and criminals (a distinction that is not always clear) on punitiveness (Grasmick et al., 1994). Grasmick et al. (1993a) explained why fundamentalists and evangelical Protestants might support harsh justice policies: se
1) the importance [with] which such individuals attach to religion as a blue print for living (i.e., their greater religiosity), 2) their emphasis on the authority of the Bible and interpreting it literally, 3) their adherence to a more hierarchical or punitive image of God, and 4) the 'born again' experience which leads to an emphasis on character, a tendency to view crime as the result of personal immorality, and distancing of oneself from the offender (p. 61). For example, if "God is viewed as punitive, vengeful, and angry, it may follow that believers will consider such traits as an appropriate response to offenders, leading to greater support for the death penalty" (Grasmick et al., 1993a, p. 64). Aside from religious ideology, several researchers have found that those who attribute crime to individual dispositions tended to be more punitive than those who attributed crime to situational influences (Carrol, 1978; Carroll & Payne, 1977; Cullen, Clark, Cullen, & Mathers, 1985a; Hamm, 1989; Hawkins, 1981). As previously noted, fundamental Protestants, relative to more mainstream adherents, were both more likely to attribute crime to individual factors (moral failures) and to call for harsher and more vengeful, retributive punishments.
20
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
In addition to the predominant focus on the association between religion and punitiveness, research has very recently begun to explore the relationship between religion and more compassionate correctional policies, including rehabilitation. Applegate et al. (2000), in their extension of the religion-punitiveness line of research, included measures of the compassionate, as well as fundamentalist and retributive, aspects of religious beliefs and indicators of rehabilitation attitudes. They found that various aspects of religion influenced both supported rehabilitation as well as punitiveness. Specifically, net of other control effects, religious forgiveness was significantly associated with rejection of the death penalty, less support for punitive treatments, and more support for rehabilitation. On the other hand, consistent with Grasmick et al. (1993a), belief in a punitive God was predictive of general punitiveness and belief in the literalness of the Bible was negatively associated with rehabilitation. Thus, since fundamentalists may indeed be more punitive than those affiliated with more moderate or liberal Protestant denominations or those holding more liberal and compassionate religious beliefs, correctional attitudes among the religious may be more complicated than previously believed. Despite the above-cited, relatively strong and consistent support for a relationship between religiosity, especially in the fundamentalist variety, and correctional attitudes, Sandys and McGarrell (1997) found that neither religious salience, fundamentalist beliefs, nor belief in Biblical literalness were associated with support for the death penalty, rehabilitation, or retributive punishments.
Other Correlates of Punitiveness Finding a complex mix of values and instrumental concerns, Langworthy and Whitehead (1986) concluded that punitiveness was mitigated by social liberalism and enhanced by fear of crime victimization (see also Cullen et al., 1985a; Stinchcombe, Adams, Heimer, Scheppele, & Smith, 1980; Taylor, Scheppele, & Stinchcombe, 1979; Thomas & Foster, 1975). Similarly, Tyler and Boeckman (1997) identified the sources of public support for punishing social "rule-breakers" as concerns about crime, social conditions, and social values. When punitiveness was manifested as an instrumental response, it was driven by fear of crime victimization or actual victimization experience and the goal of punishment was incapacitation and deterrence. When punitiveness was based on concerns about social and moral cohesion (relational judgments or social values), the goal of punishment was more likely retribution designed to restore moral balance in the community.
EVANS A N D ADAMS
21
Langworthy and Whitehead (1986), drawing on Sheley (1985), linked punitive attitudes toward lawbreakers to fear of crime, arising from real or vicarious victimization. In addition, they also posited that punitiveness was associated with basic social values and beliefs about the etiology of crime. This finding was comparable to Scheingold (1984) and Grasmick et al.'s (1994) findings that punitiveness for fundamentalists was mediated through a literal reading of the bible and a tendency to attribute criminality to individual factors. Despite evidence in support of a fear of crime and punitiveness link, Taylor et al. (1979) reported in an early review of the fear of crime literature that researchers generally have not found a significant relationship between punitiveness and victimization or fear of crime (see Sheley, 1985; Stinchcombe et al., 1980). Baron and Hartnagel (1996) also found that neither fear of crime nor actual victimization experiences had consistent effects on punishment attitudes. In an interesting study of court practitioners (judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, and probation officers), Ouimet and Coyle (1991) found that, although fear of crime had no effect on public punitiveness, decisions of court practitioners were in fact based on their perceptions of public fear of crime.
METHODS Sample and Data Data for this study came from a telephone survey of 600 adult residents of a southeastern United States county with a population of about 160,000. Respondents were randomly drawn from the telephone directory and those who were unavailable or unwilling to participate were randomly replaced until the sample size was achieved. Our sample had the following demographic characteristics: median age, 45; 40% male and 60% female; 85% White and 15% nonwhite; 58% married; modal education level, associates degree; family income mode, $30,000 to $40,000. The known corresponding population statistics were: median age, 36; 48% male; and 80% White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). A series of t-tests indicated significant differences between the sample characteristics and population parameters. The analyses could be problematic and results biased to the extent that certain characteristics of the population that were related to the key variables of interest, especially religion, were over- or under-represented. Since the sample was drawn from the phone directory, it is possible that older, White, females (all over-represented in the sample) were more likely than their counterparts to have phones, published phone listings, to respond to the survey, or to simply answer the phone. All of these were possibilities that may have led to a non-representative and
22
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
biased sample because older and White respondents were over-represented and males were under-represented. The correlation matrix indicated that religion was more salient for older respondents (overrepresented) and less salient for Whites (under-represented); older respondents were more engaged in religious activities, while Whites and males were less involved; and, Whites were less likely than others to believe in a punitive God, while males were less likely to hold this belief. For these reasons, and in order to compensate for under- or overrepresentation, we created weighted variables for age, race, and sex. The implications of this strategy will be discussed further in the analysis section below.
Dependent Variables Age-specific support for the death penalty was indicated by responses to the question, "If a person commits murder, how old should they have to be, at the time of the act, in order to be eligible for the death penalty?" While we are unaware of any precedent for this measure, we believe that this item should capture the intensity of attitudes toward the death penalty better than the more simple and non-contextualized assessment of support/non-support for the death penalty. In addition, it allows for potentially more variation and the use of standard regression analyses with relatively simple interpretations of results. Given the current high level of non-qualified support for the death penalty, we expect this measure to discriminate better between those whose support of the death penalty is general and deeply held, contrasted with those who believe its use is more appropriate for older offenders. Specifically, we expect that religiosity in some form should be inversely related to support for the death penalty for younger offenders. Nonresponses to this item were verified as unequivocally opposing the death penalty for offenders of any age. Support for adjudication of juveniles as adults was indicated by responses to the question, "At what age do you think that juveniles should be tried as adults for violent crimes (such as murder, rape, robbery, or assault)?" While we are not aware of other studies that have used this specific measure, as with support for the death penalty, we believe that this question better captures the intensity of support for adjudication of juveniles in adult court. In addition, this measure should provide more discrimination in attitudes on the issue of binding juveniles over to adult court than a simple yes/no response. In short, we expect that the religious salience and participation in religion will be inversely related to support for trying younger offenders as adults. Nonresponses were verified and coded as non-support for trying juveniles as adults.
EVANS AND ADAMS
23
General punitiveness was calculated by adding responses on a 5point scale of agreement/disagreement with two statements: "Longer jail sentences are needed to show criminals that crime does not pay" and "Punishing criminals more harshly would reduce crime by setting an example and showing others that crime does not pay" (items adapted from Dunaway & Cullen 1991). The alpha for this index was .60. Unless otherwise noted, all study variables were based on agreement-disagreement with statements along a 5 point scale (1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree). Prior research suggested we would find some religious effects on some form of punitiveness. We also measured support for rehabilitation by soliciting agreement/disagreement with the following statement, "Rehabilitating a criminal is as important as punishing a criminal for his or her crime." Note that Applegate et al. (2000) found support for rehabilitation among the religiously-engaged and suggested that studies of religion and criminal justice ideology should include compassionate as well punitive religious sentiments. We expected to find that some dimension(s) of religion would be related to increased support for rehabilitation as a correctional policy.
Independent Variables In contrast to many other studies of this topic, we used three distinct indices of religiosity: religious salience, religious activity, and fundamentalism. The scales were adapted from Evans, Cullen, Dunaway, & Burton (1995). All indices were constructed by adding scores on individual items. Religious salience was measured by asking respondents to express agreement/disagreement with these statements: "Religion is a very important part of my life" and "Following God's commandments is important to me" (a = .76). Involvement in religious activities was indexed by asking respondents how often they attended religious services (with six choices, ranging from never = 1 to several times a week = 6) and how often they prayed (with six choices, ranging from never = 1 to daily = 6) (a = .69). Finally, belief in a punitive God was measured by asking respondents to report their agreement/disagreement with the following three items: "After I do something wrong I fear God's punishment;" "Many people with AIDS are being punished by God for their sins;" and "In the end, God punishes those who have sinned" (a = .66). Note that Grasmick et al. (1993a) specified belief in a punitive God as a major hallmark of the religiously fundamental. Contrasting with the religious variables above, we also included measures of two secular factors, fear of crime and victimization exper-
24
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
iences, in all our models. As noted previously, both variables have been identified with punitiveness, although findings were inconsistent. Fear of crime was indexed by adding responses to the fear of being a victim within the next year of the following crimes: breaking into home while away; having property stolen; being attacked by someone with a weapon; being robbed or mugged on the street; being cheated, conned, or swindled out of money; and having property damaged by vandals. The response choices were coded as: very afraid = 1, somewhat afraid = 2, and not afraid = 3. The alpha for this index was .81. The items for the fear of crime scale were adapted from LaGrange and Ferraro (1989). Actual victimization experience was measured by asking the respondents if they had been a victim in the past year of the following crimes: having property stolen from residence; having car vandalized; or being physically assaulted. These particular items were chosen as suggestive of the types of victimizations that respondents may experience. In order to capture all victimizations of any kind, and, since it is especially likely that few if any of our respondents were victimized by the most serious crimes, we also asked the respondents if they had been a victim of any other crime in the past year. Not surprisingly, relatively few respondents reported any victimization, so we used a dummy indicator for this measure by coding those who indicated any victimization as 1, while those who had not been victimized at all were coded as 0. Since attributions of crime causation may mediate the relationship between religion and punitiveness, we included an indicator of causal attributions of criminality. Specifically, we measured situational attributions by agreement/disagreement with the statement: "Many people are driven into crime by the frustration they feel when they fail at school or cannot get a job." This was also one item in a scale of liberal criminal justice ideology used by Dunaway and Cullen (1991). Agreement with this statement was analogous to positivist thinking about crime and a corresponding attribution of crime to situational factors. Those who blame crime on situational factors were termed situational attributors.
Control Variables To complete our models, we included the following demographic and socioeconomic variables: sex, age, race, family income, education, and marital status, all of which, except age, have categorical response choices. Prior studies have shown that these variables may effect punitiveness or condition the effects of other variables (Applegate et al., 2000; Blumstein & Cohen 1980; Cullen at al., 1985a; Grasmick et al., 1993a; Grasmick et al., 1993b; Grasmick et al., 1994; Langworthy and
EVANS AND ADAMS
25
Whitehead, 1986). Race (1 -- white), sex (1 -- male), and marital status (1 = married) were all dummy coded.
RESULTS As noted earlier, we estimated models with weights for age, race, and sex to compensate for under- or over-representation in the sample. Since the findings were comparable for weighted and un-weighted models, we reported findings for the weighted models only. Another potential data problem for the analyses was missing data. We randomly drew telephone listings, with replacements, until we achieved a sample size of 600. In cleaning the data, we identified 27 cases with extensive non-random missing data for the study variables. These cases were excluded from the analyses. Since we lost additional cases due to missing data on certain study variables and variables used to produce indices, we imputed the missing data with the series mean. This helped preserve as many cases as possible for analyses. The final numbers vary due to the subset of data being analyzed. For example, those who did not support the death penalty at all were not included in the analysis of the punitiveness measure, age for death penalty eligibility. Descriptive statistics for study variables are reported in Table 1. We have previously noted the discrepancies in demographics between the sample and population and indicated how we have weighted the sample accordingly. Based on data resulting from the above procedures and adjustments, we determined the influence of religion on punitiveness by constructing four OLS regression models to represent the three measures of punitiveness and one measure of rehabilitation. In the death penalty support model, being male was predictive of greater support for the death penalty for younger offenders. Those who were more educated and whom religion was more salient were less supportive of the death penalty for younger offenders. Finally, situational attributors were less supportive of the use of the death penalty for younger offenders. Neither of the secular concerns or experiences with crime made a difference (see Table 2). In our next model, we found that older and male respondents were more supportive than their counterparts of adjudicating juveniles as adults. Also, situational attributors were less likely to support trying younger offenders as adults, relative to those who attribute crime to individual causes. It is notable that none of the religious or secular variables seemed to make a difference. In our third model of general punitiveness, being married, White, and fearful of crime were all predictive of more punitiveness toward
26
RELIGION A N D CORRECTIONAL IDEOLOGY
TABLE 1
Demographic Profile of Study Group Variable Gender Male Female Missing
Frequency
Percent
234 339 16
39.7 57.6 2.7
Race White Non-White Missing
499 71 19
84.7 12.1 3.2
Age 18 - 31 32 - 44 45 - 56 57 - 94 Missing
142 147 137 139 24
24.5 24.9 23.2 23.6 3.8
Marital Status Married Divorced Widowed Separated Never Married Missing
328 52 56 15 117 21
55.7 8.8 9.5 2.5 19.9 3.6
Education Less than High School High School Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Graduate Degree Missing
32 214 108 146 71 18
5.4 36.3 18.3 24.8 12.1 3.1
34 68 88 86 70 91 28 13 21
5.8 11.5 14.9 14.6 11.9 15.4 4.8 2.2 3.6
Yearly Family Income Less than $10,000 $10,000 - $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $100,000 Over $100,000 Missing
criminals. I n a d d i t i o n , b e l i e f in a p u n i t i v e G o d was a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m o r e p u n i t i v e a t t i t u d e s . S i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t o r s w e r e less p u n i t i v e . I n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n m o d e l , o l d e r r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e less l i k e l y t o support rehabilitation of criminals, while situational attributors were
EVANS AND ADAMS
27
TABLE 2 Correctional Attitudes Regressed on Religion and Secular Concerns About Crime Age for Death Penalty Elisibility
Age for Adjudication as an Adult
General Punitiveness
Support for Rehabilitation
-.02 -.15" .09 -.02 .10" -.05
-.10" -.11" .05 -.04 .05 .01
-.04 .01 .09* .12" -.03 -.05
-.13" -.09 .03 -.09 .00 .06
Religion Religious Activities Religious Salience
-.04 .14"
.08 .00
-.07 -.07
-.01 .10
Fundamentalism
-.04
.05
.15"
-.08
Secular Concerns Fear of Crime Victimization
-.02 .01
-.02 .01
.18" -.08
-.05 .08
Demographics Age Sex Race Marital Status Education Income
Causal Attributions
9
.14"
.16"
-.09*
.13"
Adj. R 2 .08 .05 F 4.0* 3.0* N 379 461 * Denotes statistical significance the .05 level.
.07 4.1" 518
.06 3.8* 518
more likely to support this sentencing philosophy. In this model, neither secular concerns about crime nor religion made any difference in ideas about how to deal with criminals.
DISCUSSION In our full model of support for the death penalty, we found some religious effects. Specifically, those for whom religion was more salient tended to recommend the death penalty for relatively older offenders. However, neither belief in a punitive God nor religious activities predicted such support. This finding lends limited support to Applegate et al. (2000) who found that the compassionate side of religion (forgiveness) softened support for capital punishment and general punitiveness. Along with compassionate religiosity, Applegate et al. (2000) also controlled for religious salience, belief in a punitive God, and Biblical literalism in their models of support for capital punishment. In their full models, forgiveness (compassionate religiosity) was the only significant
28
RELIGIONAND CORRECTIONALIDEOLOGY
religious predictor. Since we controlled for belief in a punitive God, it is likely that the net effect of religious salience on support for capital punishment for older offenders in our model captures much of this "compassionate" side of religion. While secular concerns about crime had no significant effects in our model, attribution style was predictive of death penalty support. Situational attributors were more likely to reserve the death penalty for older offenders. These findings were somewhat inconsistent with Grasmick et al. (1993a). With controls for general religious affiliation and, specifically, Protestant denominational affiliation, they found that members of liberal and moderate Protestant denominations were less likely to support the death penalty than those affiliated with other denominations. However, religiosity, primarily a measure of religious salience, was not a significant predictor of support for the death penalty for juveniles or adults. Since we did not have a measure of denominational affiliation in our models, the independent effects of religiosity, accounting for membership in a fundamentalist denomination, were not clear. However, as noted, we did have a measure of religious fundamentalism, belief in a punitive God, and that variable did not appear to influence support for the death penalty. It would appear then that personal religiosity (religious salience) was an important factor in predicting diminished support for the death penalty for younger offenders, whereas personal religious beliefs (in a punitive God) did not predict such correctional attitudes. Of course, it was possible that fundamentalism and its effects on correctional ideologies was translated more clearly into punitive attitudes through denominational affiliation, which we did not measure, rather than through personal fundamentalist beliefs as measured here. When we modeled support for trying juveniles as adults, we found that religion, however indicated, did not matter. However, situational attributors appeared to reserve such prosecution for older offenders. It is possible, as Grasmick et al. (1994) suggested, that the effect of fundamentalism on correctional attitudes was strongly connected with the tendency of fundamentalists to attribute responsibility for crime (or deviance of any type for that matter) to the individual. Fundamentalists are "classical theorists," not positivists. We found here, however, that attribution style appeared to overshadow any religious effects. Perhaps support for moderation in punishing juveniles was based more strongly on beliefs about crime causation than on any particular set of moral or religious beliefs. At any rate, attribution style emerged as a relatively strong predictor of moderation in adjudication of juveniles than any other factor. Our model of general punitiveness (harsher punishments and longer sentences) revealed that fundamentalism (as belief in a punitive
EVANS AND ADAMS
29
God), along with being White, married, fearful of crime, and holding situational attributions, was associated with punitive correctional policies. The two other religious variables did not appear to predict punitiveness. Specifically, those who believed in a punitive God and were White, married, and most fearful of crime tended to be more punitive, while situational attributors were less likely to be punitive. The relationship we found between belief in a punitive God and punitive attitudes toward offenders was consistent with Grasmick and colleagues (1993) and Applegate and colleagues (1996). Finally, to investigate the possibility that religion effected not only punitive, but also more compassionate responses to crime and punishment, we constructed a model of support for rehabilitation. While we found no effect for religiosity, younger respondents and situational attributors were more inclined to agree that rehabilitation was as important as punishment. The associations among age, attribution style, and rehabilitation were not especially surprising, but the failure to find a religious effect at any level was surprising. In a limited sense (to the extent the model and measures are adequate), this finding contradicts both Applegate et al. (2000) and Grasmick et al. (1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994). Our measures of religiosity, unlike Applegate et al.'s (2000), did not include an explicit measure of religious compassion, nor was our measure of rehabilitation as complete. In fact, it may not discriminate strong supporters from opponents of rehabilitation or punishment since it merely asked the respondents if they agreed or disagreed that rehabilitation was as important as punishment. Agreement that rehabilitation and punishment are of equal status may indicate support for both models of corrections. In summary, religious salience is a significant predictor of support for the death penalty for older offenders. In addition, religious beliefs, expressed as belief in a punitive God, tend to predict support for generally harsher punishments. The adjudication of juveniles as adults does not appear to be influenced by any aspect of religion nor is religion a significant predictor of support for rehabilitation. Given that three dimensions of religiosity are tested across four models and that only one dimension is significant in two models, the evidence is not especially strong for a religious effect on correctional ideology. Our study and findings have several limitations and lessons for feature research. Two major issues which may limit the findings are measurement error and model specification. First, our measure of fundamentalism is comprised of only the "punitive God" dimension of fundamentalism, not belief in the literal truth of the Bible or denominational affiliation. Also, we do not have an explicit measure of compassionate expressions of religion such as used by Applegate et al. (2000).
30
RELIGION AND CORRECTIONAL IDEOLOGY
These shortcomings may have led to incorrect conclusions regarding the effects of religiosity on correctional attitudes. In addition, our measure of attribution style, while predicting correctional attitudes across all models of punitiveness and rehabilitation, is a one-item measure and may not be capturing all of the complexity of this construct. However, our findings for this variable provide support for a lay model of rational choice and deterrence. Plus, they do correspond with Grasmick et al.'s (1993) identification of a fundamentalist tendency to identify with a punitive God who, presumably, holds individuals personally accountable for moral transgressions and offers harsh punishments for sinners and offenders alike. Other factors limit our findings and the ability to make inferences to a wider population. Although we have included demographic, socioeconomic, and several other items previously found to predict correctional attitudes, variance explained in all our models is relatively low and suggests incomplete specification and/or measurement issues. Future research should clarify the meaning and measurement of punitiveness and include any other variables that theory or research might suggest as being associated with punitiveness. Below, we suggest other considerations and possible influences that should be included in future models. The public's views on correctional policies may vary depending on the wording and/or explicitness of survey questions. For example, the full range of death penalty support may require that respondents be given alternatives (e.g., life in prison without parole) or that characteristics of the offender, victim, and offenses be provided. According to Bowers, Vandiver, and Dugan (1995), the standard policy question for the death penalty simply asked whether or not the public favored the death penalty, not if they felt it was the best or most appropriate measure (e.g., compared with life without parole). And, even more importantly, as Ouimet and Coyle (1991) note, "citizen's sentencing preferences are better explained using elements describing crime seriousness and sentencing objectives," rather than simple measures of sentencing severity (p. 156). Another factor complicating prediction of the public's appetite for harsh punishments is the disjunction between crime myth and reality. For example, Steiner, Bowers, and Sarat (1999) suggested that "folk knowledge" (as likely as not misperceptions) concerning beliefs about the length and certainty of punishment influenced attitudes about criminal sanctioning. Furthermore, accurate information about crime and punishment influenced correctional attitudes; those who were more informed were less punitive (Wanner & Caputo, 1987). For these reasons, if models of religion and punishment are to be more accurately speci-
EVANS A N D ADAMS
31
fled, future surveys should include measures of not only fear of crime, but also perceptions about crime seriousness. Beliefs about crime seriousness may influence both fear of crime and punitiveness. It is also likely that individuals vary in their support for punitiveness depending not only on factors explicitly included in this research, but also on the nature and type of crime, characteristics of the victim and perpetrator, and specific mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Individuals temper their opinions on crime and punishment based on the information available to them. More details may produce different responses. Wanner and Caputo (1987) found that the only factor with much influence on punitiveness was the nature of the crime - only violent crimes elicit punitive responses. Age and other status characteristics of the offender may also be important in this relationship. It appears that the public may be especially sensitive to the influence of environmental factors in the etiology of crime for younger offenders. Thus, they seem willing to give younger offenders a "second chance," just as we found that those for whom religion is a salient guide for daily living seem to not favor the death penalty for younger offenders. If this is the case, lay "theories" about crime determine, in large part, how criminals should be punished or treated. In accepting waivers to try juveniles as adults, the public is willing to consider the offender's age (Feiler & Sheley, 1999). Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright (2000) found that the public still supports "child saving" or rehabilitation of juveniles and early intervention. Finally, race of the respondent may influence punitiveness via variation in views toward the criminal justice system itself (Browning & Cao, 1993). Finally, religion, of course, is not the only source of morality. Both punitive and compassionate attitudes and individual attributions of causation and blame for crime may also be derived from secular beliefs as well as religious ones. Compassion, of course, may be based on secular humanism as well as religious morality. Future models need to include more complete measures of secular punitiveness and compassion along with religious indicators of these traits. Thus, an important "lesson" from our research is that future research should take into account not only effects of the punitive and compassionate sides of religion, but also secular punitive (and conversely compassionate) sentiments that are not necessarily connected with religion. Even with these qualifications, it appears that individual views of crime causation and some aspects of religion may be important contributors to public opinions on correctional policy. In all of our models of punitiveness and rehabilitation, we found that respondents who tended to blame crime on environmental factors, the situational attributors, were more likely to disapprove of harsh treatment of juveniles and to
32
RELIGION AND CORRECTIONAL IDEOLOGY
support at least a measure of rehabilitation for an equal measure of punishment. As noted earlier by Grasmick et al. (1994), attribution style is associated with religious beliefs. While Grasmick and colleagues found that attribution of crime to individual factors was associated with greater punitiveness, we found that attribution to environmental factors tempers punitiveness.
CONCLUSION Public attitudes regarding punishment of criminals are complex. While there is no denying that as a society we have become increasingly punitive in terms of harsh and long sentences, it is not clear that the public unreservedly supports such harsh punishments. At the very least, public support for harsh penalties for criminals is not as isomorphic with the rising rate of incarceration, executions, determinate and fixed sentences, displacement of probation and parole, and other get tough responses to crime would indicate. It is likely that the public's appetite for harsh punishment of criminals is balanced by concern for some degree of treatment, albeit "tough love" policies, and that seemingly contradictory responses to crime can coexist within individuals. It is even more likely that public support of correctional policies vary not only by religious factors, attribution styles, and demographic characteristics, but also by the alternatives offered and contextual factors such as status of the offender and victim, level of violence of the crime, and mitigating and aggravating factors. Politicians and policymakers in search of shortterm, politically expedient solutions to the crime problem often overlook these factors. What seems certain from this research and that of others who have studied public sentiments relative to crime and punishment and support for specific policies is that policymakers would be mistaken to take at face value the superficially apparent support for harsh punishments (see also Cullen et al., 1983; Cullen et al., 1985b; Lock, 1999; McCorkle, 1989; Moon et al., 2000; Sandys & McGarrell, 1995; Sessar, 1999; Sprott, 1999).
REFERENCES Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1996). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. Prison Journal, 77, 237-258. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Vander Ven, T. (2000). Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology, 38, 719-751. Barkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (1994). Racial prejudice and support for the death penalty by whites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31,202-209.
EVANS AND ADAMS
33
Baron, S. W., & Hartnagel, T. F. (1996). Lock 'em up': Attitudes toward punishing juvenile offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 38, 191-212. Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public's views. Law and Society Review, 14, 223-262. Bohm, R. M. (1991). American death penalty opinion, 1936-1986: A critical examination of the Gallup polls. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 113-145). Cincinnati: Anderson. Borg, M. J. (1997). The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 24-45. Bowers, W. J, Vandiver, M., & Dugan, P. H. (1995). New look at public opinion on capital punishment: What citizens and legislators prefer. American Journal of Criminal Law, 22, 77-150. Browning, S. L., & Cao, L. (1993). The impact of race on criminal justice ideology. Justice Quarterly, 9, 685-701. Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal theories of crime and their effect upon expert parole decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 377-388. Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 595-602. Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985a). Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305-331. Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., & Wozniak, J. F. (1985b). Explaining the 'get tough' movement: Can the public be blamed? Federal Probation, 49, 16-24. Cullen, F. T., Golden, K. M., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Is child saving dead? Attitudes toward juvenile rehabilitation in Illinois. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 1-13. Dunaway, R. G., & Cullen, F. T. (1991). Explaining crime ideology: An exploration of the parental socialization perspective. Crime and Delinquency, 37, 536-554. Durham, A. M., Elrod, H. P., & Kinkade, P. T. (1996). Public support for the death penalty: Beyond Gallup. Justice Quarterly, 13, 705-736. Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Dunaway, R. G., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (1995). Religion and crime reexamined: The impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology, 33, 195-224. Feiler, S. M., & Sheley, J. F. (1999). Legal and racial elements of public willingness to transfer juvenile offenders to adult court. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 55--64. Flanagan, T. J., & Longmire, D. R. (1996). Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Garland, D. E. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Blackwell, B. S. (1993a). Religious beliefs and public support for the death penalty for juveniles and adults. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 59--86. Grasmick, H. G., Cochran, J. K., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Kimpel, M. (1993). Religion, punitive justice, and support for the death penalty. Justice Quarterly, 10, 289-314. Grasmick, H. G., Davenport, E., Chamlin, M. B., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1992). Protestant fundamentalism and the retributive doctrine of punishment. Criminology, 30, 21-43.
34
RELIGION AND CORRECTIONAL IDEOLOGY
Grasmick, H. G., & McGill, A. L. (1994). Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders. Criminology, 32, 23-46. Hadden, J. K. (1987). Toward desacralizing secularization theory. Social Forces, 65, 587-611. Hamm, M. S. (1989). Legislator ideology and capital punishment: The special case for Indiana juveniles. Justice Quarterly, 6, 219-231. Hawkins, D. F. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2, 207-230. Hindelang, M. J. (1974). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related topics. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 101-116. La Grange, R. L., & Ferraro, K. F. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27, 697-719. Langworthy, R. H., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology, 24, 575-591. Leiber, M. J., & Woodrick, A. C. (1997). Religious beliefs, attributional styles, and adherence to correctional orientations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 495-511. Lock, S. (1999). Crime, public opinion, and civil liberties: The tolerant public. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. McCorkle, R. C. (1989). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 240-252. Moon, M. M., Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 38-60. Ouimet, M., & Coyle, E. J. (1991). Fear of crime and sentencing punitiveness: Comparing the general public and court practitioners. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33, 149-162. Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E. F. (1995). Attitudes toward capital punishment: Preference for the penalty or mere acceptance? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 191-213. Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E. F. (1997). Beyond the Bible belt: The influence (or lack thereof) of religion on attitudes toward the death penalty. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 179-180. Scheingold, S. A. (1984). The politics of law and order: Street crime and public policy. New York: Longman. Sessar, K. (1999). Punitive attitudes of the public: Reality and myth (from restorativejuvenile justice: Repairing the harm of juvenile crime). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press/Willow Tree Press. Sheley, J. F. (1985). America's crime problem: An introduction to criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Sprott, J. B. (1999). Are members of the public tough on crime? The dimensions of public 'punitiveness.' Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 467-474. Steiner, B. D., Bowers, W. J., & Sarat, A. (1999). Folk knowledge as legal action: Death penalty judgments and the tenet of early release in a culture of mistrust and punitiveness. Law and Society Review, 33, 461-505. Stinchcombe, A. L., Adams, R., Heimer, C., Scheppele, K. L., & Smith, T. W. (1980). Crime and punishment: Changing attitudes in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Taylor, D. C., Scheppele, K L., & Stinchcombe, A. L. (1979). Salience of crime and support for harsher criminal sanctions. Social Problems, 26, 413-424.
EVANS AND ADAMS
35
Thomas, C. W., & Foster, S. C. (1975). A sociological perspective on public support for capital punishment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 641-657. Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 31, 237-265. Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime or symbolic attitude.'? Law and Society Review, 17, 21-44. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). County and city databook: 2000. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Wanner, R. A., & Caputo, T. C. (1987). Punitiveness, fear of crime and perceptions of violence. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 12, 331-344. Young, R. L, (1992). Religious orientation, race, and support for the death penalty. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 76-81. Young, R. L., & Thompson, C. Y. (1995). Religious fundamentalism, punitiveness, and firearms ownership. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 81-98.
