NCJ Number
177629
Journal
Law and Society Review Volume: 31 Issue: 2 Dated: 1997 Pages: 237-265
Date Published
1997
Length
29 pages
Annotation
This study examines why the public supports the punishment of rule breakers within the context of a recently enacted California initiative that mandates life in prison for repeat felons (the "three-strikes" law).
Abstract
Respondents were a random sample of 166 adults living in the East Bay area of Northern California. The sample was diverse in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, education, income, and ideology. The interviews focused on three attitudes: support for the three- strikes initiative, overall punitiveness toward rule breakers, and the willingness to abandon procedural protections. The results of the interviews challenge the widely held view that public punitiveness develops primarily from concerns about crime and the courts, combined with the belief that criminals are more threatening and dangerous. Although these factors do come into play in the public's punitive attitudes toward rule breakers, the primary source of people's concerns lies mostly in their view of what is happening to the moral fabric of American society. They believe that there is a decline in morality and discipline within the family and that a moral consensus about right and wrong is being undermined by increasing diversity in society. The findings thus indicate that respondents' perceptions of moral cohesion in society shaped both their attitude toward the three-strikes initiative and a general punitive approach to rule breakers. 100 references