Politics in policy: An experimental examination of public views regarding sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Isabella Polito,Colleen M Berryessa
{"title":"Politics in policy: An experimental examination of public views regarding sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms.","authors":"Isabella Polito,Colleen M Berryessa","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nThis research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called \"second chance\" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support.\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\n(a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nA 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nParticipants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nCrime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000605","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called "second chance" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support. HYPOTHESES (a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions. METHOD A 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support. RESULTS Participants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided. CONCLUSIONS Crime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信