In 2009, Maruna and King presented results from a British survey showing that the public’s belief in the redeemability of people who committed offenses curbed their level of punitiveness. Based on a 2017 national survey in the United States (n = 1,000), the current study confirms that redeemability is negatively related to punitive attitudes. In addition, the analyses reveal that this belief predicts support for rehabilitation and specific inclusionary policies (i.e., ban-the-box in employment, expungement of criminal records, and voting rights for people with a felony conviction). Findings regarding measures for punishment and rehabilitation were confirmed by a 2019 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) survey. These results suggest that beliefs about capacity for change among people who committed offenses are key to understanding crime-control public policy.
AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
2.
AllenF. A. (1981). The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: Penal policy and social purpose. Yale University Press.
3.
AnsolabehereS.RiversD. (2013). Cooperative survey research. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 307–329.
4.
AnsolabehereS.SchaffnerB. F. (2014). Does survey model still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis, 22, 285–303.
5.
ApplegateB. K.CullenF. T.FisherB. S. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. Prison Journal, 77, 237–258.
6.
ApplegateB. K.CullenF. T.FisherB. S.Vander VenT. (2000). Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology, 38, 719–754.
7.
BoboL. D.JohnsonD. (2004). A taste for punishment: Black and White Americans’ views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review, 1, 151–181.
8.
BronsonJ.CarsonE. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
9.
BurtonV. S.Jr.CullenF. T.TravisL. F. (1987). The collateral consequences of a felony conviction: A national study of state statutes. Federal Probation, 5(3), 52–60.
10.
BurtonV. S.Jr.FisherC. M.JonsonC. L.CullenF. T. (2014). Confronting the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction: A special challenge for social work with offenders. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 4, 80–103.
11.
ChinG. (2017). Collateral consequences. In LunaE. (Ed.), Reforming criminal justice: Punishment, incarceration, and release (Vol. 4, pp. 371–395). Arizona State University.
12.
ChiuC.-YHongY.-Y.DweckC. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19–30.
13.
ChudyJ. (2017). Racial sympathy in American politics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan].
14.
ClearT. R.FrostN. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York University Press.
15.
CochranJ. K.BootsD. P.HeideK. M. (2003). Attribution styles and attitudes toward capital punishment for juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded. Justice Quarterly, 20, 65–93.
16.
CohenD. M. (2019). Justice, not jailbreak: The context and consequences of the First Step Act. Victims & Offenders, 14, 1084–1098.
17.
CullenF. T.ClarkG. A.CullenJ. B.MathersR. A. (1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305–331.
18.
CullenF. T.FisherB. S.ApplegateB. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 14, 1–79.
19.
CullenF. T.GilbertK. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Anderson.
20.
CullenF. T.GilbertK. E.CullenJ. B. (1983). Implementing determinate sentencing in Illinois: Conscience and convenience. Criminal Justice Review, 8, 1–16.
21.
CullenF. T.LeeH.ButlerL. C.ThieloA. J. (2020). Rehabilitation and redemption: Building a new corrections. In ChouhyC.CochranJ. C.JonsonC. L. (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory. Criminal justice theory: Explanations and effects (Vol. 26, pp. 309–335). Routledge.
22.
DiIulioJ.Jr. (1995, November27). The coming of the super-predators. Weekly Standard, 23–28.
23.
DoddS. (2018). The punitive woman? Gender differences in public attitudes toward parole among an Australian sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 3006–3022.
24.
EnnsP. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States became the most punitive democracy in the world. Cambridge University Press.
25.
FalcoD. L.TurnerN. C. (2014). Examining causal attributions towards crime on support for offender rehabilitation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 630–641.
26.
FilindraA.KaplanN. J. (2016). Racial resentment and Whites’ gun policy preferences in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 38, 255–275.
27.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. University of Chicago Press.
28.
GrahamA. (2019). Measuring procedural justice: A case study in criminometrics [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati].
29.
GuoJ.KlevanM.McAdamsD. P. (2016). Personality traits, ego development, and the redemptive self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1551–1563.
30.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
31.
HaimovitzK.DweckC. S. (2016). What predicts children’s fixed and growth intelligence mind-sets? Not their parents’ views of intelligence but their parents’ views of failure. Psychological Science, 27, 859–869.
32.
HannanK. R.CullenF. T.ButlerL. C.BurtonA. L.GrahamA.BurtonV. S.Jr. (2019, November). Racial sympathy and support for capital punishment: Revisiting White Americans’ views toward African Americans [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, CA, United States.
33.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of personal relations. Wiley.
34.
HutchingsV. L.ValentinoN. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 383–408.
35.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2, 696–701.
36.
JacobsJ. B. (2015). The eternal criminal record. Harvard University Press.
37.
JonsonC. L.CullenF. T. (2015). Prisoner reentry programs. Crime and Justice, 44, 517–575.
KennedyC.MercerA.KeeterS.HatleyN.McGeeneyK.GimenezA. (2016). Evaluating online nonprobability surveys. Pew Research Center.
40.
KinderD. R.SandersL. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. University of Chicago Press.
41.
KuligT. C.PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2017). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: A case study in organized skepticism. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28, 74–111.
42.
LeverentzA. (2011). Neighborhood context of attitudes toward crime and reentry. Punishment & Society, 13, 64–92.
43.
LevyS. R.StroessnerS. J.DweckC. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436.
44.
ManzaJ.UggenC. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Oxford University Press.
45.
MarunaS. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association.
46.
MarunaS. (2011a). Judicial rehabilitation and the “clean bill of health” in criminal justice. European Journal of Probation, 3, 97–117.
47.
MarunaS. (2011b). Reentry as a rite of passage. Punishment & Society, 13, 3–28.
48.
MarunaS.KingA. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? “Redeemability” and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 7–24.
49.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C. (2015). Prisoner reentry in the era of mass incarceration. SAGE.
50.
Morning Consult. (2016). National tracking poll, Project 160812, September 01-02, 2016. Washington, DC: Author.
51.
MossS. A.LeeE.BermanA.RungD. (2019). When do people values rehabilitation and restorative justice over the punishment of offenders?Victims & Offenders, 14, 32–51.
52.
NgB. (2018). The neuroscience of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Brain Sciences, 8(2), 20.
53.
ObamaB. (2017). The president’s role in advancing criminal justice reform. Harvard Law Review, 130, 811–866.
Office of the Attorney General. (2019). The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and needs assessment system. U.S. Department of Justice.
56.
OlverM. E.BarlowA. A. (2010). Public attitudes toward sex offenders and their relationship to personality traits and demographic characteristics. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 832–849.
57.
OuelletteH. M.ApplegateB. K.VukM. (2017). The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 768–789.
58.
PagerD. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. University of Chicago Press.
59.
PetersiliaJ.CullenF. T. (2015). Liberal but not stupid: Meeting the promise of downsizing prisons. Stanford Journal of Criminal Law and Policy, 2, 1–43.
60.
PickettJ. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 405–428.
61.
PickettJ. T.BakerT. (2014). The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact?Criminology, 52, 195–222.
62.
PlaksJ. E.LevyS. R.DweckC. S. (2009). Lay theories of personality: Cornerstones of meaning in social cognition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1069–1081.
63.
RadeC. B.DesmaraisS. L.BurnetteJ. L. (2018). An integrative theoretical model of public support for ex-offender reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 2131–2152.
64.
ReichS. E. (2017). An exception to the rule: Belief in redeemability desistance signals, and the employer’s decision to hire a job applicant with a criminal record. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 110–136.
65.
RobertsS. C.VakirtzisA.KristjánsdóttirL.HavlíčekJ. (2013). Who punishes? Personality traits predict individual variation in punitive sentiment. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 186–200.
66.
RothmanD. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in Progressive America. Little, Brown.
SimmonsA. D.BoboL. D. (2015). Can non-full-probability internet surveys yield useful data? A comparison with full-probability face-to-face surveys in the domain of race and social inequality attitudes. Sociological Methodology, 45, 357–387.
69.
SimonJ. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. University of Chicago Press.
70.
SimonJ. (2014). Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the future of prisons in America. The New Press.
71.
SloasL. B.Atkin-PlunkC. A. (2019). Perceptions of balanced justice and rehabilitation for drug offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 990–1009.
72.
TamK.-P.ShuT.-M.NgK.-S.TongY.-Y. (2013). Belief about immutability of moral character and punitiveness toward criminal offenders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 603–611.
73.
ThieloA. J.CullenF. T.BurtonA. L.MoonM. M.BurtonV. S.Jr. (2019). Prisons or problem-solving: Does the public support specialty courts?Victims & Offenders, 14, 267–282.
74.
TonryM. (2011). Punishing race: A continuing American dilemma. Oxford University Press.
75.
UnneverJ.CullenF.JonsonC. (2008). Race, racism, and support for capital punishment. Crime and Justice, 37, 45–96.
76.
UnneverJ. D.CochranJ. K.CullenF. T.ApplegateB. K. (2010). The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic relation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 431–457.
77.
UnneverJ. D.CullenF. T.FisherB. S. (2005). Empathy and support for capital punishment. Journal of Crime and Justice, 28, 1–34.
78.
WearyG. (1984). Current issues in attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 427–459.
79.
WeinerB. (2010). Attribution theory. In PetersonP.BakerE.McGrawB. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 6, pp. 558–563). Elsevier.
80.
WilsonJ. Q. (1975). Thinking about crime. Vintage Books.
