Current U.S. policy allows private companies to publish arrest records prior to conviction in print and online sources, yet little is known regarding the extent to which people actively search for criminal records or whether the public supports these policies. Utilizing two large public opinion surveys (N = 1008 and N = 1601), we find that approximately 15% of Americans searched online for conviction records last year (an estimated 38 million people), but that a strong majority (88%) oppose the publication of arrest records by private companies. We measure correlates of opposition to record disclosure and find that having high-quality interpersonal contact with an arrestee diminishes support for publicizing arrest records and also tempers views of recidivism risk for those with nonviolent convictions. Findings suggest that learning firsthand about the negative consequences of contemporary criminal labels changes popularly held views on the value of immediate arrest record disclosure.
Ansolabehere S and Schaffner BF (2014) Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis 22: 285–303.
4.
BarnesJCJorgensenCBeaverKet al. (2015)
Arrest prevalence in a national sample of adults: The role of sex and race/ethnicity. American Journal of Criminal Justice40(3): 457–465.
5.
Becker HS (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: The Free Press.
6.
BeckettKSassonT (2000) The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
7.
Bhutta CB (2012) Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociological Methods & Research 41(1): 57–88.
8.
BlackD (1984) Toward a General Theory of Social Control. Volume 1: Fundamentals.
Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
9.
Blair J, Czaja RF and Blair EA (2014) Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
BrameRTurnerMGPaternosterRet al. (2012)
Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8 to 23 in a national sample. Pediatrics129: 21–27.
BushwaySBriggSTaxmanFet al. (2007) Private providers of criminal history records: Do you get what you pay for? In: BushwaySStollMWeimanD (eds) Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America.
New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, pp.174–200.
13.
BushwaySStollMWeimanD (2007) Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America.
New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
CareyCA (2004)
No second chance: People with criminal records denied access to public housing. University of Toronto Law Review36: 545–594.
15.
Chang L and Krosnick JA (2009) National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 73(4): 641–678.
ConleyADattaANissenbaumHet al. (2012)
Sustaining privacy and open justice in the transition to online court records: A multidisciplinary inquiry. Maryland Law Review71(3): 772–847.
18.
CordaA (2016)
More justice and less harm: Reinventing access to criminal history records. Howard Law Review60: 101–160.
19.
Council of State Governments (2016) National Inventory of the collateral consequences of conviction. Available at: https://niccc.csgjusticecenter.org/ (accessed 14 December 2017).
20.
CullenFTFisherBSApplegateBK (2000)
Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice27: 1–79.
21.
De KeijserJW (2014) Penal theory and popular opinion: The deficiencies of direct engagement. In: RybergJRobertsJV (eds) Popular Punishment: On the Normative Significance of Public Opinion.
New York:
Oxford University Press, pp.101–118.
22.
DenverMPickettTBushwaySD (2018) Criminal records and employment: A survey of experiences and attitudes in the United States. Justice Quarterly 35: 584–613.
23.
DixonJC (2006)
The ties that bind and those that don’t: Toward reconciling group threat and contact theories of prejudice. Social Forces84(4): 2179–2204.
24.
Dixon J, Durrheim K, Tredoux CG, et al. (2010) Challenging the stubborn core of opposition to equality: Racial contact and policy attitudes. Political Psychology 31(6): 831–855.
25.
DuroseMRCooperADSnyderHN (2014) Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.
Washington, DC:
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26.
EnnsPK (2016) Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World.
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
27.
EriksonKT (1966) Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance.
Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
HolzerHJRaphaelSStollMA (2004)
How willing are employers to hire ex-offenders?Focus23: 40–43.
41.
IndermaurDRobertsLSpiranovicCet al. (2012)
A matter of judgment: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society14(2): 147–165.
42.
Islam MR and Hewstone M (1993) Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19(6): 700–710.
43.
JacobsJB (2015) The Eternal Criminal Record.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
44.
JacobsJBLarrauriE (2011)
Are criminal convictions a public matter? The USA and Spain. Punishment & Society14(1): 3–28.
45.
Jennings WG, Piquero AR and Reingle JM (2012) On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior 17(1): 16–26.
46.
JohnsonE (2011)
What’s a picture really worth?The Metro Spirit55(22): 8–12.
47.
JonesR (2000)
Digital rule: Punishment, control, and technology. Punishment & Society2(1): 5–22.
48.
Karlson KB, Holm A and Breen R (2012) Comparing regression coefficients between same sample nested models using logit and probit: A new method. Sociological Methodology 41: 286–313.
49.
KatzJ (1987)
What makes crime ‘news?’Media, Culture & Society9: 47–75.
50.
KatzJ (2016)
Culture within and culture about crime: The case of the “Rodney King riots”.Crime, Media, Culture12(2): 233–251.
51.
Kohler U, Karlson KB and Holm A (2011) Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. The Stata Journal 11(3): 420–438.
52.
Kohler-HausmannI (2013)
Misdemeanor justice: Control without conviction. American Journal of Sociology119: 351–393.
53.
Krosnick JA, Presser S, Fealing KH, et al. (2015). The Future of Survey Research: Challenges and Opportunities. The National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Subcommittee on Advancing SBE Survey Research. Available online at: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/The_Future_of_Survey_Research.pdf
54.
LagesonSE (2016a)
Digital punishment’s tangled web. Contexts15(1): 22–27.
55.
LagesonSE (2016b)
Found out and opting out: The consequences of online criminal records for families. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science665(1): 127–141.
56.
LagesonSE (2017)
Crime data, the internet, and free speech: An evolving legal consciousness. Law & Society Review51(1): 8–41.
57.
LagesonSEMarunaS (2018) Digital degradation: Stigma management in the internet age. Punishment & Society 20(1): 113–133.
58.
LappK (2016)
American criminal record exceptionalism. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law14: 303–322.
59.
LeeE (2018)
Monetizing shame: Mugshots, privacy, and the right to access. Forthcoming in Rutgers University Law Review70.
60.
LoganWAFergusonAG (2016)
Policing criminal justice data. Minnesota Law Review101: 541–616.
61.
LoughranTAPaternosterRPiqueroARet al. (2012) ‘
A good man always knows his limitations’: The role of overconfidence in criminal offending.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency50: 327–358.
62.
MartinKENissenbaumH (2017)
Privacy interests in public records: An empirical investigation. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology31(1): 112–143.
63.
McKenzie LK (2016) The right to domain silent: rebalancing tort incentives to keep pace with information availability for criminal suspects and arrestees. Vanderbilt Law Review 69: 875–907.
64.
MearsDPManciniCStewartEA (2009)
Whites’ concern about crime: The effects of interracial contact. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency46(4): 524–552.
65.
MearsDPPickettJGoldenKet al. (2013)
The effect of interracial contact on whites’ perceptions of victimization risk and black criminality.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency50(2): 272–299.
66.
MorganSLWinshipC (2014) Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research. 2nd ed.
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
67.
MurayamaKPekrunRFiedlerK (2014)
Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychology Review18: 107–118.
68.
Mutz DC (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
69.
National Consumer Law Center (2012) Broken Records: How Errors by Criminal Background Checking Companies Harm Workers and Businesses.
Boston, MA:
National Consumer Law Center.
70.
Pager D (2007) Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
71.
Pasek J (2016) When will nonprobability surveys mirror probability surveys? Considering types of inference and weighting strategies as criteria for correspondence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 28(2): 269–291
72.
PettigrewTF (1998)
Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology49: 65–85.
73.
PettigrewTFTroppLR (2006)
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(5): 751–783.
74.
Pew Research Center (2008) Pew internet & American life project poll. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/ (accessed 14 December 2017).
PickettJBakerTMetcalfeCet al. (2014)
Contact and compromise: Explaining support for conciliatory measures in the context of violent intergroup conflict. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency51(5): 585–619.
77.
Pickett JT, Chiricos T, Golden KM, et al. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and whites' perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter? Criminology 50: 145–186
78.
PickettJTBakerT (2017)
Punishment and solidarity? An experimental test of the educative-moralizing effects of legal sanctions. Journal of Experimental Criminology13: 217–240.
79.
RadeCBDesmaraisSKMitchellRE (2016)
A meta-analysis of public attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior43: 1260–1280.
80.
Raphael S (2011) Improving employment prospects for former prison inmates: Challenges and policy. In: PJCookJLudwigJMcCrary (eds) Controlling Crime: Strategies and Tradeoffs.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, pp.521–572.
81.
RobertsJ (2011)
Why misdemeanors matter: Defining effective advocacy in the lower criminal courts. UC-Davis Law Review45: 277–372.
82.
RobertsJ (2015)
Expunging America’s rap sheet in the information age. Wisconsin Law Review2: 321–1129.
83.
RobertsJVStalansLJ (1997) Public Opinion, Crime, and Criminal Justice.
Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
84.
RoseDRClearTR (2004)
Who doesn’t know someone in jail? The impact of exposure to prison on attitudes toward formal and informal controls. The Prison Journal84: 228–247.
85.
SEARCH (2005) Report of the National Task Force on the Criminal Backgrounding of America. Sacramento, CA: The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics.
ShannonSKSUggenCSchnittkerJet al. (2017)
The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography54(5): 1795–1818.
88.
Simmons AD and Bobo LD (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(1): 357–387
89.
Simonovits G, Kézdi G and Kardos P (2018) Seeing the world through the other's eye: An online intervention reducing ethnic prejudice. American Political Science Review 112(1): 186–193
90.
SparksR (1992) Television and the Drama of Crime: Moral Tales and the Place of Crime in Public Life.
Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
91.
StaceyC (2017) Rehabilitation in the internet age: The Google-effect and the disclosure of criminal records. Probation Journal 64(3): 269–275.
TannerA (2014) What Stays in Vegas: The World of Personal Data – Lifeblood of Big Business – and the End of Privacy as We Know It.
New York:
PublicAffairs.
94.
ThatcherD (2008)
The rise of criminal background screening in rental housing. Law & Social Inquiry33: 5–30.
95.
Tourangeau R, and Yan T (2007) Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin 133(5): 859–883
96.
Uggen C, Vuolo M, Lageson S, et al. (2014) The edge of stigma: An experimental audit of the effects of low-level criminal records on employment. Criminology 52(4): 627–654
97.
UggenCBlahnikL (2015) The increasing stickiness of public labels. In: ShaplandJFarrallSBottomsA (eds) Global Perspectives on Desistance.
London:
Routledge, pp. 222–243.
98.
United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005) Improving access to and integrity of criminal history records. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iaichr.pdf (accessed 14 December 2017).
99.
UnneverJDCullenFT (2010)
The social sources of punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology48(1): 99–129.
100.
WatsteinRD (2009)
Out of jail and out of luck: The effect of negligent hiring liability and the criminal record revolution on an ex-offender’s employment prospects. Florida Law Review61: 581–610.
101.
Weinberg JD, Freese, J, and McElhattan D (2014) Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsourced-recruited sample. Sociological Science 1: 292–310.
102.
Cases Cited
103.
Marvin Holman v. Central Arkansas Broadcasting Co., Inc., Sgt. Ronald W. Stobaugh, Patrolman Jackie Race and Carl Connerton, 610 F.2d 542 (8th Cir. 1979)
