We analyze data from a national sample of the U.S. population to assess public support for policies that deny former offenders’ access to job training programs, food stamps, and public housing. We find that Americans generally oppose benefit restrictions, though support for these policies is higher among Republicans and people with higher levels of racial resentment. We also find that a legislator’s criminal justice reform positions generally do not significantly affect voters’ evaluation of him or her, and even voters with more punitive attitudes toward collateral consequence policies support legislators who advance particular kinds of reform proposals. These findings provide little evidence that any group of Americans would be mobilized to vote against a legislator who works to reform collateral consequence policies. We discuss the implications of these findings for American and comparative studies of the politics of punishment.
AebiMFDelgrandeNMarguetY (2015)
Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems?Punishment & Society17(5): 575–597.
2.
AlexanderM (2012) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.
New York:
The New Press.
3.
AndersonJA (1984)
Regression and ordered categorical variables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)46(1): 1–22.
4.
AnsolabehereSRiversD (2013)
Cooperative survey research. Annual Review of Political Science16(1): 307–329.
5.
AnsolabehereSSchaffnerBF (2014)
Does survey mode still matter? Findings from a 2010 multi-mode comparison. Political Analysis22(3): 285–303.
6.
AnsolabehereSSchaffnerBF (2018) Taking the study of political behavior online. In: AtkesonLRAlvarezRM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Polling and Survey Methods.
New York:
Oxford University Press, pp.76–96.
7.
ApplegateBKCullenFTFisherBS, et al. (2000)
Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion*. Criminology38(3): 719–754.
8.
ArnoldRD (1992) The Logic of Congressional Action.
New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
9.
BalvigFGunnlaugssonHJerreK, et al. (2015)
The public sense of justice in Scandinavia: A study of attitudes towards punishments. European Journal of Criminology12(3): 342–361.
10.
BandaraSNMcGintyEEBarryCL (2020)
Message framing to reduce stigma and increase support for policies to improve the wellbeing of people with prior drug convictions. The International Journal on Drug Policy76: 102643.
11.
BarkerV (2013)
Nordic exceptionalism revisited: Explaining the paradox of a Janus-faced penal regime. Theoretical Criminology17(1): 5–25.
BrownEKSociaKM (2017)
Twenty-first century punitiveness: Social sources of punitive American views reconsidered. Journal of Quantitative Criminology33(4): 935–959.
15.
BucklerKGTravisLF (2003)
Reanalyzing the prevalence and social context of collateral consequence statutes. Journal of Criminal Justice31(5): 435–453.
16.
Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE and Stokes DE (1960) The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
17.
CaugheyDWarshawC (2018)
Policy preferences and policy change: Dynamic responsiveness in the American states, 1936–2014. American Political Science Review112(2): 249–266
18.
ChiricosTEschholzS (2002)
The racial and ethnic typification of crime and the criminal typification of race and ethnicity in local television news. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency39(4): 400–420.
19.
ChiricosTPadgettKBrattonJ, et al. (2012)
Racial threat and opposition to the re-enfranchisement of ex-felons. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology1: 13–28.
20.
ChristieNV (2014)
Racial neutrality by any other name: An examination of collateral consequence policies in the United States. Social Science Quarterly95(2): 541–562.
21.
ClearTR (1994) Harm in American Penology: Offenders, Victims, and Their Communities.
Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
22.
ClearTRFrostNA (2014) The Punishment Imperative: The Rise and Failure of Mass Incarceration in America.
New York:
NYU Press.
ComartinEBKernsmithPDKernsmithRM (2009)
Sanctions for sex offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation48(7): 605–619.
25.
CordaA (2018)
The collateral consequence conundrum: Comparative genealogy, current trends, and future scenarios. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society77: 69–97.
26.
CullenFTFisherBSApplegateBK (2000)
Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice27: 1–79.
27.
DaganDTelesS (2016) Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned against Mass Incarceration.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
28.
DearM (1992)
Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association58(3): 288–300.
29.
DenverMPickettJTBushwaySD (2018)
Criminal records and employment: A survey of experiences and attitudes in the United States. Justice Quarterly35(4): 584–613.
30.
EnnsPK (2016) Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World.
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
31.
EwaldAC (2012)
Collateral consequences in the American states. Social Science Quarterly93(1): 211–247.
32.
EwaldACUggenC (2012) The collateral effects of imprisonment on prisoners, their families, and communities. In: PetersiliaJReitzKR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections.
New York:
Oxford University Press, pp.83–103.
33.
FennoR (2002) Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts (Longman Classics Edition).
New York:
Pearson Longman.
34.
FrostNA (2010)
Beyond public opinion polls: Punitive public sentiment and criminal justice policy. Sociology Compass4(3): 156–168.
35.
GarlandBWodahlESchuhmannR (2013)
Value conflict and public opinion toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review24(1): 27–48.
36.
GarlandBWodahlECotaL (2016)
Measuring public support for prisoner reentry options. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology60(12): 1406–1424.
37.
GarlandBWodahlESaxonC (2017)
What influences public support of transitional housing facilities for offenders during reentry?Criminal Justice Policy Review28(1): 18–40.
38.
GideonLLovelandN (2011) Public attitudes toward rehabilitation and reintegration: How supportive are people of Getting-Tough-on-Crime policies and the second chance act. In: GideonLSungH-E (eds) Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, pp.19–36.
39.
GilensM (1999) Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
40.
GilliamFDIyengarS (2000)
Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 560–573.
41.
GottschalkM (2016) Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics.
Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
42.
GreenDA (2006)
Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correcting the ‘comedy of errors’. The British Journal of Criminology46(1): 131–154.
43.
HallTLWootenNRLundgrenLM (2016)
Postincarceration policies and prisoner reentry: Implications for policies and programs aimed at reducing recidivism and poverty. Journal of Poverty20(1): 56–72.
44.
HerbertCWMorenoffJDHardingDJ (2015)
Homelessness and housing insecurity among former prisoners. The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences1(2): 44–79.
45.
HeumannMPinaireBKClarkT (2005)
Beyond the sentence: Public perceptions of collateral consequences for felony offenders. Criminal Law Bulletin41(1): 24–46.
46.
HochschildAR (2018) Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.
New York:
The New Press.
Kinder DR and Sanders LM (1996) Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49.
KrisbergBMarchionnaS (2006) Attitudes of US Voters toward Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry Politics.
Washington, DC:
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
50.
KrysanM (2000)
Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial policy attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology26(1): 135–168.
51.
KussO (2006)
On the estimation of the stereotype regression model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis50(8): 1877–1890.
52.
LermanAEWeaverVM (2014) Arresting Citizenship: The Democratic Consequences of American Crime Control.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
53.
LeverentzA (2011)
Neighborhood context of attitudes toward crime and reentry. Punishment & Society13(1): 64–92.
ManciniC (2014)
Examining factors that predict public concern about the collateral consequences of sex crime policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review25(4): 450–475.
56.
ManzaJBrooksCUggenC (2004)
Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly68(2): 275–286.
57.
MarunaSKingA (2009)
Once a criminal, always a criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research15(1–2): 7–24.
58.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. 2nd ed.
New Haven:
Yale University Press.
59.
MayhewPvan KesterenJ (2002) Cross-national attitudes to punishment. In: RobertsJVHoughM (eds) Changing Attitudes to Punishment: Public Opinion, Crime, and Justice.
Portland, OR:
Willan Publishing, pp.63–92.
60.
MearsDPCochranJC (2018) Who goes to prison? In: WooldredgeJSmithP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Prisons and Imprisonment.
New York:
Oxford University Press, pp.29–52.
61.
Mettler S (2018) The Government-Citizen Disconnect. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
62.
MiddlemassK (2017) Convicted and Condemned: The Politics and Policies of Prisoner Reentry.
New York:
NYU Press.
63.
MillerLL (2016) The Myth of Mob Rule: Violent Crime and Democratic Politics.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
64.
MillerRJStuartF (2017)
Carceral citizenship: Race, rights and responsibility in the age of mass supervision. Theoretical Criminology21(4): 532–548.
65.
OuelletteHMApplegateBKVukM (2017)
The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice42(4): 768–789.
66.
OwensMLSmithAR (2012)
“Deviants” and democracy: Punitive policy designs and the social rights of felons as citizens. American Politics Research40(3): 531–567.
67.
PageBIJacobsLR (2009) Class War? What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
68.
PagerD (2008) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.
Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
69.
PayneBKGaineyRRTriplettRA, et al. (2004)
What drives punitive beliefs?: Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice32(3): 195–206.
70.
PercivalGL (2015) Smart on Crime : The Struggle to Build a Better American Penal System.
Boca Raton:
CRC Press.
71.
PetersiliaJ (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
72.
PrattJ (2008)
Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal ExcessPart II: Does Scandinavian exceptionalism have a future?British Journal of Criminology48(3): 275–292.
73.
RadeCBDesmaraisSLMitchellRE (2016)
A meta-analysis of public attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior43(9): 1260–1280.
74.
RadeCBDesmaraisSLBurnetteJL (2018a)
An integrative theoretical model of public support for ex-offender reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology62(8): 2131–2152.
75.
RadeCBDesmaraisSLBurnetteJL (2018b)
Implicit theories of criminal behavior: Fostering public support for ex-offender community reentry. Applied Pyschology in Criminal Justice14(1): 14–36.
Rivers D and Bailey D (2009) Inference from matched samples in the 2008 U.S. national elections. In: Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings, pp.627–639. Palo Alto, CA: YouGov/Polimetrix. Available at: http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2009/Files/303309.pdf (accessed 31 July 2020).
78.
SavelsbergJ (1994)
Knowledge, domination, and criminal punishment. American Journal of Sociology99(4): 911–943.
79.
Sears DO and Funk CL (1999) Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults' political predispositions. The Journal of Politics 61(1): 1–28.
80.
ShammasVL (2016)
The rise of a more punitive state: On the attenuation of Norwegian penal exceptionalism in an era of welfare state transformation. Critical Criminology24(1): 57–74.
81.
SnackenS (2010)
Resisting punitiveness in Europe?Theoretical Criminology14(3): 273–292.
82.
SociaKMDumCPRydbergJ (2017)
Turning a blind eye: Public support of emergency housing policies for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment31(1): 25–49.
83.
StimsonJAMackuenMBEriksonRS (1995)
Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review89(3): 543–565.
84.
TonryM (1999)
Why are U.S. incarceration rates so high?Crime & Delinquency45(4): 419–437.
85.
TravisJ (2002) Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In: MauerMChesney-LindM (eds) Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment.
New York:
The New Press, pp.15–36.
86.
TuchSAHughesM (2011)
Whites’ racial policy attitudes in the twenty-first century: The continuing significance of racial resentment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science634(1): 134–152.
87.
UggenCVuoloMLagesonS, et al. (2014)
The edge of stigma: An experimental audit of the effects of low-level criminal records on employment. Criminology52(4): 627–654.
88.
UnneverJDCullenFT (2010)
The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology48(1): 99–129.
89.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (2019) Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, Redemption, and the Effects on Communities.
Washington,
DC: Author. Available at: www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf (accessed 13 July 2020).
90.
VerfaillieK (2012) Punitive needs, society and public opinion: An explorative study of ambivalent attitudes to punishment and criminal justice. In: SnackenSDumortierE (eds) Resisting Punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, Human Rights and Democracy. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp.225–246.
91.
VuoloMLagesonSUggenC (2017)
Criminal record questions in the era of “ban the box”. Criminology & Public Policy16(1): 139–165.
92.
WacquantL (2009) Punishing the Poor: The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity.
Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
93.
WesternB (2018) Homeward: Life in the Year after Prison.
New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
94.
WesternBPettitB (2010)
Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus139(3): 8–19.
95.
WhitmanJQ (2003) Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe.
New York:
Oxford University Press.
96.
WhittleTN (2018)
Felony collateral sanctions effects on recidivism: A literature review. Criminal Justice Policy Review29(5): 505–524.
97.
WilsonDCOwensMLDavisDW (2015)
How racial attitudes and ideology affect political rights for felons. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race12(1): 73–93.
98.
WozniakKH (2020)
An analysis of black–white racial differences in public support for nonviolent sentencing reform. Race and Justice 10(4): 456–479.
99.
YeeTW (2010)
The VGAM package for categorical data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software32(10): 1–34.
100.
YeeTWHastieT (2003)
Reduced-Rank vector generalized linear models. Statistical Modelling: An International Journal3(1): 15–41.
101.
Zaller J (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
102.
ZezimaKSullivanS (2018) How Republicans pivoted from the war on drugs to cutting prison sentences. Washington Post, 19 December. Available at: https://wapo.st/2EFEixU (accessed 21 January 2020).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
