Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Pragmatic Public? The Impact of Practical Concerns on Support for Punitive and Rehabilitative Prison Policies

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although prior investigations have not been designed to assess the issue directly and thoroughly, criminal justice research suggests that the American public supports penal policies that they believe provide utility. The public simultaneously endorses rehabilitation and punishment when they are convinced that these approaches promote general utilitarian penal goals, such as enhancing public safety. It is unclear, however, how other practical aspects of penal policies influence people’s opinions about punitive and rehabilitative prison conditions. Using a randomized experimental design, we explicitly estimate the extent to which public support for punitive and rehabilitative prison policies depends on pragmatic considerations of financial cost, ease of institutional management, and recidivism risk. Our results reveal considerable endorsement for offering rehabilitation to a hypothetical offender as well as expanding the use of such programs to other inmates. We also find less enthusiastic support for austere prison conditions. Public endorsement of both proposals showed evidence of pragmatism, though practical considerations had larger and more consistent effects on opinions about rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We are aware that retribution can also be regarded as utilitarian. Robinson and Darley (1997), for example, argue that applying a retributivist philosophy to guide selection of criminal sanctions will reaffirm societal principles of justice and ultimately lead to more compliance with the law, broadly speaking. In this paper, however, we follow traditional conceptions that cast retribution as non-utilitarian, focused solely on what punishment is deserved due to past illegal behavior (Kant, 1887).

  2. To indicate the hypothetical offender’s gender, the vignette referred to either “Eva Necco” or “Ray Necco,” not both, and varied gendered pronouns accordingly. Because the current paper focuses on the impact of pragmatic factors on attitudes, we do not consider the possible influence of variations in offender characteristics in the analyses presented here.

  3. For the analyses reported in Table 2, we collapsed all increased levels of recidivism risk (1% to 10%) into one category, all levels of recidivism reduction (1% to 30%) into another, and no impact on recidivism (0) as a third category.

  4. Our analytic approach was guided by evaluation of assumptions. Variance inflation factors (VIF) ranged from 1.05 (effect on recidivism) to 3.29 (social science major). Because no VIF exceeded the common cut off value of 4 (e.g. Pan & Jackson, 2008), we determined that there was no multicollinearity. We also examined whether our data met the parallel slopes assumption of ordered logistic regression (McCullagh, 1980; Wolfe & Gould, 1998). While three of our models were not problematic, the likelihood ratio global or omnibus test of parallel slopes showed that the model predicting general support for austerity violated that assumption (χ2 (50) = 68.66, p = .04). For this reason, we estimated multinomial logistic regression for this model and assessed its fit using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) (Long & Freese, 2014). The AIC and BIC were lower for the ordered logistic model (1237.17 and 1327.69) than for the multinomial model (1261.83 and 1510.75), suggesting that the ordered model was a better fit. For this reason, and because the violation of the parallel slopes assumption was borderline significant, we decided to proceed with analyzing the data using the ordered logistic model (Raftery, 1995; Zucchini, 2000).

References

  • Aharoni, E., & Fridlund, A. J. (2012). Punishment without reason: Isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 599–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aharoni, E., Kleider-Offutt, H. M., Brosnan, S. F., & Watzek, J. (2019). Justice at any cost? The impact of cost-benefit salience on criminal punishment judgments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37, 38–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, B. K. (2001). Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert, and public attitudes toward prison amenities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, B. K., & Davis, R. K. (2006). Public views on sentencing juvenile murderers: The impact of offender, offense, and perceived maturity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 55–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applegate, B. K., Davis, R. K., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Reconsidering child saving: The extent and correlates of public support for excluding youths from the juvenile court. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 51–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial survey experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., Cleary, H. M., Pickett, J. T., & Gertz, M. G. (2016). Crime salience and public willingness to pay for child saving and juvenile punishment. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 645–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., Metcalfe, C. F., Berenblum, T., Aviv, G., & Gertz, M. (2015). Examining public preferences for the allocation of resources to rehabilitative versus punitive crime policies. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26, 448–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bales, W. D., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 71–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, P. T., & Morris, E. (1998). What does the public really think? Corrections Today, 60, 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiricos, T., Welch, K., & Gertz, M. (2004). Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology, 42, 358–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. R. (2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on communities. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 97–132). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Attribution styles and attitudes toward capital punishment for juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded. Justice Quarterly, 20, 65–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. A., Rust, R. T., & Steen, S. (2006). Prevention, crime control or cash? Public preferences toward criminal justice spending priorities. Justice Quarterly, 23, 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Research Service. (2019). The first step act of 2018: An overview. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, T. J., Lincoln, T., & Flanigan, T. P. (1998). A public health model to connect correctional health care with communities. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1249–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crime (n.d.). Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1603/crime.aspx

  • Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 1–79). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (2012). Reaffirming rehabilitation (2nd ed.). Boston: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Skovron, S. E., Scott, J. E., & Burton, V. S. (1990). Public support for correctional treatment the tenacity of rehabilitative ideology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Vose, B. A., Jonson, C. L., & Unnever, J. D. (2007). Public support for early intervention: Is child saving a “habit of the heart”? Victims and Offenders, 2, 109–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiIulio Jr., J. J. (1991). No escape: The future of American corrections. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffee, D., & Ritti, R. R. (1980). Public opinion and the formulation of correctional policy. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Correctional management: Change and control in correctional organizations (pp. 339–357). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Sayson, H. W., & Rios-Aguilar, C. (2017). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, N. J., Maloney, S. T., Valbuena, M. Z., & Groscup, J. (1996). Recidivism, proportionalism, and individualized punishment. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 474–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, N. A., & Monteiro, C. E. (2016). Administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvin, M. A., Loughran, T. A., Simpson, S. S., & Cohen, M. A. (2018). Victim compensation policy and white-collar crime: Public preferences in a national willingness-to-pay survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 553–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2016). Authority and punishment: On the ideological basis of punitive attitudes towards criminals. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, A. (2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 636–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haist, M. (2009). Deterrence in a sea of just deserts: Are utilitarian goals achievable in a world of limiting retributivism. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 789–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilbrun, K., Durham, K., Thornewill, A., Schiedel, R., Pietruszka, V., Phillips, S., Locklair, B., & Thomas, J. (2018). Life-sentenced juveniles: Public perceptions of risk and need for incarceration. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 587–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2007). Examining criminology majors’ and non-majors’ attitudes toward inmate programs, services, and amenities. Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1997). Public perceptions of race and crime: The role of racial stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 375–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J. E., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). The structure of punishment norms: Applying the Rossi-Berk model. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89, 245–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (2008). Racial prejudice, perceived injustice, and the black-white gap in punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 198–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Saad, L. (2018). Gallop poll social series: Crime—Final topline. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/243851/americans-views-death-penalty-2018-trends.aspx?g_source=link_newsv9&g_campaign=item_243794&g_medium=copy

  • Jonson, C. L., Cullen, F. T., & Lux, J. L. (2013). Creating ideological space: Why public support for rehabilitation matters. In L. A. Craig, L. Dixon, & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment (pp. 50–68). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, E. (1887). An exposition of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence as the science of right. (W. Hastie, Trans.). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisberg, B., & Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudes of US voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langworthy, R. H., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology, 24, 575–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, N. (2002). “Luxuries” in prison: The relationship between amenity funding and public support. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 499–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Listwan, S. J., Jonson, C. L., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2008). Cracks in the penal harm movement: Evidence from the field. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 601–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascini, P., & Houtman, D. (2006). Rehabilitation and repression: Reassessing their ideological embeddedness. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 822–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, R. (1993). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 240–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Methodological, 42, 109–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2017). Voting preferences and perceived juvenile crime trends: Examining racial and political differences. Criminal Justice Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417729879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2019). Voting preferences and perceived juvenile crime trends: Examining racial and political differences. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 840–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Pickett, J. T., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: Assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 459–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. L., Rossi, P. H., & Simpson, J. E. (1986). Perceptions of justice: Race and gender differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law and Society Review, 20, 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).

  • Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016).

  • Moon, M. M., Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for juvenile rehabilitation. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 38–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S. A., Lee, E., Berman, A., & Rung, D. (2019). When do people value rehabilitation and restorative justice over the punishment of offenders? Victims & Offenders, 14, 32–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orchowsky, S. (2014). An introduction to evidence-based practices. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, H., Applegate, B. K., & Vuk, M. (2017). The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 768–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, Y., & Jackson, R. T. (2008). Ethnic difference in the relationship between acute inflammation and serum ferritin in US adult males. Epidemiology and Infection, 136, 421–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., DeMichele, M., & Okafo, N. (2009). Attitudes about electronic monitoring: Minority and majority racial group differences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 40–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., & Baker, T. (2014). The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology, 52, 195–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2014). The racial foundation of whites’ support for child saving. Social Science Research, 44, 44–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. (2010). Never too late: Public opinion about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment and Society, 12, 187–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2004). Public opinion and youth justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 495–542). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2005). The state of the prisons: Exploring public knowledge and opinion. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 286–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indemaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1997). The utility of desert. Northwestern University Law Review, 91, 453–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (Eds.). (1982). Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, I. M., Guo, S., & Kerbs, J. J. (1993). The impact of demographic variables on public opinion regarding juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. M., & Sprott, J. B. (2017). Race matters: Public views on sentencing. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 59, 285–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A. L., Adams, R., Heimer, C. A., Scheppele, K. L., Smith, T. W., & Taylor, D. G. (1980). Crime and punishment-changing attitudes in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundt, J., Cullen, F. T., Thielo, A. J., & Jonson, C. L. (2015). Public willingness to downsize prisons: Implications from Oregon. Victims & Offenders, 10, 365–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., Applegate, B. K., & Turner, M. G. (1998). The tenacity of the rehabilitative ideal revisited: Have attitudes toward offender treatment changed? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 426–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. G., Scheppele, K. L., & Stinchcombe, A. L. (1979). Salience of crime and support for harsher criminal sanctions. Social Problems, 26, 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Burton, A. L., Moon, M. M., & Burton Jr., V. S. (2019). Prisons or problem-solving: Does the public support specialty courts? Victims & Offenders, 14, 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: Public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 137–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. W., & Cage, R. J. (1976). Correlates of public attitudes toward legal sanctions. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 4, 239–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. W., & Foster, S. C. (1975). A sociological perspective on public support for capital punishment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 641–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, D. R., & Ragona, A. J. (1987). Popular moderation versus governmental authoritarianism: An interactionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 337–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 31, 237–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude? Law and Society Review, 17, 21–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., Cochran, J. K., Cullen, F. T., & Applegate, B. K. (2010). The pragmatic American: Attributions of crime and the hydraulic relation hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 27, 431–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology, 48, 99–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2007). “A liberal is someone who has not been mugged”: Criminal victimization and political beliefs. Justice Quarterly, 24, 309–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Jones, J. D. (2008). Public support for attacking the “root causes” of crime: The impact of egalitarian and racial beliefs. Sociological Focus, 41, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Useem, B., Liedka, R. V., & Piehl, A. M. (2003). Popular support for the prison build-up. Punishment & Society, 5, 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38, 505–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2004). Outcome evaluation of Washington state’s research-based programs for juvenile offenders. Olympia, WA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, K., Butler, L. F., & Gertz, M. (2019). Saving children, damning adults? An examination of public support for juvenile rehabilitation and adult punishment. Criminal Justice Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016819833141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiecko, F. M. (2010). Research note: Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1186–1190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, R., & Gould, W. (1998). An approximate likelihood-ratio test for ordinal response models. Stata Technical Bulletin, 7, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak. (2016). Perceptions of prison and punitive attitudes: A test of the penal escalation hypothesis. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 352–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucchini, W. (2000). An introduction to model selection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, University of West Georgia, 1601 Maple Street, Carrollton, GA, 30118, USA

    Mateja Vuk

  2. Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Brandon K. Applegate

  3. Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, 2311 South 3rd Street, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Heather M. Ouellette

  4. Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, P.O. Box 6934, Radford, VA, 24142, USA

    Riane M. Bolin

  5. School of Law, Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

    Eva Aizpurua

Authors
  1. Mateja Vuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brandon K. Applegate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heather M. Ouellette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riane M. Bolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eva Aizpurua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mateja Vuk.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vuk, M., Applegate, B.K., Ouellette, H.M. et al. The Pragmatic Public? The Impact of Practical Concerns on Support for Punitive and Rehabilitative Prison Policies. Am J Crim Just 45, 273–292 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09507-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09507-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation