Skip to main content

Racial Discrimination, Fear of Crime, and Variability in Blacks’ Preferences for Punitive and Preventative Anti-crime Policies

Political Behavior volume 37, pages 419–439 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

A growing body of research recognizes that people’s policy opinions are not simply positive or negative, but instead derive from a variety of positive and negative beliefs related to a political issue. This research expands this insight by explaining the variability in support for punitive anti-crime policies among black Americans. Data from a nationally representative survey of black Americans (n = 515) are used to show that a majority of blacks are conflicted between a strong desire to reduce crime and perceptions of widespread racial discrimination within the criminal justice system. Using a heteroskedastic item response theory model, I demonstrate that conflict between these beliefs results in far greater variability around their support for punitive, but not preventative policies. Both the conflict and variability of many black Americans’ preferences on punitive anti-crime policies complicates their ability to clearly voice their support for or opposition toward punitive policies and likely limits the ability of elected officials to represent members of this community.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. This argument might not apply to all preventative policies. Blacks who are concerned about crime and perceive racial discrimination might lack intra-issue constraint regarding preventative policies implemented by discriminatory institutions such as increasing police patrols, hot spot policing, or expanding the scope of law enforcement (e.g., wiretaps).

  2. Some scholars argue that punitive policies fail to deter crime and prevent recidivism (Currie 2013). Other scholars suggest that such policies provide a marginal decrease in crime albeit at a high cost (Johnson and Raphael 2012).

  3. Weights were derived using a raking algorithm. The interviews averaged approximately 15 min. The survey instrument was subject to several rounds of pre-testing including face-to-face interviews with a small number of black undergraduate students. Additional sample details can be found in Ramirez (2014).

  4. All of the punitive items have a negative correlation with the preventative items ranging between −0.01 and −0.22. The correlation between an additive index of the punitive items and an additive index of the preventative items is −0.24.

  5. The models were also estimated with the measure of internalized conflicted developed by Alvarez and Brehm (2002). The estimates from those models are similar to those reported here.

  6. Although it’s possible to combine the items into a single indicator using data reduction techniques (e.g., factor or principle components analysis), these techniques erroneously assume that a change from response category 1 (e.g., strongly favor) to response category 2 (e.g., favor) on a specific question (e.g., support for the death penalty) is the same as moving from response category 3 (e.g., oppose) to response category 4 (e.g., strongly oppose) on the same question. They also assume that a change from response category 1 to response category 2 on a question (e.g., support for the death penalty) is the same as a change from response category 1 to response category 2 on a different question (e.g., support for tougher parole). These assumptions can result in inefficient estimates and nonsensical predictions (McDonald 1999).

  7. In addition to examining any jumps in the optimization algorithms, convergence was assessed by examining the profile likelihood plots for the coefficients and re-estimating the models with various starting values.

  8. The item discrimination and threshold estimates for the punitive policy items derive from model 1 in Table 2 (discussed below). The item discrimination and threshold parameter estimates for the preventative policy items derive from model 2 in Table 2.

  9. Estimating the crime concern variables separately rather than the index shows that blacks who “worry” about crime are more likely to support preventative policies. The rest of the individual crime concern variables show no relationship with policy support.

  10. Thanks to one of the anonymous reviewers for this insight.

References

  • Aladjem, T. K. (2008). The culture of vengeance and the fate of american justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (1997). Are americans ambivalent towards racial policies? American Journal of Political Science, 41(2), 345–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. Journal of Politics, 56(3), 671–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99(2), 169–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A. (1993). Racial disproportionality of US prison populations revisited. University of Colorado Law Review, 64(3), 743–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, A. (2001). Race and criminal justice. In N. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (II ed.). Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobo, L. D., & Johnson, D. (2004). A taste for punishment: Black and white Americans’ views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review, 1(1), 151–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. R. (2000). Fear and fairness in the city: Criminal enforcement and perceptions of fairness in minority communities. Southern California Law Review, 73(1), 1219–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45(2), 445–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, E., & McLaughlin, E. (2013). Out of order? Policing black people. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and its discontents. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., Kane, J. G., & Gainous, J. (2005). Core values, value conflict, and citizen’s ambivalence about gay rights. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, E. (2013). Crime and punishment in America. New York: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiIulio, J. J. (1994). The question of black crime. The Public Interest, 117(1), 3–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S. (1989). Measuring issue preferences: The problem of response instability. Political Analysis, 1(1), 25–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Huddy, L. (2005). Racial resentment and white opposition to race-conscious programs: Principles or prejudice? American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 168–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, M. J. (1998). Economic integration and mass politics: market liberalization and public attitudes in the European Union. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 936–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, David. (2010). Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the New York city Police Department’s “stop-and-frisk” Policy in the Context of Claims of Racial Bias”. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102(479), 813–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2003). Value conflict, group affect, and the issue of campaign finance. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J., & Albonetti, C. (1982). Race, class, and the perception of criminal injustice. American Journal of Sociology, 88(2), 329–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, M. M. (2009). United but divided: Welfare regimes and the level and variance in public support for redistribution. European Sociological Review, 25(6), 723–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (2007). Crime salience, perceived racial bias, and black’s punitive attitudes. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 4(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. (2008). Racial prejudice, perceived injustice, and the black–white gap in punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R., & Raphael, S. (2012). How much crime reduction does the marginal prisoner buy? Journal of Law and Economics, 55(2), 275–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedants and consequences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loury, G. (1996). The impossible dilemma. The New Republic, 214(1), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meares, T. L. (1997). Charting race and class differences toward drug legalization and law enforcement: Lessons for federal criminal law. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 1(1), 134–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meares, T. L., & Kahan, D. M. (1998). Law and (Norms of) order in the inner city. Law & Society Review, 32(4), 805–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nering, M. L., & Ostini, R. (2010). Handboook of polytomous item response theory models. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Crotty, Sean, Peterson, D. A. M., & Ramirez, M. D. (2009). Dynamic representation(s): Federal criminal justice policy and an alternative dimension of policy mood. Political Behavior, 31(4), 629–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2007). Persuasion and resistance: Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 996–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2010). Justice in america: The separate realities of blacks and whites. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, Justin T., Mancini, Christina, & Mears, Daniel P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, M. D. (2013). Punitive sentiment. Criminology, 51(2), 329–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, Mark D. (2014). Complex choices: African Americans and the death penalty. Race and Justice, 4(2), 75–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York: MacMillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, M. R., & Brewer, P. R. (2000). The not-so ambivalent public: Policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), The issue of belief: Essays in the intersection of non-attitudes and attitude change. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedants and consequences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect—Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M., & Melewski, M. (2008). The malign effect of drug and crime control policies on black Americans. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truman, Jennifer and Michael R. Rand. 2010. Criminal Victimization, 2009. National Crime Victimization Survey, Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.

  • Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The racial divide in support for the death penalty: Does white racism matter? Social Forces, 85(3), 1281–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (2011). The Color of justice (5th ed.). New York: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Kim Fridkin and the manuscript reviewers for many helpful comments on earlier drafts of this research. I would also like to thank Josh Thompson, Amanda Wintersieck, Babek Rezaee, and the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University for providing research assistance on the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, Coor Hall, 6th Floor, P.O. Box 873902, Tempe, AZ, 85287-3902, USA

    Mark D. Ramirez

Authors
  1. Mark D. Ramirez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark D. Ramirez.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 198 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ramirez, M.D. Racial Discrimination, Fear of Crime, and Variability in Blacks’ Preferences for Punitive and Preventative Anti-crime Policies. Polit Behav 37, 419–439 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9285-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9285-1

Keywords

  • Public opinion
  • Punitive
  • Crime
  • Criminal justice