🌐 AI搜索 & 代理 主页
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

They’re just different: the bifurcation of public attitudes toward felon-jurors convicted of violent offenses

  • Published:
Save article
View saved research
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly, criminal justice policies have become bifurcated, categorizing and separating those who commit violent offenses from those who commit non-violent offenses. Such bifurcation is evident in recent reform efforts targeting the civic marginalization of those with a felony conviction and is also characteristic of public opinion toward those convicted of a felony criminal offense. Along those lines, this study examines how felon-jurors’ conviction type shapes public sentiment. Utilizing originally collected survey data from 815 Californians, we examine support for felon-jurors generally and by crime type (violent and non-violent). Results reveal far less support for felon-jurors convicted of violent offenses than for felon-jurors generally and felon-jurors convicted of non-violent offenses. In addition, we find that crime-type concerns vary considerably across ideological groups, with conservatives (and to a lesser extent moderates) being significantly less likely than liberals to support jury service for those convicted of violent crimes. Findings align with prior literature suggesting that the public tends to harbor more punitive views toward those who commit violent offenses, and that these views are especially pronounced among conservatives. As the first survey investigating the intersecting dynamics of crime-type and felon-juror exclusion, this study expands our understanding of public attitudes toward those convicted of a felony criminal offense and their involvement in democratic processes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from €37.37 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Taiwan (R.O.C.))

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. The terms “felon-voter” and “felon-juror” describes respectively, those who are otherwise permitted to vote and eligible for jury service but for a felony criminal conviction. Although these are not person-first terms, we note that they refer to a specific legal concept (i.e., felony conviction) and are not contemplated by the Underground Scholars Initiative [78].

  2. Given California’s high levels of median income, which is 15% higher than the U.S. more generally at $63,783, it is not surprising that most respondents had an income of $50,000 or more [79].

References

  1. Acock, A. C. (2013). A gentle introduction to Stata (3rd ed.). College Station: Stata press.

  2. Allison, P. D. (1999). Comparing logit and probit coefficients across groups. Sociological Methods & Research, 28(2), 186–208.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, D. C. (1995). Crime & the politics of hysteria: How the Willie Horton story changed American justice. New York: Random House, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  4. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Ven, T. V. (2000). Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology, 38(3), 719–754.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barker, D., Nalder, K., & Kerschner, B. (2017). CALSPEAKS survey of Californians, August 2017. California State University, Sacramento, Institute for Social Research. Retrieved from https://www.csus.edu/center/institute-social-research/survey-research.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  6. Beckett, K., Reosti, A., & Knaphus, E. (2016). The end of an era? Understanding the contradictions of criminal justice reform. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 238–259.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Binnall, J. M. (2009). Sixteen million angry men: Reviving a dead doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of excluding felons from jury service. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & Law, 17, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Binnall, J. M. (2010). Convicts in court: Felonious lawyers make a case for including convicted felons in the jury pool. Albany Law Review, 73, 1379–1440.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Binnall, J. M. (2014). A field study of the presumptively biased: Is there empirical support for excluding convicted felons from jury service. Law and Policy, 36(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Binnall, J. M. (2018a). Summonsing criminal desistance: Convicted felons’ perspectives on jury service. Law and Social Inquiry, 43(1), 4–27.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Binnall, J. (2018b). Exorcising presumptions? Judges and attorneys contemplate “Felon-Juror Inclusion” in Maine. Justice System Journal, 39(4), 378–392.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Binnall, J. (2018c). Cops and convicts: An exploratory field study of Jurymandering. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 16(1), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Binnall, J. (2019). Jury diversity in the age of mass incarceration: An exploratory mock Jury experiment examining Felon-Jurors’ potential impacts on deliberations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(4), 345–363.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Binnall, J. (2020). A ‘Meaningful’ seat at the table: Contemplating our ongoing struggle to access democracy. Southern Methodist University Law Review Forum, 73, 35–50.

  15. Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Birkland, T. A. (2004). The world changed today:’ Agenda setting and policy change in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Review of Policy Research, 21(2), 179.

  17. Bottoms, A. E. (1977). Reflections on the renaissance of dangerousness. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 16(2), 70–96.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cheney-Rice, Z. (2018). The first step act deserves your skepticism, intelligencer. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/first-step-act-skepticism.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  19. Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Conrad Jr, H. R. J., & Clements, K. L. (2018). The vanishing criminal jury trial: From trial judges to sentencing judges. George Washington Law Review, 86(1), 99–167.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Consolini, P. M. (1992). Dissertation). Learning by doing justice: Private Jury service and political attitudes. Berkley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dawson-Edwards, C. (2008). Enfranchising convicted felons: Current research on opinions towards felon voting rights. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3–4), 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Doble, J. (2002). Attitudes to punishment in the U.S.: Punitive and liberal opinions. In J. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: Public opinion, crime and justice (pp. 148–162). Portland: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Entman, R. M. (1989). How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach. The Journal of Politics, 51(2), 347–370.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ewald, A.C. (2017). Collateral sanctions. New York: Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Criminology and Criminal Justice.

  27. Fairtrials.org, n.d. The disappearing trial: Towards a rights-based approach to trial waiver systems. https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/Report-The-Disappearing-Trial.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  28. Flanagan, T. J. (1996). Reform or punish: Americans’ views of the correctional system. In T. J. Flanagan & D. R. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 75–92). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (2000). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: Worth.

  30. Florida Department of State (2018). Proposed constitutional amendments and revisions for the 2018 general election. Florida Division of Elections 10. Available at: https://dos.myflorida.com/media/699824/constitutional-amendments-2018-general-election-english.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  31. Galanter, M. (2005). The hundred-year decline of trials and the thirty years war. Stanford Law Review, 57(1255), 1262–1268.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Garland, D. (1985). Punishment and welfare. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Garland, B., Wodahl, E., & Cota, L. (2016). Measuring public support for prisoner reentry options. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(12), 1406–1424.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: The prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Goldstein, D. (2015). How to cut the prison population by 50 percent. Available at: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the-prison-population-by-50-percent. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  36. Hardcastle, L., Bartholomew, T., & Graffam, J. (2011). Legislative and community support for offender reintegration in Victoria. Deakin Law Review, 16, 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hirschfield, P. J., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Normalization and legitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward exoffenders. Criminology, 48, 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kalt, B. C. (2003). The exclusion of felons from jury service. American University Law Review, 53, 65–190.

  39. Kam, Dara. (2018). Amendment to restore felons’ voting rights on Florida November ballot. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from https://www.palmbeachpost.com/. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  40. Leverentz, A. (2011). Neighborhood context of attitudes toward crime and reentry. Punishment & Society, 13, 64–92.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Levine, S. & Edwards-Levy, A. (2018). Most Americans favor restoring felons’ voting rights, but disagree on how. HuffPost. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/felons-voting-rights-poll_us_5ab2c153e4b008c9e5f3c88a. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  42. Long, J. S. (2009). Group comparisons in logit and probit using predicted probabilities. Department of Sociology, University of Indiana. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.304.3949. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  43. Long, J. S., & Mustillo, S. A. (2018). Using predictions and marginal effects to compare groups in regression models for binary outcomes. Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799374.

  44. Losh, S., Wasserman, A., & Wasserman, M. (2000). Reluctant jurors: What summons responses reveal about jury duty attitudes. Judicature, 83, 304–305.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mancini, C., Shields, R. T., Mears, D. P., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1022–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Manza, J., Brooks, C., & Uggen, C. (2004a). Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(2), 265.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Maruna, S., & King, A. (2004). Public opinion and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, S. Rex, & G. Robinson (Eds.), Alternatives to prison: Alternatives for an insecure society (pp. 83–112). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  48. McCombs, M. E. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present, and future. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 543–557.

    Google Scholar 

  49. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.

    Google Scholar 

  50. McCombs, M. E., Shaw, D. L., & Weaver, D. H. (2014). New directions in agenda-setting theory and research. Mass Communications and Society, 17(6), 781–802.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Mele, C., & Miller, T. A. (2004). Civil penalties and social consequences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Manza, J., & Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Martinez, G. (2018). The bipartisan criminal-justice bill will affect thousands of prisoners. Here’s how their lives will change. Time. https://time.com/5483066/congress-passes-bipartisan-criminal-justice-reform-effort/. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  54. New York Times (2017). California election results 2016. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  55. O’hear, M. (2019). Third-class citizenship: The escalating legal consequences of committing a violent crime. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 109, 165.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ostrom, B. J., Strickland, S. M., & Hannaford-Agor, P. L. (2004). Examining trial trends in state courts: 1976–2002. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3), 755–782.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Parke, C. (2018). Meet Matthew Charles, Trump’s state of the union guest who gave his life to Christ in prison. Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/meet-matthew-charles-trumps-state-of-the-union-guest-who-gave-his-life-to-christ-in-prison. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  58. Perkins, D. V., Raines, J. A., Tschopp, M. K., & Warner, T. C. (2009). Gainful employment reduces stigma toward people recovering from schizophrenia. Community Mental Health Journal, 45, 158–162.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Petersilia, J. (2005). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Pinaire, B., Heumann, M., & Bilotta, L. (2002). Barred from the vote: Public attitudes toward the disenfranchisement of felons. The Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1519.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Protess, D. L., & McCombs, M. E. (1991). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rade, C. B., Desmarais, S. L., & Mitchell, R. E. (2016). A meta-analysis of public attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(9), 1260–1280.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Rebein, P., Schwartz, V., & Silverman, C. (2003). Jury (dis)service: Why people avoid jury duty and what Florida can do about it. Nova Law Review, 28(1), 144–156.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Resing, C. (2018). How the first step act moves criminal justice reform forward. American Civil Liberties Union. https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/how-first-step-act-moves-criminal-justice-reform-forward. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  65. Reynolds, N., Craig, L. A., & Boer, D. P. (2009). Public attitudes towards offending, offenders, and reintegration. In J. L. Wood & T. A. Gannon (Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 166–186). Portland: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ristroph, A. (2018). Farewell to the felonry. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 53, 563.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rogers, P., Hirst, L., & Davies, M. (2011). An investigation into the effect of respondent gender, victim age, and perpetrator treatment on public attitudes towards sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and sex offender rehabilitation. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 511–530.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Schoenfeld, H. (2016). A research agenda on reform: Penal policy and politics across the states. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 664(1), 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schuefele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3(2/3), 297.

  70. Seeds, C. (2017). Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment & Society, 19(5), 590–610.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Shannon, S. K., Uggen, C., Schnittker, J., Thompson, M., Wakefield, S., & Massoglia, M. (2017). The growth, scope, and spatial distribution of people with felony records in the United States, 1948–2010. Demography, 54(5), 1795–1818.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Silver, J. R., & Silver, E. (2017). Why are conservatives more punitive than liberals? A moral foundations approach. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 258–272.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Stata, (n.d.) “mi xeq – Execute command(s) on individual imputations”. Available at https://www.stata.com/manuals13/mimixeq.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  74. Steinacker, A. (2003). The Prisoner’s campaign: Felony disenfranchisement Laws, and the right to hold public office. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2003, 801–828.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Thomas, T., & Hebenton, B. (2013). Dilemmas and consequences of prior criminal record: A criminological perspective from England and Wales. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(2), 228–242.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tress, W. (2009). Unintended collateral consequences: Defining felony in the early American Republic. The Cleveland State Law Review, 57, 461.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Underground Scholars Initiative (2019). Language guide for communicating about those involved in the carceral system. Retrieved from https://undergroundscholars.berkeley.edu/news/2019/3/6/language-guide-for-communicating-about-those-involved-in-the-carceral-system. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  79. U.S. Census. (2017). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts. California. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ca/PST045217. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  80. Wagner, Peter and Alison Walsh. (2016). States of incarceration: The global context 2016. The Prison Policy Initiative June 16, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09912-.

  81. Wagner, J. (2018). Trump signs bipartisan criminal justice bill amid partisan rancor over stopgap spending measure. New York Times. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-sign-bipartisan-criminal-justice-bill-amid-partisan-rancor-over-stopgap-spending-measure/2018/12/21/234f9ffc-0510-11e9-b5df-5d3874f1ac36_story.html. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  82. Ward, T., & Carter, E. (2019). The classification of offending and crime related problems: A functional perspective. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(6), 542–560.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wolfe, M., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175.

  84. YouGov (2014) Most people think felons should be allowed to vote. Politics and Current Affairs. Available at: https://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6y0puy011c/tabs_HP_felon_voting_20140213.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  85. YouGov (2016) Most people think released felons should have the vote. Politics and Current Affairs. Available at: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/yskixde632/tabs_OP_Disenfranchising_Felons_20160425.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2020.

  86. Young, W. (2006). Vanishing trials, vanishing juries, and vanishing constitution. Suffolk University Law Review, 40, 67–94.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., ET 230, Long Beach, CA, 90840-4603, USA

    James M. Binnall

  2. University of Miami, 5202 University Drive, Merrick Building, Room 122G, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, USA

    Nick Petersen

Authors
  1. James M. Binnall
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nick Petersen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James M. Binnall.

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

Binnall, J.M., Petersen, N. They’re just different: the bifurcation of public attitudes toward felon-jurors convicted of violent offenses. Crime Law Soc Change 75, 3–19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09912-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09912-3

Keywords