The United States imprisons more of its populace than any other country in the world (Widra & Herring, 2021a, 2021b). Today, roughly 2.2 million Americans are in custody (Wagner & Walsh, 2022), while an additional 4 million are under some form of correctional control (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022). This affinity for mass incarceration has led to a proliferation of U.S. citizens with criminal records. Approximately 20 million Americans now have a felony criminal history, amounting to roughly 8% of the adult population and 1 in 3 African American adult males (Shannon et al., 2017). For individuals who have contact with the criminal legal system, especially when that contact results in a felony conviction, a multitude of record-based restrictions, often referred to as “collateral consequences” (American Bar Association, 2004),Footnote 1 curtail their freedoms and opportunities post-conviction (Kirk & Wakefield, 2018; Chin, 2017). One such restriction impacts America’s jury system (Kalt, 2003; Binnall, 2021).

Forty-nine states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia statutorily limit juror eligibility for individuals with a past felony criminal conviction (Binnall, 2021). In twenty-five jurisdictions and in the federal system, prospective jurors with a felonious criminal history are effectively barred from serving as a juror for life (2021).Footnote 2 Thirteen jurisdictions exclude until the completion of a criminal sentence,Footnote 3 nine impose hybrid restrictions that may be based on the type of proceeding at bar, charge category of the commitment offense, or penal status,Footnote 4 and two states allow for lifetime challenges for cause based solely on a felony criminal conviction.Footnote 5 Maine is the only jurisdiction that does not restrict juror eligibly for those with a prior felony conviction, making record-based juror exclusion the most pervasive and severe form of civic marginalization in the United States (Binnall & Petersen, 2021).

Despite the pervasiveness of record-based exclusion statutes, relatively little is known about the public’s view of this collateral sanction (But see Binnall & Petersen, 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Moore, 2014, 2016; Burton et al., 2020b). In those studies that have evaluated public opinion toward exclusion, research tends to show that citizens are somewhat ambivalent on the issue. In 2014 and 2016, YouGov conducted two national polls on the issue. In 2014, 49% of respondents favored permanent exclusion, 34% favored inclusion after the completion of a sentence, and 17% were unsure (Moore, 2014) and in 2016, results indicated that 53% of respondents favored permanent exclusion, 35% favored inclusion after the completion of a sentence, and 12% were unsure (Moore, 2016). California conducted a third poll, revealing that 51% of Californians felt that individuals with a felony conviction should be excluded from jury service for life, aligning with YouGov’s 2014 and 2016 findings indicating that 49% and 53% favored exclusion at the national level (Binnall & Petersen, 2021). While these results suggest that the public favors exclusion, they also suggest some nuance on the issue. It appears the public does not view felon-jurors as categorically threatening to the jury process. In fact, some favor inclusion under certain circumstances.

How the public views a criminal legal system policy is in part influenced by how policymakers frame relevant issues (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Baumgartner, Berry, Hojnacki, Kimball, & Leech, 2009). For example, recent research suggests that when policymakers use crime-first language (e.g. convicted felon), as opposed to person-first language (e.g. person with a felony conviction), it sends signals to the public about the substantive character and qualities of those with a felony criminal conviction (Reich, 2017; Bushway & Apel, 2012), and can reduce support for reintegrative, often progressive policy reform (Jackl, 2023). A related line of studies also reveals that a shift in support for those with a carceral history – impacted by framing – may be the result of shifts in views of ‘redeemability’ (Maruna & King, 2004, 2009; Burton et al., 2020a, 2020b). Research demonstrates that one’s view of redeemability – or the ability of a formerly convicted person to change and desist from criminal activity – is a significant predictor of support for criminal legal system policies (Burton et al., 2020b). When the public views those with convictions as capable of redemption, support for inclusive criminal legal system policies increases. Notably, this research has explored the impact of redeemability on opinions of criminal justice policy without reference to the impact of carceral status (Binnall & Petersen, 2020a, 2020b, 2021), or using the single carceral status of ‘completion of sentence’ (Moore, 2014, 2016; Burton et al., 2020a, 2020b).

To that end, this exploratory study evaluates public opinion of including prospective jurors with a felony conviction in the jury pool at various stages of the carceral process. We conducted this study in Iowa, a midwestern state where the governor has recently altered juror eligibility for those with prior felony convictions through executive action restoring citizenship rights, creating a new carceral status in that jurisdiction and thus, providing an optimal site in which to study the potential impacts of carceral status on views of juror fitness. Accordingly, we first detail our study site, describing its incarceration trends, juror eligibility policy for those with a felony conviction, and the recent changes to that policy. We then review prior research on public opinion, focusing on how state-action has been found to influence public opinion and how the public views the redeemability of those with a carceral history. Next, we detail our study, describing our methods, results, and limitations. Finally, we situate our results in a broader discussion of collateral consequences, public opinion, and the responsibility of the state to acknowledge its influence when signaling to its citizenry on criminal legal system policy.

Juror eligibility for Iowans with a prior felony conviction

In Iowa, carceral statistics mirror national patterns. In late 2021, the state’s incarceration rate stood at 582 per 100,000 residents, lower than the U.S. rate of 664 per 100,000 but higher than all other countries in the world (Widra & Herring, 2021a, 2021b). Notably, in 2020, the Sentencing Project found that out of Iowa’s roughly 2.3 million voting age residents, approximately 1.5% or 35,000 residents bear the mark of a felony conviction (Widra & Herring, 2021a, 2021b). And like national trends, that percentage increases among African Americans and Latinos. Of Iowa’s nearly 74,000 Latino residents, 3.8% live with the mark of a felony conviction (Widra & Herring, 2021a, 2021b). For African American Iowans, the situation is much more dire, as among the state’s 63,000 African American voting age residents, just over 11% bear the mark of a felony conviction. more than seven times the population percentage (Widra & Herring, 2021a, 2021b).

Iowa restricts participation in jury service by those with a carceral history by permitting for-cause disqualification of a juror with a prior felony conviction based solely on the existence of a felony conviction history (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.18(5)(a), 2019; Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.915(6)(a), 2019). Iowa’s Code of Criminal Procedure reads in relevant part: “A challenge for cause may be made by the state or defendant and must distinctly specify the facts constituting the causes thereof. It may be made for any of the following causes. . [a] previous conviction of the juror of a felony” (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.18(5)(a), 2019). Similarly, the relevant excerpt from Iowa’s Rules of Civil Procedure reads: (“A juror may be challenged by a party for any of the following causes. . [c]onviction of a felony” (Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.915(6)(a), 2019). But recent developments have softened that policy and made it far more likely that an Iowan with a felony conviction will have the opportunity to take part in jury selection.

In August 2020, Governor Kim Reynolds issued Executive Order No. 7 (Reynolds, 2020), which, with limited exceptions (Iowa Crim. Law & Proc. § 707, 2023),Footnote 6 automatically restored the citizenship rights of Iowans with a felony conviction history who have served their sentences, notably requiring that they have completed any term of supervision that followed or replaced a period of confinement (Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure § 2.18(5)(a). The Iowa Governor updates the Executive Order daily, meaning that every formerly convicted person who has completed their sentence since August 2020, is now also eligible for jury service.

Along with Governor Reynold’s continuing Executive Order restoring citizenship rights to those with prior felony convictions, in February 2021, the Iowa Supreme Court revised its Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 2.18(5)(a) states:

“A challenge for cause of an individual juror may be made orally by the state or the defendant and must distinctly specify the facts constituting the cause. A challenge may be made on an individual juror for any of the following causes:

a. A previous conviction of the juror of a felony unless it can be established through the juror’s testimony or otherwise that the juror’s rights of citizenship have been restored.”Footnote 7

This mandate, coupled with Governor Reynold’s automatic restoration of citizenship rights at the termination of a sentence means practically that many more Iowans who have a felony criminal history and have had their citizenship rights restored are now eligible for jury service and cannot be removed for cause solely based on the existence of a prior felony conviction. But reaction to Governor Reynold’s executive order restoring juror eligibility to those with prior felony convictions is to date unknown. Accordingly, we evaluate how the public views the inclusion of citizens with a felony conviction in the jury pool at various stages of the carceral process – including at the restoration of citizenship rights stage.

Shaping public opinion of jurors with a felony conviction

Through policymakers, the state can have a significant influence on public opinion of criminal legal system issues (McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Protess & McCombs, 1991; Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000, McCombs, 2005; Sellers, 2010; McCombs et al., 2014). Policymakers are part of the “agenda setting” process, which occurs through a series of complex feedback loops comprised in part of direct and indirect input from both policymakers and the public (Scheufele, 2000). Typically, issues make their way into the national consciousness through “focusing events” or “triggering devices” (Birkland, 1998, 2004). Policymakers then frame those issues, thereby helping to shape public perceptions in a type of feedback loop of mutual influence (Entman, 1989; Wlezien, 1995; Sellers, 2000; Erikson et al., 2002; Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000). Explaining this feedback loop, Wolfe et al. note:

[P]olicy debates and policy outputs feed back into the perceptions of the public— that is, the policymaking process affects the public agenda. An understanding of the public agenda cannot be complete without an appreciation of the policymaking agenda and the role of political elites in the process (Wolfe et al., 2013 p. 176).

Thus, the influence of policy on public opinion is in large part influenced by how policymakers choose to frame relevant issues (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Baumgartner et al., 2009).

While the public generally holds negative views of those with a carceral history (Hirshfeld & Piquero, 2010), that view is nuanced, with punitive sentiment often coexisting alongside an endorsement of more progressive rehabilitative efforts (Doble, 2002; Garland et al., 2017; Ouellette et al., 2017). Research also suggests that such views may be shaped by a host of factors, including political ideology (Applegate et al., 2000) and, most relevant here, the language and terms used to frame an issue (Jackl, 2023). Through framing, policymakers can send “desistance signals,” or “recognizable signs indicating an individual is no longer engaged in criminal activity” (Reich, 2017 p. 112; see also Bushway & Apel, 2012). Conversely, policymakers may also send a type of ‘risk-signal’ or ‘danger-signal’ that causes the public to question whether an individual is desisting from criminal activity and/or is still prone to criminality (Jackl, 2023).

In a series of studies, researchers have found that descriptions of those with a prior felony conviction can influence how the public views them and whether the public supports reintegrative policies like felon-juror inclusion (Harris & Socia, 2016: Denver et al., 2017). For example, in a recent study comparing crime-first language (e.g. convicted felon) to person-first language (e.g. person convicted of a felony), Jackl found that person-first language made it more likely that public opinion would favor reintegrative policies, while conversely, crime-first language made support less likely (2023). Notably, Jackl proposes the “representative heuristic” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) as a possible mechanism driving the discovered effect, noting “the representative heuristic occurs when one’s attitudes or beliefs are shaped by dominant or existing prototypes that most readily come to mind” (2023 p. 491). Explaining how the representativeness heuristic operates in this context, Jackl points out that criminal legal system policies regularly differentiate between “violent offenders” and “non-violent offenders” (Seeds, 2017; Binnall & Petersen, 2020a, 2020b), and that “person-centered language may prime individuals to think about persons convicted of non-serious, non-violent offenses, while crime-first language primes individuals to think of persons convicted of serious, violent offenses, thereby inducing the attitudinal changes found in this study” (Jackl, 2023 p. 491).

Jackl’s findings are especially relevant in the realm of juror exclusion, as applicable juror eligibility statutes often distinguish by carceral category. For instance, in 2020, California enacted Senate Bill 310 (2019). The measure restored juror eligibility to Californians with a felony conviction, so long as the prospective juror is not (1) on some form of state or federal supervision or (2) has a registerable sexually based offense under CA Code 290 (S.B. 310). In this way, California determines juror eligibility for those with prior felony conviction by demarcating carceral status and, in line with Jackl’s observation, also distinguishes crime-type, still permanently excluding those with sexually based offenses. Hence, with S.B. 310, California seemingly sends a desistance signal that those included in the reform are no longer engaged in criminality and are fit for jury service, but also reifies the belief that those on supervision or those who have committed a sexually based offense have not yet achieved criminal desistance and are unfit for jury service (Seeds, 2017; Binnall & Petersen, 2020a, 2020b).

In another relevant line of research, studies probe the possibility that support for reintegrative programs (like felon-juror inclusion) or a lack thereof, turns on whether the public views those with a carceral history as redeemable (Maruna & King, 2004, 2009). Redeemability in this context refers to how an individual views “human malleability Maruna & King, 2004 p. 95). Simply, redeemability asks whether those who commit crimes are static and unchanging, or whether they can change, alter their behaviors, and desist from crime (Reich, 2017; Maruna & King, 2004, 2009).

In some of the most recent research on the topic of redeemability of those with prior convictions, Burton and colleagues drew on data from an opt-in YouGov internet survey and then replicated their findings using a 2019 Mechanical Turk (MTurk) sample (Burton et al., 2020a). The study set out to examine how belief in the redeemability of those with criminal convictions influenced views of “rehabilitation and specific inclusive correctional policies.” (pp. 715, 2020a). Those policies included ban-the-box on employment applications, expunging criminal records, and restoring voting rights to those with a felony criminal conviction. Results indicated that on all dependent measures, redeemability was a significant predictor of public opinion (even when included in multivariate models with a range of control variables), as respondents who viewed those with a criminal conviction as redeemable were far more likely to support inclusive criminal legal system policies (2020a).

In their most recent study of the topic, Burton and colleagues assessed the impact of redeemability on two additional policy measures – restoring the right to vote and juror eligibility to those with a prior felony conviction (Burton et al., 2020b). Here, they found that redeemability was positively associated with restoration of these two democratic functions. In summarizing their work in this area, Burton et al. note:

Taken together, these results are empirically remarkable. It appears that belief in redeemability predicts opinions on virtually every correctional policy – whether that is punitive or rehabilitative or whether the survey probes general ideology or specific policy proposals (2020b).

The sum of the research in these areas consistently suggests that policy messaging and issue framing can significantly impact views toward inclusive criminal legal system reforms like the inclusion of citizens with a felony criminal conviction in the jury process. Evidence indicates that framing can greatly impact whether the public views those with prior carceral contact as redeemable and whether, in turn, the public supports their reintegration into civic life – in this case, as prospective jurors.

This dynamic becomes even more important when considering the multiple, intersecting factors that shape attitudes about juror eligibility. For those with a prior felony conviction, the impact of crime-first language and views of redeemability are especially salient in the context of juror eligibility, as are both race and class. Research suggests that minoritized and socio-economically disadvantaged citizens, while disproportionately the targets of the criminal legal system (Alexander, 2010; Clair, 2020), are underrepresented in jury pools across the country (Hoag, 2020; Offit, 2021). As to race, the de jure exclusion of African Americans, widespread prior to Reconstruction, has now been replaced by de facto exclusion, whereby seemingly race-neutral restrictions on jury service – like those premised on criminal history – operate to disproportionately exclude prospective jurors of color (Hoag, 2020; see also Clair & Winter, 2022; Binnall, 2021). Income-based juror qualifications similarly contribute to underrepresentation through a type of “benevolent exclusion,” meant to alleviate financial strain but ultimately, they eliminate additional voices from the jury pool (Offit, 2021). Thus, while the exclusion of citizens with a felony conviction from jury service removes a valuable perspective from the process, its impact is amplified through race and class, collectively extracting essential viewpoints from the jury process.

Although prior scholarship has examined collateral consequences experienced by those with a felony conviction, public attitudes of felon-juror eligibility, and how redeemability may shape attitudes in support of civic reintegration, no study has explored how these perceptions may shift at different levels of carceral status – a variable that is both theoretically interesting and practically important for policy. Accordingly, the current study adds to this literature by evaluating public opinion at various stages of the carceral process, while also measuring both redeemability and support for inclusion. The primary research question guiding this work is whether carceral status and beliefs about redeemability jointly shape public support for allowing individuals with felony convictions to serve on juries. By examining these variables together, scholars can obtain a more robust understanding of factors influencing felon-juror inclusion.

The current study

Given Iowa’s current policies and the gap in the literature focusing on juror eligibility for those with a prior felony conviction and carceral status, the current study sought to examine how the public views prospective jurors with a felony conviction and their inclusion in the jury system at various stages of their carceral status. Prior polls suggest that the public may be more open to individuals with a felony conviction serving as jurors than previously assumed and literature on redeemability strongly suggests that the public tends to view those with a prior felony conviction as capable of rehabilitation and, in turn, inclusion in vital democratic processes. While our study is the first to examine how carceral status impacts public perceptions of felon-juror inclusion, given the findings from these prior lines of research, we predict the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a – carceral status and direct support for inclusion

Given the research concerning signaling and rehabilitation (Bushway & Apel, 2012), as well as research suggesting crime-first language may negatively impact public opinion of reintegrative policies for those with prior convictions (Jackl, 2023), we predicted that the carceral status of the individual with a felony conviction (i.e., in custody v. completed probation or parole but no restoration of citizenship rights v. restoration of citizenship rights) would significantly predict a respondent’s level of support for allowing those with a felony conviction to serve on a jury. Specifically, we predicted as an individual with a felony conviction progresses to full restoration of citizenship rights, participants would increasingly endorse felon-juror inclusion.

Hypothesis 1b – Carceral status and additional support measures

We also measured support using three additional variables shown in prior research to track direct measures of support for inclusion. For example, when direct levels of support for inclusion increase, prior research suggests so too will (1) comfort serving with a juror who has a prior felony conviction (Binnall & Petersen, 2020b); (2) the belief that those with a felony conviction add value to the deliberation process (Binnall & Petersen, 2021); and (3) that jurors with a felony conviction would approach and analyze evidence impartially (Binnall & Petersen; Binnall, 2021). Given this literature, we hypothesize that as an individual with a felony conviction progresses to full restoration of citizenship rights, participants will have (1) increasing levels of comfort serving alongside a juror with a felony conviction, (2) a greater belief that jurors with a felony conviction add value to deliberations, and (3) a greater the belief that jurors with a felony conviction history would analyze evidence impartially.

Hypothesis 2 – Redeemability

Research on redeemability indicates that individuals who hold the belief that an individual with a criminal history is not able to lead a productive life or has fixed individual traits also hold more punitive attitudes that often translate into support for restrictive collateral consequences (Burton et al., 2020a, 2020b). Following this research, we predict participants that believe individuals with a criminal history are redeemable will have increased support on all support variables compared to those low in redeemability.

Method

Participants and design

Using the “pwr” package in R 4.0.2, a power analysis indicated that for sufficient power (0.90), 154 participants were necessary for a regression analysis to detect a small effect (f = 0.10). Participants (N = 207) residing in the state of Iowa were recruited through Prolific, an online data collection platform in which researchers compensate individuals for their voluntary research participation. The following inclusion criteria were set within Prolific: (1) U.S. citizenship, (2) Resident of the state of Iowa, and (3) Standard sample (i.e., distribute to available participants). Prolific identified 561 eligible participants, but we stopped data collection once our required sample size was met. Participants (Mage = 34.82, SDage = 13.51) identified as White (90.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander (3.4%), Hispanic (2.4%), Black/African American (1.4%), Native American (1.0%), or Other/Multi-Racial (1.4%). Participants identified their gender as female (64.7%), male (34.3%), or other (1.0%). Participant political orientation was slightly liberal leaning (M = 2.98, SD = 1.56) on a 7-point Likert Scale, lower values indicated increased liberalism. In alignment with the orientation results, participants primarily identified as being a member of the Democratic Party (59%). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2022), our sample appears to be representative of Iowa residents based on race (90% White) and age (M = 38.3). However, our sample appears to consist of a slightly higher percentage of self-identified female participants compared to U.S. Census Bureau data in Iowa (49.8% female) and political orientation is somewhat discrepant. In recent elections, Iowa is generally perceived as conservative, but the current sample was slightly liberal leaning.

The design of the current study was within-subjects. Therefore, aside from the predictor variable of redeemability, participants responded to each outcome measure below at each level of carceral status in order from the most restrictive to the least restrictive status (four times): felon-juror, felon-juror who has completed probation/parole, and felon-juror who has completed probation/parole AND has had their citizenship rights restored.

Predictor variable

Redeemability

A four-item redeemability scale assessed the extent to which participants believed individuals with felony criminal convictions are capable of positive change. This scale has reliably predicted support for inclusive legal system policies such as voting rights and record expungement for individuals with felony convictions (α = 0.718; Burton et al., 2020a, 2020b). Given the present study’s focus on civic inclusion, this measure provided a theoretically important indicator of attitudes toward reintegration. Participants indicated how much they agreed with four statements on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items include phrases such as “Most offenders can go on to lead productive lives with help and hard work” or “Most criminal offenders are unlikely to change for the better.” Participant responses were averaged across the four items, resulting in an overall score for each participant. Scores ranged from 1.50 to 5 (M = 3.79, SD = 0.68).

Outcome variables

The outcome variables in the current study stem from prior scholarship examining public attitudes toward the inclusion or exclusion of individuals with felony records from jury service (e.g., Kalt, 2003). Consistent with this work, we selected the following four variables: Support for Inclusion, Fellow Juror Comfort, Value in Deliberation, and Bias. These outcomes have been identified as theoretically and empirically relevant indicators of public perceptions of felon-juror fitness (Binnall, 2019; Binnall & Peterson, 2020b; 2021).

Support for inclusion

Participants reported their level of agreement to three statements on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree), (1) “A person previously convicted of a felony should be allowed to serve as a juror”, (2) “…if the person has been released from prison and has completed probation or parole”, and (3) “…if the person has been released from prison, completed probation or parole, and has his or her Citizenship rights (the right to vote, etc.) restored by the Governor.”

Fellow juror comfort

Participants were prompted with the following question, “If you were selected to serve on a jury, how comfortable would you feel if one of your fellow jurors was previously convicted of a felony?” Participants responded to this question on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (Extremely Uncomfortable) to 7 (Extremely Comfortable). Similar to the jury service questions, participants also reported their comfort level if (1) the person had been released from prison and completed probation or parole and (2) if the person had been released from prison, completed probation or parole, and had his or her Citizenship rights restored.

Value in deliberation

Participants responded to the question, “If allowed to serve as a juror, a person previously convicted of a felony would bring a valuable perspective to the jury deliberation process” on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Again, participants also reported their agreement based on the individual’s status (i.e., probation/parole, Citizenship rights restored).

Bias

To measure bias concerns, participants indicated how much they agreed on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree) with the statement, “In recent years, there has been an ongoing discussion about persons previously convicted of a felony and their right to serve as jurors. Those who support allowing such persons to serve argue that they can weigh the evidence fairly, apply the law, and decide a case without bias. How do you feel about this argument?” Participants also indicated their level of agreement with this statement based on the individual’s status.

Procedure

Participants voluntarily chose to participate in the study after reading the following study description on Prolific: “In this study I will ask you to answer questions concerning your views on jurors with criminal records and their inclusion in jury service.” Upon providing consent, participants responded to the measures in the order described above and reported their basic demographic information. Participation took approximately 8 min, and participants received US $2.00 in compensation.

Results

Does carceral status impact support?

We assessed the extent to which felon-juror carceral status (i.e., felon-juror, felon-juror who has completed probation/parole, and felon-juror who has completed probation/parole AND has had their citizenship rights restored) impacted support for jury service. A repeated measures one-way ANOVA was used to examine the extent to which self-reported levels of support for felon-juror service varied based on felon-juror carceral status. Results revealed that support for felon-juror service differed significantly as felon-juror carceral status decreased, F(1.51, 311.3) = 77.82, p < 0.001, η2G = 0.06, indicating a medium effect (Bakeman, 2005; Lakens, 2013). Post-hoc analyses with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that all pairwise differences, between felon-juror carceral status, were significant (p < 0.001). As a felon-juror’s carceral status decreased, support for felon-juror jury service increased at each stage. In other words, support for jury service increased as felon-juror status went from “felon-juror” to “felon-juror who has completed probation/parole”, and from “felon juror who has completed probation/parole” to “felon-juror who has completed probation/parole AND has had their citizenship rights restored.” 56% of participants indicated support for jury service at “felon-juror” carceral status, compared to 70.5% at “felon-juror who has completed probation/parole” status, and 82.6% at “felon-juror who has completed probation/parole AND has had their citizenship rights restored” status. These findings indicate support for Hypothesis 1a. See Table 1 for statistics.

Table 1 Support for felon-juror service
Full size table

Fellow juror comfort, value in deliberation, and bias

55% (113 of 207) of participants indicated that they would be comfortable with serving on a jury that included a felon-juror. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed participants’ comfort level significantly increased as felon-jurors’ status increased, F(1.52, 312.86) = 95.09, p < 0.001, η2G = 0.02, indicating a small effect (Bakeman, 2005; Lakens, 2013). Additionally, a majority (82%; 169 of 207) of participants agreed that having a felon-juror serve on a jury would bring a valuable perspective to jury deliberation, regardless of felon-juror status level. However, a repeated measures ANOVA revealed participants’ belief in a felon-juror bringing a valuable perspective to jury deliberation significantly increased as felon-jurors’ status increased, F(1.52, 312.53) = 38.22, p < 0.001, η2G = 0.02, indicating a small effect (Bakeman, 2005; Lakens, 2013). Thus, perhaps unsurprisingly given beliefs about comfort and value, 70% of participants (144 of 207) agreed that felon-jurors can weigh evidence fairly, apply the law, and decide a case without bias. Similar to other measures, agreement with this statement increased as a felon-jurors carceral status decreased, F(1.64, 336.82) = 42.33, p < 0.001, η2G = 0.01, indicating a small effect (Bakeman, 2005; Lakens, 2013). Post-hoc analyses with a Bonferroni adjustment revealed that all pairwise differences, between felon-juror carceral status, were significant for fellow juror comfort, value in deliberation, and bias (p < 0.001). These results provide support for Hypothesis 1b. See Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively, for descriptive statistics.

Table 2 Comfort level with serving alongside felon-juror
Full size table
Table 3 Felon-juror brings value to deliberation
Full size table
Table 4 Felon-juror can decide a case without bias
Full size table

Redeemability as a driver of Support

These results held when controlling for participant political orientation.

Results indicate redeemability is an important individual difference measure that significantly predicts support for felon-juror service at all carceral levels. At base level, a significant linear regression model, F(1, 205) = 39.65, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.16, revealed participants’ beliefs in criminal offender redeemability (b = 1.06, SE = 0.17) was as a significant predictor of direct support. As individuals’ perceptions that criminal offenders are redeemable increased, so did their support for felon-juror service, with redeemability accounting for 16% of the variance in level of support, indicating support for Hypothesis 2. The same trend is observed for individuals with a felony conviction who have completed probation or parole, F(1, 205) = 39.93, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.16, and those who have had their citizenship rights restored by the Governor, F(1, 205) = 13.93, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.06. See Table 5 for full model statistics.

Table 5 Support for felon-juror service
Full size table

A similar pattern was found for fellow juror comfort, value in deliberation, and bias at all carceral levels. As individuals’ perceptions that criminal offenders are redeemable increased, so did their level of comfort with serving on a jury that included a felon-juror, F(1, 205) = 35.98, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.15, their belief that felon-jurors bring value to deliberation, F(1, 205) = 41.73, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.17, and that felon-jurors can weigh evidence fairly, apply the law, and decide a case without bias F(1, 205) = 41.52, p < 0.001, r2 = 0.16. See Tables 6, 7, and 8, respectively, for full model statistics at all carceral status levels.

Table 6 Felon-juror comfort
Full size table
Table 7 Value in deliberation
Full size table
Table 8 Bias
Full size table

Exploratory examination: varying influence of redeemability at different carceral levels

Interestingly, these models demonstrate a weakened effect of redeemability as carceral status decreases as indicated by the lowered value of the adjusted r2. In other words, as individuals with a felony conviction progressed from the base carceral status (r2 = 0.16, moderate effect of redeemability; Cohen, 1988) towards having their citizen rights restored (r2 = 0.06, weak effect of redeemability; Cohen, 1988), redeemability becomes less predictive of level of support, indicating carceral status serves as an important signal of jury fitness to the public. In other words, redeemability accounts for less variance in participants’ level of support as carceral status decreased, from 16% of the variance to 6%. Given this finding, we also examined the extent to which this trend might translate to the additional measures of support. Similar to previous models predicting support for felon-juror service, redeemability accounted for less variance in these additional support models as carceral status decreased. As individuals with a felony conviction progressed towards having their citizen rights restored, belief in redeemability became less predictive of fellow juror comfort, value in deliberation, and juror bias (r2s ≤ 0.13, weak effect; Cohen, 1988).

As carceral status decreases, redeemability’s waning predictive power may, in part, reflect how criminal legal system terminology shapes public perceptions. In this context, “representative heuristics” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) likely shape how citizens view those at various carceral stages (Harris & Socia, 2016: Denver et al., 2017). While research has demonstrated that support for inclusive policies, like juror eligibility for those with a prior felony conviction, is driven by views of redeemability, it may be that a sense of redeemability is already baked into carceral status itself. In this way, as one’s carceral status approaches “civic rights restored,” views of redeemability naturally become less influential because the terminology used to describe these stages (i.e., “Completed probation/parole” and “civic rights restored”) may elicit a positive heuristic that suggests redeemability.

Discussion

Findings from the present research suggest that Iowans in our sample generally support (56%; 115 of 207 participants) allowing individuals with a previous felony conviction to serve on a jury. In fact, 55% of participants agreed that they would be comfortable serving on a jury with a juror who has a prior felony conviction, and 82% thought that jurors with a prior felony conviction would bring value to jury deliberation. Overall, Iowans sampled here believe that jurors with a prior felony conviction would weigh evidence fairly, apply the law, and decide a case without bias—demonstrating further support for felon-juror inclusion.

Importantly, support for the inclusion of jurors with a prior felony conviction increased as carceral status moved toward citizenship rights restoration. As Iowa and other jurisdictions contemplate measures to restore juror eligibility to citizens with prior felony convictions, these findings make clear that doing so through a restoration of citizenship rights likely engenders public support. On a policy that has the potential to spawn polarized views, public support helps to preserve the legitimacy of criminal and civil legal systems and resulting jury verdicts. Thus, policymakers should feel confident proposing and enacting more inclusive juror eligibility criteria as the public values diverse perspectives in the jury process, even those previously excluded because of criminal legal system contact.

Still, results suggest that public support for felon-juror inclusion is not absolute. Certain factors – namely conservative political ideology and violent offense type – tend to drive down support for felon-juror inclusion. Nonetheless, the impact of decreased carceral status (i.e. restoration of citizenship rights), while blunted by these factors, still significantly predicts support. Thus, regardless of political ideology or offense type (violent vs. non-violent), most of the sample (82.6%) supports juror eligibility reinstatement when Iowans with a felony criminal conviction have had their citizenship rights restored.

In general, including individuals with a felony criminal history not only enhances the jury process, but also helps to foster successful reintegration (Binnall, 2021). In prior mock jury studies, felon-jurors have been found to raise more novel case facts and to participate more in deliberations than do their non-felon counterparts (Binnall, 2019, 2021). Research further suggests that felon-jurors approach actual jury service thoughtfully and conscientiously, even-handedly applying law to facts during their deliberation experience (Binnall, 2018c). Moreover, the public views juries that include diverse perspectives, and their subsequent verdicts, as more legitimate than those that are more homogenous (Binnall et al., 2022).

Inclusion also has the added benefit of helping those with prior felony convictions successfully reentry society after a period of confinement. Prior research suggest strongly that jury service sends a signal to those with a carceral history, that the state acknowledges their rehabilitation and places a measure of trust in them when it reinstates their juror eligibility (Binnall, 2018a, 2018b, 2018c). In this way, reinstatement – as is the case in Iowa – helps those with prior convictions construct a coherent desistance narrative, distancing themselves from their criminal past as they take on the pro-social role of juror (Maruna, 2001). In sum, empirical evidence makes clear that including citizens with a prior felony conviction in the jury process benefits juries, communities, and the once excluded – and the public supports such restoration most strongly when the state corroborates and signals reformation by restoring citizenship rights to those with a felony conviction history. In this case, the Governor’s restoration of citizenship rights is arguably an objective desistance signal to the public (Reich, 2017), confirming fitness for jury service.

The present study also adds to literature on collateral consequences more broadly. Results suggest that by conditioning reinstatement of rights, privileges, or opportunities on carceral status, jurisdictions may signal to the public that only certain citizens with a prior felony conviction are fit for reintegration, while others are not. This type of bifurcation (Seeds, 2017) has the potential to mislead the public and, in the case of juror restoration, contradicts established empirical evidence that undermines the exclusion of citizens with a felony conviction from jury service and is not correlated to carceral status (Binnall, 2021). Thus, as jurisdictions consider altering juror eligibility statutes – and other forms of exclusion attendant to collateral consequences – to make them more inclusive, legislative compromises limiting restoration to certain carceral statuses ought to be reconsidered. Such an approach has the potential to reify existing stereotypes and prejudices among members of the public and to possibly confound measurements of public support for inclusive policies. This is especially true in the juror exclusion context, when the weight of empirical evidence makes clear that carceral status is not a significant predictor of juror fitness on any metric.

Limitations and future directions

Although the present study establishes new knowledge regarding public perception of felon-juror inclusion at various levels of carceral status, it is not without limitations. As reported, our sample is limited to individuals residing in the state of Iowa. However, we purposefully chose to situate our research question within the state of Iowa to answer important, ongoing policy changes implemented by Governor Reynolds in 2020. Specifically, we sought to explore how the restoration of citizenship rights (i.e., signaling a change in carceral status) to those with a felony conviction might impact public support for juror inclusion. While this specific policy change only impacts those living in the state of Iowa, it serves as a foundation for examining policy changes that could proliferate across state lines in jurisdictions where this issue is currently being contemplated for reform (e.g., Utah, Michigan, Kansas, etc.). Nevertheless, from a research standpoint, we acknowledge the limitation inherent in a single-state sample. Thus, future research should replicate these findings in other states that have different demographic and policy landscapes. In particular, we suggest that future researchers examine the generalizability of these findings to either single-state or multi-state samples that either have or are considering policy changes.

An additional limitation of the sample concerns political orientation and method of data collection. The current sample leaned slightly liberal, which is not representative of Iowa census data or the general U.S. public. Furthermore, our sample was collected through Prolific, an online platform, which may present sampling challenges such as self-selection bias. However, even with this limitation, Prolific allows for a larger audience to participate in ongoing scientific research, and it outperforms Amazon’s MTurk in domains such as data quality, participant responsiveness, and accessibility (Peer et al., 2017). Future research should explore whether the observed effects hold for samples that are more politically representative of certain states (e.g., more politically conservative) or the general U.S. public, and samples recruited using methods that limit selection bias (e.g., representative sampling techniques).

In addition, while the present study identifies political orientation as a predictor of felon-juror inclusion, it does not address how different political and social groups interpret carceral status. Because such groups often hold distinct ideological beliefs that shape their perceptions of civic reintegration, future research should examine whether they rely on different value frameworks when evaluating individuals who transition through these carceral stages. If such differences emerge, policymakers should consider these nuances when proposing juror-eligibility reforms.

Furthermore, it should be noted that self-report data are inherently limited as responses may be influenced by social desirability, recall inaccuracies, or misinterpretation of survey items. Despite these limitations, self-report was the most appropriate method for the present study because it captures participants’ subjective attitudes, closely mirroring how individuals express policy preferences when voting on election ballots. Future research should move beyond participant self-report measures by examining jurors’ or mock jurors’ actual behaviors in trials where they serve along a felon-juror at varying carceral statuses.

Conclusion

Findings from the present study suggest that the State plays a crucial role in how citizens view those with prior carceral involvement. Specifically, carceral status seems to play a salient role in how the public views those with a felonious criminal history and their inclusion in the jury pool. Findings tend to show that the relationship between carceral status and views of collateral sanctions likely turns on views of redeemability. In this way, the present study informs not only literature on public opinion of juror exclusion policies, but also of collateral consequences and discretionary disabilities generally. Future research should further explore the role of redeemability in this calculus, while also expanding this analysis to include additional record-based disqualifications and sanctions. In sum, this research ostensibly demonstrates that the State is a salient factor in how the public views the formerly convicted/incarcerated, and ought to wield that power in a manner that makes all democratic institutions more inclusive, not less.

The present study suggests that the public does not categorically oppose the restoration of juror eligibility for those with a felony conviction, but that carceral status may impact support levels. For policymakers, results suggest that terminology referring to carceral status may create inaccurate presumptions about citizens involved in the criminal legal system – in either a positive or negative direction. Thus, policymakers seeking to expand jury pools to accurately reflect the local populace would do well to avoid carceral status as a barometer for juror fitness. Characterized by criminal legal system terminology, carceral statutes tell the public little about a prospective juror’s fitness and therefore ought to be jettisoned in favor of an established process already developed and in use to determine juror suitability – the jury selection process. In this way, policymakers can avoid presumptions and mischaracterizations about those with a felony conviction and can ensure that their constituents evaluate the merits of felon-juror inclusion accurately and impartially.