595061

research-article2015

IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15595061International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyChen and Einat

Article

To Punish or Not to Punish—That Is the Question: Attitudes of Criminology and Criminal Justice Students in Israel Toward Punishment

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 1­–21 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15595061 ijo.sagepub.com

Gila Chen1 and Tomer Einat2

Abstract Attitudes toward punishment have long been of interest to policymakers, researchers, and criminal justice practitioners. The current study examined the relationship between academic education in criminology and attitudes toward punishment among 477 undergraduate students in three subgroups: police officers, correctional officers, and criminology students who were not employed by the criminal justice system (CJS). Our main findings concluded that (a) punitive attitudes of the correctional officers and police officers at the beginning of their academic studies were harsher than those of the criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS, (b) punitive attitudes of the correctional officers at the end of their academic studies were less severe than their first-year counterparts, (c) fear of crime was higher among women than among men, and (d) the strongest predictor of punitive attitudes was a firm belief in the principles of the classical and labeling theories (beyond group). Implications of these results are discussed. Keywords punishment, academic education, punitive attitudes, students

1Ashkelon 2Bar-Ilan

Academic College, Israel University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Corresponding Author: Gila Chen, Department of Criminology, Ashkelon Academic College, 12 Ben Tzvi St., Ashkelon 78109, Israel. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

2

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

Introduction A considerable number of recent studies have examined attitudes toward punishment and their impact on penal policies (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 2002; Kelly, 2014; Kutateladze & Crossman, 2009; Payne, Tewksbury, & Mustaine, 2010). In this rapidly growing body of literature, researchers have identified five major factors concerning public support of or opposition to the harsh treatment of offenders: socio-demographic variables (King & Maruna, 2008; Maruna & King, 2009), organizational issues (Drake, 2007), instrumental (crime-related) aspects (King & Maruna, 2008), expressive features (Kelly, 2014), and educational factors (Elffers, De Keijser, Van Koppen, & Van Haeringen, 2007; Young, Antonio, & Wingeard, 2009). One interesting and relatively innovative category of studies on this subject has focused on the relationship between academic education and attitudes toward punishment (O’Connor Shelley, Waid, & Dobbs, 2011; Sandys, 1995; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008). The results of these studies indicated a correlation between academic education and students’ positive attitudes toward prison reform and increased support for rehabilitation (Dowler, 2003; Sims & Johnston, 2004), and negative attitudes toward punishment (Barkan & Cohn, 2005; Chiricos, Welch, & Gertz, 2004) and the death penalty (Mandracchia, Shaw, & Morgan, 2013). Although some academic attention has been devoted to examining the link between academic education and punitive attitudes, the connection between academic education in criminology and criminal justice and the attitudes of criminal justice practitioners toward punishment has, however, been overlooked. Furthermore, the few studies that have focused on the relationship between academic education and attitudes toward punishment were conducted solely in the United States (Falco, 2008; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008). The relative neglect in this area of research is surprising in light of the growing popularity of criminology and criminal justice studies and the increasing number of academic institutions offering degrees in these subjects (Flanagan, 2000; Lambert & Clarke, 2004). The impact of academic education on the general public’s punitive attitudes, crime prevention, and rehabilitation (Applegate, Cullen, Fisher, & Vander Ven, 2000; Dowler, 2003; Klama & Egan, 2011; Leiber, 2000) and the (direct or indirect) influence of criminal justice professionals on legal and criminal justice policies, crime prevention, and offender rehabilitation (Mackey, Courtright, & Packard, 2006) would also suggest a need for such research. Further examination of this subject may provide critical information with ongoing implications for researchers, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies.

Literature Review Numerous criminologists and social scientists have recognized the importance and the complexity of research on the punitive attitudes of the public in general and criminal justice professionals, in particular (Kelly, 2014; Unnever & Cullen, 2009). Gideon and Sherman-Oren (2014) found these attitudes to have an “illuminating and predictive effect on criminal justice policies” (p. 1). A systematic review of the research in this

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

3

Chen and Einat

field revealed a number of key predictors of the punitive attitudes of public and criminal justice practitioners.

Prior Victimization One group of studies focused on the impact of prior victimization on punitive attitudes. While it could be postulated that those who had been victimized by crime would express more punitive attitudes (Costelloe, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2009; Garland, 2001), the research clearly rejected this (Applegate et al., 2000; Barkan & Cohn, 2005; Evans & Adams, 2003). However, these findings may be due to the treatment of crime victims in the research as a homogeneous group, when in fact their opinions about punishment may differ based on the type of crime (Sprott & Doob, 1997) and/or due to the fact that “criminal victimization is a rather rare event, and it is statistically difficult to use an uncommon occurrence to predict an outcome like punitiveness” (Costelloe, 2004, p. 37).

Fear of Crime A second group of studies examined the correlation between fear of crime and attitudes toward punishment. Whereas some studies found positive and significant effects of fear of crime on punitive attitudes (Applegate et al., 2000; Costelloe, Chiricos, Burianek, Gertz, & Maier-Katkin, 2002; Costelloe et al., 2009; Hogan, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2005; Johnson, 2009), others found little or no effect (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997).

Causal Attribution of Crime A third group of studies examined the role of causal attribution of crime (i.e., the way in which individuals explain criminal behavior) in the development of punitive attitudes (Leiber, Schwarze, Mack, & Farnworth, 2002). Some scientists have suggested that people who perceive criminal behavior as an outcome of the offenders’ personal characteristics (dispositional attributions) tend to hold more punitive viewpoints than those who accredit such conduct to environmental, economic, and societal causes (situational attributions; Leiber & Woodrick, 1997). Other researchers have asserted that causal attribution of crime may also be based on belief in a specific criminological theory (such as classical, social process, labeling, subculture, structural positivism, individual positivism, or learning theory; Evans & Adams, 2003). Sims (2003), for example, found that a strong belief in classical, social process, or subcultural theories correlated positively with harsher punitive attitudes, strong acceptance of structural positivism, individual positivism, and labeling theories correlated with less punitive attitudes, and classical theory was the strongest predictor of harsh punitive attitudes.

Occupational Roles Another group of researchers shed light on the relation between occupational roles and punitive attitudes. Moon and Maxwell (2004) and Young et al. (2009) argued that

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

4

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

criminal justice system (CJS) professionals hold favorable attitudes toward punishment and negative attitudes toward rehabilitation. In contrast, Kjelsberg, Skoglund, and Rustad (2007), as well as Robinson, Porporino, and Simourd (1996), demonstrated the exact opposite: CJS practitioners held negative attitudes toward punishment and positive attitudes toward rehabilitation. Furthermore, punitive attitudes have been found to correlate with several occupational variables, such as timing of shifts, role conflict, job satisfaction, and seniority in work (Krippner & Alvarez, 2007; Liebling, 2008).

Academic Education Finally, a rather innovative group of studies examined the relationships between levels of academic education and punitive attitudes (Mackey & Courtright, 2000). Falco (2008) investigated the predictors of punitive attitudes among 519 criminology and non-criminology undergraduate students. Her results indicated that advanced criminology students expressed less punitive attitudes in comparison with their first-year counterparts and that criminology students in general had less punitive attitudes than other students. Farnworth, Longmire, and West (1998) examined the attitudes of 683 college students toward several criminal sanctions, including the death penalty and the war on drugs. The results indicated that seniors were consistently less likely to hold punitive views than freshmen, suggesting the liberalizing effect of the college experience. As a whole, this review of the literature suggests a theoretical and empirical dispute among social scientists regarding the origin of attitudes toward punishment. The aim of the present research was to contribute to knowledge on the relationship between academic education in criminal justice and criminology and attitudes toward punishment. The specific objective of the research was twofold: First, to explore the attitudes of first-year and senior undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students toward punishment; and second, to analyze the relationship between specific stage of academic studies and variance of punitive attitudes.

The Present Study Over the past few decades, the Israeli CJS has shifted from rehabilitative to punitive (“get tough”) philosophies. Nonetheless, very few studies have examined the punitive attitudes of Israeli practitioners and non-practitioners. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have been published that analyze the views of Israeli police officers, correctional officers, and criminology students who are not employed by the CJS regarding punitive versus rehabilitative policies. The results of such research could advance our understanding of the punitive attitudes of Israeli practitioners and non-practitioners as well as the diverse sources of such views among these populations. Therefore, in the current study we examined the relationships between punitive attitudes and levels of academic education in criminology and criminal justice studies,

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

5

Chen and Einat

occupational role, fear of crime, prior victimization, and casual attribution of crime. We conducted the research using three groups of criminology and criminal justice undergraduate students in the first 2 weeks and the final week of their academic studies. The groups were comprised of correctional officers, police officers, and criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS. We examined four hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Police officers and correctional officers would differ in the categories of fear of crime and prior victimization and would maintain harsher punitive attitudes than criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS. Hypothesis 2: The causal attribution of crime by police and correctional officers would be based on theories associated with more punitive attitudes than those espoused by criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS. Hypothesis 3: First-year undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students would maintain harsher punitive attitudes than senior criminology students and would base their causal attribution of crime on theories associated with more punitive attitudes. Hypothesis 4: Prior victimization, fear of crime, and harsher causal attribution of crime would positively predict more punitive attitudes.

Method This study was based on a 3 × 2 comparative cross-sectional design (Dehning et al., 2012). We compared three groups of criminology and criminal justice students, each divided into two subgroups according to the year of study: 299 undergraduate students (63% of the sample) at the beginning of their first year of criminology and criminal justice studies and 178 students (37% of the sample) at the end of their last (senior) year. The number of senior students was much lesser than that of first-year students, and this is reflected in the sample. There are three plausible reasons for this discrepancy: academic failure and subsequent discontinuation of studies; financial difficulties leading to drop out; and inability to complete all graduation requirements in time, thus failing to meet our criteria for participation.

Participants We recruited 477 criminology and criminal justice students from three universities and academic colleges in Israel (representing 37.5% of all academic programs in criminology and criminal justice in Israel) to participate in the study. Most of the participants (n=290;61%) were women and the rest (n=187;39%) were men. We divided the research participants into 3 × 2 groups according to occupation and level of academic studies: 101 police officers (21.2%—48 first-year students and 53 senior students); 105 correctional officers (22%—66 first-year students and 39 senior students); and

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

6

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

271 criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (56.8%—185 first-year students and 86 senior students). The minimum educational requirement for recruitment to the Israel Police or the Israel Prison Service is 12 years of education and a matriculation certificate. With regard to in-service academic education, police or correctional officers who wish to enroll in regular undergraduate studies are only permitted to register for criminology or criminal justice studies and must have at least 7 years of experience in the service. Israeli police officers are required to invest their professional efforts in crime prevention, law enforcement, maintenance of public security and law and order, and the prevention of terrorism. Israeli correctional officers are required to keep prisoners in safe custody, provide them with their basic needs, and administer appropriate corrective measures which will enable them to successfully reenter society on release. This list of duties reflects the complexity of the occupational roles of these professionals (Timor, 2011). Many students of criminology and criminal justice work as professionals within the CJS upon graduation.

Measures A socio-demographic questionnaire was used to obtain data concerning age, gender, family status, and ethnicity of participants. Fear of criminal victimization was measured using Chiricos et al.’s (2004) Fear of Criminal Victimization scale. On this questionnaire, students were asked to indicate their level of fear regarding six crimes (e.g., having their car stolen or being raped or sexually assaulted) on a scale of 0 (not fearful at all) to 10 (very fearful). For each respondent, the sum of the scores on the six crimes was used to obtain a total fear-ofcrime score (range = 0-60). An internal consistency coefficient of .92 has been reported for this instrument (Chiricos et al., 2004). In the present study, the internal consistency was .89. Prior victimization was measured using Cullen, Clark, Cullen, and Mathers’s (1985) Victimization scale. The scale is composed of six items (e.g., someone breaking into their house/apartment/dorm) aimed at establishing the number of times the participant had been a victim of each type of crime over the past 12 months. In the current study, each item was coded dichotomously as 0 (I was not a victim) or 1 (I was a victim). A total victimization score was obtained from the sum of the items (range = 0-6). Causal attribution of crime was measured using Sims’s (2003) Causal Attribution scale. The scale is comprised of 27 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To analyze the participants’ attitudes toward the causes of criminal behavior, they were presented with various statements (e.g., “People commit crime because they live in bad neighborhoods that are run down and disorganized”), which represent seven theoretical perspectives of crime causation (social process; structural positivism; individual positivism; labeling theory; classical theory; subcultural theory; and learning theory). Each theory reflects and signifies a harsh or lenient approach toward criminals.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

7

Chen and Einat

We conducted factor analysis with Varimax rotation and an eigenvalue greater than 1 on the 27 items of the scale. Each of the factors calculated was based on the theoretical logic and guidelines reviewed above. Two scales—subcultural theory and learning theory—were removed due to their low alphas, leaving five factors which explained 47.99% of variance. The internal consistencies found were as follows: α = .73 for structural positivism, α = .62 for individual positivism, α = .59 for social process theory, α = .69 for classical theory, and α = .54 for labeling theory (the low alpha levels in this last scale may be due to the low number of items [3] associated with it). Punitive attitudes were measured using Courtright and Mackey’s (2004) Punitive Attitudes scale. In this questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the 15 statements (e.g., “We are too soft on people convicted of crime”) on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The total score was composed of the sum of scores on all items, ranging from 15 to 90. Higher scores on this scale indicated harsher punitive attitudes. An internal consistency of α = .85 has been reported for the scale (Courtright & Mackey, 2004). In the present study, the internal consistency was α = .88.

Procedure The current research was first approved by the institutional review boards of the criminology departments of the relevant academic institutions. We then approached students (during class time) and informed them of the purpose of the study. We explained that their participation was completely voluntary and their responses would be anonymous and assured them that participation, withdrawal, or non-participation in the project would incur no special privileges (monetary or otherwise tangible), benefits, or sanctions. Research assistants distributed the questionnaires in two stages. In Stage 1, they distributed 300 questionnaires in class to first-year students in the first month of their first academic year (November 2011). Only one student declined to participate, leaving a sample of 299 first-year students. In Stage 2, they distributed 180 questionnaires in class to students during the final month of their senior year of study (May 2012). Two students declined to participate, leaving a sample of 178 seniors. The final sample thus consisted of 477 criminology students. We chose to distribute the questionnaires in two mandatory courses in the criminology programs: a first-year course in criminology theories and a final-year course in social deviance.

Data Analysis The analytic approach was threefold. First, we performed non-parametric (chi-square) procedures for socio-demographic differences (gender and family status) between groups and ANOVA for age differences. Second, we conducted univariate ANCOVAs and a MANCOVA to examine differences in punitive attitudes, fear of crime, prior victimization, and causal attribution of crime according to group and year of study, controlling statistically for gender and age. Third, we ran two multiple hierarchical

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

8

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 

regressions to predict punitive attitudes: one for police and correctional officers, and the other for criminology students who were not employed by the CJS. Year of study, gender, group, and age were entered in the first step, and causal attribution of crime was entered in the second step. Data regarding causal attribution were available for all participants, and data regarding punitive attitudes were available for 99% of the participants. Gender and year of study were available for all participants, and age was available for 93% of the participants. As these major study variables were available for almost all participants, we used pair-wise deletion strategy when possible and list-wise deletion in other cases. Fear of crime and prior victimization were available for 75% of the participants and were thus analyzed separately.

Results Participants’ Socio-Demographic Characteristics The majority of participants were Jewish (94%; n = 444) and single (68%; n = 325). The correctional officers were older than the other participants. Their mean age was 31.66 (SD = 3.60) compared with the police officers (27.81; SD = 5.38) and the criminology students who were not employed by the CJS (24.21; SD = 3.85). Women comprised of the majority of the criminology students who were not employed by the CJS (86.0%; n = 233), 46.5% (n = 47) of the police officers, and 9.5% (n = 10) of the correctional officers. No significant demographic differences were found between first-year and senior students regarding gender, marital status, or ethnicity. Significant differences were, however, detected regarding age, F(1, 439) = 29.96, p < .001, η2 = .064, whereby the senior students (M = 28.15, SD = 4.82) were older than the first-year students (M = 25.45, SD = 5.02). As noted, in performing the data analysis, we controlled for age and gender. Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

Interrelationships of the Study Variables Examination of the correlations between the study variables (fear of crime, prior victimization, punitive attitudes, and causal attribution of crime) and age and gender (1 = men, 0 = women) revealed several significant results. First, fear of crime was higher among women than among men: t(475) = 6.76, p < .001; M = 35.36 (15.49) versus M = 23.93 (16.68). Second, belief in classical theories of criminology (which is associated with more punitive attitudes) was higher among men than among women: t(475) = −6.10, p < .001; M = 3.51 (0.90) versus M = 3.01 (0.87). Third, punitive attitudes were harsher among men than among women: t(347.11) = −6.00, p < .001; M = 59.08 (12.05) versus M = 52.68 (10.19). Finally, older participants believed more in classical theories (r = .23, p < .001) and less in individual positivism (which is associated with less punitive attitudes; r = −.22, p < .001). Correspondingly, positive relationships were revealed between age and punitive attitudes (r = .18, p < .001). Consequently, we controlled for gender and age in the data analysis.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

9

Chen and Einat Table 1.  Participants’ Socio-Demographic Characteristics (N = 477). Police officers (n = 101)   Age  19-50   Gender  Male  Female Marital status  Single  Married   Divorced separated widowed Ethnicity  Jewish  Arab

Correctional Criminology students officers not employed by CJS (n = 105) (n = 271)

M (SD)

M (SD)

M (SD)

Difference F (η2)

27.81 (5.38)

31.66 (3.60)

24.21 (3.85)

F(2, 442) = 110.92*** (.334)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)



54 (53.5) 47 (46.5)

95 (90.5) 10 (9.5)

38 (14.0) 233 (86.0)

64 (63.4) 34 (33.7) 3 (3.0)

19 (18.1) 83 (79.0) 3 (2.9)

242 (90.0) 25 (9.3) 2 (0.7)

χ2(2) = 181.93*** (for single vs. married)

99 (98.0) 2 (2.0)

94 (90.4) 10 (9.6)

251 (94.0) 16 (6.0)

χ2(2) = 5.36

  χ2(2) = 196.53***

Note. CJS = criminal justice system. ***p < .001.

Group Differences in Punitive Attitudes, Fear of Crime, and Prior Victimization by Group and Year of Study The research results partially supported Hypothesis 1. Given that the amount of missing data differed by variable, we conducted univariate ANCOVAs for punitive attitudes, fear of crime, and prior victimization, controlling for gender and age (see Table 2). The raw means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2; the estimated marginal means and standard errors, controlling for gender and age, are presented in the text. Punitive attitudes.  The police officers (estimated marginal M = 61.08, SE = 1.09) and correctional officers (M = 58.46, SE = 1.47) held harsher punitive attitudes than the criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M = 51.50, SE = 0.77). Furthermore, post hoc analyses for the significant interaction revealed that punitive attitudes among correctional officers who were at the end of their senior year of undergraduate studies were lower (M = 55.32, SE = 2.11) than those in their first year of studies (M = 61.61, SE = 1.62), F(1, 434) = 7.27, p = .007, η2 = .016. We did not find such differences among the police officers or the students who were not employed by the CJS.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

10

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

*p

M (SD)

First

61.23 (10.77) (n = 46) 28.04 (18.35) (n = 47) 0.57 (0.50) (n = 47)

< .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Prior victimized (n = 352)

Fear of crime (n = 337)

Punitive attitudes (n = 442)

Year of study



61.33 (11.94) (n = 48) 25.90 (18.14) (n = 48) 0.35 (0.48) (n = 46)

M (SD)

Senior

Police officers

62.43 (10.72) (n = 57) 26.57 (16.14) (n = 51) 0.35 (0.48) (n = 48)

M (SD)

First

55.79 (11.25) (n = 30) 26.00 (16.25) (n = 28) 0.39 (0.50) (n = 28)

M (SD)

Senior

Correctional officers

M (SD)

Senior

51.36 (8.03) 50.92 (12.48) (n = 175) (n = 86) 34.82 (14.79) 33.60 (16.38) (n = 108) (n = 55) 0.36 (0.48) 0.32 (0.47) (n = 104) (n = 53)

M (SD)

First

Criminology students not employed by CJS

F(2, 434) = 23.81*** (.099) F(2, 329) = 1.32 (.008) F(2, 318) = 2.41 (.015)

Fgroup (η2)

F(1, 434) = 2.75 (.006) F(1, 329) = 0.76 (.002) F(1, 318) = 1.11 (.003)

Fyear (η2)

F(2, 434) = 3.05* (.014) F(2, 329) = 0.04 (.001) F(2, 318) = 1.66 (.010)

FGroup × Year (η2)

Table 2.  Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values by Group and Year of Study: Punitive Attitudes, Fear of Crime, Prior Victimization.

11

Chen and Einat

Fear of crime.  Fear of crime did not differ by group, year of study, or their interaction. It was found to be a function of gender, F(1, 324) = 16.06, p < .001, η2 = .047, with women scoring significantly higher (M = 34.45, SE = 2.08, n = 195) than men (M = 23.89, SE = 1.61, n = 142). Prior victimization.  Sixty-one percent (n = 291) of the participants reported that they had not been victims of crime in the past 12 months. Hence, prior victimization did not fluctuate by group, year of study, or their interaction.

Group Differences in Casual Attribution of Crime by Group and Year of Study The findings partially supported Hypotheses 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Concerning group differences, the MANCOVA revealed the following differences: Fgroup(10, 864) = 12.26, p < .001, η2 = .124; year of studies: Fyear(5, 433) = 2.52, p = .029, η2 = .028; and their interaction: FGroup × Year(10, 864) = 4.05, p < .001, η2 = .045 . Structural positivism.  The score for structural positivism (i.e., less punitive) was higher among the correctional officers (estimated marginal mean M = 3.31, SE = 0.09) and criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M = 3.12, SE = 0.05) than among the police officers (M = 2.93, SE = 0.07). The scores among the senior students were higher (M = 3.20, SE = 0.06) than those in their first year of studies (M = 3.04, SE = 0.05), beyond group. The interaction of group and year of studies was not found to be significant. Individual positivism.  Scores for individual positivism (i.e., less punitive) were higher among the correctional officers (M = 3.12, SE = 0.07) and criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M = 3.11, SE = 0.04) than the police officers (M = 2.92, SE = 0.05). Analysis of the significant interaction revealed that the scores among correctional officers who were in their senior year of studies (M = 3.30, SE = 0.10) were higher than those among their first year of studies (M = 2.93, SE = 0.08); F(1, 437) = 11.57, p < .001, η2 = .026. No such difference by year was found among the police officers or criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS. Classical theory.  The highest score regarding classical (i.e., more punitive) theory was found among the police officers (M = 3.82, SE = 0.05), followed by the correctional officers (M = 3.49, SE = 0.11), and finally the criminology and criminal justice students (M = 2.91, SE = 0.06). Analysis of the significant interaction revealed that the scores among the criminology and criminal justice students in their senior year of studies (M = 3.07, SE = 0.09) were higher than those among their first year of studies (M = 2.75, SE = 0.07); F(1, 437) = 9.25, p = .002, η2 = .021. No difference by year of study was found among the police officers or the correctional officers.

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

12

Downloaded from ijo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF LETHBRIDGE on November 14, 2015

*p

2.85 (0.77) 2.90 (0.58) 3.30 (0.67) 3.83 (0.98) 3.13 (0.84)

M (SD)

First (n = 47)

< .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Structural positivism Individual positivism Social process Classical theories Labeling theories

Year of study



2.95 (0.74) 2.90 (0.56) 3.52 (0.53) 3.84 (0.70) 3.28 (0.68)

M (SD)

Senior (n = 48)

Police officers (n = 95)

3.04 (0.64) 2.87 (0.53) 3.32 (0.64) 3.64 (0.79) 3.18 (0.77)

M (SD)

First (n = 57)

3.29 (0.56) 3.21 (0.46) 3.58 (0.55) 3.42 (0.65) 3.23 (0.60)

M (SD)

Senior (n = 31)

Correctional officers (n = 88)

3.18 (0.60) 3.20 (0.48) 3.39 (0.71) 2.73 (0.75) 3.25 (0.71)

M (SD)

First (n = 176) F(2, 437)

Fgroup (η2)

F(1, 437)

Fyear (η2)

F(2, 437)

FGroup × Year (η2)

3.17 (0.66) 6.90** (.031) 4.83* (.011) 1.18 (.005) 3.07 (0.47) 5.80** (.026) 4.51* (.010) 6.53** (.029) 3.45 (0.56) 0.43 (.002) 8.12** (.018) 0.98 (.004) 3.05 (0.83) 36.59*** (.143) 0.28 (.001) 3.75* (.017) 3.76 (0.67) 9.45*** (.041) 5.73* (.013) 4.06* (.018)

M (SD)

Senior (n = 86)

General criminology students (n = 262)

Table 3.  Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values by Group and Year of Study: Casual Attribution of Crime.

13

Chen and Einat Table 4.  Multiple Regressions: Punitive Attitudes on Group, Year of Study, Gender, Age, and Casual Attribution of Crime. Police officers and correctional officers (n = 182)  

B

Step 1  Group   Year of study  Gender  Age   Step 2  Group   Year of study  Gender  Age   Structural positivism   Individual positivism   Social process   Classical theories   Labeling theories     *p

3.13 −2.77 7.11 0.13

SE

B

.15 −.13 .31*** .06

— 0.59 −1.66 −0.43

1.65 .05 1.43 −.11 1.61 .24*** 0.15 .04 1.03 .12 1.47 .04 1.34 −.06 0.86 .49*** 0.98 −.02 ΔR2 = .25*** R2 = .35 F(9, 172) = 10.03, p < .001

— 0.19 −1.55 −0.16 −0.92 1.92 0.15 5.63 −3.42

1.04 −2.29 5.52 0.09 1.85 0.74 −1.03 6.34 −0.22

1.81 1.61 1.83 0.17 R2 = .10***

β

General criminology students (n = 261) SE — 1.32 1.75 0.16 R2 = .03*

β — .03 −.06 −.17**

  — — 1.21 .01 1.50 −.06 0.15 −.07 0.92 −.06 1.34 .09 0.95 .01 0.70 .46*** 0.77 −.26*** ΔR2 = .28*** R2 = .31 F(8, 252) = 14.21, p

To Punish or Not to Punish-That Is the Question.

Attitudes toward punishment have long been of interest to policymakers, researchers, and criminal justice practitioners. The current study examined th...
389KB Sizes 0 Downloads 17 Views