1993/06/01 by Christopher A. Innes · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Psychology · #Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis #Education Discipline and Inequality #Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending #Viewpoints #Punishment (psychology) #Public opinion #Criminal justice #Irrational number #Set (abstract data type) #Punitive damages #Economic Justice #Work (physics) #Public relations #Criminology #Psychology #Political science #Social psychology #Sociology #Law #Computer science
paper · doi:10.1177/0032855593073002006
openalex publication_date 1993/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
This article reviews recent public opinion data concerning punishment and corrections, yielding a number of apparently contradictory viewpoints. Rather than being irrational or unrealistic, these patterns of responses, it is argued here, can be deciphered only by assuming that the public holds a complex, generalized system of beliefs about punishment and corrections. This system of beliefs, however, is organized around broader symbols and images, not a set of mutually exclusive and logically consistent policy options. The public appears to have an abstract commitment to justice, wants the criminal justice system to work properly, and is frustrated that it does not appear to do so. Although the public is decidedly punitive toward criminals, they are more lenient toward inmates because they are no longer seen as an immediate threat. Rehabilitative efforts, so long as they are conducted within prisons, receive strong support. But the public is more wary of programs that carry greater risks because of a perceived conflict with the higher priority goal of public safety. This view is speculative; no single survey or study has explored all these issues together. It is, however, consistent with the details of various public opinion surveys, and it also lends support to those current correctional practices that seek to integrate programs for inmates with the more general concerns of correctional management. There are, therefore, several ways that correctional administrators can present their mission in a manner that is sensitive to the concerns of the public and that avoids language or terms that may be misinterpreted.