Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations: Public Perceptions of 'Scroungers', 'Unruly' Children, and ‘Good for Nothings’ 3031274768, 9783031274763

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
About the Authors
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
Our Contribution
Punitiveness and the Political Context
The ‘Punitive Turn’
Conceptualisation of Punitiveness
A Multidisciplinary Approach
The Link Between the Criminal Justice System, the Welfare System, and the Education System
Punitiveness and Neo-Conservativism—The Past and the Future
The Research Framework
Structure of the Book
References
Part I What Do We Know About Punitiveness?
2 Exploring Attitudes Towards Problematic Populations
‘Good for Nothings’: Exploring Punitive Attitudes Towards Lawbreakers
Socio-Demographic Factors
Age
Gender
Social Status
Religiosity
Ethnicity
Summary
Crime Experiences
Fear of Crime
Victimisation
Belief Systems
Social Anxieties
Conservative Beliefs
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Economic Beliefs
Summary
‘Scroungers’: Public Attitudes Towards Welfare Claimants
Socio-Demographic Factors
Age
Gender
Social Status
Religion
Ethnicity
Geography/Social Patterns
Relationship Status
Summary
Beliefs and Perceptions
Conservative Beliefs
Tax Avoidance Versus Benefit Fraud
Contributing to Society
Sanctions
Undeservingness
Summary
‘Unruly Children’: Public Attitudes Towards School Children
Attitudes Towards Indiscipline
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Behaviour
School Pupils’ Views on Punishments
Attitudes Towards School Exclusions
The Corporal Punishment of School Children
Summary
Conclusion
References
Part II Exploring Trends in Punitiveness
3 The Long-Term Trajectories of Punitiveness Towards Criminal Rule-Breakers: Government Policies, Political Discourse, and Public Sentiment
The Prison Population and Recorded Crime Rates
History of Responses to Lawbreakers: Key Policies Relating to Increased Punitiveness
The Criminal Justice Act 1982
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984
The Criminal Justice Act 1988
The Criminal Justice Act 1991
The Criminal Justice Act 1993
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
The Crime Sentences Act 1997
‘Tough on Crime and Tough on the Causes of Crime’
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
The Criminal Justice Act 2003
The Coalition Government
Political Discourse: A Trend of Rising Punitiveness
Trends in Public Opinion Towards Lawbreakers
People Who Break the Law Should Be Given Stiffer Sentences
For Some Crimes the Death Penalty is the Most Appropriate Sentence
Conclusion
References
4 The Hardening of Policies, Government Discourse, and Public Attitudes Towards Welfare Claimants
History of Responses to the Disadvantaged: A Summary
Welfare Changes in the 1980s
Social Security Act 1980
The Social Security Acts of 1986, 1988 and 1989
Jobseekers Act 1995
Labour Government 1997–2010
Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, 2010–2015
The Intensification in the Use of Sanctions
Universal Credit Conditions and Requirements
Conditionality and Criminalisation
Political Discourse
Trends in Public Attitudes Towards Welfare Recipients
Most People on the Dole Are Fiddling in One Way or Another
Conclusion
References
5 Trends in Concerns Towards School Rule-Breakers
The Corporal Punishment Debate
History of Responses to Rule-Breaking School Children: Key Education Policies
The Education Act 1980
The Education (Scotland) Act 1981
The Education Act 1986
The Education Reform Act 1988
The Schools Board (Scotland) Act 1988; the Self-Governing Schools, Etc., (Scotland) Act 1989
The Education Act 1993
Education Policies Under New Labour 1997–2010
The Education Act 1997
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998
The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
Trends in the Number of Exclusions
England
Wales and Scotland
Reasons for Exclusions in Britain
Who Are the Permanently Excluded Children?
What Happens to Excluded Children?
Trends in Public Sentiment Towards School Pupils
Conclusion
References
6 Identifying the Role of Political Socialisation in Attitudes Towards Rule-Breakers
Introducing Age, Period, and Cohort Analysis
Applying Age, Period, and Cohort Effects
Data
Problem Populations Through an APC Lens: The Results
Conclusions: Political Socialisation and Problem Populations
References
Part III Examining Punitiveness Towards Rule-Breakers
7 The Need to Punish? Punitive Attitudes Towards Rule-Breaking School Pupils
Introduction
Political Values and Nostalgia
Exploring Support for Tougher Punishments for Unruly School Pupils
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
The Need to Punish?
‘A Wrap Over the Knuckles’
Exploring Support for the Permanent Exclusion of Rule-Breaking School Pupils
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
A Sense of Compassion
A Comparison of Support for Tougher Punishments and the Permanent Exclusion of Rule-Breaking School Pupils
School Punitivity
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Discussion
School Punitivity: Evaluating the Multiple Regression Model
Conclusion
References
8 Cheating the System? Punitive Attitudes Towards Rule-Breaking Welfare Claimants
Introduction
Exploring Support for Stiffer Penalties for Rule-Breaking Welfare Claimants
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Who Are Welfare Claimants Perceived to Be?
Exploring Support for Permanently Stopping Payments for Rule-Breaking Welfare Claimants
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
‘A Fair Share of the Money’: Fairness and Deservingness
‘People Like Me’
A Comparison of Support for Stiffer Penalties and Permanently Stopping Payments for Rule-Breaking Welfare Claimants
Welfare Punitivity
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Discussion
Welfare Punitivity: Evaluating the Multiple Regression Model
Conclusion
References
9 Throw Away the Key? Punitive Attitudes Towards Criminal Rule-Breakers
Introduction
Exploring Support for Stiffer Sentences for Criminal Rule-Breakers
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Exploring Support for the Death Penalty
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
A Comparison of Support for Stiffer Sentences and the Death Penalty
Law Punitivity
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Discussion
Law Punitivity: Evaluating the Multiple Regression Model
Conclusion
References
10 The Relationship Between Social and Political Attitudes and Punitiveness
Introduction
Examining Punitive Attitudes Towards the Distinct Groups of Rule-Breakers
Model 1—Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Exploring Collective Punitiveness Towards Rule-Breakers
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime Related
Model 3: Belief Systems
Summary
Collective Punitiveness: Evaluating the Multiple Regression Model
‘Tiered Punitiveness’
Constructing Basic and Ultimate Punitiveness Variables
Exploring the Different Influences of Basic and Ultimate Punitiveness Towards Rule-Breakers
Model 1: Socio-Demographic Factors
Model 2: Crime-Related Factors
Model 3: Belief Systems
Model 4: Nostalgia
Summary
Developing a Structural Equation Model for Tiered Punitiveness
Discussion
What Does This Study Add to the Theories of Punitiveness?
Conclusion
References
Part IV Political Attitudes and Punitiveness
11 Conclusion
Summary
Punitiveness and Neo-Conservativism
Limitations
Future Research Directions
Final Words: Making Theoretical Sense of Disparate Rule-Breakers
References
Appendix A: Measuring Public Attitudes
Rule-Breaker Questions
The Main Survey
Constructing Variables for Analysis
Constructing the Neo-Liberal Values Variable
Constructing the Neo-Conservative Values Variable
Nostalgia Items
Constructing the Social Nostalgic Variable
Constructing the Economic Nostalgic Variable
Constructing the Political Nostalgic Variable
References
Index

Citation preview

Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations Public Perceptions of ‘Scroungers’, ‘Unruly’ Children, and ‘Good for Nothings’ Vickie Barrett · Emily Gray Stephen Farrall

Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations

Vickie Barrett · Emily Gray · Stephen Farrall

Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations Public Perceptions of ‘Scroungers’, ‘Unruly’ Children, and ‘Good for Nothings’

Vickie Barrett Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences University of Huddersfield Huddersfield, UK

Emily Gray Department of Sociology University of Warwick Coventry, UK

Stephen Farrall School of Sociology & Social Policy University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-27476-3 ISBN 978-3-031-27477-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27477-0

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: SEAN GLADWELL/Moment/Getty This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

Firstly, we would like to express our thanks to the Economic and Social Research Council for the funding award: ES/P002862/1. We would also like to express our thanks to BMG Research, in particular Dr. Michael Turner and Robert Struthers for their hard work during the design phase and administration of the survey. We are grateful to Colin Hay, Jane Green, Charles Pattie, Will Jennings, Simon Winlow, and Steve Hall who provided a useful source of ideas on the survey questions. We would also like to thank colleagues in the School of Law at the University of Sheffield and in the School of Business, Law, and the Social Sciences at the University of Derby, with special thanks to Dr. Phil M. Jones. We are grateful to Josie Taylor at Palgrave MacMillan for her support with publishing this book and also to Geetha Chockalingam at Springer Nature for her support throughout the publishing process. We would also like to express our thanks to the reviewers who provided valuable feedback. Additionally, Vickie would like to thank Professor Shadd Maruna and Professor Ian Brunton-Smith for their constructive advice from examining the thesis, which forms a large part of this book. Finally, we would like to thank the people who took part in the research without which this book would not have been possible. v

Contents

1

Introduction

Part I 2

3

What Do We Know About Punitiveness?

Exploring Attitudes Towards Problematic Populations

Part II

1

19

Exploring Trends in Punitiveness

The Long-Term Trajectories of Punitiveness Towards Criminal Rule-Breakers: Government Policies, Political Discourse, and Public Sentiment

67

The Hardening of Policies, Government Discourse, and Public Attitudes Towards Welfare Claimants

95

5

Trends in Concerns Towards School Rule-Breakers

123

6

Identifying the Role of Political Socialisation in Attitudes Towards Rule-Breakers

155

4

vii

viii

Contents

Part III 7 8 9

Examining Punitiveness Towards Rule-Breakers

The Need to Punish? Punitive Attitudes Towards Rule-Breaking School Pupils

173

Cheating the System? Punitive Attitudes Towards Rule-Breaking Welfare Claimants

213

Throw Away the Key? Punitive Attitudes Towards Criminal Rule-Breakers

255

10 The Relationship Between Social and Political Attitudes and Punitiveness Part IV 11

289

Political Attitudes and Punitiveness

Conclusion

335

Appendix A: Measuring Public Attitudes

359

Index

371

About the Authors

Vickie Barrett is Lecturer in Criminology in the Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, School of Human and Health Sciences at the University of Huddersfield. She worked as a teacher and a probation officer before returning to academia. She undertook her MA in International Criminology and her Ph.D. in the School of Law at the University of Sheffield (having her Ph.D. awarded in 2020). She took up her current post as Lecturer in Criminology (at the University of Huddersfield) shortly after completing her doctoral studies. Emily Gray is Assistant Professor of Criminology in the Department of Sociology at the University of Warwick, having previously held positions at the Universities of Oxford, Keele, and Sheffield. Her Ph.D. focused on the long-term trajectories of persistent young offenders and was completed at Keele University in 2011. She is a member of the British Journal of Criminology’s Editorial Board.

ix

x

About the Authors

Stephen Farrall is Professor of Criminology in the School of Sociology & Social Policy at the University of Nottingham. He completed his D.Phil. in 2001 (St. Catherine’s College, Oxford) and his recent book “Respectable Citizens—Shady Practices”, (OUP, 2020) won the Outstanding Book Award from the American Society of Criminology’s Division of White-Collar and Corporate Crime.

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6

Fig. 4.1

Publications on ‘punitiveness’ (Source Web of Science [2020]) Adult prison population since 1975 in England and Wales (Source Cavadino and Dignan [2007], HM Prison and Probation Service [2021]) Recorded crime rates 1975–2021 (Source Home Office [2002, 2015, 2021a]) Public attitudes: support for stiffer sentences, 1986–2019 (Source British Social Attitudes Survey, 2019) Conditional formatting: support for stiffer sentences, 1983–2019 by age (Source British Social Attitudes Survey, 2019) Public attitudes: support for the death penalty, 1986–2019 (Source British Social Attitudes Survey, 2019) Conditional formatting: support for the death penalty, 1986–2019 by age (Source British Social Attitudes Survey, 2019) Public attitudes: fiddling the dole, 1987–2019 (Source British Social Attitudes Survey, 2019)

20

71 72 85

86 87

89 114

xi

xii

Fig. 4.2

Fig. 5.1

Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5

Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7

Fig. 10.1 Fig. 10.2 Fig. 10.3 Fig. 10.4 Fig. A.1 Fig. A.2 Fig. A.3 Fig. A.4 Fig. A.5

List of Figures

Conditional mormatting: most people on the dole are fiddling, 1987 to 2019 by age (Source British Social Attitudes 1986–2019) Permanent exclusions in England 1990/1991 to 2019/2020 (Source Daniels et al. [2003] and DfE [2011, 2021]) Permanent exclusions in Wales 2012/2013 to 2019/2020 (Source Welsh Government [2021]) Permanent exclusions in Scotland 2002/2003 to 2018/2019 (Source Scottish Government [2021]) Public attitudes: teach children to obey authority, 1986–2019 (Source BSAS 1986 to 2022) Conditional formatting: schools should teach children to obey authority, 1986 to 2019 by age (Source British Social Attitudes 1986–2019) Public attitudes: young people lack respect for traditional values, 1986–2019 (Source BSAS 1986–2022) Conditional formatting: young people today don’t have enough respect for traditional values, 1986 to 2019 by age (Source British Social Attitudes 1986–2020) Structural equation model of basic punitiveness (n = 5,781) Structural equation model of ultimate punitiveness (n = 5,781) Structural Equation Model of collective punitiveness (5,781) Theoretical model of punitiveness Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for neo-liberal values items Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for neo-conservative values Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for social nostalgic values Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for economic nostalgic values items Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for political nostalgic values items

115

135 138 138 144

145

146

147 319 319 320 327 365 366 367 368 368

List of Tables

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3

Table 7.1

Table 7.2

Table 7.3 Table 7.4

Political generation details Descriptive statistics dependent and independent variables Logistic regression results: five measures of right authoritarian values towards criminals, welfare claimants, and children and young people by political generation Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models predicting punitiveness towards ‘Unruly school pupils should receive tougher punishments’ (n = 3,637) Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models predicting punitiveness towards ‘School pupils who repeatedly break school rules should be permanently excluded’ (n = 3,637) Summary: a comparison of significant factors relating to rule-breaking school pupils Beta weights for multiple linear regression models predicting ‘school punitivity’ (n = 2,090)

160 163

166

178

190 200 204

xiii

xiv

List of Tables

Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 8.1

Table 8.2

Table 8.3 Table 8.4 Table 8.5

Table 8.6 Table 9.1

Table 9.2

Table 9.3 Table 9.4 Table 9.5

Table 9.6 Table 10.1 Table 10.2

Summary table for relevant statistically significant factors for school punitivity Model summary for school punitivity Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models predicting punitiveness towards ‘Welfare claimants who repeatedly cheat the system should face stiffer penalties’ (n = 3,637) Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models predicting punitiveness towards ‘Welfare claimants who repeatedly cheat the system should have their payments permanently stopped’ (n = 3,637) Summary: a comparison of significant factors relating to rule-breaking welfare claimants Beta weights for multiple linear regression models predicting ‘welfare punitivity’ (n = 2,090) Summary table for relevant statistically significant factors for punitivity towards rule-breaking welfare claimants in Model 4 Model summary for welfare punitivity Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models towards ‘People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences’ (n = 3,637) Beta coefficients for ordinal regression models towards ‘For some crimes the death penalty is the most appropriate sentence’ (n = 3,637) Summary: a comparison of significant factors relating to criminal rule-breakers Beta weights for multiple linear regression models predicting ‘law punitivity’ (n = 2,090) Summary table for relevant statistically significant factors for punitivity towards criminal rule-breakers in Model 4 Model summary for law punitivity Summary: Relevant factors for punitivity towards different groups of rule-breakers (Model 4) Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for ‘collective punitiveness’ items

207 209

216

226 238 242

246 250

259

266 274 280

283 286 291 298

List of Tables

Table 10.3

Table 10.4

Table Table Table Table

10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8

Table 10.9 Table 10.10

Table 10.11

Table 10.12 Table A.1

Beta weights (standardised coefficients) for multiple linear regression models predicting collective punitiveness (n = 2,090) Summary of relevant statistically significant factors for collective punitivity towards rule-breakers in Model 4 Model summary for collective punitiveness Reduction in agreement in ‘Tiered Punitiveness’ Basic and ultimate punitiveness variables Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for ‘basic punitiveness’ Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for ‘ultimate punitiveness’ Beta weights (standardised coefficients) for multiple linear regression models predicting ‘Basic Punitiveness’ (n = 2,090) Beta weights (standardised coefficients) for multiple linear regression models predicting ‘Ultimate Punitiveness’ (2,090) Relevant statistically significant factors for tiered punitiveness towards rule-breakers (Model 4) Descriptive statistics for the eight new variables

xv

300

303 305 306 307 308 309

310

312 318 361

1 Introduction

This book’s objective is to explore and explain the prevalence of punitive attitudes towards ‘rule-breakers’ in three regulatory systems: the criminal justice system, the welfare system, and the education system in contemporary British society. In doing so, it focuses on the relationship between punitiveness and political attitudes from the late twentieth century, when a change in government has been noted as definitively altering the political landscape in the UK. Essentially, this book argues that these three regulatory systems are linked in numerous ways when considering rule-breaking behaviours. We propose that punitive responses to rule-breaking is not limited to criminal rule-breaking but has expanded into other policy domains. Firstly, we argue that legislative responses to lawbreakers, rule-breaking school pupils, and welfare claimants have become more punitive over time. That’s to say, the sanctions responding to these rule-breaking groups have intensified over the last few decades (imprisonment, welfare sanctions, and school exclusions) (detailed in Chapters 3–5). Secondly, we argue that this intensification of sanctioning is accompanied by punitive political discourse. Thirdly, we explore public punitiveness towards these three rule-breaking groups to assess whether these same attitudes endure in the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 V. Barrett et al., Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27477-0_1

1

2

V. Barrett et al.

wider population. We examine the relationship between political attitudes (neo-conservative values, neo-liberal values, which are proposed to have become embedded in British politics) and public punitive attitudes towards the three rule-breaking groups. Firstly, a note on punitiveness. Punitiveness is explicitly related to how people think rule-breakers ought to be punished. It is an attitude that suggests punishment, in its present form, is not enough and should be harsher (Kury & Ferdinand, 1999; Roberts & Indermauer, 2007; Roberts et al., 2003). Punitiveness implies excess, intensification, and is disproportionate (Matthews, 2005: 179). Whilst punitiveness towards lawbreakers has an established place in criminological literature, this is not the case for welfare claimants or school pupils in their respective literatures. An attempt then has been made to expand this punitiveness lens to rule-breaking welfare claimants and school pupils with the aim of examining the similarities and differences between attitudes towards the different groups. This examination commences by reviewing the empirical literature on public attitudes towards the different groups of rule-breakers. Legislative changes, political attitudes, and trends in public attitudes are then explored. Age, Period, and Cohort analysis is then undertaken to examine the relationship between political socialisation and punishing attitudes. The main contribution of this study is then presented through the empirical findings relating to punitiveness towards the three rule-breaking groups. Finally, this book’s contributions are then considered before reflecting on its limitations and implications for future research.

Our Contribution This book makes a number of contributions to the literature in this field. One of these is the focus on different groups of ‘wrong-doers’; as well as focusing on ‘offenders’, we also explore attitudes towards school children and to welfare claimants, since both were (and still are) part of the discourses around right and wrong behaviours promoted and used by politicians. This necessitates the modelling of these different groups of wrong-doers, and we find subtle but important variations in terms of

1 Introduction

3

how best to explain public attitudes towards these groups. We also introduce a distinction which we referred to as ‘Tiered Punitiveness’. This term refers to the idea that punitiveness is not a simple concept, and that punitive attitudes as well as displaying different levels of support for punitiveness, also involve different degrees of punitive responses. We refer to these as ‘Basic Punitiveness’ and ‘Ultimate Punitiveness’ and outline these below. Again, we find subtle variations in the explanators associated with each. Our book also highlights why studying public opinion matters. Whilst in and of itself it is always useful to study social attitudes and public opinions on topics in order to use as a barometer of social change, our findings underline a wider message of our generation research in this field, which is that punitive attitudes feed back into the actual criminal justice system itself (albeit delayed due to processes of public debate and policy drafting and enactment). In that sense, public opinions can themselves create legacies as well as be a legacy of earlier events and processes (Farrall et al., 2020).

Punitiveness and the Political Context The desire to punish those who break social rules is a widespread, if not universal, feature of human societies. (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997: 237)

‘Punitiveness’ has been the focus of increasing criminological attention in recent decades (Farrall et al., 2016). Studies generally gauge punitiveness through the nature of punishments available or analysis of attitudinal data from surveys measuring public support for punitive actions (Farrall et al., 2016; Hogan et al., 2005). ‘Punitiveness’ then can be operationalised through examining public attitudes or system operations; this study considers the former of these, but the findings resonate with those reported by Farrall et al.’s assessment of the changes in the criminal justice system (2016).

4

V. Barrett et al.

The ‘Punitive Turn’ Debates in criminology relating to ‘the punitive turn’ began in the early 1990s following sharp increases in prison populations and an increase in the use of ‘tough on crime’ discourses in many liberal democracies (Newburn, 2007). During this period politicians in Britain presented themselves as ‘tough on crime’ (Newburn, 2007). Bottoms (1995: 40) described ‘populist punitiveness’ as politicians ‘tapping into, and using for their own purposes, what they believe to be the public’s generally punitive stance’. Garland’s Culture of Control (2001) drew significant attention to the ‘the punitive turn’ in America and the UK in relation to state responses to crime, which stimulated much debate (Hamilton, 2014). Garland (2001: 142) proposed ‘…a long list of measures that appear to signify a punitive turn in contemporary penalty’ and noted the increased imprisonment rates and harsher sentences amongst other aspects of the penal system (e.g. Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) that relate to an increase in punitiveness. Acknowledging the variety of ways that state punitiveness can be conveyed (Hamilton, 2014; Matthews, 2005), this book specifically considers punitiveness in relation to the intensification of specific sanctions: sentencing, school exclusions, and welfare sanctions. We also briefly highlight how politicians have expressed punitiveness towards the three rule-breaking groups. A significant portion of this book relates to the empirical work undertaken in this study, which focuses on public punitiveness. In this respect, we define punitiveness as a person’s level of support for harsher penalties with an emphasis on a desire for both tougher punishments and extreme sanctions.

Conceptualisation of Punitiveness Previous literature has argued for the concept of punitiveness to be more clearly defined (Matthews, 2005), more attention given to how we measure the concept of punitiveness suggesting a multidimensional measure (Hamilton, 2014), and a more holistic conceptualisation of punitiveness incorporating institutions outside of criminal justice

1 Introduction

5

(Carvalho et al., 2020). The concept of punitiveness in this book is very specific in its focus: the empirical work is concerned with public punitiveness; and it is concerned with the harsher sanctioning of rule-breakers across criminal justice, welfare, and education. Empirically, there have been numerous studies seeking to explain public punitiveness, most extensively in America (there is an extensive review of this empirical work in Chapter 2). Measurements of pubic punitiveness differ; Hamilton (2014) notes the concerns relating to defining and measuring punitiveness. Hamilton’s (2014) study found that different levels of punitiveness were identified dependent on the measure used. Jennings et al. (2017) also found that findings altered dependent on the inclusion or exclusion of certain measures, in this case the use of support for the death penalty as a measure of public punitiveness. Jennings et al. (2017) suggest that attitudes towards the use of the death penalty differ substantially from other measures of public opinion used in their study, which shows a less punitive trend. Punitiveness is complex; as Garland (2004: 164) notes, ‘complex phenomena have many different aspects, and can be viewed from a variety of angles’. For the purposes of this study then, the empirical results aim to add to the studies related to public punitiveness; this being the main contribution of this book.

A Multidisciplinary Approach This book aims to extend this criminological focus by taking a multidisciplinary approach to examining punitiveness, operationalised as a person’s level of support for harsher penalties with an emphasis on a desire for both tougher punishments and extreme sanctions, across three regulatory systems (criminal justice, education, and welfare). In doing so, the literature on punitiveness towards lawbreakers, and the most relevant literature towards welfare claimants and school children will be examined, aiming to place this study in context and aid its design. The concept of ‘punitiveness’ has not been explored in relation to rulebreakers in the welfare system and the education system. The literature reviews for these two systems then aim to consider empirical research

6

V. Barrett et al.

most relevant to the study of punitive attitudes placing this study into context within the frameworks of these two areas. The long-term trajectories of attitudes towards the three distinct groups of rule-breakers will also be reviewed providing an analysis of government policies, political discourse, and trends in public attitudes over the last forty years. This study aims to explore the extent to which a range of political values and social attitudes are related to punitive attitudes towards rulebreakers. These influences will be explored through assessing punitive attitudes towards the treatment of: i. school pupils who break school rules; ii. benefit recipients who fail to comply with the rules; and, iii. people who break the law. These three areas will be explored with a view to understanding the various punitive attitudes of the general population and the influence of enduring political values on social attitudes in contemporary society. British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS) data will also be drawn upon to consider trends in social attitudes over time (see Chapters 3–6). The BSAS has been conducted annually since 1983 with over 90,000 people taking part in the study so far (NatCen, 2020). BSAS asks around 3,000 people every year questions to understand current issues but also repeats questions periodically to chart attitudinal changes over time (NatCen, 2020). BSAS long-term existing data will be analysed to map trends in social attitudes and how these attitudes shift (on aggregate) over time. Examining this data will also allow us to explore the relationship between ‘political socialisation’ and punishing attitudes (see Chapter 6). Recent research suggests that contemporary policy is influenced by the tough law and order agenda that emerged during the late 1970s and early 1980s (Farrall & Jennings, 2014), raising standards in education driven by choice and competition (Dorey, 2014), and rhetorical hostility towards social security recipients (Hill & Walker, 2014). Lacey (2008: 76) suggests that political leaders are ‘increasingly focussed on the median voter’ and lead to the ‘unmediated responsiveness of politics to popular opinion’. Analysis of social attitudes in this area will allow

1 Introduction

7

assessment of whether these same attitudes endure in the wider population, and whether public opinion has been shaped by political influences resulting in ‘political socialisation’ (Grasso et al., 2017).

The Link Between the Criminal Justice System, the Welfare System, and the Education System This study proposes that political discourse and policies within the criminal justice system, the welfare system, and the education system demonstrate an increasing trend of punitiveness towards those who ‘break the rules’. ‘Law and order’ began its prominence within political discourse in the 1980s when the Conservative Party gained power (Reiner, 2000: 73). From the early 1990s, both the Conservative and Labour parties made significant efforts to be seen to be ‘tough on crime’ (Newburn, 2007). Consequently, an increase in the use of punishment resulted in a significant increase in the prison population (Newburn, 2007). This trend of an increasing prison population has endured and has risen by 70% in England and Wales since the early 1990s (Prison Reform Trust, 2021) and remains at high levels (Ministry of Justice, 2022). The Government is currently planning to create 20,000 new prison places in response to projected rises in the prison population (Ministry of Justice, 2021). This punitiveness can be observed in the contemporary government’s response to crime in England and Wales, which centralises ‘tough punishments’ and ‘tough’ approaches to crime (Ministry of Justice, 2010: 9), ‘tougher sentencing’ and ‘tougher community sentences’ (The Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto, 2019: 19) and ‘restating our commitment to law and order’ (Priti Patel quoted by Gayle, 2019). Support for harsher responses to rule-breaking, however, is not limited to the criminal justice system and can be observed in other regulatory systems. Since the 1980s, the education system has received criticism for a range of social issues by the government, such as anti-social behaviour, which has involved a political rhetoric of teachers ‘failing pupils’ by

8

V. Barrett et al.

being incapable of maintaining classroom discipline (Dorey, 2014: 109). Government discourse, which commenced during the 1980s, focused on the failings of education, which enabled extensive policy reforms to be implemented driven by market principles and managerial authority over professionals (Dorey, 2014). Official data reported 6,685 permanent exclusions in 2015/16, however, a further 48,000 school children were educated in the Alternative Provision sector catering for excluded pupils during this period (Gill et al., 2017). School children are much more likely to engage in criminal activity whilst excluded from school than those who have not been excluded (Ipsos MORI, 2000). Negative outcomes such as unemployment and prison are more likely to be future experiences of excluded children with approximately 50% of the prison population excluded from school (Gill et al., 2017). A punitive rhetoric towards benefit recipients was evident prior to the 1980s; however, punitive discourse towards welfare recipients escalated in the 1980s with ‘idleness and cheating’ used as common descriptors (Thatcher, 1993 in Hill & Walker, 2014: 97). This attitude has permeated policy changes making access to benefits more difficult with a view to making cuts to the majority of the welfare system (Hill & Walker, 2014). Increasingly, changes to welfare policies have exposed claimants to sanctions aimed at effecting behaviour control and change (Wright et al., 2018). For some people, the current welfare system dominated by conditionality and sanctions, has resulted in increased poverty, destitution, and crime (Welfare Conditionality Project, 2018). Some claimants, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, such as drug and alcohol dependencies and homelessness, withdraw from the welfare system altogether (Welfare Conditionality Project, 2018).

Punitiveness and Neo-Conservativism—The Past and the Future Punitiveness typically relates to attitudes regarding punishment, about how people think that rule-breakers ought to be punished. Punitiveness also has ‘connotations of excess’; it suggests an intensification of punishment either by duration or severity, and is applied disproportionately

1 Introduction

9

(Matthews, 2005: 179). The operationalisation of punitiveness in this study aims to tap into the public’s desire for tangibly harsher penalties (school punishments, welfare sanctions, sentences). It is an attitude that suggests that punishment as it is, in its present form, is not enough, and that it should be more severe (Kury & Ferdinand, 1999; Roberts & Indermauer, 2007; Roberts et al., 2003). It is a reflection on the present form of punishment and shows a desire for harsher punishments in the future. Neo-conservativism on the other hand—which also forms part of our theoretical framework—is an evaluation of the past in response to how people observe and experience the present. It is an underlying belief and is a historical construction; it is rooted in the past. During the early 1980s, New Right political ideologies emerged in many western industrialised nations and are characterised by a combination of neoliberal and neo-conservative ideals (Gamble, 1988; Hay, 1996; Hayes, 1994). Neo-conservative ideals assert social order, traditional values, and the authoritarian state (Hayes, 1994). During the 1970s, there was an increasing concern over falling standards and ‘violent’ schools (Hall, 1979). There were also concerns about the link between indiscipline in schools and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods (Berridge et al., 2001). An educational strategy emerged under the conservative governments during this period, which reiterated ‘social skills, respect for authority, traditional values and discipline’ founded on a traditional education (Hall, 1979: 19). Meanwhile, neo-liberal ideals assert the free market, competition, profit, and the belief that state authority should be limited to defence, the rule of law, and monetary control (Hayes, 1994). New variables have been designed for this study to examine the relevance of both neo-conservative values and neo-liberal values to understanding punitiveness. A more in-depth discussion of their theoretical and empirical construction is detailed in Appendix A.

10

V. Barrett et al.

The Research Framework This study’s aim is to assess the extent to which people hold punitive attitudes, that is support harsher penalties and extreme sanctions, towards rule-breakers. This will be explored in the following areas: a. Compulsory Education—attitudes towards the treatment of pupils who break school rules. b. The Welfare System—attitudes towards the treatment of benefit recipients who fail to comply with the rules. c. The Criminal Justice System—attitudes towards the treatment of adult lawbreakers. The research questions posed by this project are: ● What is the relationship between punitive and political attitudes? ● How prevalent are punitive attitudes towards ‘rule-breakers’ of the law, the welfare system, and compulsory education evident in British society today? ● How do punitive attitudes vary towards different groups of ‘rulebreakers’? The project comprises of a quantitative approach encompassing cognitive interviewing and a national web-based survey. ● The main method is a new national web-based survey of 5,781 people conducted in England, Wales, and Scotland in January and February 2019. Survey research enables a large sample to be systematically examined (Denscombe, 2014). This examination will measure the prevalence of punitive attitudes towards rule-breakers and the influence of political values on these attitudes. The survey asked a range of existing and newly developed survey questions to explore contemporary social and political attitudes. A specific battery of questions was designed for this study aiming to assess the prevalence of punitive attitudes towards rule-breakers, which was embedded within the larger survey.

1 Introduction

11

● Cognitive interviews were undertaken during the design phases of the survey. Cognitive interviewing is a key method in the question design process used for ‘identifying and correcting problems with survey questions’ (Beatty & Willis, 2007: 287). Pre-testing methods in questionnaire design can be used to highlight problems in respondents’ interpretations and responses, enabling potential solutions to be explored (Conrad & Blair, 2009). The cognitive interviews also shed some light on the differences and similarities of public attitudes towards different groups of rule-breakers. Therefore, they have also been applied qualitatively.

Structure of the Book This book is comprised of four parts. Part I forms the theoretical basis for this study by exploring what we know about punitiveness. Chapter 2 presents the literature related to the areas under examination from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Firstly, by providing a literature review of public punitiveness towards criminal rule-breakers, before presenting the most relevant literature to enable developing a ‘punitiveness’ perspective in relation to rule-breaking welfare claimants and school children. Part II then focuses on exploring long-term trends in punitiveness in relation to government policies, political discourse, and public attitudes towards the distinct groups of rule-breakers. This considers the extent to which government policies have implemented harsher sanctions for rulebreakers, political discourse endures a punitive tone, and public attitudes have become less favourable towards the different groups of rule-breakers over time. Part II concludes by considering the role of political socialisation on punishing attitudes towards rule-breakers drawing on Age, Period, and Cohort analysis. Part III examines punitiveness towards rule-breakers and presents the main findings of this book. Chapter 7 commences the quantitative analyses towards rule-breakers by exploring punitive attitudes towards rule-breaking school children through conducting ordinal regression and multiple linear regression. Chapter 8 repeats the same analyses in Chapter 7, this time in reference to rule-breaking welfare claimants.

12

V. Barrett et al.

Finally, Chapter 9 completes the trilogy of distinct chapters by examining public attitudes towards lawbreakers. Chapter 10 then brings these three distinct chapters together by examining the variation in attitudes towards the three groups of rule-breakers. The chapter then progresses to merge these three groups of rule-breakers together to examine punitive attitudes towards them as a collective group. ‘Tiered punitiveness’ is then introduced, suggesting that punitiveness is not a discrete attitude but consists of different degrees, identified here as ‘Basic Punitiveness’ and ‘Ultimate Punitiveness’. Part III concludes with Chapter 11, which first provides a brief summary, outlines the distinction between punitiveness and neo-conservative values, and considers the study’s limitations, before suggesting potential implications for future research.

References Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287–311. Berridge, D., Brodie, I., Pitts, J., Porteous, D., & Tarling, R. (2001). The independent effects of permanent exclusion from school on the offending careers of young people (Research Development and Statistical Occasional Paper No. 71). Home Office. http://troublesofyouth.pbworks.com/f/occ71-exclusion. pdf. Accessed 21 March 2018. Bottoms, A. (1995). The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing. In C. Clarkson & R. Morgan (Eds.), The politics of sentencing reform. Clarendon Press. Carvalho, H., Chamberlen, A., & Lewis, R. (2020). Punitiveness beyond criminal justice: Punishable and punitive subjects in an era of prevention, anti-migration and austerity. The British Journal of Criminology, 60 (2), 265–284. Conrad, F., & Blair, J. (2009). Sources of error in cognitive interviews. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(1), 32–55. Conservative and Unionist Party Manifesto. (2019). Get Brexit done, unleash Britain’s potential . https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conser vative-party-manifesto-2019 Denscombe, M. (2014). The good research guide (5th ed.). Open University Press.

1 Introduction

13

Dorey, P. (2014). The legacy of Thatcherism for education policies: Markets, managerialism and malice (towards teachers). In S. Farrall & C. Hay (Eds.), The legacy of Thatcherism: Assessing and exploring Thatcherite social and economic policies. Oxford University Press. Farrall, S., Burke, N., & Hay, C. (2016). Revisiting Margaret Thatcher’s law and order agenda: The slow burning fuse of punitiveness. British Politics, 11(2), 205–231. Farrall, S., Hay, C., & Gray, E. (2020). Exploring political legacies. SPERI Pivot Series Palgrave. Farrall, S., & Jennings, W. (2014). Thatcherism and crime: The beast that never roared? In S. Farrall & C. Hay (Eds.), The legacy of Thatcherism: Assessing and exploring Thatcherite social and economic policies. Oxford University Press. Gamble, A. (1988). The free economy and the strong state: The politics of Thatcherism. Palgrave Macmillan. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford University Press. Garland, D. (2004). Beyond the culture of control. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 7 (2), 160–189. Gayle, D. (2019). Home Secretary Priti Patel criticized over wish for criminals ‘to feel terror’. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/ aug/03/priti-patel-home-secretary-wants-criminals-to-literally-feel-terror. Accessed 4 December 2019. Gill, K., Quilter-Pinner, H., & Swift, D. (2017). Making the difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion. IPPR. http:// www.ippr.org/publications/making-the-difference. Accessed 5 January 2018. Grasso, M. T., Farrall, S., Gray, E., Hay, C., & Jennings, W. (2017). Thatcher’s children, Blair’s babies, political socialisation and Trickle-down value change: An age, period, and cohort analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 49 (1), 17–36. Hall, S. (1979). The great moving right show. Marxism Today. https://mronline. org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/79_01_hall.pdf. Accessed 25 October 2020. Hamilton, C. (2014). Reconceptualizing penality: Towards a multidimensional measure of punitiveness. The British Journal of Criminology, 54 (2), 321–343. Hay, C. (1996). Restating social and political change. Open University Press. Hayes, M. (1994). The new right in Britain: An introduction to theory and practice. Pluto Press. Hill, M., & Walker, A. (2014). What were the lasting effects of Thatcher’s legacy for social security? The burial of Beveridge? In S. Farrall & C. Hay

14

V. Barrett et al.

(Eds.), The legacy of Thatcherism: Assessing and exploring Thatcherite social and economic policies. Oxford University Press. Hogan, M. J., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2005). Economic insecurity, blame, and punitive attitudes. Justice Quarterly, 22(3), 392–412. Ipsos MORI. (2000). New findings highlight link between school exclusion and offending. Ipsos. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/new-findings-hig hlight-link-between-school-exclusion-and-offending. Accessed 20 August 2018. Jennings, W., Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Hay, C. (2017). Penal populism and the public thermostat: Crime, public punitiveness, and public policy. Governance, 30, 463–481. Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. (1999). Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 373–392. Lacey, N. (2008). The prisoner’s dilemma: Political economy and punishment in contemporary democracies. Cambridge Univeristy Press. Matthews, R. (2005). The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology, 9 (2), 175–201. Ministry of Justice. (2010). Breaking the cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders. Cm 7972. TSO. http://www.justice.gov.uk/ consultations/docs/breaking-the-cycle.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2017. Ministry of Justice. (2021, December). Prisons strategy white paper. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att achment_data/file/1038765/prisons-strategy-white-paper.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2022. Ministry of Justice. (2022). Prison population figures: 2022. https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/prison-population-figures-2022. Accessed 4 January 2023. NatCen. (2020). NatCen social research. http://natcen.ac.uk/about-us/. Accessed 8 March 2020. Newburn, T. (2007). “Tough on crime”: Penal policy in England and Wales. Crime and Justice, 36 (1), 425–470. Prison Reform Trust. (2021, Winter). ‘Prison: The facts’, Bromley briefings prison factfile. http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/ Bromley%20Briefings/Winter%202021%20Factfile%20final.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2022. Reiner, R. (2000). Crime and control in Britain. Sociology, 34 (1), 71–94. Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indermaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. Oxford University Press.

1 Introduction

15

Roberts, L. D., & Indermaur, D. (2007). Predicting punitive attitudes in Australia. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14 (1), 56–65. Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review, 31(2), 237–266. Welfare Conditionality Project. (2018). Final findings report: Welfare conditionality project 2013–2018. http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/wp-con tent/uploads/2018/06/40475_Welfare-Conditionality_Report_complete-v3. pdf. Accessed 20 July 2018. Wright, S., Dwyer, P., Jones, K., McNeill, J., Scullion, L., & Stewart, A. (2018). Final findings: Universal credit. http://www.welfareconditionality.ac.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2018/05/40414-Universal-Credit-web.pdf. Accessed 9 September 2018.

Part I What Do We Know About Punitiveness?

2 Exploring Attitudes Towards Problematic Populations

‘Good for Nothings’: Exploring Punitive Attitudes Towards Lawbreakers This chapter reviews the most relevant literature on public punitiveness towards the three groups of rule-breakers. Firstly, by exploring attitudes towards lawbreakers; secondly, towards rule-breaking welfare claimants; and then finally, towards rule-breaking school pupils. ‘Punitiveness’ in the Criminal Justice System has been the focus of increasing criminological attention over the past few decades (Farrall et al., 2016). A search of ‘punitiveness’ on Web of Science (Fig. 2.1) shows the extent to which publications have increased in this area from the early 1980s (Web of Science, 2020). Punitiveness can be operationalised in two ways: analysis of attitudinal data from surveys measuring public support for punitive sentences (King & Maruna, 2009; Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997) or the nature of punishments given out (Farrall et al., 2016; Hogan et al., 2005); this project considers the former of these. Public demands for harsher sentences for offenders have become customary in many countries across the world (Gerber & Jackson, 2016). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 V. Barrett et al., Politics, Punitiveness, and Problematic Populations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27477-0_2

19

20

V. Barrett et al.

60

'Punitiveness' Publications

50 40 30 20 10 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

0

Fig. 2.1 Publications on ‘punitiveness’ (Source Web of Science [2020])

‘Populist punitiveness’ is a feature of criminal justice over the past 40 years and has influenced sentencing policies observed in most Western countries, contributing to increases in prison populations (Bottoms, 1995: 18). In England and Wales between 1980 and 2010 the prison population more than doubled from around 40,000 to in excess of 80,000 (Jennings et al., 2017). Jennings et al. (2017) suggest that public punitiveness increased as a response to crime concerns influencing the incarceration rate as a policy response. Scotland followed this trend with a prison population increase from just under 5000 in 1980 to approximately 8000 prisoners in 2010 (Scottish Government, 2011). The prison population in England and Wales in December 2021 was 79,092 (Ministry of Justice, 2021) and 7600 prisoners in November 2021 in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2021). Morgan and Clarkson (1995: 7) attribute some of the prison increase in the early 1990s to the announcement of ‘get tough’ measures and the ‘prison works’ proposal of the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, at the Conservative Party Conference in 1993. Bottoms (1995) proposes that punitiveness appeals to some politicians due to their belief that prison reduces crime through general deterrence and incapacitation, increases society’s moral consensus against certain behaviours, and satisfies the electorate. ‘Populist punitiveness’ reflects the idea of politicians ‘tapping into, and using for their own purposes, what they believe to be the public’s generally punitive stance’

2 Exploring Attitudes Towards Problematic Populations

21

(Bottoms, 1995: 40), therefore appealing to the public and politicians alike. Hough et al. (1988: 203) suggest that punitive is ‘shorthand to indicate a preference for heavy sentences’ irrespective of the basis of this punitiveness. A range of national and international studies, reviewed below, have focused on public preferences for harsher sentencing as a measure for punitiveness. The literature examining the publics’ desire for punitive sentences for offenders covers a relatively wide range of factors. This chapter begins by reviewing the literature examining the relevance of socio-demographic factors to understanding punitive attitudes towards offenders. Crime experiences will then be considered assessing the importance of real threats of crime and victimisation to public punitiveness. Finally, the relevance of belief systems, including social anxieties, conservative beliefs, right-wing authoritarianism, and economic beliefs, will be reviewed. Whilst there is some discrepancy between the measurements designed to assess punitiveness amongst these studies, certain trends in the data have emerged. The literature reviewed in this section is deemed the most relevant to this project in terms of how punitiveness has been operationalised drawing on empirical research using survey data.

Socio-Demographic Factors A large volume of empirical research has sought to understand public sentiment towards offenders through exploring socio-demographic factors (Costelloe et al., 2009; King & Maruna, 2009; Unnever & Cullen, 2010). However, as this review shows, there is conflicting research regarding the influence of socio-demographic factors on punitive attitudes towards offenders.

Age In the UK, age has been found to be variably related to punitiveness. Hough and Moxon (1985) analysed the findings from the 1982 and 1984 sweeps of the British Crime Survey (BCS) and found that older

22

V. Barrett et al.

individuals generally held more punitive views when questioned about the most appropriate sentence across a range of seven crimes. Those over 60 years old favoured longer prison sentences (one or more years in prison) across all crimes compared to lower age groups, with those under 30 years old being least punitive. Hough et al. (1988) found age made a statistically significant contribution to their scale of punitiveness (beta = 0.14, p = 0.05) with older people expressing more punitive views measured as ‘court sentences are too soft’ . However, more recently, King and Maruna (2009) (n = 940) operationalised ‘punitiveness’ as a person’s level of support for harsher sanctions and/or crime policies (With most offenders, we need to ‘condemn more and understand less’; My general view towards offenders is that they should be treated harshly; and, We should bring back the death penalty for serious crimes). They found that age was not a significant predictor of punitiveness. Internationally, results have also varied. In Australia, Roberts and Indermaur (2007) operationalised punitiveness through statements relating to sentences (The death penalty should be the punishment for murder; People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences) and public opinion (Judges should reflect public opinion about crimes when sentencing criminals). They found age to be a significant factor with punitiveness increasing with age (n = 4270, r = 0.009, p =