About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

49 Fed. Probation 16 (1985)
Explaining the Get Tough Movement: Can the Public be Blamed

handle is hein.journals/fedpro49 and id is 110 raw text is: Explaining the Get Tough Movement: Can the Public be Blamed? BY FRANCIS T. CULLEN, GREGORY A. CLARK, AND JOHN F. WOZNIAK* VER THE course of the past decade, a move- ment to get tough on crime has emerged across the nation. Evidence of this swing in the direction of law and order can be seen in the reintroduction of capital punishment, in the passage of stringent laws calling for mandatory incarcera- tion and determinate sentencing, and in burgeoning prison populations which have strained resources and made overcrowding a critical issue in nearly every state (Cory and Gettinger, 1984; Cullen and Gilbert, 1982). Indeed, with the rate of prison com- mitments rising steadily and the rate of parole decreasing, the number incarcerated has climbed to well over the 400,000 barrier (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1983; Criminal Justice Newsletter, 1984:5). In the early 1970's, this figure stood only half as high (Gardner, 1982). A popular explanation of the origins of the get tough movement-one voiced by politicians, the media, and academics alike-is that the public has come to demand that communities be made safe. That is, it is argued that current criminal justice policies are a direct reflection of the increasing salience of lawlessness for citizens and their subse- quent plea that the state punish and cage the wick- ed. Thus, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1983:1) was quick to conclude that stiffened public at- titudes toward crime and criminals are among the foremost factors in escalating prison populations. Time has offered a similar account of the current popularity of incarceration. Until the past few years, Time observed, it was all talk, not widely translated into concrete toughness. So why the im- prisonment spree now? Essentially, because U.S. citizens reached a critical level of panic and anger at what they feel is a constantly lurking threat (Andersen, 1982:40). And attorney William French Smith has asserted that the Reagan Administra- tion's punitive attack on violent crime is based on an obvious public sentiment (St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 1981:1). *Francis T. Cullen is an associate professor, Criminal Justice Program, University of Cincinnati. Gregory A. Clark is a doc- toral candidate at the Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University. John F. Wozniak is an assistant professor, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1984 meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Now, the thesis that public attitudes lead ineluc- tably to policy has much surface appeal-indeed, it would be comforting to believe that democracy is at work in the criminal justice arena. Little data, however, have been brought to bear on the issue of the extent to which prevailing crime policies are a reflection of the public will (cf. Scheingold, 1984). Although perhaps too strongly stated, Sherman and Hawkins (1981:46) have warned that our knowledge of public opinion about breakfast food is far deeper than knowledge of public opinion about criminal justice. They further cautioned against any simple equation between citizen attitudes and levels of punitiveness: The growth of both imprisonment and social control imposed by alternative forms of sanctions has been argued to be part of the system's rsponse to what the public wants. Attemp- ting to speak for the public has always been an uncertain business at best. Quantitative knowledge of public opinion in most fields is extremely shallow. In light of these considerations, this study reports survey data on public attitudes toward the punish- ment (and treatment) of offenders and explores the implications of these results for understanding cur- rent correctional policy. Specifically, based on statewide polls of Texas for the years 1977-1982, we investigated changing levels among Texas residents of (1) how salient crime is, (2) support for a punitive response to crime, and (3) support for alternatives to incarceration. Apart from the availability of data, Texas was chosen for analysis because it has a clear reputation as a law and order state with a harsh prison system, and thus it should provide a good test case for assessing the consistency between at- titudes and policy (Krajick, 1981; Texas Host Com- mittee, 1984:64). Indeed, rates of incarceration in Texas have easily kept pace with national trends. In 1973, the Texas Department of Corrections housed 16,689 inmates; today this figure has more than doubled and stands at over 39,000 with funds allocated to increase the number of beds in the prison system to nearly 44,000 by the end of 1984 (Texas Department of Corrections, 1983; Texas Host Committee, 1984). Methods This study is based on a secondary analysis of data collected by the Survey Research Program at Sam Houston State University Criminal Justice Center. Between 1977 and 1982, the Survey

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most