About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most