12
The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect The Social Science Journal j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsevier.com/locate/soscij Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences Scott R. Maggard a,1 , Brian K. Payne b,2 , Allison T. Chappell a,a Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA b Department of Criminal Justice, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4018, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 30 December 2010 Received in revised form 19 August 2011 Accepted 27 August 2011 Available online 12 June 2012 Keywords: Capital punishment Death penalty Public opinion College students Race a b s t r a c t Studying attitudes toward capital punishment has been a topic of interest for decades. Indeed, it is often the subject of Gallup polls, political commentary, and social sci- ence research. Research indicates that attitudes vary by demographic factors, educational influences, and neighborhood crime rates. Building on prior research, the current study examined death penalty attitudes among 599 college students and 213 residents from high crime and low crime neighborhoods. In particular, the research investigated differences between how students and residents view the death penalty as no research to date has analyzed this issue. The authors also analyzed how different populations perceived the impact of race on the administration of the death penalty. Results suggested that demo- graphics, especially race, have the strongest impact on death penalty attitudes, but that there are few differences between students and residents and those living in high and low crime neighborhoods. © 2011 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Research on attitudes toward the death penalty has a long history in the social sciences. Since the 1930s, the Gallup Poll has asked residents about their attitudes toward the death penalty, providing constant insight into the pub- lic’s attitudes toward the sanction (Gallup, 2004). While the public has consistently supported the death penalty, it is worth noting that support has decreased somewhat in recent years (Harris Interactive, 2008). That support for the death penalty changes over time suggests that opinions are created, determined, or influ- enced by something outside of the individual. In other words, individuals do not just decide to be pro- or anti- death penalty; instead, something influences that decision. Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 757 683 4041; fax: +1 757 683 5634. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.R. Maggard), [email protected] (B.K. Payne), [email protected] (A.T. Chappell). 1 Tel.: +1 757 683 5528; fax: +1 757 683 5634. 2 Tel.: +1 404 413 1020. Factors that have received the most empirical atten- tion from social scientists include demographic factors, educational influences, and crime rates within different geographical areas. The results of past research is some- what varied, but suggests that death penalty opinions are influenced by a complex combination of factors (Keil & Vito, 1991; Longmire, 1996). Past studies commonly use one of two types of sam- ples to examine attitudes toward the death penalty. First, some studies use samples of residents to assess how dif- ferent factors work together to promote support for or against the death penalty (Sharp, McGhee, & Hope, 2007; Unnever & Cullen, 2007; Vollum, Longmire, & Buffington- Vollum, 2004). Second, some studies use samples of college/university students to assess attitudes toward the death penalty (Baker, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2005; Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007; Schadt & DeLisi, 2007). Research using residents as a sample has focused on the way that demographic characteristics and regional influences con- tribute to attitudes about the death penalty (Borg, 1997). 0362-3319/$ see front matter © 2011 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.08.016

Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

An

Sa

b

a

ARRAA

KCDPCR

lGtltir

sewd

b

0d

The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

The Social Science Journal

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /sosc i j

ttitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, andeighborhood crime influences

cott R. Maggarda,1, Brian K. Payneb,2, Allison T. Chappell a,∗

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USADepartment of Criminal Justice, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4018, Atlanta, GA 30302-4018, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 30 December 2010eceived in revised form 19 August 2011ccepted 27 August 2011vailable online 12 June 2012

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

Studying attitudes toward capital punishment has been a topic of interest for decades.Indeed, it is often the subject of Gallup polls, political commentary, and social sci-ence research. Research indicates that attitudes vary by demographic factors, educationalinfluences, and neighborhood crime rates. Building on prior research, the current studyexamined death penalty attitudes among 599 college students and 213 residents from highcrime and low crime neighborhoods. In particular, the research investigated differencesbetween how students and residents view the death penalty as no research to date has

apital punishmenteath penaltyublic opinionollege studentsace

analyzed this issue. The authors also analyzed how different populations perceived theimpact of race on the administration of the death penalty. Results suggested that demo-graphics, especially race, have the strongest impact on death penalty attitudes, but thatthere are few differences between students and residents and those living in high and lowcrime neighborhoods.

© 2011 Western Social Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Research on attitudes toward the death penalty has aong history in the social sciences. Since the 1930s, theallup Poll has asked residents about their attitudes toward

he death penalty, providing constant insight into the pub-ic’s attitudes toward the sanction (Gallup, 2004). Whilehe public has consistently supported the death penalty, its worth noting that support has decreased somewhat inecent years (Harris Interactive, 2008).

That support for the death penalty changes over timeuggests that opinions are created, determined, or influ-

nced by something outside of the individual. In otherords, individuals do not just decide to be pro- or anti-eath penalty; instead, something influences that decision.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 757 683 4041; fax: +1 757 683 5634.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.R. Maggard),

[email protected] (B.K. Payne), [email protected] (A.T. Chappell).1 Tel.: +1 757 683 5528; fax: +1 757 683 5634.2 Tel.: +1 404 413 1020.

362-3319/$ – see front matter © 2011 Western Social Science Association. Publioi:10.1016/j.soscij.2011.08.016

Factors that have received the most empirical atten-tion from social scientists include demographic factors,educational influences, and crime rates within differentgeographical areas. The results of past research is some-what varied, but suggests that death penalty opinions areinfluenced by a complex combination of factors (Keil & Vito,1991; Longmire, 1996).

Past studies commonly use one of two types of sam-ples to examine attitudes toward the death penalty. First,some studies use samples of residents to assess how dif-ferent factors work together to promote support for oragainst the death penalty (Sharp, McGhee, & Hope, 2007;Unnever & Cullen, 2007; Vollum, Longmire, & Buffington-Vollum, 2004). Second, some studies use samples ofcollege/university students to assess attitudes toward thedeath penalty (Baker, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2005; Jiang,

Lambert, & Wang, 2007; Schadt & DeLisi, 2007). Researchusing residents as a sample has focused on the way thatdemographic characteristics and regional influences con-tribute to attitudes about the death penalty (Borg, 1997).

shed by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 2: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

156 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

Many of these studies have examined whether state orregional variations in crime rates contribute to attitudesabout the death penalty (Borg, 1997; Jiang et al., 2007).

Using student samples has been particularly useful inassessing the influence of education on death penalty atti-tudes (Lambert & Clarke, 2001). Using a student sampleto assess changes in attitudes about the death penalty,Lambert and Clarke concluded that “it is probably a longand complicated process to change a person’s position onthe death penalty” (p. 230). While it may be difficult tochange students’ attitudes about the death penalty, it ispresumably difficult to change all individuals’ (e.g., stu-dents and non-students) attitudes about the death penalty.Interestingly, virtually no studies to date have consideredsimilarities and differences between the way that studentsand residents view the death penalty. The current study fillsthat void by comparing attitudes about the death penaltybetween a sample of students and a sample of residents.The comparison between student and resident attitudesis particularly important because students are so oftenused in social science research. Whether students’ attitudesabout the death penalty are similar to those of the generalpublic remains to be seen.

The current research is useful for five reasons. First,understanding attitudes about the death penalty promotessocial scientific understanding about a culture (Warr &Stafford, 1984). Second, understanding the way that educa-tion influences death penalty opinions provides insight intothe way that the educational system shapes social justiceand social science issues. Third, determining how stu-dents and residents view the death penalty will shed somelight on the utility of using student samples in social sci-ence studies. Fourth, considering neighborhood influenceson death penalty attitudes helps to demonstrate whetherdifferent groups perceive the justice system differently.Finally, because the Supreme Court has long used publicopinion as a guide in determining whether penalties are“cruel and unusual” (Bohm, Clark, & Aveni, 1991; Bowers,1993; Furman v. Georgia, 1972; Sandys & McGarrell, 1995),identifying patterns predicting death penalty attitudes willhelp to understand whether the attitudes of certain groupsare excluded or overlooked in the formulation of deathpenalty policy at the federal level. From this, better under-standing about the death penalty as a legal issue and a socialscience issue will be forthcoming.

1. Literature review

Support for the death penalty reached an all-time highin the early 1990s, with approximately 80% of the publicsupporting the sanction for persons convicted of murder.This was up from 42% in the mid-1960s (Gallup, 2004).Fig. 1 displays trends for death penalty support from 1972to 2010 from the General Social Survey. While nearly 80%of Americans favored the death penalty for murder in 1995,

that support began to wane soon after with about 65%supporting it in 2010. Generally speaking, three factorspotentially influence death penalty attitudes: demograph-ics, educational influences, and neighborhood crime rates.

Fig. 1. Death penalty support 1972–2010.

1.1. Demographic factors and attitudes about the deathpenalty

Summarizing past research on death penalty attitudes,Boots, Cochran, & Heide (2003) provide the followingdemographic profile: “Whites, males, the wealthy, Repub-licans, crime victims, persons fearful of crime, and thoseliving in the western region of the United States tended tosupport capital punishment more so than Blacks, females,poor people, Democrats, persons who had not been a victimof crime, persons who were less fearful of crime, and south-erners” (Boots et al., 2003, p. 556). Race has been found tobe the most significant predictor of support for the deathpenalty (Aguirre & Baker, 1993; Baker et al., 2005; Bohm& Vogel, 2004; Boots, Heide, & Cochran, 2004; Cochran &Chamlin, 2006; Unnever & Cullen, 2007). According to oneauthor team, race “always had been the principal distin-guishing factor in the death opinions of Americans” (Bohm& Vogel, 2004, p. 322). Cochran and Chamlin (2006) con-ducted one of the most comprehensive examinations ofthe influence of race on death penalty attitudes. They con-trolled for a number of factors, including “socioeconomicstatus, religion/religiosity, political ideology, positions onright to life and other social issues, fear of crime and vic-timization experience, experience with the criminal justicesystem, philosophy of punishment, and attribution styles”(Cochran & Chamlin, 2006, p. 85), and still found differ-ences between Whites and Blacks. Cochran and Chamlin(2006) conclude that “the gap between Blacks and Whiteswith regard to capital punishment is enduring” (p. 85). It ispossible that perceptions of bias contribute to racial differ-ences in attitudes about punishment (Gabbidon & Greene,2005).

Extant research also points to other demographic vari-ables. In particular, some research indicates that olderpeople are more supportive of capital punishment (Fox,Radelet, & Bonsteel, 1990–1991), while others have foundno age effect (Cullen, Clark, Cullen, & Mathers, 1985, Keil& Vito, 1991; Sharp et al., 2007). Past studies also suggestthat men are more supportive of the death penalty (Barkan& Cohn, 2005; Bohm, 1991; Borg, 1997; Cochran, Boots, &Heide, 2003). Finally, people who are married have been

found to be more supportive of the death penalty (Bohm,2003).
Page 3: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Scienc

1

atHmstp“d(ns

rtBccdsiatstt

ashippit2tutihldt2id

1

ghEndmw

as “low crime” neighborhoods and ten were character-ized as “high crime” neighborhoods.3 Questionnaires werehand-delivered (with self-addressed, stamped envelopes)

S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

.2. Educational influences on death penalty attitudes

Research on the way that education (or knowledgebout the death penalty) influences attitudes is typicallyied to tests of the Marshall Hypothesis. The Marshallypothesis stems from Justice Thurgood Marshall’s argu-ent that high levels of support for the death penalty were

imply evidence of the fact that the public knew very lit-le about the sanction. Furthermore, he argued that if theublic became more informed about the death penalty,the great mass of citizens would conclude . . . that theeath penalty is immoral and therefore unconstitutional”Furman v. Georgia, 1972). Cochran and Chamlin (2005)ote that 18 studies have tested some aspect of the Mar-hall hypothesis.

Support for the Marshall hypothesis is mixed. Someesearch suggests that the more knowledge one has abouthe death penalty, the less supportive they are. Wright,ohm, & Jamieson (1995) tested this idea by surveyingollege students before and after they took a month-longourse on the death penalty. They found that supporteclined after completion of the course. Some researchhows that supporters of the death penalty are lessnformed about the death penalty than non-supporters arend that learning about the death penalty does change atti-udes (Cochran & Chamlin, 2005). Other studies, however,uggest that while knowledge influences attitudes abouthe death penalty in the short-term (Bohm, 1989), a long-erm influence does not exist (Bohm & Vogel, 2004).

Although no studies to date have compared students’ttitudes to residents’ attitudes toward the death penalty,ome insight can be gleaned from examining studies thatave used either student or resident samples. At least tac-

tly, these studies suggest that students view the deathenalty similarly to the way that residents view the deathenalty. This suggestion is supported by research show-

ng how difficult it is to change students’ attitudes abouthe death penalty (Lambert & Clarke, 2001; Bohm & Vogel,004). Alternatively, if education over time impacts atti-udes about the death penalty, one might expect thatniversity students would hold different attitudes abouthe death penalty than residents do. The bottom line is thatt is not clear whether university students and residentsold different attitudes about the death penalty. Given the

arge number of studies that survey students about theeath penalty and offer social science and policy implica-ions from those results (Bohm & Vogel, 2004; Jiang et al.,007; Lambert & Clarke, 2001; Schadt & DeLisi, 2007), it

s important to determine whether students and residentso, in fact, perceive the death penalty differently.

.3. Crimes Rates and attitudes toward the death penalty

Research on crime rates and the death penalty sug-ests that such attitudes tend to vary with trends inomicide rates (Baumer, Messner, & Rosenfeld, 2003;llsworth & Gross, 1994; Rankin, 1979). Theoretical expla-

ations for the association between crime rates andeath penalty attitudes have been attributed to prag-atism/instrumentalism (i.e., the idea that individualsho are exposed high/increasing crime are more likely to

e Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 157

support harsh social control methods like the death penaltybecause they believe it to be a deterrent) and socializationexperiences (i.e., those exposed to high levels of violenceaccept violence as ‘normal’ and see the death penalty asan effective method of social control) (Baumer et al., 2003;Gelles & Strauss, 1975; Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Borg, 1997;Stack, Cao, & Adamzyck, 2007).

Two methodologically rigorous studies have addressedthe relationship between violent crime rates and deathpenalty attitudes. Baumer et al. (2003) used the GSS toinvestigate the impact of social context on death penaltysupport. They found that higher homicide rates and higherminority populations were associated with increased deathpenalty support. Stack et al. (2007) used data from four-teen countries to examine whether support for the deathpenalty varied by homicide rate, and found that deathpenalty attitudes were shaped by the homicide rate in thenation of residence. Both studies suggest that death penaltysupport is influenced by violent crime levels in the place ofresidence.

Research on crime rates and the death penalty hasfocused on broader regions such as counties, states, andcountries. Such an approach fails to take into account thepossibility that neighborhood crime levels could poten-tially influence support for the death penalty. Essentially,a void exists in the death penalty literature consideringthe absence of studies comparing (1) differences betweenstudents and residents and (2) differences across neighbor-hoods with high and low levels of crime.

This study examined support for the death penaltyamong students and residents from different types ofneighborhoods. Four research questions were addressed:(1) Are there differences in students’ and residents’ viewstoward the death penalty, (2) Are there neighborhood dif-ferences in residents’ support for the death penalty, (3)Do demographic variables predict support for the deathpenalty, and (4) Do demographic variables predict the per-ception that racial bias exists in the application of the deathpenalty? Addressing these questions will help to deter-mine the utility of using student samples to study the deathpenalty and assist in determining the source of racial andneighborhood differences in support for the sanction.

1.4. Methods

Surveys were administered to 599 college studentsand to a sample of residents. For the student sample,surveys were distributed to sociology, criminal justice,and human services students at two different universitieslocated in Norfolk, Virginia. For the residents, 1000 sur-veys were distributed to residents living in 20 differentneighborhoods in Norfolk, Virginia (defined as census blockgroups). Based on official crime data from the Norfolk PoliceDepartment, ten of the neighborhoods were characterized

3 We defined “high crime” neighborhoods as those which had crimerates at least two standard deviations above the mean, and “low crime”

Page 4: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

mp

le

n

=

599

Res

iden

t sa

mp

le

n

=

213

Hig

h

crim

e

n

=

83

Low

crim

e

n

=

129

Nor

folk

-Cit

y

SD

Ran

ge

Mea

n

SD

Ran

ge

Mea

n

SD

Ran

ge

Mea

n

SD

Ran

ge

Mea

n

2.34

4–17

9.41

2.39

4–16

9.49

2.13

4–14

9.37

2.53

4–16

–1.

62

2–8

4.89

1.63

2–8

5.06

1.72

2–8

4.76

1.57

2–8

– –

–0.

46

0–1

0.62

0.49

0–1

0.66

0.48

0–1

0.6

0.49

0–1

0.49

8.9

17–5

7

49.9

16.5

21–9

0

49.3

15.2

2343

50.3

17.3

21–9

0

29.6

0.5

0–1

0.28

0.45

0–1

0.46

0.5

0–1

0.16

0.37

0–1

0.49

0.44

0–1

0.16

0.37

0–1

0.19

0.4

0–1

0.14

0.35

0–1

0.59

158 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

to respondents in randomly selected households.4 Due tobudget constraints, only one distribution of surveys wasconducted. In all, 129 residents from the “low crime” neigh-borhoods completed the survey and 83 residents from the“high crime” neighborhoods completed the survey. Theresponse rate among low crime neighborhood residentswas 25% while the response rate among high crime neigh-borhood residents was 16%.5 Research suggests that mailsurveys often generate low response rates, and responserates tend to be lower among racial minorities and the poor(Goyder & Leiper, 1985; Hatchett, Holmes, Duran, & Davis,2000; Hogan, 1993; Iversen, Furstenberg, & Belzer, 1999;Jackson & Ivanoff, 1999; Koch & Cebula, 2004).6

1.5. Sample

The sample is made up of college students and residentsfrom Norfolk, Virginia (N = 812). See Table 1 for a break-down of demographic characteristics for the full sampleand subsamples as well as demographics for the city of Nor-folk from the 2000 U.S. Census. Approximately 26% of thesample is comprised of Norfolk residents (n = 213) and 74%of the sample is made up of college students (n = 599). Thefull sample is 68% female and 48% nonwhite. Fifty-nine per-cent of them are single and they are an average age of about32 years old.

Demographic characteristics differed between the resi-dents and the students considerably. Students were morelikely than the residents to be younger, single, femaleand nonwhite. Those from high crime neighborhoods weremore likely to be single, female and nonwhite compared tothose from low crime neighborhoods.

1.6. Variables and measurement

To assess attitudes toward the death penalty, stu-

dents and residents responded to ten questions withLikert-type categories, ranging from strongly disagreeto strongly agree.7 Because we use multiple measures

neighborhoods as those which had crime rates at least 2 standard devia-tions below the mean.

4 We utilized a three step sampling strategy in order to identifypotential respondents for the survey. First, neighborhoods were initiallyidentified using census block groups. Next, streets were randomly selectedwithin those census block groups. Finally, households were randomly cho-sen from the streets identified in step two, providing the final sample inwhich surveys were distributed (Browning, 2002).

5 Due to the low response rate for residents, we compared respondentsfrom the ten “high crime” neighborhoods and the ten “low crime” neigh-borhoods to census data on key demographic variables. In terms of age,gender, and divorce rate, survey residents are quite comparable to the cen-sus (with females being slightly overrepresented, as is common in surveyresearch). In terms of differences, we found that whites were overrepre-sented among survey respondents in high crime neighborhoods, thoughthey were approximately equivalent in low crime neighborhoods.

6 In fact, newer research has found that lower participation in surveyshas not dramatically reduced the validity of the results (Keeter, Miller,Kohut, Groves, & Presser, 2000; Curtin, Presser, & Singer, 2000). Indeed, atleast one recent study has shown that attempts to increase participationactually increased survey error (Merkle & Edelman, 2009).

7 We only used six of the ten questions. The standard death penaltyquestion asking about using the death penalty for convicted murdererswas omitted so that results from the present study could be compared Ta

ble

1D

escr

ipti

ve

stat

isti

cs

of

stu

dy

vari

able

s.

Var

iabl

es

Full

Sam

ple

N

=

812

Stu

den

t

sa

Mea

n

SD

Ran

ge

Mea

n

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

sSu

pp

ort

for

cap

ital

pu

nis

hm

ent

scal

e

8.82

2.37

4–17

8.61

Perc

epti

on

of

raci

al

bias

scal

e

5.29

1.64

2–8

5.44

Ind

epen

den

t

Var

iab

les

Stu

den

t

vs. r

esid

ent

(1

=

resi

den

t)

0.26

0.44

0–1

Gen

der

(1

=

fem

ale)

0.68

0.47

0–1

0.71

Age

(con

tin

uou

s)

31.7

15.8

17–9

0

25

Rac

e

(1

=

non

wh

ite)

0.48

0.5

0–1

0.55

Mar

ital

stat

us

(1

=

sin

gle)

0.59

0.49

0–1

0.74

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d

typ

e

(1

=

low

)0.

61

0.49

0–1

Not

e:

Nor

folk

city

age

valu

e

is

med

ian

age

in

2000

.

Page 5: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

S.R. Maggard et al. / The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 159

Table 2Attitudes toward capital punishment-full sample.

Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Mean SD

Convicted murderers are given toomany appeals

42 (52%) 271 (33.4%) 329 (40.5%) 158 (19.5%) 2.76 0.878

The death penalty helps makesociety safer

137 (16.9%) 326 (40.1%) 259 (31.9%) 77 (9.5%) 2.35 0.873

Drug dealers should be executed 253 (31.2%) 403 (49.6%) 93 (11.5%) 47 (5.8%) 1.92 0.815Minorities are more likely to be

executed than Whites are69 (8.5%) 257 (31.7%) 284 (35%) 182 (22.4%) 2.73 0.912

Only guilty people are sentenced todie

313 (38.5%) 376 (46.3%) 77 (9.5%) 33(4.1%) 1.79 0.78

The race of the victim plays a major 103 (12.7%) 287 (35.3%) 269 (33.1%) 142 (17.5%) 2.56 0.927

oaiW1&1&ooKtp

1234

56

imsa“arsr(dl

pttp

tp

role in whether the accused isgiven the death penalty

f attitudes toward the death penalty, we are able toddress the methodological issues that plague many stud-es (Applegate, Cullen, Turner, & Sundt, 1996; Brandl, Frank,

orden, & Bynum, 1994; Cullen, Skovron, Scott, & Burton,990; Cumberland and Zamble, 1992; Doble, Immerwahr,

Richardson, 1991; Doble and Klein, 1989; Keil & Vito,991; Longmire, 1996; Sandys & McGarrell, 1994, Sandys

McGarrell, 1995; Thomson and Ragona, 1987), in lightf research that indicates that single item measures oftenverstate support for the death penalty (Longmire, 1996;eil & Vito, 1991; Sandys & McGarrell, 1995). The ques-

ions were originally used in an earlier study on the deathenalty (Coogle, 1996). The questions included:

. Convicted murderers are given too many appeals.

. The death penalty helps make society safer.

. Drug dealers should be executed.

. Minorities are more likely to be executed than whitesare.

. Only guilty people are sentenced to die.

. The race of the victim plays a major role in whether theaccused is given the death penalty.

Dependent variables: Support for capital punishments measured with an additive scale consisting of four state-

ents that indicate support for the death penalty. Thetatements are: “Convicted murderers are given too manyppeals,” “The death penalty helps make society safer,”Drug dealers should be executed,” and “Only guilty peoplere sentenced to die” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67). Responsesanged from 4 to 17 with higher scores indicating moreupport for the death penalty (see Table 1). On average,esidents indicated more support for the death penalty9.41) compared to students (8.61), and high crime resi-ents expressed slightly more support (9.49) compared to

ow crime residents (9.37).Perception of racial bias in the administration death

enalty is measured with an additive scale. The two ques-ions that make up the scale are: “Minorities are more likelyo be executed than whites are” and “The race of the victimlays a major role in whether the accused in given the death

o results obtained from Coogle’s research as part of a broader researchroject that is not described in the current article.

penalty” (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73). Responses ranged from2 to 8 with higher scores associated with a stronger beliefthat the death penalty is racially biased (see Table 1). Onaverage, students scored higher on this scale (5.44) com-pared to residents (4.89), and high crime residents scoredhigher (5.06) compared to low crime residents (4.76). Dueto the nature of the dependent variables, OLS regressionwas used to estimate the impact of the independent vari-ables on the dependent variables.

Independent variables: A primary purpose of this studywas to assess whether attitudes toward capital punishmentdiffered based on whether the respondent was a studentor a resident. This variable was coded 1 for resident and 0for student. Other independent variables included gender(1 = female), race (1 = nonwhite), marital status (1 = single),neighborhood type (1 = low crime), and age (continuous).

2. Analytic plan

Descriptive statistics on the death penalty questions arepresented to establish a baseline of respondents’ supportfor the death penalty. Next, crosstabulations comparingstudents’ and residents’ attitudes toward the death penaltywere computed. Building on that model, an OLS regres-sion model is presented which estimates the impact ofstudent/resident status on support for the death penaltywhile controlling for demographic variables. A second OLSmodel estimates the impact of student/resident status anddemographics on the perception that racial bias impactsthe administration of the death penalty. Finally, a third OLSmodel predicts support for the death penalty controlling forperception of racial bias.

The next series of models examines differences betweenresidents from high crime and low crime neighborhoods.First, crosstabulations are presented that assess the differ-ences in attitudes between those from high and low crimeneighborhoods. Next, two regression models are presentedto measure respondents’ support for the death penalty and

the perception that racial bias exists in the administrationof the death penalty. A third OLS model was computed toinvestigate whether the perception that the death penaltyis racially biased predicts support for the death penalty.
Page 6: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

ard

cap

ital

pu

nis

hm

ent

amon

g

stu

den

ts

(S)

and

resi

den

ts

(R).

Stro

ngl

y

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Agr

ee

Stro

ngl

y

agre

e

Ch

i squ

are

Cra

mer

’s

V

R

(%)

S

(%)

R

(%)

S

(%)

R

(%)

S

(%)

R

(%)

S

(%)

urd

erer

s

are

give

n

too

eals

13

(6.2

)

29

(4.9

)

52

(24.

6)

219

(37.

1)

90

(42.

7)

239

(40.

5)

6

(26.

5)

102

(17.

3)

14.8

9***

0.13

6***

enal

ty

hel

ps

mak

efe

r31

(14.

7)

106

(18.

0)

79

(37.

4)

247

(42.

0)

79

(37.

4)

180

(30.

6)

22

(10.

4)

55

(9.4

)

422

0.07

3

rs

shou

ld

be

exec

ute

d

41

(19.

7)

212

(36.

1)

120

(57.

7)

283

(48.

1)

31

(14.

9)

62

(10.

5)

16

(7.7

)

31

(5.3

)

19.7

1***

0.15

7***

are

mor

e

like

ly

to

be

than

Wh

ites

are

27

(12.

9)

42

(72)

69

(33.

0)

188

(322

)

80

(38.

3)

204

(35.

0)

33

(15.

8)

149

(25.

6)

12.6

5***

0.12

6***

peo

ple

are

sen

ten

ced

to57

(27.

0)

256

(43.

5)

120

(56.

9)

256

(43.

5)

25

(11.

8)

52

(8.8

)

9

(4.3

)

24(4

.1)

18.1

6***

0.15

1***

the

vict

im

pla

ys

a

maj

orh

eth

er

the

accu

sed

is

dea

th

pen

alty

42

(19.

7)

61

(10.

4)

87

(40.

8)

200

(34.

0)

59

(27.

7)

210

(35.

7)

25

(11.

7)

117

(19.

9)

21.5

2***

0.16

4***

160 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

3. Results

To create a basis of understanding, the current atti-tudinal climate toward capital punishment among therespondent sample is presented. Looking at Table 2, wesee that over half (60%) believed that murderers get toomany appeals, but only about 42% believed that the deathpenalty makes society safer. Most respondents disagreedthat drug dealers should be executed. In fact, only about17% agreed with that statement. Fifty-eight percent ofrespondents agreed that minorities are more likely to beexecuted than whites are, and respondents were evenlysplit on whether the race of the victim impacts whethersomeone receives the death penalty. Finally, very few (14%)respondents agreed that only guilty people are sentencedto die. These findings illustrate that although people aregenerally supportive of capital punishment, they do havereservations about its current use (see Bohm et al., 1991;Cochran et al., 2003; Longmire, 1996).

3.1. Are there differences in students’ and residents’views toward the death penalty?

Cross-tabulations were computed to assess differencesin views toward capital punishment between residentsand students (Table 3). Overall, results suggest that thereare modest differences between students’ and residents’views toward the death penalty. Notable differences arediscussed below.

Residents were more likely than students to agree thatconvicted murderers are given too many appeals by morethan 10 percentage points. On the other hand, studentswere more likely than residents to agree that both race ofvictim and the race of the defendant impact death penaltydecisions. Specifically, students were more likely to agreethat the race of the victim plays a major role in the admin-istration of the death penalty by more than 16% and morelikely to agree that minorities are at greater risk of beingexecuted by about 6% points compared to residents. Stu-dents were less likely than residents to agree that onlyguilty people are sentenced to die and less likely to agreethat drug dealers should be executed. Overall, these find-ings suggest that residents are more supportive of the deathpenalty and less skeptical about its use compared to collegestudents.

3.2. Do demographic variables predict support for thedeath penalty?

Next, we estimated the impact of demographics onsupport for capital punishment while controlling for stu-dent/resident status (Table 4). We found that nonwhiteswere less supportive of capital punishment compared towhites, which is in line with previous research (Bohm& Vogel, 2004). Additionally, singles were less support-ive of capital punishment compared to their married (or

divorced or widowed) counterparts. This is also consistentwith previous research (Bohm, 2003). Race emerged as thestrongest predictor of support for capital punishment inthis sample, and whether the respondent was a student or Ta

ble

3A

ttit

ud

es

tow

Stat

emen

t

Con

vict

ed

mm

any

app

The

dea

th

pso

ciet

y

saD

rug

dea

leM

inor

itie

s

exec

ute

dO

nly

guil

tyd

ieTh

e

race

ofro

le

in

wgi

ven

the

**p

<

0.05

.**

*p

<

0.01

.

Page 7: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

S.R. Maggard et al. / The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 161

Table 4OLS regression Models predicting attitudes toward capital punishment.

Variables Support for capital punishment Capitalpunishment—raciallybiased

Support for Capitalpunishment—controlling forracial bias

B (SE) Beta B (SE) Beta B (SE) Beta

Student vs. resident(1 = resident)

−0.168 (262) −0.031 −34 (17) −0.09** −0.27 (26) −0.051

Gender (1 = female) −256 (1 81) −0.05 0.104 (12) 0.03 −0.20 (0.18) −0.04Age (continuous) 0.01 (0.01) 0.085 0.02 (0.005) 0.155*** 0.02 (0.01) 0.115**

Race (1 = nonwhite) −0.932 (0.171) −0.196*** 1.27 (0.111) 0.339*** −0.513 (0.18) −0.11***

Marital status(1 = single)

−0.583 (0.225) −0.121*** 0.474 (15) 0.143*** −0.48 (0.22) −0.10**

Perception of racialbias

– – – – −0.31 (0.05) −0.22***

Constant 9.409 (3.76)*** 3.92 (0.244)*** 10.64 (0.43)***

R-square 0.084 0.182 0.122

p values computed for two-tailed significance tests.*

rs

3tp

ttatrstm

rtcftbhta

ispadillwo

at

the first model, predicting support for capital punishment,both race and marital status proved significant. Addition-ally, the interaction term9 (race × single) was significant,

p < 0.1.** p < 0.05.

*** p < 0.01.

esident was not a significant predictor of death penaltyupport.

.3. Do demographic variables predict the perceptionhat race impacts the administration of the deathenalty?

Residents were significantly less supportive of the ideahat race of offender or victim impacts the administra-ion of the death penalty. Additionally, all else constant, asge increased, respondents’ perception that race impactshe death penalty increased. This finding differs from prioresearch that has found that older people are either moreupportive of capital punishment (Fox et al., 1990–1991) orhat age has no effect on attitudes toward capital punish-

ent (Cullen et al., 1985; Sharp et al., 2007; Stack, 2000).Nonwhites and singles expressed stronger support that

ace impacts the administration of the death penalty. Again,he impact of race is strongest. Given that prior research hasonsistently found that race is a clear predictor of supportor the death penalty, it is not surprising that nonwhites inhis sample were significantly more likely to perceive racialias in the administration of the death penalty. Researchas also found that married people are more supportive ofhe death penalty than individuals identifying themselvess single (Bohm, 2003).

Due to the obvious role of race in the previous find-ngs, a third model was computed to analyze death penaltyupport. In particular, we regressed support for the deathenalty on demographic variables and added racial bias asn explanatory variable. First, those who perceived that theeath penalty is racially biased were less likely to support

t overall. However, nonwhites and singles were still lessikely to support for the death penalty, even while control-ing for the perception of racial bias. Second, older people

ere more supportive when controlling for the perception

f racial bias.

In general, we found small differences between studentsnd residents in the multivariate analyses. This indicateshat the differences which emerged in the cross-tabular

analysis can likely be explained by other demographic vari-ables. In other words, in all of the multivariate models,we saw a statistically significant relationship between raceand marital status and views toward the death penalty,which could have been masked by student/resident statusin the bivariate analysis. Nonwhites and singles were lesssupportive of the death penalty and held stronger beliefsthat race impacts the administration of the death penalty.Because students were more likely to be minorities, thiscould explain some of the differences seen in the crosstabulations.8

3.4. Are there differences in support for the death penaltyamong residents residing in low versus high crimeneighborhoods?

The next series of analyses focused on differencesbetween residents from high and low crime neighbor-hoods. The goal was to determine whether there was asignificant difference in attitude toward the death penaltybased on whether participants resided in high or low crimecommunities. As an initial step, cross tabulations were con-ducted comparing high crime residents’ attitudes with lowcrime residents’ attitudes. As shown in Table 5, no statisti-cally significant differences were found between residentswho resided in high crime neighborhoods compared tothose residing in low crime neighborhoods.

Table 6 displays three regression models which werecomputed for residents in order to determine whether dif-ferences exist in death penalty attitudes, based on whetherrespondents lived in high or low crime neighborhoods. In

8 Collinearity diagnostics (e.g., Variance Inflation Factors) were ana-lyzed to see whether multicollinearity was a problem and results indicatethat there are no problems with multicollinearity.

9 Due to a high correlation between marital status and raceamong residents, there was reason to believe that an interaction was

Page 8: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

162 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Social Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

Table 5Attitudes toward capital punishment among residents from high crime (H) and low crime (L) neighborhoods.

Statement Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Chi square Cramer’s V

H (%) L (%) H (%) L (%) H (%) L (%) H (%) L (%)

Convicted murderersare given too manyappeals

6 (7.4) 7 (5.4) 14 (17.3) 37 (28.7) 39 (48.1) 51(39.5) 22 (272) 34 (26.4) 3.85 0.135

The death penaltyhelps make societysafer

11 (13.4) 19 (14.8) 36 (43.9) 43 (33.6) 28 (34.1) 51 (39.8) 7 (8.5) 15 (11.7) 2.39 0.107

Drug dealers should beexecuted

18 (22.3) 23 (18) 39 (49.4) 80 (62.5) 15 (19) 16 (12.5) 7 (8.9) 9 (7) 3.62 0.132

Minorities are morelikely to be executedthan Whites are

9 (11) 18 (14.3) 27 (32.9) 42 (33.3) 29 (35.4) 50 (39.7) 17 (20.7) 16 (12.7) 2.69 0.114

Only guilty people aresentenced to die

22 (26.8) 35 (27.3) 45 (54.9) 74 (57.8) 13 (15.9) 12 (9.4) 2 (2.4) 7 (5.5) 2.91 0.118

The race of the victimplays a major role inwhether the accusedis given the deathpenalty

15 (13.1) 27 (20.9) 35 (422) 52 (40.3) 18 (21.7) 40 (31) 15 (18.1) 10 (7.8) 6.42 0.107

**p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 6OLS regression models predicting attitudes toward capital punishment among residents.

Variables Support forcapitalpunishment

Capitalpunishment—raciallybiased

Supportcontrolling forracial bias

B (SE) Beta B (SE) Beta B (SE) Beta

High crime vs. low crime (1 = low) −0.297 (0.35) −0.061 −0.08 (0.23) −0.025 −0.408 (0.33) −0.084Gender (1 = female) −188 (0.34) −0.04 0.181 (0.23) 0.05 −0.09(0.32) −0.019Age (continuous) 0.02 (01) 0.115 0.02 (0.01) 0.162** 0.025 (0.01) 0.172**

Race (1 = nonwhite) −0.90 (0.42) −0.17** 1.24 (0.28) 0.34*** −0.046 (0.38) −0.009Marital status (l = single) −1.55 (0.58) −0.24*** 1.26 (0.39) 0.286*** −0.531 (0.44) −0.082Race × marital (1 = single nonwhite) 1.72 (0.93) 0.18* −1.65 (0.61) −2.56 – –Perception of racial bias – – – – −0.561 (0.09) −0.39***

Constant 9.249 (0.69)*** 3.56 (46)*** 11.276 (0.75)***

R-square 0.083 0.136 0.201

p values computed for two-tailed significance tests.

* p < 0.1.

** p < 0.05.*** p < 0.01.

suggesting that being nonwhite has a negative effect ondeath penalty attitudes among married people, and thatbeing single has a negative impact on attitudes toward thedeath penalty for whites. In other words, the impact of race(white vs. nonwhite) varies according to marital status, andthe impact of marital status varies according to race.

The second model assessed whether residents believedthat the administration of capital punishment is raciallybiased. Older residents, nonwhites, and married residentswere more likely to believe that capital punishment isracially biased.

We computed a third model that estimated the impactof the perception that race impacts the administration

of the death penalty on support for the death penalty.Results suggested that the perception that the deathpenalty is racially biased has a significant negative effect on

occurring; thus an interaction term was computed and entered into themodel (race × single).

support for the death penalty. In fact, the (direct) impactof race disappears when the perception of racial bias vari-able is added. Further, the only other significant predictoris that of age, with older residents still being more likelyto favor capital punishment than younger residents. Thisfinding suggests that if it were not for the perception thatthe administration of capital punishment is racially biased,perhaps support would remain higher among all residents(Lee, 2007; Radelet, 1981; Williams & Holcomb, 2001). Putanother way, lack of support by nonwhites is explained bytheir perception that race impacts the administration of thedeath penalty.

4. Discussion

This study analyzed the impact of demographic factors,

educational influences, and neighborhood crime levels onsupport for the death penalty. Using a sample of studentsand residents from high and low crime neighborhoods, wewere able to broaden our understanding of the myriad
Page 9: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Scienc

iff

agpAthAirlrrostowpth1

uulflbgtpsdtrftcd

psTspdthbnspas

oaa

S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

nfluences on death penalty attitudes. Overall, we foundew differences between students and residents and thoserom high and low crime neighborhoods.

Like prior research, we found a strong race influencemong both students and residents. Nonwhites and sin-les were consistently less likely to support the deathenalty and more likely to perceive that it is racially biased.mong residents, nonwhites were significantly less likely

han their white counterparts to support the death penalty;owever, this relationship was tempered by marital status.lthough married residents were more supportive of cap-

tal punishment, this was only the case for white marriedesidents. Nonwhite married residents were actually lessikely to support the death penalty. Moreover, the directacial differences weaken when one takes into accountespondents’ beliefs on whether or not the administrationf the death penalty is racially biased. Taking this into con-ideration, it becomes clearer that much of the support forhe death penalty was mediated by respondents’ opinionsn whether its administration is racially biased. In otherords, our research suggests that low support for the deathenalty by nonwhites is partially explained by the beliefhat the death penalty is racially biased, a finding whichas been noted elsewhere (Dieter, 1994; Lee, 2007; Radelet,981; Williams & Holcomb, 2001).

This research was important for several reasons. First,nderstanding attitudes about the death penalty promotesnderstanding about a culture. Extant research and pub-

ic opinion polls show that death penalty support ebbs andows over time. With support currently lower than it haseen over the past fifty years, it is important to investi-ate what shapes these attitudes. Further, understandinghe way that education influences death penalty opinionsrovides insight into the way that the educational systemhapes social justice issues. Although this study did notirectly test the effect of education on death penalty atti-udes, it appears that recent educational influences mayesonate with students. Some of the findings regarding dif-erences between college students and residents suggesthat education does play a role in shaping attitudes, espe-ially with regard to the perception that race impacts theeath penalty.

Determining how students and residents view the deathenalty sheds some light on the utility of using studentamples to study different types of social science issues.hese findings indicate that the residents were more con-ervative than students in their attitudes toward capitalunishment. As well, some findings illustrate that the stu-ents have more knowledge about capital punishmenthan residents and it is very likely due to knowledge theyave gained in coursework. Although we do see differencesetween residents and students, it is important to recog-ize that most of the differences were fairly small. Thisuggests that student samples are appropriate for at leastilot tests of crime and criminal justice issues specifically,nd may indicate that they are useful for research on otherocial science issues as well.

Considering the impact of neighborhood crime leveln residents’ attitudes toward the death penalty helpsssess whether people from neighborhoods with highernd lower crime rates perceive the criminal justice

e Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 163

system differently. That there were few differencesbetween those from high and low crime neighborhoodssuggests that support for (and opposition to) the deathpenalty extends beyond neighborhood boundaries. Forexample, whether a minority respondent was a studentor a resident, or lived in a high-crime or low-crimeneighborhood did not matter—they still viewed the deathpenalty less favorably than Whites did. This suggests thatthere may be unique underlying driving forces within cul-tures that help shape these attitudes which do not varyacross neighborhoods. While these results are inconsis-tent with prior research on crime rates and death penaltysupport, it is important to note how our research dif-fers. Baumer et al. (2003) used homicide rates in theprimary sampling unit (PSU) where General Social Sur-vey (GSS) respondents resided and found that areas withhigher homicide rates yielded higher levels of deathpenalty support. Our research is unique in that we mea-sured the overall crime rate in the respondent’s particularneighborhood.

Finally, our research is useful because it incorporated avariety of measures of death penalty attitudes. We knowthat single item measures often overestimate support forthe death penalty (Longmire, 1996; Keil & Vito, 1991;Sandys & McGarrell, 1995). In other words, when “sit-uational” factors are taken into consideration, supportdecreases. Thus, because public support is often gaugedwith single item questions in public opinion polls, it isnot surprising that “legislators overestimate the degree ofsupport [their constituents have] for the death penalty”(Whitehead, Blankenship, & Wright, 1999, p. 249).

4.1. Limitations and directions for future research

A number of limitations warrant that our findings beinterpreted with caution. First, the response rate wasvery low for the residents, with only about 21% ofthe residents submitting a completed survey. However,researchers have acknowledged the difficulty in achiev-ing satisfactory response rates with mail surveys (Jackson& Ivanoff, 1999), and prior studies have recognized thatboth low income residents and minorities are less likely torespond to surveys (Goyder & Leiper, 1985; Hatchett et al.,2000; Hogan, 1993; Iversen et al., 1999; Koch & Cebula,2004).

Additionally, the student sample was drawn from soci-ology, criminal justice, and human services departmentsonly. Students in these fields may not only hold differ-ent beliefs than college students in general, may but alsobe more knowledgeable about capital punishment specif-ically; thus, any differences may be influenced more bystudent major than simply being a college student. Third,our study did not include the standard death penalty ques-tion that asks whether respondents are in favor of thedeath penalty for the crime of murder; this makes it dif-ficult to compare our findings to other studies. Similarly,when measuring neighborhood crime levels, we used the

index crime level rather than the violent crime or homi-cide rate. Research suggests that this measurement is lessreliable than the homicide rate (Stack et al., 2007). Fourth,because our sample comes from one geographic area with
Page 10: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Science Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

atri

x

for

all m

easu

res.

Dea

th

pen

alty

sup

por

t

scal

eR

ace

dea

thp

enal

ty

scal

eA

ge

Non

wh

ite

Sin

gle

Res

iden

t

Fem

ale

Sin

ge/

non

wh

ite

Low

crim

en

eigh

borh

ood

lty

sup

por

t1.

00

−0.2

8***

0.19

***

−0.2

3***

−0.1

9***

0.15

***

−0.0

7**−0

.23**

*−0

.03

781

769

773

780

779

781

780

779

203

pen

alty

−0.2

8***

1.00

−0.0

8**0.

40**

*0.

15**

*−0

.15**

*0.

09**

0.33

−0.0

976

978

8

780

787

786

788

786

786

208

0.19

***

−0.0

8**1.

00

−021

***

−0.6

6***

0.69

***

−0.0

3

−0.3

8***

0.03

773

780

804

803

802

804

802

802

211

−0.2

3***

0.40

***

−0.2

1***

1.00

0.15

***

−0.2

4***

0.15

***

0.71

***

−0.3

2***

780

787

803

811

809

811

809

810

212

−0.1

9***

0.15

***

−0.6

6***

0.15

***

1.00

−0.5

2***

−0.3

0.57

***

−0.0

677

9

786

802

809

810

810

808

809

211

0.15

***

−0.1

5***

0.69

***

−0.2

4***

−0.5

2***

1.00

−0.0

8**−0

.32

––78

1

788

804

811

810

812

810

810

––−0

.07**

0.09

**−0

.03

0.15

***

−0.0

3

−0.0

8**1.

00

1.0

−0.0

6***

780

786

802

809

808

810

810

808

212

hit

e−0

.23**

*0.

33**

*−0

.38**

*0.

71**

*0.

57**

*−0

.32**

*0.

10**

*1.

00

−0.2

377

9

786

802

810

809

810

808

810

212

od−0

.3

−0.9

0.3

−0.3

2***

−0.0

6

−0.0

6***

−0.2

3

1.00

203

208

211

212

211

212

212

212

164 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

a higher than average minority population, results maynot be generalizable to other populations. Fourth, thedifferences in survey strategy (on-site administrationfor students and mail survey for residents) may havecontributed to the differences. Finally, including highcrime neighborhoods may have been problematic ifrecent crimes in those areas influenced respondents’perceptions.

Our findings provide direction for future research. Forexample, our use of multiple indicators to measure atti-tudes about the death penalty supports prior researchers’suggestions that additional insight is provided throughthese strategies (Applegate et al., 1996; Brandl et al.,1994; Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000). Many previousstudies have been limited because they often rely on single-item measures to assess views toward the death penalty(Durham, Elrod, & Kincade, 1996). These approaches assessglobal attitudes but fail to help us understand the pub-lic’s perceptions about real-life scenarios (Applegate et al.,1996; Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan & Longmire, 1996).Using multiple indicators, our study provided insight intothe influence of perceptions of racial bias on attitudes aboutthe death penalty.

Researchers should further explore the source of thelink between perceptions of racial bias and lower supportfor the death penalty. Recall that direct racial differencesweakened when one considered respondents’ beliefs ofwhether the death penalty is racially biased, and that lowsupport for the death penalty by non-Whites is explainedby this bias. Others have found similar findings (Dieter,1994; Lee, 2007; Radelet, 1981; Williams & Holcomb,2001). What is not clear is whether these perceptions ofbias stem from the actual experiences of bias, or percep-tions of bias. One possible way to address this questionwould be for future research to focus more on why whitesdo not oppose the death penalty more than they do(Gabbidon & Greene, 2005).

A number of other questions also arise from these find-ings. For example, researchers should consider whetherstudents from other universities or other regions of thecountry hold different attitudes about the death penalty.Researchers should also consider whether neighborhoodtype influences attitudes about other social science issues.As well, researchers may consider whether awarenessabout, or understanding of, the death penalty varies acrossneighborhoods. Through increasing our empirical under-standing of the death penalty, social scientists will be betterable to inform the public and policy makers about this sanc-tion.

Appendix A.

Table A1.

References

Aguirre, A., & Baker, D. V. (1993). Racial prejudice and the death penalty:A research note. Social Justice, 20, 150–156.

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Turner, M. G., & Sundt, J. L. (1996). Assessingpublic support for three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws. Crime & Delin-quency, 42, 517–534.

Baker, D. N., Lambert, E. G., & Jenkins, M. (2005). Racial differences in deathpenalty support and opposition. Journal of Black Studies, 35, 201–224. Ta

ble

A1

Cor

rela

tion

m

Dea

th

pen

asc

ale

Rac

e

dea

thsc

ale

Age

Non

wh

ite

Sin

gle

Res

iden

t

Fem

ale

Sin

ge/n

onw

Low

crim

en

eigh

borh

o

**p

<

0.05

.**

*p

<

0.01

.

Page 11: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Scienc

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

D

E

F

S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

arkan, S. E., & Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why whites favor spending more moneyto fight crime. Social Problems, 52, 300–314.

aumer, E. P., Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Explaining spatialvariation in support for capital punishment: A multilevel analysis.American Journal of Sociology, 108, 844–875.

ohm, R. M. (1989). The effects of classroom instruction and discussionon death penalty opinions: A teaching note. Journal of Criminal Justice,17, 123–131.

ohm, R. M. (1991). American death penalty attitudes, 1936–1986. In R.M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp.113–145). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

ohm, R. M. (2003). Deathquest II: An introduction to the theory and prac-tice of capital punishment in the United States. Anderson: Cincinnati,OH.

ohm, R. M., Clark, L. J., & Aveni, A. F. (1991). Knowledge and death penaltyopinion: A test of the Marshall hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 28, 360–387.

ohm, R. M., & Vogel, B. L. (2004). More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty opinions. Journal of CriminalJustice, 32, 307–327.

oots, D. P., Cochran, J. K., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Capital punishment pref-erences for special offender populations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31,553–565.

oots, D. P., Heide, K. M., & Cochran, J. K. (2004). Death penalty support forspecial offender populations of legally convicted murderers. Behav-ioral Sciences & The Law, 22, 223–238.

org, M. J. (1997). The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional vari-ation in support for capital punishment,. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 34, 25–45.

owers, W. J. (1993). Capital punishment and contemporary values: Peo-ple’s misgivings and the court’s misperceptions. Law and SocietyReview, 27, 157–175.

randl, S. G., Frank, J., Worden, R. E., & Bynum, T. S. (1994). Global andspecific attitudes toward the police: Disentangling the relationship.Justice Quarterly, 11, 119–134.

rowning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending socialdisorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 64, 833–850.

ochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Attribution stylesand attitudes toward capital punishment for juveniles, the men-tally incompetent, and the mentally retarded. Justice Quarterly, 20,65–93.

ochran, J. K., & Chamlin, M. B. (2005). Can information change publicopinion? Another test of the Marshall hypothesis. Journal of CriminalJustice, 33, 573–584.

ochran, J. K., & Chamlin, M. B. (2006). The enduring racial divide in deathpenalty support. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 85–99.

oogle, V. (1996). Measuring death penalty attitudes. In A paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Alabama Academy of Science, March 11–13,Tuskegee, AL.

ullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985). Attribution,salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justiceand Behavior, 12, 305–331.

ullen, F. T., Skovron, S. E., Scott, J. E., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (1990). Publicsupport for correctional treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17,6–18.

ullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion aboutpunishment and corrections. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,27, 1–79.

umberland, J., & Zamble, E. (1992). General and specific measures of pub-lic attitudes: Release decisions. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,24, 1–14.

urtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2000). The effects of response ratechanges on the index of consumer sentiment. The Public Opinion Quar-terly, 64, 413–428.

ieter, R. C. (1994). Secondary smoke surrounds the capital punishmentdebate. Criminal Justice Ethics, 13, 82–84.

oble, J., Immerwahr, S., & Richardson, A. (1991). Punishing Criminals: ThePeople of Delaware Consider the Options. New York: Edna McConnellClark Foundation.

oble, J., & Klein, J. (1989). Punishing Criminals, the Public’s View: AnAlabama Survey. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

urham, A. M., Elrod, H. P., & Kincade, P. T. (1996). Public support for thedeath penalty: Beyond gallup. Justice Quarterly, 13, 705–736.

llsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes:Americans’ views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues, 50,19–52.

lanagan, T. J., & Longmire, D. R. (1996). Americans view crime and justice:A national public opinion survey. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

e Journal 49 (2012) 155–166 165

Fox, J. A., Radelet, M. L., & Bonsteel, J. L. (1990–1991). Death penalty opinionin the post-Furman years. New York University Review of Law and SocialChange, 18, 499–515.

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 U.S. 238.Gabbidon, S., & Greene, H. T. (2005). Race, crime, and justice. New York:

Routledge.Gallup Poll. Who Supports the Death Penalty? (2004). Available

from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/14050/Who-Supports-Death-Penalty.aspx Accessed 19.09.08.

Gelles, R. J., & Strauss, M. A. (1975). Family experience and public supportof the death penalty. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 596–613.

Goyder, J., & Leiper, J. M. (1985). The decline in survey response: A socialvalues interpretation. Sociology, 19, 55–71.

Harris Interactive. (2008). Over three in five Americans believe in deathpenalty. BusinessWire,

Hatchett, B. F., Holmes, K., Duran, D. A., & Davis, C. (2000). African Amer-icans and research participation: The recruitment process. Journal ofBlack Studies, 30, 664–675.

Hogan, H. (1993). The post-enumeration survey: Operations and results.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 8, 1047–1060.

Iversen, R. R., Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., & Belzer, A. A. (1999). How much dowe count? Interpretation and error-making in the decennial census.Demography, 36, 121–134.

Jackson, A. P., & Ivanoff, A. (1999). Reduction of low response rates ininterview surveys of poor African–American families. Journal of SocialService Research, 25, 41–60.

Jiang, S., Lambert, E. G., & Wang, J. (2007). Capital punishment viewsin China and the United States: A preliminary study among collegestudents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and ComparativeCriminology, 51, 84–97.

Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (2000). Conse-quences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. ThePublic Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–148.

Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1991). Fear of crime and attitudes toward capi-tal punishment: A structural equations model. Justice Quarterly, 8,447–464.

Koch, J. V., & Cebula, R. J. (2004). The final 2000 census state responserates: Myths and realities. The Social Science Journal, 41, 575–585.

Lambert, E., & Clarke, A. (2001). The impact of information on an individ-ual’s support of the death penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12,215–234.

Lee, C. (2007). Hispanics and the death penalty: Discriminatory chargingpractices in San Joaquin County, California. Journal of Criminal Justice,35, 17–27.

Longmire, D. R. (1996). Americans’ attitudes about the ultimate weapon:capital punishment. In T. J. Flanagan, & D. R. Longmire (Eds.), Americansview crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 93–108).Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.

Merkle, D. M., & Edelman, M. (2009). An experiment on improv-ing response rates and its unintended impact on survey error.Survey Practice. Available from: http://surveypractice.org/2009/03/24/improving-response-rates/ Accessed 23.04.09.

Radelet, M. L. (1981). Racial characteristics and the imposition of the deathpenalty. American Sociological Review, 46, 918–927.

Rankin, J. H. (1979). Changing attitudes toward capital punishment. SocialForces, 58, 194–211.

Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E. F. (1994). Attitudes toward capital punishmentamong Indiana legislators. Justice Quarterly, 11, 651–677.

Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E. F. (1995). Attitudes toward capital punishment.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 191–213.

Schadt, A. M., & DeLisi, M. (2007). An exploratory study of nuance and con-tradiction in student death penalty opinion. Criminal Justice Studies, 20,255–268.

Sharp, S. F., McGhee, M., & Hope, T. (2007). Predictors of support of legis-lation banning juvenile executions in Oklahoma. Justice Quarterly, 24,133–155.

Stack, S. (2000). Support for the death penalty: A gender specific model.Sex Roles, 43, 163–179.

Stack, S., Cao, L., & Adamzyck, A. (2007). Crime volume and law and orderculture. Justice Quarterly, 24, 291–308.

Thomson, D. R., & Ragona, A. J. (1987). Popular Moderation Versus Govern-mental Authoritarianism: An Interactionist View of Public SentimentsToward Criminal Sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 337–357.

Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support

for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,44, 124–158.

Vollum, S., Longmire, D. R., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2004). Confidencein the death penalty and support for its use. Justice Quarterly, 21,521–546.

Page 12: Attitudes toward capital punishment: Educational, demographic, and neighborhood crime influences

l Scienc

Williams, M. R., & Holcomb, J. E. (2001). Racial disparity and death sen-

166 S.R. Maggard et al. / The Socia

Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1984). Public goals of punishment and support

for death penalty. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21,95–111.

Whitehead, Blankenship, & Wright. (1999). Elite versus citizen attitudeson capital punishment: Incongruity between the public and policymakers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 249–258.

e Journal 49 (2012) 155–166

tences in Ohio. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 207–218.Wright, H. O., Jr., Bohm, R. M., & Jamieson, K. M. (1995). A comparison of

uninformed and informed death penalty opinions: A replication andexpansion. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 57–87.