Crime & Delinquency 57(4)

Public Opinion Regarding Juvenile Life Without Parole in Consecutive Statewide Surveys
Sheryl Pimlott Kubiak and Terrence Allen

Abolition of the death penalty results in life without parole (LWOP) as the most severe sanction for convicted juveniles. Although internationally the use of LWOP for juveniles is rare, 2,225 youth have been sentenced to LWOP within the United States. To address the dearth of public opinion on the issue, the authors proposed questions to the survey administrators who then selected them for inclusion in two annual statewide surveys. They found that support for LWOP diminishes considerably when respondents are given a more complex array of sentencing options rather than a dichotomous choice to agree or disagree with the current policy. Those supporting LWOP are more likely to be younger, male, and White. These findings support the need for more nuanced and complex discussions and polling language, as well as policy alternatives.

“Deterrability” Among Gang and Nongang Juvenile Offenders: Are Gang Members More (or Less) Deterrable Than Other Juvenile Offenders?
Cheryl L. Maxson, Kristy N. Matsuda, and Karen Hennigan

This study investigates the effect of the threat of legal sanctions on intentions to commit three types of offenses with a representative sample of 744 officially adjudicated youth with varying histories of offenses and gang involvement. In a departure from previous research, the authors find small severity effects for property crimes that are not negated by past offending experience, morality, or anticipated loss of respect from adults or peers. Gang members appear to be vulnerable to the effects of certainty of punishment for vehicle theft. These results challenge the current crime policy of increased reliance on punishment to deter gang crime but suggest that increasing gang members’ certainty of apprehension might hold some promise for reduction of some gang crime.

Exploring Sources of Punitiveness Among German Citizens
Joshua C. Cochran and Alex R. Piquero

Prior research examining punitive attitudes has typically focused on the United States and citizens’ support for the death penalty or American “get tough” criminal policies. Yet, little is known as to how punitive attitudes and their sources vary internationally. Using Germany as a case study, this article expands the scope of punitiveness research by examining how factors typically examined in American studies, such as cynicism, institutional trust, law and order culture, and antiminority attitudes, relate to citizen beliefs about punishment in a different cultural context. Findings suggest that distrust of the judicial system, political prioritization of law and order, and antiminority attitudes predict citizens’ support for severe punishment as an effective crime-reduction technique. Implications and directions for future research are highlighted.

The Impact of Information on Death Penalty Support, Revisited
Eric G. Lambert, Scott D. Camp, Alan Clarke, and Shanhe Jiang

In 1972, former Supreme Court Justice Marshall postulated that the public was uninformed about the death penalty and information would change their support for it. There is some indication that information about the death penalty may change people’s level of support. This study re-examines data used by Lambert and Clarke (2001). Using multivariate analyses, the impact that information has on death penalty support is tested, along with level of prior knowledge about the death penalty, personal characteristics (gender, age, political affiliation, race, being a criminal justice major, academic level), and religious factors. The results suggest that information on both deterrence and innocence leads to a reduction in death penalty support and views on the death penalty. Furthermore, the results suggest that the information presented may have varying effects among different subgroups of people.

Criminality Among Rural Stimulant Users in the United States
Carrie Oser, Carl Leukefeld, Michele Staton-Tindall, Jamieson Duvall, Thomas Garrity, William Stoops, Russel Falck, Jichuan Wang, Robert Carlson, Rocky Sexton, Patricia Wright, and Brenda Booth

Despite the increase in media attention on “meth cooking” in rural areas of the United States, little is known about rural stimulant use—particularly, the criminality associated with stimulant use. Data were collected from community stimulant users in rural Ohio, Arkansas, and Kentucky (N = 709). Findings from three logistic regression models indicate that younger stimulant users (M = 32.55, SD = 10.35), those with more convictions, and those who used crack frequently were significantly more likely to have been arrested for committing a substance-related crime, a property crime, or another crime in the 6 months before entering the study. Implications include the need for longitudinal studies to further understand rural stimulant use, as well as increased community and corrections-based drug abuse prevention and treatment interventions for stimulant users who live in rural areas.

The Impact of School Environment and Grade Level on Student Delinquency: A Multilevel Modeling Approach
Celia C. Lo, Young S. Kim, Thomas M. Allen, Andrea N. Allen, P. Allison Minugh, and Nicoletta Lomuto

Effects on delinquency made by grade level, school type (based on grade levels accommodated), and prosocial school climate were assessed, controlling for individual-level risk and protective factors. Data were obtained from the Substance Abuse Services Division of Alabama’s state mental health agency and analyzed via hierarchical linear modeling, yielding three major findings. First, grade level’s effects on delinquency varied strongly by school type, although in the multivariate context the interaction effects of grade level and school type were not significant. Second, prosocial school climate significantly explained differential delinquency rates. Third, the requirement that students change schools upon reaching a certain grade level does, as the literature notes, appear to lead to a poor environmental fit for students’ developmental needs.

Crime & Delinquency, July 2011: Volume 57, Issue 4