Moral Blameworthiness and Support for Balanced Justice

• In Event: Control, Punishment and Rehabilitation: Investigating Balanced Justice and Anti-Doping Regulations

Abstract

Despite the exponential growth in the number of problem-solving courts (e.g., drug courts, mental health courts, veterans’ courts, etc.) in operation across the United States, there is a paucity of research examining public perceptions of such courts and whether offenders involved in such courts deserve access to rehabilitation or should solely be punished. Contemporary theories of punishment suggest that the blameworthiness of offenders impacts sanctioning preferences for various offenders. Extending the “balanced justice” work of Mears and colleagues (2015)—which suggests that individuals simultaneously support rehabilitation and punishment for violent juvenile offenders—the current study examines public support for a balanced justice approach to handling offenders typically involved in problem-solving courts, including drug offenders, offenders with mental health issues, justice involved veterans, domestic violence offenders, and those convicted of a DWI. This study uses multinomial logistic regression, on a sample of 575 college students enrolled in criminology and criminal justices classes at a southern university, to assess support for balanced justice amongst various types of offenders. Findings and policy implications are discussed.

Authors

• Cassandra Atkin-Plunk, Florida Atlantic University

• Lincoln Sloas, Florida Atlantic University