Deliberative processes and attitudes toward sex offenders in Spain
| Author | Nerea Marteache |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370811424400 |
| Published date | 01 March 2012 |
| Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
9(2) 159 –175
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370811424400
euc.sagepub.com
Deliberative processes
and attitudes toward
sex offenders in Spain
Nerea Marteache
Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, USA
Abstract
Public opinion has been studied as an important influence in criminal policy and legislation. Different
ways of measuring public preferences have been proposed. The aim of this study is to compare
attitudes toward sex offenders when assessed through surveys and deliberative polls. An experimental
design was used, with treatment and control groups and multiple observations. The results of the
multivariate analyses show that the attitudes measured through deliberative polls are less punitive
and more stable over time. The implications of this study for future research and the potential of
deliberative polling in informing criminal policy are discussed.
Keywords
criminal policy, public opinion, deliberative polling
Introduction
Over the past few decades, scholars have studied public opinion as an important influence
in criminal policy and legislation (Freiberg, 2003; Roberts and Hough, 2002 and 2005;
Roberts and Stalans, 1997; Simon, 2007; Wood and Gannon, 2008). Public views on
criminal justice are critical because they are taken into consideration by policy makers
(Green, 2006). Public opinion regarding policy is said to set the ‘boundaries of political
permission’ (Yankelovich, 1991), that is, the limits or borders within which the public will
support or tolerate a policy. It is therefore important to determine the position of the public
regarding criminal justice issues.
The first scientific assessment of public opinion was made by George Gallup in the
1930s through the creation of opinion polls (Green, 2006). This method of determining
society’s opinions and perceptions has been widely used (Maxfield and Babbie, 2009),
but it has flaws. One of the problems is that respondents are asked to express their opinion
Corresponding author:
Nerea Marteache, Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, Center for Law and Justice, 123 Washington Street,
Newark, NJ 07102, USA
Email: neream@andromeda.rutgers.edu
424400EUCXXX10.1177/1477370811424400MarteacheEuropean Journal of Criminology
Article
160 European Journal of Criminology 9(2)
about a topic on the spot, without taking into account the information that the respondent
has about the topic itself. Another problem is that most polls cannot distinguish the con-
cepts of mass opinion and public judgment (Yankelovich, 1991). Mass opinion refers to
superficial public opinion, characterized by inconsistency, volatility, and non-responsibility;
whereas public judgment is ‘the state of highly developed public opinion that exists once
people have engaged an issue, considered it from all sides, understood the choices it leads
to, and accepted the full consequences of the choices they make’ (Yankelovich, 1991: 6).
Public judgment exhibits stability, consistency, and responsibility. In an early effort to
assess public judgment, Merton developed focus groups. This qualitative research method
involves small groups of respondents who are asked about their perceptions and opinions
about an issue through guided discussion by a moderator. It is hoped that such moderated
discussion will generate in-depth consideration of a narrowly defined topic. Focus groups
can provide a deep understanding of people’s opinions, but generalization of the results
is very limited (Maxfield and Babbie, 2009).
Fishkin (1995) created a method of assessing public judgment that combined the advan-
tages of both surveys and focus groups. Deliberative polling measures what the public
would think if they were better informed and if they had the opportunity to carefully consider
the issues at hand. First, a random and representative sample of the population of a country
or region is selected. They are asked to answer a first survey on the targeted issues, and
then are invited to a weekend of deliberation in order to discuss these issues. They are given
briefing materials that present detailed information about the issues and the pros and cons
of the different policy options. The participants engage in debates and dialogue with one
another through small group discussions with trained moderators, and those groups compose
questions to be asked of competing experts and political leaders in plenary sessions. As
noted by Fishkin et al., these discussions are key to the process, since they give the partici-
pants the opportunity of ‘discussing issues with others with different experiences, holding
different views and representing varied and sometimes conflicting interests. Ordinary
people simply do not discuss politics a great deal, and when they do, is chiefly with others
like themselves and of a similar cast of mind, for everyone moves in limited social circles
and selects conversational partners partly on the grounds that their friends and companions
think as they do’ (2000: 658). After the weekend, the sample is asked to answer the same
survey again. The resulting changes in opinion reveal the judgments of the public, that is,
the conclusions the people would come to if they had the chance to become more informed
about the issues.
Deliberative polls have been used on multiple occasions (Fishkin et al., 2000; Hough
and Park, 2002) and they have shown statistically significant changes in the views expressed
by the public. As Fishkin et al. point out, deliberative polling ‘is especially suitable for issues
where the public may have little knowledge or information, or where the public may have
failed to confront the trade-offs applying to public policy’ (Fishkin et al., 2000: 665). Without
any doubt, many criminal justice issues fall into this category (Roberts and Hough, 2005).
Public judgment and the influence of the media
The media have been proven to be the most important source of information about the
criminal justice system for the general public (Gray, 2008; Indermaur and Hough, 2002;
To continue reading
Request your trial