Racial animus and its association with punitive sentencing and crime types: Do Australian community attitudes reflect the United States’?
| Author | Hassan Tajalli,Karl Wiener,Ruth Brookman,William DeSoto |
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/26338076211051785 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Racial animus and its
association with punitive
sentencing and crime types:
Do Australian community
attitudes reflect the United
States’?
Ruth Brookman
The MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western
Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
School of Psychology, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia
Karl Wiener
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW Australia
William DeSoto, and Hassan Tajalli
Texas State University, San Marcos, USA
Abstract
The racial animus model argues that public support for punitive sentencing of criminal offen-
ders is shaped by threat perceptions associated with cultural minority groups. This study
applies the racial animus model to examine support for the punitive sentencing of criminal
offenders in the United States and Australia. It also examines whether racial animus mediates
the possible difference in punitive attitudes between each country toward different crime
types. Online survey data were obtained in the US and Australia to assess racial animus
and punitive attitudes using six different crime scenarios. Results indicate that (a) individuals
with higher levels of racial animus demonstrate greater levels of punitiveness; (b) Australians
have higher levels of racial animus as compared to their US counterparts; and (c) racial animus
mediates the difference of punitive attitudes between the two countries. Overall, punitive atti-
tudes and racial animus vary cross-culturally, with Australians demonstrating more racial ani-
mus. Our mediation model provides evidence for the importance of racial animus in the
cross-cultural demand for the punishment of criminal offenders.
Corresponding author:
Ruth Brookman, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
Email: ruth.brookman@westernsydney.edu.au
Article
Journal of Criminology
2022, Vol. 55(1) 23–46
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/26338076211051785
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Keywords
Punitive attitudes, racial animus, minority group threat, ethnic intolerance, typification of
crime, Australia, Indigenous, United States, African American
Date received: 16 June 2021; revised: 4 August 2021; accepted: 21 September 2021
Criminal justice policies within Western societies are often influenced by public attitudes to
crime and criminal offenders (Pratt, 2006; Roberts & Indermaur, 2007). Punitive attitudes
refers to public support for harsher sentencing of offenders and harsher crime policies as an
alternative to other options such as rehabilitation (Hogan et al., 2005; Maruna & King,
2009). The influence of punitive attitude on criminal justice policies provides one explanation
for increasing prison populations in Western democracies (Cunneen et al., 2016). This trend
can be traced back to the 1970s, which saw a shift in public attitudes away from the rehabilita-
tion of criminal offenders and toward a desire to punish them as harshly as possible (Maruna &
King, 2009). The public demand for harsher punishments is reflected in US criminal justice
policies such as “zero tolerance”and “three-strikes”sentencing (Jones & Newburn, 2005).
The theory of American exceptionalism posits that the incarceration rates in the US, along
with other penal policies and practices, are exceptionally harsh compared to other Western
nations (Garland, 2020). Examining punitive attitudes and the link with racism in the United
States and Australia is important as both nations have high incarceration rates compared
with other Western democracies (Jones & Newburn, 2005; Nagin et al., 2009; Walmsley,
2016) especially of their non-White offenders (Anthony, 2017; Jeffries & Bond, 2012).
A common approach to understanding punitive attitudes has been to examine global
trends regarding factors associated with the public support for harsher sentencing
options (Unnever & Cullen, 2010a). In the 19th century, countries generally did not look
beyond their own borders to address their national crime concerns. However, the rise of
the internet, globalisation, and the associated pressure for accountability has made it
increasingly difficult to dismiss the criminal justice policies in other countries (Howard
et al., 2000). As such, the mid-to-late 20th century has seen a renewed interest in compara-
tive or “cross-national”criminology. Comparative criminology highlights cross-cultural
research and aims to expand the knowledge base of delinquency and crime across the
world (Evans et al., 1996). Research findings from cross-national studies can contribute
to policy debates and assist policy makers to address expanding prison populations
(Cunneen et al., 2016; Howard et al., 2000). The present cross-national comparison aims
to increase our understanding of the role of racial animus in contributing to the public
demand for harsher sentencing options in two different western democracies. The role
that racial animus plays in influencing punitive attitudes comparing the United States
with Australia remains unknown.
The racial animus model
Racial animus has been defined as the harbouring of animus, resentment or negative sentiment
towards cultural minority groups (Unnever & Cullen, 2010a). The minority group threat
hypothesis underpins the racial animus model for example, Liska, 1992. This hypothesis pro-
poses that the majority group (e.g., Whites) use different types of social control to manage the
24 Journal of Criminology 55(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial