The effects of language on the stigmatization and exclusion of returning citizens: Results from a survey experiment
| Author | Hilary M Jackl |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211059318 |
| Published date | 01 April 2023 |
| Date | 01 April 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The effects of language on
the stigmatization and
exclusion of returning
citizens: Results from
a survey experiment
Hilary M Jackl
School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany SUNY, USA
Abstract
Although the use of person-centered language has increased in recent years, its usage
remains limited within the field of criminal justice, wherein terms such as ex-offender are
frequently used to describe formerly incarcerated individuals. Research suggests that
person-centered language matters for public opinion, but prior work has not examined
the effect of language on support for the social reintegration of returning citizens. The pre-
sent research experimentally manipulates the effects of the language used to describe
individuals released from incarceration and the race of a hypothetical returning citizen on
the following outcomes: negative stereotype endorsement, attitudinal social distance, and
support for reintegrative initiatives. I find that person-centered language significantly reduces
stigmatization of returning citizens, which ultimately increases support for reintegrative
services. These findings suggest that humanizing changes to criminal justice discourse may
have the capacity to shift public opinion and create a social context more conducive to
reintegration after incarceration.
Keywords
reentry, stigma, social exclusion, framing, public opinion, survey experiments
Corresponding author:
Hilary Jackl, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany SUNY,135 Western Ave, Albany NY 12203, USA.
Email: hjackl@albany.edu
Article
Punishment & Society
2023, Vol. 25(2) 471–499
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14624745211059318
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Introduction
Every year, over 600,000 men and women are released from state and federal correctional
facilities across the United States and return to society (Carson, 2020). Despite having
served time for the crimes for which they were convicted, those who return must subse-
quently contend with the collateral sanctions—or invisible punishment—associated with
a criminal conviction, which perpetuate the social exclusion of incarceration (Travis,
2002). Among returning citizens, social exclusion manifests itself in myriad ways,
including restrictive public housing policies, felon disenfranchisement laws, widespread
discrimination in education and employment opportunities, and the stigma that inescap-
ably accompanies the label of ex-convict (Lageson and Maruna, 2018; Sugie et al., 2020;
Wakefield and Uggen, 2010). Overall, the wide-ranging formal and informal exclusion-
ary practices that follow a release from incarceration have a persistent negative impact on
the reintegration of returning citizens (Uggen and Stewart, 2015).
How the public views returning citizens plays a significant role in the creation and main-
tenance of invisible punishment and social exclusion. The widespread belief that those who
have been incarcerated are dangerous, untrustworthy, and less deserving of society’s
resources than are those who have not been incarcerated (Hirschfield and Piquero, 2010) pro-
vokes a strong desire to maintain social distance from returning citizens. Members of the
public frequently oppose the siting of public housing and human services facilities within
their own neighborhoods to prevent the spatial integration of those with so-called social dis-
eases (Dear, 1992). Consequently, much as rates of prison admissions strongly correlate with
various indicators of community disadvantage, such as poverty and unemployment, so too do
patterns of reentry, with the majority of those leaving incarceration returning to a small
number of highly disadvantaged urban neighborhoods (Sampson and Loeffler, 2010;
Simes, 2018). Thus, although much of the public endorse the provision of general assistance
to those in the process of reentry (Garland et al., 2017; Ouellette et al., 2017) and appear to
support several measures of social integration, such as the restoration of voting rights (Burton
et al., 2020; Manza et al., 2004) and government-assisted job training and employment
(Ouellette et al., 2017), this support is substantially constrained by not-in-my-backyard
(NIMBY) attitudes and the desire to maintain distance from stigmatized populations.
As a result, public support is considerably lower for critical areas of social inclusion.
Members of the public are least likely to support policies that impact them directly, such
as paying higher taxes allocated to reentry services and the construction of transitional
housing within their immediate neighborhoods (Garland et al., 2017; Ouellette et al.,
2017; Socia et al., 2019). In addition, despite expressing moderate support for housing
policy initiatives, the public expresses significantly lower levels of willingness to
reside in proximity to returning citizens (Hardcastle et al., 2011; Ouellette et al.,
2017). When voters are unwilling to pay higher taxes to support the reentry population
and are resistant to the placement of housing and services within their own neighbor-
hoods, underfunded and overburdened service providers are unable to meet the needs
of their most vulnerable clients (Hipp et al., 2010) and returning citizens are relegated
to a small number of already marginalized neighborhoods, often placing an enormous
strain on those communities (Clear, 2007).
472 Punishment & Society 25(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial