Reintegrative Populism?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12191
• Published date: 01 February 2016
• Date: 01 February 2016
• Author: Justin T. Pickett

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

REHABILITATION IN A RED STATE

Reintegrative Populism?

Public Opinion and the Criminology of Downsizing

Justin T.Pickett

University at Albany—SUNY

This could be a pivotal moment in American penal history.We may be transitioning

from a punitive crime control agenda to one centered on rehabilitation and

reintegration. Fornearly four decades, America has been the “incarceration nation”

(Enns, 2016); its prison population grew continuously between 1973 and 2009 even though

the crime rate declined or remained stable for roughly half of this time period (Travis and

Western, 2014). Beginning in 2009, however, the prison population stopped growing, and

then it started to shrink (Petersilia and Cullen, 2015). A new focus on downsizing prisons

emerged among politicians, which was motivated, in part, by increased concerns during the

Great Recession about prison costs (Clear and Frost, 2014; Petersilia and Cullen, 2015).

Unfortunately, the long-term success of the downsizing movement is not guaranteed

(Gottschalk, 2014). Petersilia and Cullen (2015) identified the need for a new “criminology

of downsizing” to guide prison reduction efforts. Public opinion research must play a

central role in this new criminology. Downsizing does not automatically lead to increased

rehabilitation and reintegration. Indeed, these outcomes are unlikely if fiscal concerns are the

only motivation for reform. Progressive crime policies are not cheap (Petersilia and Cullen,

2015), and there are more austere approaches to correctional cost-saving (Gottschalk, 2014;

Loader, 2010). For rehabilitative and reintegrative reforms to be successful and durable,

they must be motivated by normative, not just instrumental, concerns. Politicians must

also have electoral incentives for championing progressive policies specifically.This is where

studies analyzing public support for rehabilitation and reintegration, such as that conducted

by Angela J. Thielo, Francis T. Cullen, Derek M. Cohen, and Cecilia Chouhy (2016, this

issue), become essential for the criminology of downsizing.

Between the 1970s and mid-1990s, the American public grew considerably more puni-

tive (Enns, 2016; Ramirez, 2013a). Although punitive attitudes tend to be “mushy” and

Direct correspondence to Justin T. Pickett, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany—SUNY, 135

Western Avenue, Albany, NY 12222 (e-mail: jpickett@albany.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12191 C2016 American Society of Criminology 131

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 15 rIssue 1