Saving Children, Damning Adults? An Examination of Public Support for Juvenile Rehabilitation and Adult Punishment

• DOI: 10.1177/0734016819833141
• Author: Marc Gertz,Kelly Welch,Leah Fikre Butler
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Saving Children, Damning

Adults? An Examination

of Public Support for

Juvenile Rehabilitation

and Adult Punishment

Kelly Welch

1

, Leah Fikre Butler

2

, and Marc Gertz

2

Abstract

Research shows that public preferences about justice system approaches to decreasing illegal

behavior distinguish between adult and juvenile offending. We also know that fear of crime and

perceived risk of victimization typically strengthen support for harsh punishments and reduce

support for rehabilitation. What has yet to be demonstrated—and that we examine here—is

whether there are youth-specific differences in the way that crime salience affects public support for

punitive versus rehabilitative policies and to what extent confidence in the criminal and juvenile

justice systems affects punishment orientations toward adults and juveniles. Essentially, we examine

why some Americans support “child saving” yet condemn adults. This exploratory study’s findings

indicate that while crime salience increases the likelihood that one will support harsh adult criminal

measures, it is not associated with similar attitudes toward juvenile delinquents. Further, those for

whom crime salience is lower have a greater probability of supporting rehabilitation for both

juveniles and adults. Finally, results show that support for the rehabilitation of youth persists despite

crime salience among those who are otherwise punitive toward adults. Justice ideology appears

unaffected by confidence in the justice systems. Policy implications and recommendations for future

research are offered.

Keywords

juvenile justice, punitiveness, rehabilitation, crime salience, justice system confidence

It is increasingly apparent that the harsh treatment of juvenile offenders within the American justice

system comes at a steep personal, social, and financial cost. Studies have demonstrated countless

short- and long-term detrimental effects of arrest, incarceration, and solitary confinement on youth

1

Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

2

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kelly Welch, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Ave., St. Augustine Center 204, Villanova, PA 19085, USA.

Email: kelly.welch@villanova.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2019, Vol. 44(4) 470-491

ª2019 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016819833141

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

and their communities, with little benefit (Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, 2014). Yet the juvenile justice

system (JJS) has not always been so punitive. Until recent decades, its orientation toward rehabi-

litating delinquents and “child saving” through prevention was balanced with punishment (Bernard

& Kurlychek, 2010), an attribute that has long distinguished it from the relative harshness of the

adult criminal justice system (CJS). However, during the “get-tough” movement that began in the

1980s, the public expressed greater punitiveness toward all offenders. Research has shown that

public attitudes like this can have a profound effect on public policies, including those of the justice

system (Green, 2006; Roberts, 2004), which helps to partially explain the vast expansion and

intensification of social controls during that time. Among the influences that can shape attitudes

about punishment, crime salience has an import ant effect on public punitiveness in a range of

circumstances (Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010), with concern, fear of crime, and perceived risk of

victimization exacerbating the extent to which the public prefers severe punishments over rehabi-

litation (Callanan, 2005; Mascini & Houtman, 2006). There is also reason to believe that public

confidence in the justice system’s ability to reduce crime and delinquency should affect people’s

preferences for sanctions (Simon, 2007), although the limited research assessing this relationship has

produced mixed results (Nagin, Piquero, Scott, & Steinberg, 2006; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010;

Sundt, Schwaeble, & Merritt, 2017; Unnever & Cullen, 2010). Regardless, the public has appeared

to remain more supportive of rehabilitative objectives for juveniles than it has for adults (Applegate,

Davis, & Cullen, 2008; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010; Roberts, 2004). What is unclear is why some

who are punitive toward adult criminals endorse rehabilitation for delinquents—essentially espous-

ing child saving while damning adults.

This study is the first to endeavor to account for this counterintuitive phenomenon. The funda-

mental question we begin to explore is under what circumstances do people not give up on kids, even

when they are otherwise punitive. The answer to this question may shed light on how to best convey

crime and delinquency information to the public, particularly as it may affect concerns about crime

and confidence in the justice system, in order to expand public support for more productive anti-

offending strategies. Ultimately, that support may manifest in policy changes by lawmakers. Using

multivariate analyses of national survey data, we explore the degree to which crime salience and

confidence in the criminal justice system and juvenile justice system influence the public’s orientation

toward punishment versus rehabilitation for youth and adults. The results demonstrate the importance

of assuaging both fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization for increasing public support for

rehabilitative justice, and they establish the need for a new avenue of research that would unpack why

crime salience matters. Given recent White House initiatives to turn away from rehabilitative prin-

ciples for juveniles (Pilkington, 2018) and to portray both adult and juveniles offenders as more

fearsome and less capable of reform (Bump, 2018), this line of inquiry has particular urgency.

Public Perspectives on Adult Versus Juvenile Justice

American enthusiasm for punitive criminal justice policies is now well-established. Many of the

severe anti-crime policies were implemented and sustained over the last four decades because of

politicians and their constituents who sought to declare an unofficial war on drug users, gang

members, perceived predators, and repeat “three-strikes” felons, despite consistently declining

crime rates since the mid-1990s (Simon, 2007). Until recent bipartisan endorsements of criminal

justice reform (Hulse & Steinhauer, 2015), this widely supported punitive movement brought

harsher sentencing policies that led to longer punishments and various mandatory penalties for drug

and firearm users and recidivists, among others (Enns, 2014; Ramirez, 2013). It lengthened terms of

probation, further restricted inmate activities, and applied official labels to offenders, which effec-

tively limited options for postincarcerative reform. Unsurprisingly, few supported a rehabilitative

approach to criminal justice during this get-tough period, during which policy makers and the public

Welch et al. 471