The Punitive Woman?:

Gender Differences in Public

Attitudes Toward Parole

Shannon Buglar

Public opinion on parole

Mixed findings:

• 80% of Texans would prefer prisoners serve part of their

sentence in the community (Texas Public Policy

Foundation, 2015)

• 78% of Massachusetts’ residents favour the early release of

selected, non-violent prisoners (Roberts et al., 2005)

BUT

• 81% of respondents believe parole is granted too frequently

(Zamble & Kalm, 1990)

• 72% feel parole boards should be more strict (Johnson,

2009)

The Australian position

Recent Australian study of public attitudes toward parole revealed:

• 46% of respondents agreed with the idea of parole release. 38% disagreed.

• Despite this, 59% agreed that prisoners should serve their “entire sentence” in prison.

• 75% agreed that past parole violators should not be eligible for parole again.

• 40% were fearful of being victimised by a parolee.

(Fitzgerald et al., 2016)

The punitive woman?

• Women less likely to favour the early release of

offenders for good behaviour, and more likely to

oppose the shortening of sentences and paroling of

offenders who had previously been paroled (Haghighi

& Lopez, 1998).

• Women more likely to support “truth in sentencing”.

The odds of supporting parole for women, relative to

men, decrease 0.72 times (O’Hear & Wheelock, 2015).

• Women no more likely than men to be affected by

offender remorse when making parole decisions

(Estrada-Reynolds et al., 2016).

The punitive man?

• Men significantly less supportive than women of the

use of community penalties (probation) (Maruna &

King, 2004).

• Men more punitive than women with respect to the

death penalty (Cochran & Sanders, 2009) and

offender rehabilitation and treatment (Applegate et

al., 2002; Cullen et al., 1985).

• Men less “forgiving” than women (Miller, Worthington

Jr, and McDaniel, 2008).

Are Australian women

uniquely punitive?

• Unlike women in the US and other Western

countries, there is a strong tradition amongst

Australian women to vote conservatively.

• Constant media attention of cases involving the

murder and/or sexual assault of women in Australia

by men on parole may lead to increased fear.

• There is “something about being a woman [that]

makes one less willing to take a life in punishment

for crime but at the same time more punitive in other

ways” (Kelley & Braithwaite, 1990, p. 547).

Current Study

• Draws on ‘National Study of

Community Views on Parole’

(Fitzerald et al., 2016)

• Data collected September

2015

• 1,200 respondents from all

states/territories of Australia

• Questions on prisoner re-entry

and reintegration, parole

release, parole board decision-

making, and correctional

practices

Research Questions

1. How are attitudes toward parole distributed

across the sample?

2. Are Australian women more likely to hold non-

supportive views toward parole than Australian

men?

3. Does respondents’ reported sense of fear of

parolees, punitiveness toward offenders, and/or

beliefs about redemption moderate gender

differences in parole attitudes?

Variables of interest

• Outcome variable

“Prisoners should be released from prison to serve the

last part of their sentence in the community under

supervision”.

Measured on a 5 point Likert-type scale, where 1 =

strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

• Fear of parolees

“I sometimes fear I may become the victim of a crime

committed by a parolee”.

Variables of interest

• Punitiveness Scale

6 item scale. E.g., “People who break the law should

be given stiffer sentences”.

• Belief in Redeemability Scale

4 item scale. E.g., “Most offenders can go on to lead

productive lives with help and hard work”.

Distribution of parole attitudes

55,10%

13%

31,90%

41,70%

15,60%

42,80%

Parole Supporters Fence Sitters Parole Opponents

Male respondents Female respondents

Mean difference t-tests

Parole Supporters

• Tend to be lower-income males who do not have children and are employed on a basis other than full-time employment.

• Believe most strongly in society’s obligation to assist with prisoner re-entry and the need for adequate funding for offender rehabilitation programs.

• Believe most strongly that crime is the product of a person’s social context and that offenders can desist from criminal activity.

Mean difference t-tests

Parole Opponents

• Tend to be older women with children and an

education level of up to year 10.

• Believe that crime levels are increasing and that

additional funding should be allocated to prisons.

• Believe strongly that community safety is more

important than offender rehabilitation, and are the

most fearful of parolees and punitive toward

offenders.

Mean difference t-tests

Fence Sitters

• Tend to be younger females who are the least

fearful of parolees and the least punitive toward

offenders.

• Least likely to want additional funding to be

allocated to prisons, or to demand that community

safety be prioritised over offender rehabilitation.

• Also tend to reject the idea that crime is freely

chosen by offenders.

Multinomial logistic regression

Parole Opponents v Parole Supporters

Variable Odds Ratio

Female 1.82***

Society obligated to assist prisoner reentry 0.74***

Fund prisoner treatment/education

programs

0.69***

Fund prisons to incapacitate longer 1.25***

Prioritise safety over rehabilitation 1.29**

Crime is the product of social context 0.83**

Punitiveness 1.82***

Belief in Redeemability 0.68*** *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Multinomial logistic regression

Fence Sitters v Parole Supporters

Variable Odds Ratio

Female 1.80**

Punitiveness 0.74*

Belief in Redeemability 0.65**

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Multinomial logistic regression

Fence Sitters v Parole Opponents

Variable Odds Ratio

Fund prisoner treatment/education

programs

1.32**

Prioritise safety over offender rehabilitation 0.74**

Punitiveness 0.41***

*** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Summary of key findings

• There is a gender gap in parole support, which

remains even once a number of demographic and

criminal justice variables traditionally linked to attitudes

toward offenders are controlled for.

• Most notably, the odds that women, relative to men,

will oppose rather than support parole are 1.82 times

greater.

• These findings indicate there may be something about

being a woman in Australia that prevents one from

being willing to support the early release of prisoners.

Interaction effects

• Do gender differences in parole attitudes vary as a

function of respondents’ fear of parolees,

punitiveness toward offenders, or beliefs in

redemption?

2,72

1,89

1,31

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

Od

ds R

ati

o

Effect of fear of parolees on female respondents:

Parole Opponents v Parole Supporters

Low Fear (p <.001) Average Fear (p <.001) High Fear (NS)

3,16

2,05

1,33

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

Od

ds R

ati

o

Effect of punitiveness on female respondents: Parole Opponents v Parole Supporters

Low Punitiveness (p <.001) Average Punitiveness (p <.001)

High Punitiveness (NS)

Key findings

• Differing levels of fear and punitiveness (but not beliefs in redeemability) influence the likelihood that women will oppose parole.

• Notably, women with the greatest odds of opposing parole are those who report feeling the least fearful of parolees.

• Similarly, the odds that women will oppose parole are at their highest at a low level of punitiveness.

• Thus, it does not appear that it is either fear or punitiveness that causes reduced support for parole amongst women.

Where to next?

• Interviews to explore the basis

for men’s and women’s views.

• Presentation of vignette

involving offender being

considered for parole.

• What role do emotions (anger,

empathy, fear) play in shaping

people’s views on parole?

Thank you

Research funded by the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant 150100569)

Punitiveness Scale

1. Life in prison with no chance for parole should be the punishment for murder.

2. People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.

3. The tougher the sentence, the less likely an offender is to commit another crime.

4. Rehabilitation is not taken seriously by offenders.

5. High crime rates are mainly an indication that punishments are not severe enough.

6. Courts are too soft on offenders.

Alpha = .82

“Belief in Redeemability”

1. Most offenders can go on to lead productive lives with help and hard work.

2. Even the worst offenders can grow out of criminal behaviour.

3. Most offenders have little hope of changing for the better (reverse coded).

4. Some offenders are so damaged that they can never lead productive lives (reverse coded).

• Alpha = .55