Attitudes towards the death penalty: An assessment of individual and country-level differences

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY European Journal of Criminology Pub Date : 2022-08-22 DOI:10.1177/14773708221097670
D. McCarthy, I. brunton-smith
{"title":"Attitudes towards the death penalty: An assessment of individual and country-level differences","authors":"D. McCarthy, I. brunton-smith","doi":"10.1177/14773708221097670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on public attitudes to the death penalty has been predominantly understood through single nation-states, especially within the USA. Examinations of international differences in citizens’ support for the death penalty have been scarce, particularly among continents with a high volume of retentionist nations (e.g. Asia). In this paper, we draw on a dataset of 135,000 people from across 81 nations to examine differences in death penalty support. We find that residents of retentionist nations are generally more supportive of the death penalty than those from abolitionist nations. But this general difference masks important differences both within and between countries. At the country-level, residents of abolitionist nations with autocratic political systems and those with higher homicide levels were more likely to support the death penalty than residents of other abolitionist nations. At the individual level, greater support for a strong dictatorial-type leader and perceptions of political corruption are associated with increased support for the death penalty, but only in abolitionist nations. By contrast, more frequent religious worship, perceived egalitarianism in a nation, and support for the political performance of government reduced death penalty support in abolitionist nations but increased support in retentionist nations, while belief in individual responsibility and critical views towards ethnic minorities increased support for the death penalty across both abolitionist and retentionist nations.","PeriodicalId":51475,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Criminology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708221097670","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Research on public attitudes to the death penalty has been predominantly understood through single nation-states, especially within the USA. Examinations of international differences in citizens’ support for the death penalty have been scarce, particularly among continents with a high volume of retentionist nations (e.g. Asia). In this paper, we draw on a dataset of 135,000 people from across 81 nations to examine differences in death penalty support. We find that residents of retentionist nations are generally more supportive of the death penalty than those from abolitionist nations. But this general difference masks important differences both within and between countries. At the country-level, residents of abolitionist nations with autocratic political systems and those with higher homicide levels were more likely to support the death penalty than residents of other abolitionist nations. At the individual level, greater support for a strong dictatorial-type leader and perceptions of political corruption are associated with increased support for the death penalty, but only in abolitionist nations. By contrast, more frequent religious worship, perceived egalitarianism in a nation, and support for the political performance of government reduced death penalty support in abolitionist nations but increased support in retentionist nations, while belief in individual responsibility and critical views towards ethnic minorities increased support for the death penalty across both abolitionist and retentionist nations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对死刑的态度:对个人和国家一级差异的评估
公众对死刑态度的研究主要是通过单一民族国家来理解的,特别是在美国。很少对公民支持死刑的国际差异进行审查,特别是在保留死刑国家数量众多的大陆之间(例如亚洲)。在本文中,我们利用来自81个国家的135,000人的数据集来研究支持死刑的差异。我们发现,保留死刑国家的居民普遍比废除死刑国家的居民更支持死刑。但这种普遍差异掩盖了国家内部和国家之间的重要差异。在国家层面上,与其他废除死刑国家的居民相比,拥有专制政治制度的废除死刑国家和杀人率较高的国家的居民更有可能支持死刑。在个人层面上,对强势独裁型领导人的更多支持和对政治腐败的看法与对死刑的更多支持有关,但仅限于废除死刑的国家。相比之下,一个国家更频繁的宗教崇拜、感知到的平等主义以及对政府政治表现的支持减少了废除死刑国家对死刑的支持,但增加了保留死刑国家对死刑的支持,而对个人责任的信念和对少数民族的批评观点增加了废除死刑国家和保留死刑国家对死刑的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Criminology
European Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Criminology is a refereed journal published by SAGE publications and the European Society of Criminology. It provides a forum for research and scholarship on crime and criminal justice institutions. The journal published high quality articles using varied approaches, including discussion of theory, analysis of quantitative data, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, and study of institutions of political process. The journal also covers analysis of policy, but not description of policy developments. Priority is given to articles that are relevant to the wider Europe (within and beyond the EU) although findings may be drawn from other parts of the world.
期刊最新文献
Criminal governance in a large European city: The case of gangs in London. A Thank You to Our Reviewers Beyond the risk factors of sports-related match-fixing: Testing the applicability of situational action theory Old habits die hard: Assessing the validity of using homicide as an indicator of other violent crimes Structure, positions and mechanisms: A case study of two Dutch Salafi-Jihadi networks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1