分析种族、成瘾、药物类型和犯罪记录对公众支持对非法药物使用的刑事化和医疗化量刑方法的影响

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Experimental Criminology Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s11292-024-09657-2
Carolina R. Caliman, Colleen M. Berryessa
{"title":"分析种族、成瘾、药物类型和犯罪记录对公众支持对非法药物使用的刑事化和医疗化量刑方法的影响","authors":"Carolina R. Caliman, Colleen M. Berryessa","doi":"10.1007/s11292-024-09657-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>This study examines how a defendant’s addiction, prior criminal record, race, and drug type impact public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches to illegal drug use, as well as how such support may be moderated by participants’ levels of essentialist thinking.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>This study is a fully-crossed, randomized experiment with a lay public sample (<i>N</i> = 1208).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>Public support for medicalized approaches to sentencing was significantly higher for oxycodone and heroin. Support for criminalized approaches was significantly higher for crack and cocaine, and when the defendant was Hispanic, Black, or had a violent criminal record. Essentialist thinking generally predicted increased support for criminalized approaches, but increased support for medicalized approaches when addiction was known.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>This research highlights the role of different factors in shaping public support for drug sentencing approaches, as well as suggests that public attitudes about drugs are deeply intertwined with societal narratives about race, addiction, and criminality.</p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing the impacts of race, addiction, drug type, and criminal record on public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches toward illegal drug use\",\"authors\":\"Carolina R. Caliman, Colleen M. Berryessa\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11292-024-09657-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>This study examines how a defendant’s addiction, prior criminal record, race, and drug type impact public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches to illegal drug use, as well as how such support may be moderated by participants’ levels of essentialist thinking.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>This study is a fully-crossed, randomized experiment with a lay public sample (<i>N</i> = 1208).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>Public support for medicalized approaches to sentencing was significantly higher for oxycodone and heroin. Support for criminalized approaches was significantly higher for crack and cocaine, and when the defendant was Hispanic, Black, or had a violent criminal record. Essentialist thinking generally predicted increased support for criminalized approaches, but increased support for medicalized approaches when addiction was known.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>This research highlights the role of different factors in shaping public support for drug sentencing approaches, as well as suggests that public attitudes about drugs are deeply intertwined with societal narratives about race, addiction, and criminality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09657-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09657-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究探讨被告的成瘾、前科、种族和药物类型如何影响公众对非法药物使用的刑事化和医疗化量刑方法的支持,以及这种支持如何被参与者的本质主义思维水平所调节。方法采用全交叉随机实验,随机抽样1208例。结果羟考酮和海洛因药物化量刑的支持率明显高于其他药物。对于快克和可卡因,当被告是西班牙裔、黑人或有暴力犯罪记录时,对犯罪化方法的支持明显更高。本质主义思维通常预测对犯罪化方法的支持会增加,但当已知成瘾时,对医疗化方法的支持会增加。本研究强调了不同因素在影响公众对毒品量刑方法的支持方面的作用,并表明公众对毒品的态度与种族、成瘾和犯罪的社会叙事深深交织在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Analyzing the impacts of race, addiction, drug type, and criminal record on public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches toward illegal drug use

Objectives

This study examines how a defendant’s addiction, prior criminal record, race, and drug type impact public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches to illegal drug use, as well as how such support may be moderated by participants’ levels of essentialist thinking.

Methods

This study is a fully-crossed, randomized experiment with a lay public sample (N = 1208).

Results

Public support for medicalized approaches to sentencing was significantly higher for oxycodone and heroin. Support for criminalized approaches was significantly higher for crack and cocaine, and when the defendant was Hispanic, Black, or had a violent criminal record. Essentialist thinking generally predicted increased support for criminalized approaches, but increased support for medicalized approaches when addiction was known.

Conclusions

This research highlights the role of different factors in shaping public support for drug sentencing approaches, as well as suggests that public attitudes about drugs are deeply intertwined with societal narratives about race, addiction, and criminality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
期刊最新文献
The effect of pre-release treatment with injectable naltrexone on criminal justice and substance use outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled trial Framing the harms of wrongful convictions: how different narratives shape public opinion Now you see it, now you don’t: social systematic observation of physical disorder using Google Street View An experimental study on the effect of prosecutorial Brady violations on confidence in exonerating individuals wrongfully convicted of murder Analyzing the impacts of race, addiction, drug type, and criminal record on public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches toward illegal drug use
×
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:481959085
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