Forgiveness and Fundamentalism

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM: RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN CORRECTIONAL ATTITUDES AND RELIGION*

BRANDON K. APPLEGATE

University of Central Florida

FRANCIS T. CULLEN

BONNIE S. FISHER

University of Cincinnati

THOMAS VANDER VEN

Hofstra University

Although research typically has failed to establish a relationship between religious affiliation and correctional attitudes, recent assessments have revealed that fundamentalist Christians tend to be more punitive than are nonfundamentalists. These studies have advanced our understanding considerably,but their conceptualizationof religion and correctional attitudes has been limited. Using a statewide survey, the present study demonstrates that compassionate zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA as well as fundamentalist aspects of religious beliefs are related to public correctional preferences. Further, our results reveal that religion influencessupport for rehabilitation as well as punitiveness. These findings suggest the need for scholars to think more broadly about the role of religion in criminology.

David Garland (1990:203) recently observed that “throughout the history of penal practice religion has been a major force in shaping the ways in which offenders are dealt with.” Despite this long tradition, little research has seriously explored the relationship between religious views and correctional attitudes. Most of the research that has been conducted on public attitudes toward justice policieseither failed to consider religion altogether or divided respondents into broad categories of affiliation,typically producing null relationships. In contrast, a handful of recent studies have examined the issue more closely, revealing greater punitiveness zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

* This project was supported by Grant 96-IJ-CX-OOO7 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and a grant awarded by the University Research Council, University of Cincinnati. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA of the U.S. Department of Justice or the University of Cincinnati.

APPLEGATE

amongconservative Protestants. These studies show that members of fundamentalist denominations, or those who hold more fundamentalist views, frequently are more supportive of retributive goals of punishment (Grasmick et al., 1992),are more supportive of the death penalty (Borg, 1997; Britt, 1996; Grasmick et al., 1993a;Grasmick et al., 1993b;Young, 1992; Young and Thompson, 1995),and are more punitive in general (Finamore and Carlson, 1987; Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Leiber and Woodrick, 1997;Myers, 1988).

Still, the full variety of religious perspectives and their potential influence on attitudes toward various correctional issueshas not been explored comprehensively. This study seeks to build on previous research in two ways. First, we examine the potential effects of religious forgiveness in addition to the traditional focus on the influence of conservative religious views. Second, we explore how different religious views influence public support for rehabilitation and punitiveness. Multiple measures of these correctional orientations are employed.

RELIGION AND PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CORRECTIONAL POLICIES

THE SALIENCE OF RELIGION IN AMERICA

At the root of what Wald (1992:Ch. 1) calls “naive” secularization the-

ory lies the presumption that greater modernization and economic development leads inevitably to a decline in the cultural importance of religion (see also Ammerman, 1987). After Wald presents data from 13foreign countries that clearly show a negative relationship between economic advancement and the prominence of religion, he concludesthat American society is a “conspicuousexception” (p. 8). Several indicators suggest that Wald is correct. Shorto (1997),for example, reports that 96% of the U. S. population say that they believe in God, approximately the same percentage as 50years ago. Repeated Gallup polls conducted on national samples of Americans indicate that since 1937 approximately 65% to 75% of the population have consistently reported that they are members of a church or synagogue(Newport and Saad, 1997). The figure for 1997was 67%. In addition, 61% of those polled in March 1997 stated that religion was a “very important” part of their lives, and another 27% said that religion was “fairlyimportant” (p. 43). The church may not hold the central position in American communities that it did two centuries ago, but religious beliefs still contribute meaningfully to American culture (Hunter, 1991; Layman, 1997). In fact, Hunter (1991) contends that religious views are integral to a “culture war” that divides conservatives and progressives on nearly all policy issues.

In the score of years after World War 11, denominational affiliation

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

divided citizens on many political and moral issues (Hunter, 1991:86-87). Declining denominational loyalties in the following decades, however, led to the present situation. As observed by Hunter (1991:105),“whether one is a Protestant, Catholic, or Jew simply does not mean very much when attempting to explain variations in people’s attitudes or values.” The difficulty is that research relying on denomination as a measure of religion then leads to the mistaken conclusion that “general religious preference may be irrelevant or ‘epiphenominal”’ (p. 105).

Religion researchers realized that separating people into such broad denominational groupings was unlikely to differentiate people in their views on social policy issues. Instead, fundamentalism emerged as the most salient characteristic of religion. Marty and Appleby (1991)observe that fundamentalism is a difficult concept to define precisely,partly due to the wide variety of globalphenomena to which this term might be applied. Also problematic is that authors have used such terms as fundamentalist, evangelical, conservative, and orthodox interchangeably. Despite these inconsistencies, scholars contend that fundamentalist Protestant denominations may be identified by their beliefs in a literal interpretation of the Bible, the authoritarianism of God, obedience to moral mandates, individual responsibility, and the righteous application of punishment for sinful conduct (Ammerman, 1987, 1991;Jelen, 1989;Kellstedt and Smidt, 1991; Roof and Roof, 1984). As a result, researchers have moved beyond broad categories of religious affiliation to categorize denominations by the degree to which they are fundamentalist. For example, several researchers have employed schemes developed for use with the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey that distinguish between fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist Protestant denominations (see Roof and McKinney, 1987;Smith, 1990).

These more refined analyses of religious affiliation largely show that people reporting membership in fundamentalist religions hold more conservative views on a wide range of political and social issues. Their opinions on gender roles, homosexuality, extramarital sex, premarital sex, abortion, civil liberties, and environmentalism typically are less progressive than are the opinions of nonfundamentalists (Gay et al., 1996;Hoffman and Miller, 1997; Roof and McKinney, 1987; Schmalzbauer, 1993). Fundamentalists also tend to be less tolerant of racial minorities, left-wing political groups-such as atheists, communists, and homosexuals-and right-wing political groups-such as militarists and racists (Beatty and Walter, 1984;Kirkpatrick, 1993). Furthermore, they are more supportive of corporal punishment for children (Ellison et al., 1996; Ellison and Sherkat, 1993; Grasmick et al., 1991b; Grasmick et al., 1992b; Wiehe, 1990).

APPLEGATE ET AL.

Although scholars of religion disagree about what is the most appropriate way to operationalize fundamentalism (Kellstedt, 1989;Kellstedt and Smidt, 1991), they acknowledge that considerable intradenominational variation existsin religiousbeliefs (Ammerman, 1982;Hunter, 1982,1991). Thus, separating respondents according to their affiliationwith fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist denominationsstillserves only as a proxy measure of fundamentalism. A preferable strategy is not to assume that all members of a denomination share the same views but rather to measure fundamentalist religious beliefs directly. Hunter (1991:105) has made this point more broadly: “[I]ncreasingly,the politicallyconsequential divisions are those that separate the orthodox from the progressive zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA within religious traditions” (emphasis in the original). Studies that have adopted this approach confirm that fundamentalist beliefs-such as literal interpretation of the Bible-are related to more conservative social and political attitudes (Ellison and Musick, 1995;Greeley, 1993).

Notably, empirical studies that explore the potentially more compassionate influences of religiousbeliefs are far less abundant, a situation that may be the result of a tendency among scholars to see religion as a source of control (Wald et al., 1988). Still, a few authors have discussed a more compassionate side of religion. In a national study of more than 2,500 adult Americans, Regnerus et al., (1998) found that reports of giving to the poor-an act of generosity and compassion-were greater among those who were religious compared to those who were nonreligious. Furthermore, Greeley’s (1993) research suggests that not all religious beliefs lead to attitudinal conservatism. His analysis of General Social Survey data showed that holding an image of God as gracious significantlypredicted support for greater spending for environmental protection. Other authors also have discussed the link between religiosity and concern for the well being of others. Wuthnow (1991,1995), for example, suggeststhat participation in religious groups may prompt participation in charitable activities; Wimberly (1997) emphasizes the role of religious leaders as caregivers, especially in African-American communities; and religious beliefs have been linked with the emerging field of forgiveness studies (Heller, 1998;Jones, 1995). It seems clear, therefore, that religion may be more than a source of conservative views and actions.

RELIGION AND CRIME ATTITUDES

In light of the persistence of religion within American society and its potential influence on policy positions, it is surprising that many, if not most, studies of public attitudes toward crime-related policy issues have not included religion as an independent variable in the analysis (see, for example, Langworthy and Whitehead, 1986;Miller et al., 1986;Rossi and Berk, 1997;Taylor et al., 1979). Even so, over the past decade, there has

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

been a growing interest in exploring how religion affects citizens’ support for punishing offenders.

To date, much of the research that has examined the relationship between religion and correctional attitudes has used the fairly broad categorizationsof affiliationthat characterized studies of other social attitudes. Distinctions typically have been drawn between Protestants. Catholics, Jews, and those claiming no religious affiliation. These studies tend to reveal no relationships between religion and crime-related views (Applegate et al.,1996;Barkan and Cohn, 1994;Bohm, 1991;Durham et al., 1996; Flanagan and Longmire, 1996; Kelley and Braithwaite, 1990; McCorkle, 1993;Osborne and Rappaport, 1985;Samuel and Moulds, 1986;Tyler and Weber, 1982). One partial exception to this generalization is provided by Blumstein and Cohen (1980). Their analysis indicates that for most types of offenses,the respondents who reported no religious affiliationwere significantly less punitive than were the remaining respondents. Among those who reported an affiliation, however, the sentences assigned to hypothetical offenders did not differ significantly by denomination (also see Flanagan, 1996:89).

Recently, several scholars have begun to focus on the potential influence of fundamentalism on crime views. They reasoned that fundamentalists, with their conservative attitudes toward other issues, would be more likely to endorse the harsh treatment of offenders. Empirical investigations largely have supported this proposition. Thus, Borg (1997), Britt (1996), Grasmick et al., (1993b),Young (1992),and Young and Thompson (1995) all found that fundamentalist Protestants were more favorable toward capital punishment than were members of other religious groups. Grasmick et al., (1993b) also reported greater support for stiff criminal legislation and for harsh sentencing among fundamentalists. In a similar study, Grasmick et al., (1992a)found that fundamentalist Protestants were significantly more supportive of retribution as a penal philosophy.

In addition, researchers also have used direct measures of fundamentalist religious beliefs-rather than denominational affiliation-to explore the influence of religion on attitudes toward the punishment of offenders. These studies report results similar to those that have compared fundamentalist to nonfundamentalist denominations. People interpreting the Bible literally and people perceiving God as punitive tend to favor harsher courts, harsher treatment of juvenile offenders, capital punishment for both adults and juveniles, and retribution (Grasmick et al., 1992a,1993a, 1993b:306-307, 1994; Leiber and Woodrick, 1997; Leiber et al., 1995; Young, 1992;Young and Thompson, 1995).

Thus, the existing research suggests that religious fundamentalism increases support for “getting tough” with offenders. This general finding, however, may be specified by several considerations. First, there is some

evidence that the key aspect of fundamentalism that links it to punitiveness is the tendency of fundamentalists to interpret the scriptures literally (Ellison and Sherkat, 1993; Grasmick et al., 1991b, 1992a; Young and Thompson, 1995; but see Britt, 1996). Second, it is also possible that crime-related attitudes are influenced by the degree to which religion is salient in a person's life. Some research has shown that religiosity is negatively related to preferences for harsh punishment once religiousconservatism is controlled (Britt, 1996; Grasmick et al., 1992a; Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Young, 1992). Because fundamentalists tend to be more involved in religion and to see religion as more important to their daily lives than do nonfundamentalists (Ammerman, 1987; Grasmick et al., 1993a:footnote8; Kellstedt and Smidt, 1991;Wuthnow, 1995),it is essential to include religious salience in any model examining the influence of fundamentalism on punishment preferences.

Third, conflicting evidence exists on whether the relationship between fundamentalism and punitiveness is restricted in the United States to the Bible belt. Much of the pioneering work showing relationships between fundamentalism and punishment preferences has been conducted by Grasmick et al., usingsamples from Oklahoma-a Bible belt state. Two studies raise questions about the generalizability of these findings to other areas of the country. Borg (1997) divided her sample into those who had lived in the South when they were 16 years old and at the time they were surveyed-a group that likely would include many people from the Bible belt-and those who did not fit these criteria. She found that fundamentalist affiliation predicted greater support for capital punishment only among the Southerners. Likewise, examining data from respondents outside the Bible belt, Sandysand McGarrell (1997) failed to identify any significant relationships among support for capital punishment and fundamentalism, religious identity salience, or biblical literalism in their survey of Indiana residents. Still,Young and Thompson (1995)and Young (1992) did not find that the geographic origin of their respondents influenced the relationship between religion and punitiveness.

FORGIVENESS AND CORRECTIONAL ATTITUDES

The studies just reviewed have contributed substantially to our understanding of religious influences on correctional preferences. Consistent with the bulk of research on other political and social issues, however, these studies have tended to measure only the more fundamentalist side of religion rather than its more compassionate aspects. The studies cited above either have compared fundamentalist Protestants to all other Protestants (moderate and liberal combined) or have measured only aspects of fundamentalist religious beliefs (i.e., biblical literalism and authoritarian image of God). Let us hasten to add that a few of these authors have

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

acknowledged the need to investigate other facets of religion (Britt, 1996; Grasmick et al., 1993a, 1993b). Britt (1996:16), for example, suggested that it might be useful to examine “alternative theological emphases (e.g., hope, forgiveness, ‘second chances’).’’ Furthermore, Young (1992231; Young and Thompson, 1995)included a singleitem on evangelism(“Have you ever tried to encourage someone to believe in Jesus Christ or to accept Jesus Christ as his or her savior?”)in his analyses. As he observed, although agreement with this item might indicate “a selfishneed to ensure one’s own salvation,” it also might be interpreted as “an expression of compassion and concern for the souls of others” (Young, 1992:79). That favoring capital punishment was negatively related to evangelismsupports the latter interpretation. However, no study has yet investigatedthe possible relationship between correctional views and clearly compassionate religious beliefs.

Religious works provide conflicting messages about how one should react to sinners. Proscriptions to punish offenders with “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24) coexist with messages about the importance of forgiveness(Gorringe, 1996). A Hebrew book from the second century B.C., for example, instructs, “Love ye, therefore, one another from the heart; and if a man sin against thee, cast forth the poison of hate and speak peaceably to him,and thy soul hold not guile;and if he confessand repent, forgive him.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA . . .And if he be shameless and persist in his wrong-doing, even so forgive him from the heart” (cited in Fosdick, 1938:117). Similarly, compassionate messages can be found throughout the Bible (Jones, 1995). In Matthew (18:34-35), we are instructed that immoral acts, rather than the people committingthose acts, should be the objects of condemnation. Furthermore, God’scapacityto redeem sinners is unending. As long as an offender repents, His forgivenessis limitless (Luke 17:3-4). From a Christian perspective, God is not the only one engaging in forgiveness;it appears that mortals are required to forgive others as well (Jones, 1995110). In fact, one cannot obtain God’s forgivenesswithout forgiving others (Matthew 6:14-15; Mark 11:25-26), and failure to forgive others their sins is a serious sin in itself (Douglas and Tenney,1989:208;Matthew 18:34-35). According to Baldwin (1997:5), in contrast to messages about retribution, these passages suggest that “God’s systemof criminaljustice is based upon the idea that if you show another human being love and mercy, he or she will be transformed in spirit by the power of God” (see also Gorringe, 1996; Gorsuch and Hao, 1993; McHugh, 1978). Thus, although some religious beliefs may indicate that the most appropriate way to deal with offenders is through punishment, other religiously based views express the importance of efforts to redeem offenders. To begin

APPLEGATE ET AL.

exploring the possible influence of compassionate religious views on correctional preferences, we examine the public’s adherence to edicts of religious forgiveness.

MEASURING SUPPORT FOR CORRECTIONAL POLICIES

Religion has been considered in various areas of criminologicalinquiry. Recent research, for example, has explored the effects of religious affiliation or beliefs on firearms ownership (Young and Thompson, 1995),support for drug testing (Blackwelland Grasmick, 1997),perceptions of crime seriousness (Curry, 1996), and criminality (Cochran, 1989; Cochran and Akers, 1989; Cochran et al., 1994; Evans et al., 1995; Grasmick et al., 1991a; Stark and Bainbridge, 1996). Similar to the tendency to concentrate on the fundamentalist aspects of religion, however, the existingstudies of attitudes toward correctional policies have focused only on the punitive side of corrections. The influence of religion on progressive policies should also be investigated.

We were able to find only one study that included nonpunitive policies as dependent variables. In their survey of juvenile justice personnel, Leiber et al., (1995;see also Leiber and Woodrick, 1997)included measures of support for diversion and for intervention for juvenile offenders. Neither favoring diversion nor support for intervention was significantlyrelated to either biblical literalism or religiosity in these studies. Despite this null finding among juvenile justice practitioners, recent research indicates substantial variation in public support for nonpunitive approaches to offenders, such as rehabilitation (Applegate et al., 1997;Brown and Elrod, 1995; Johnson, B., 1994;McCorkle, 1993;Sundt et al., 1998;Turner et al., 1997). Investigating the potential sources of such variation, particularly given the emphasis placed on offender reform by some religiousdoctrines,is the aim of this research.

In the present study, we seek to broaden our understanding of the link between religion and criminal justice policy preferences by assessing a wider array of correctional attitudes. In this regard, we include diverse measures of punitiveness, including items tapping support for capital punishment, for harsher courts, and for a generally punitive approach to criminals. We also include measures of support for correctional treatment in general and for rehabilitation as the main goal of prisons. Taken together, this design provides perhaps the most extensive analysis in one study of the relationship between religious views and correctional attitudes.

HYPOTHESES

Based on the existingliterature and our discussionof related conceptual

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

issues, we propose four hypotheses. First, we expect that those who hold more strongly to religious values of forgivenesswill be more supportive of rehabilitation. Second, those holding more strongly to religious values of forgivenesswill be less punitive toward offenders. These propositions are based on the conceptual link between forgiveness and belief in the redemption of sinners as well as suggestionsthat religion provides a stimulus for compassionate assistance (Gorringe, 1996;Wuthnow, 1991, 1995). Third, consistent with previous criminologicalstudies and with more general research on religion and public policy attitudes, we expect that those holding more fundamentalist views will be more supportive of punitive responses to criminals. In particular, we expect that a tendency to interpret the Bible literally and perceptions of God as punitive will be related positively to punitiveness among our respondents.1 Fourth, those holding more fundamentalist views will be less supportive of rehabilitation for offenders. This proposition is based on research showinggreater punitiveness among religious fundamentalists coupled with research indicating a moderate negative relationship between support for rehabilitation and support for harshness in punishment (Cullen et al., 1985; Hough et al., 1988;Sandys and McGarrell, 1995).

METHODOLOGY

SAMPLE

To address these hypotheses, we randomly selected a statewide sample of 1,000Ohio residents? Questionnaires were mailed to each member of the sample following Dillman’s(1978)total designmethod. The first mailingwas distributed in May 1996,with reminder mailingsfollowing 1,3,and 7 weeks later. Completed questionnaires were returned by 559 respondents. In addition, 105questionnaires were returned unanswered because the intended respondent could not be located, had moved out of the state, was too ill to complete the survey, or was deceased. The resulting response rate for those members of the sample who received a questionnaire and were capable of completing it was 64.4% (559/895).

Based on comparisons with data from the 1990 census, it appears that

1. To allow for comparison with past research, we sought to measure fundamentalism through the respondents’ affiliations as well as their adherence to these beliefs. First, we asked for their religious preference (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, other, or no preference). Following this question, we asked, “What specific denomination is that, if any?” Because more than half of the respondents either did not answer this question (19%) or were not specific enough about their denomination to allow us to use Smith’s (1990) classification scheme to identify them as fundamentalist, moderate, or liberal (32%),we did not include denominational affiliation in any of our analyses.

2. The sample was drawn by Survey Sampling, Incorporated of Fairfield, Connecticut.

APPLEGATE

our sample overrepresents men (66.7%), whites (92.4%), people who are older (mean

= 53.5 years), people who have college educations (27.9%), and people with higher household incomes (median = $35,000-$49,000) (Bureau of the Census, 1994). Prior research indicates that older respondents, white respondents, and those with higher incomes tend to be more punitive and less supportive of rehabilitation; those who are more educated, on the other hand, tend to favor treatment. Although the effects of these variables on attitudes typically are slight, the existing research suggests that our sample may overestimate punitiveness and underestimate support for rehabilitation.3

As mentioned above, the existing literature provides equivocal results about whether the effectsof religion on crime-related views are geographically bound, with much of the research being conducted in the Bible belt state of Oklahoma (Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Grasmick et al., 1992a, 1993a, 1993b),some authors reporting relationships limited to the Southern United States (Borg, 1997;Sandys and McGarrell, 1997),and others reporting no effect of southernness (Young, 1992;Young and Thompson, 1995). Our data are drawn from a singlestate; sowe are unable to resolve whether religion is a more substantial influence on crime views among those living in the Bible belt. Still, our results bear on this discussion because we find that religiousviews are related to correctional preferences in the Midwest United States.

DEPENDENTVARIABLES

SUPPORTFOR PUNISHMENT

Attitudes toward punishment were measured three ways. First, the respondents were asked whether they favored, opposed, or had no opinion on the death penalty (DEATH PENALTY): “Are you in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder?” This question replicates that used in previous national polls by the Gallup Organization (see Warr, 1995). The respondents who favored capital punishment (75.9%) were considered to be punitively oriented (coded 1) compared to those who were unsupportive or had no opinion (coded 0). A second item, which replicates a question from the General SocialSurvey (Smith, 1998),sought the respondents’ attitudes toward their local courts (HARSHER COURTS): “In general, do you think the courts in this area deal too

3. The results of several previous studies suggest that fundamentalist affiliation may increase punitiveness only among whites (Britt, 1996; Grasmick et al., 1993b; Young, 1992 Young and Thompson, 1995). Due to the small number of minorities in our sample, we are unable to examine this possibility directly. Still, we reestimated all of our equations on the white respondents only. The substantive findings were identical; therefore, the results presented here include the entire sample.

harshly or not harshly enough with criminals?” The respondents were provided “too harshly,” “about right,” and “not harshly enough” as response options. For purposes of analysis,we created a dummy variable with those who responded “not harshly enough” (68.9%)coded 1 and all other responses coded 0.

Our third measure of punitiveness (PUNITIVENESS INDEX) was a composite index of four items taken from Cullen et al., (1988). We requested that the respondents assign each statement one of six points on a Likert scale that ranged from “disagree strongly” (coded 1)to “agree strongly” (coded 6). More punitive responses produced higher scores on this index. The items along with their means and standard deviations are provided in the Appendix. A principal components analysisof these items indicated a singlefactor.4 Thus, for each respondent, the individualscores were summed and divided by the number of items answered, producing an index ofthe mean of valid responses. Cronbach’salphasfor this index and for the remaining indices are reported in Table 1. As indicated in the table, the reliability for this index was high (alpha zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = .71).

Table 1. Reliability Coefficients for Multiple-Item Indices

Cronbach’s

SUPPORTFOR REHABILITATION

Favorable attitudes toward offender treatment were assessed three ways. First, we replicated a question previously posed by Harris (see Cullen et al., 1990; Hindelang et al., 1975:218 McGarrell and Flanagan, 1985233; Sundt et al., 1998):

main emphasis in most prisons-punishing the individualconvicted of a crime, trying to rehabilitate the individual so that he might return to society as a productive citizen, or protecting society from future crimes he might commit?

4. The results of our principal components analysis of each index are available from the lead author upon request.

Now what do you think should be the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

APPLEGATE ET AL.

The respondents were instructed to choose one main goal and were provided four response options: “punish,” “rehabilitate,” “protect society,” and “not sure.” Because our interest here is in measuring support for rehabilitation, “rehabilitate” (41.1 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA%) was coded 1,and all other responses were coded 0 (MAIN GOAL OF PRISON).S

Because some members of the public believe that the correctional system ought to pursue more than one goal (Thomson and Ragona, 1987; Warr and Stafford, 1984), we also asked the respondents to indicate how important each goal was to them. Here we focused on the perceived importance of rehabilitation and collapsed the response categories such that “veryimportant” (37.7%) and “important” (45.1%)were coded 1and “a little important” (13.6%) and “not important” (3.6%) were coded 0 (IMPORTANCE OF GOAL).

Attitudes toward offender treatment were also assessed using a format similar to that used to measure general punitiveness. The respondents were asked to indicate, on the same six-point Likert scaledescribed above, whether they agreed or disagreed with ten statements about rehabilitation (REHABILITATION INDEX). A principal components analysis confirmed that these items formed a single factor. Thus, we constructed a mean response index of these statements, which showed substantial internal consistency (alpha = zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA .90). Higher index scores correspond to greater support for rehabilitation. The Appendix lists the individual items, which were similar to those used in previous research (see Cullen et al., 1988; Johnson, B., 1994).6

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

MEASURESOF RELIGIOUSVIEWS

All of the aspects of religious beliefswere measured through agreement or disagreement with multiple statements. These items are provided in the Appendix. For each item, the respondents recorded their views on the zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

5. It might be argued that the options “rehabilitate” and “protect society” are not mutually exclusive because rehabilitation programs are utilitarian; one aim of correctional treatment is to increase public safety through offender reform. Some respondents who favored rehabilitation exclusively for utilitarian reasons may have selected “protect society” as the most important goal. Thus, our results may underestimate to some extent the amount of support for rehabilitation. All of our measures of support for punishment and rehabilitation are fairly general. A salient question in attitude research is whether the results hold if a different measure is used. Our data set provided the opportunity to investigate the effects of religious beliefs on attitudes toward specific offenders described in factorial vignettes. Reporting the full results, including the effects of offender and offense characteristics, was beyond the scope of this paper and are expected to appear in a subsequent publication. We wish to note, however, that analysis of the vignettes resulted in findings similar to those reported here.

6.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

same six-point Likert scale that was described above. Principal components analysisconfirmed that the statements included for each dimension of religious beliefs measured a single underlying construct. Each set of items was combined to create an index by summing the individual responses and dividing by the number of items for which an answer was recorded. Higher scores indicate stronger adherence to each dimension of religious belief. The reliability coefficient for each index is provided in Table 1.

Forgiveness. Throughout the Bible, three themes on the importance of forgiveness are emphasized: (1) forgiveness is required; (2) forgiveness is limitless as long as the offender repents; and (3) we should “hate the sin” but “love the sinner.” The three included items were intended to measure how strongly the respondents felt about these issues. Cronbach’salpha for these items was .78.

Biblical Literalism. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

As we noted above, a common characteristic of fundamentalists is a tendency to interpret the Bible literally. To measure the extent to which the respondents adhered to this perspective, we asked them to rate two statements. These statements were drawn from a scale used previously by Grasmick et al. (1992a:31). The original index of four items included statements that tapped belief in specific biblical passages. Here, we included only the statements that assessed biblical literalness more generally. As reported by Grasmick et al. (1992a),the original statements formed a single index that was highly reliable (Cronbach’s alpha zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = .92). Our index nearly replicates these characteristics (alpha = .90).

Punitive God. Evans et al. (1995) provide a seven-item index to assess this dimension of religiosity,with a reliability of .88. Only three of Evans et al.3 items were included in our questionnaire. The first two items tap the extent to which people believe in the punitiveness of God. The remaining item, which assesses belief in the omnipotence of God, is logically required if people are to suffer God’s wrath. Our index reached an acceptable level of reliability (alpha = .73).

ReligiousSalience. The importancethat individualsattach to religion in guidingtheir daily liveswas measured through an index of four items used previously by Grasmick et al. (Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Grasmick et al., 1993a,1993b). Grasmick et al. report a reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) coefficientof .90,which was replicated with the present sample (see Table 1)-

CONTROLVARIABLES

As controls, we included standard demographic variables that have previously been found to relate to punitiveness or support for rehabilitation and, therefore, might be expected to influence our results (Applegate, 1997:63-86). Sex is a dummy variable coded 1for males; age is a continuous variable, measured in years; race is a dichotomous variable coded 1for whites; education is an eight-point scale ranging from “never went to high school” to “finished one or more years of graduate school.” Income is indicated by six ordered categories.

Four additional variables measured different aspects of the respondents’ general concerns about crime. First, prior victimization experience was assessed by asking whether respondents had been victims of three property and three personal crimes in the past 12 months. Respondents who reported at least one victimization (22.9%) were coded 1,whereas those who reported no victimizationsin the past 12months were coded zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

0.7 Second, fear of victimization was measured by a single variable that asked how many times, in the last month, the respondent had been afraid he or she might become a crime victim (45.1% once or more). Third, in an effort to assessperceptions of neighborhood civilityseparate from feelings of fear, we asked the respondents to indicate the extent to which five indicators of incivility (vandalism, litter, teenagers “hanging out,” noisy neighbors, and bothersome people on the street) were a problem in their neighborhood. The sum of these items yielded a scale that ranged from 5 to 15(mean zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = 13.26),with higher scores indicating greater perceived civility. Fourth, the sum of three items assessed the extent to which the respondents had experienced contact with criminals in neutral situations (mean = 1.48). More extensive contact produced higher scores.

Of particular importance to our investigation of religion and correctional attitudes are measures of political conservatism. Wald (1992)notes that fundamentalists have increasingly become involved in Republican Party politics in the past two decades. Furthermore, conservative political views are linked to punitive correctional preferences (Barkan and Cohn, 1994; Langworthy and Whitehead, 1986; McCorkle, 1993; Sandys and

7. In separate analyses, we entered victimization as a continuous variable; the responses were combined into a single scale (ranging from 0 to 6, mean = 0.34) by summingthe numberof affirmativeresponses. The resultswere nearlyidentical. Three variables,however, which were marginally insignificantin the models presented here, were marginally significant. Age was negatively related to the index of general punitiveness, age was positively related to the perceived importance of rehabilitation, and contact with offenders was positively related to the index of general support for rehabilitation.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

McGarrell, 1995). Controlling for political orientation allows us to estimate the independent effects of religious beliefs on crime-related attitudes. Political party identification was divided into Republicans (37%), Democrats (31%0),and Independents (32%). In the analyses,Republicans serve as the reference category. Politicalconservativismwas measured by respondents’ self-identification on a nine-point scale ranging from “extremely liberal” (coded 1) to “extremely conservative” (coded 9) (mean zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = 5.5).

RESULTS

For each dependent variable, the analyses are presented in two models. First, we regressed the dependent variable on the measures of religious views, without the control variables. In these analyses, we were able to observe how the religion variables affected the respondents’ views before other possible correlates were considered. In the second model, we retained the religion variables and added the control variables. Thus, this model revealed whether the respondents’ religious views significantly influenced their support for punishment and for rehabilitation, independent of other experiential, demographic, and attitudinal characteristics.

Table 2 reports the results of a series of logistic and ordinary leastsquares (OLS) regressions of the independent variables on the three measuresof the respondents’ punitiveness. As noted, Model l for each dependent variable includes only the measures of religious beliefs. As shown in the table, religion was related significantly to punitiveness in all of these initial models. The respondents who held more strongly to religiously based tenets of forgivenesswere less likely to support capital punishment, less likely to indicate that their local courts were too lenient, and less supportive of punitive approaches to criminals in general (PUNITIVENESS INDEX). In contrast to our expectations, fundamentalist religious views were inconsistently related to preferences to get tough with offenders. Biblical literalism and perceiving God as punitive led to higher scores on the general punitiveness index. Neither measure of fundamentalist religious views, however, was significantly related to the respondents’ support for harsher courts or the death penalty.

The summary statistics at the bottom of Table 2 indicate that Model 1 was significant for each of the dependent variables. The explanatory power of the religion variables alone, however, was not strong. Only in the case of the general punitiveness index did the study variables explain more than 10%of the variance. Still,the amount of variance explained in these data is similarto other studiesof religion and public attitudes toward crime policies (Borg, 1997;Britt, 1996;Grasmick et al., 1993a;Grasmick and McGill, 1994).

Table 2. Effects of Religious Beliefs and Control Variables on Punitiveness (Unstandardized Regression Coefficients)

Independent Variables

Biblical Literalism

Punitive God

Religious Salience

Forgiveness

Sex (1 = male, 0 = female)

Education

Income

Democrat

Independent

Conservativism

Neighborhood Civility

Contact with Offenders

Prior Victimization (1 = yes, 0 = no)

Fear of Victimization

Age Race zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (1 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = White, 0 = nonwhite)

Constant zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

In Model 2, we added the control variables to our analysis of each dependent variable. As shown in Table 2,includingthese controlvariables increased the explanatory power of each model, but changed the relationships between the religious variables and punitiveness little. In each case, the significant coefficients were slightly smaller in Model 2 compared to Model 1. Most of the coefficients,however, remained significantafter the control variables were added. Two exceptions can be noted. In the first model, the respondents’ adherence to forgiveness was negatively related to their perceptions that their local courts were not harsh enough. This relationship was not significant when the control variables were added. Similarly,biblical literalism predicted more punitive responses to the general punitiveness index only when the religion variables were considered without controls for other attitudinal, experiential, and demographic characteristics.8

Turning to the determinants of public support for the rehabilitation of offenders,Table 3 reports the results of logisticand OLS regressions of the religion and control variables on support for treatment. Again, Model 1 for each dependent variable includes only the measures of religious orientations.

Our findings regarding the influence of belief in forgiveness on support for rehabilitation displayed considerable stability across the three dependent variables. The importance of forgiveness was positively related to favoring rehabilitation as the main goal of prisons, to indicating that rehabilitation was an important goal (IMPORTANCE OFGOAL), and to supporting treatment in general (REHABILITATION INDEX). On the suggestionof an anonymous reviewer, we reran the analysis on the importance of rehabilitation as a goal of prison after recoding the results such that 1 equaled “very important” and 0 equaled all other responses. The resulting model was statistically significant zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA (p < .001). Forgiveness, however,was the only variable that significantlypredicted perceptions of rehabilitation as very important (pzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA I zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA.05). Thus, stronger attachment to religious values of forgiveness was the sole characteristic that significantly

8. Because perceptions of God as punitive and literal interpretation of the Bible both characterizefundamentalists’ beliefs, problems with collinearity among these indices were suspected. Examination of tolerance coefficients and the square roots of variance inflation factors, however, suggested that multicollinearity was unlikely to be a problem in the analyses (Fox, 1991;Norusis, 1998). To be more certain that the relationship between the biblical literalness index and the punitive God index was not artificially inflating the standard errors of the regression coefficients, we reestimated each regression model,replacing these two indices with a single index that included all of the fundamentalist belief items. The substantive results on support for punishment and on support for rehabilitation were identical to those obtained using separate indices.

distinguished those who were highly supportive of rehabilitation on this measure.

Turningto the results on the fundamentalist views, we found that holding a more punitive image of God was unrelated to support for rehabilitation in all of the initial models. As Table 3 also shows, biblical literalism was predictive of the respondents’ attitudes, but the results were somewhat inconsistent. Biblical literalism was negatively related to the general index of support for treatment. In addition, the more the respondents favored a literal interpretation of the scriptures, the less likely they were to believe that rehabilitation was an important goal of prisons. As we noted above, however, when those responding that rehabilitation was “very important” were compared with the other respondents, none of the fundamentalist views significantly predicted the respondents’ views on treatment. Furthermore, biblical literalism was not significantlyrelated to the respondents’ views about the appropriateness of treatment as the main goal of prisons.

The results produced once the control variables were added in Model 2 were nearly identical to those observed in Model 1. Although the significant coefficients were reduced slightly, and the amount of variance explained by each model increased, all of the significant relationships between the religion variables and the dependent variables remained the same.

DISCUSSION

As we noted in the introduction, several studies have advanced greatly the study of religion and criminaljustice attitudes. Although many studies have ignored the potential influence of religion or have categorized affiliation coarsely, more recent investigations have expanded the conceptualization of religious affiliation beyond the typical broad distinctions, revealing the influence of fundamentalism on punitiveness toward criminals. Fundamentalists and those who hold fundamentalist beliefs are more supportive of the death penalty, are more supportive of a retributive orientation toward offenders, are more punitive toward juveniles, and believe that the courts are too lenient (Borg, 1997;Britt, 1996;Grasmick et al., 1992b, 1993a, 1993b; Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Leiber and Woodrick, 1997; Leiber et al., 1995; Wald, 1992; Young, 1992; Young and Thompson, 1995). In this study, we sought to extend this area of criminologicalresearch by examiningthe effectsof compassionate religiousbeliefs on correctional attitudes.

In sum, our findingssuggestthat compassionate as well as fundamentalist religious orientations clearly affect correctional attitudes. Those respondents who were more forgiving were more supportive of offender

Table 3. Effects of Religious Beliefs and Control Variables on Support for Rehabilitation (unstandardizedregression coefficients)

Independent Variables

Biblical Literalism

Punitive God

Religious Salience

Forgiveness

Age Race (1

= White, 0 = nonwhite)

Sex (1 = male, 0 = female)

Education

Income

Democrat

Independent Conservativism

Neighborhood Civility

Contact with Offenders

Prior Victimization (1=

Victimization

Constant N

Chi-square or F

Pseudo

p I.05

treatment and were lesspunitive across all of the measures of these orientations that were included in our study. These differences largely remained significanteven when we included other attitudinal, experiential, and demographic variables as controls for potentially spurious results. The results for fundamentalist religious beliefs were less consistent than we had expected, and the regression coefficientsfor these variables tended to be smaller than those for forgiveness. Still,interpreting the Bible literally and seeing God aspunitive were significantlyrelated to favoringpunitive responses to crime and to opposing correctional rehabilitation. Notably, these relationships largely persisted when the control variables were added to the analyses.

Although we have endeavored to expand understanding of the issue of religionand correctional preferences,we must acknowledge several limitations of our research. First, better measures of the included concepts need to be employed. Bowers (1990) and Durham (1989) have suggested the need for more refined measures of punitiveness. In particular, recent research on death penalty attitudes indicates that support for this policy is substantially reduced when the respondents are specifically offered the alternative sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole, or life in prison without the possibility of parole plus work and restitution (Bowers et al., 1994;McGarrell and Sandys, 1996;Sandys and McGarrell, 1995;Whitehead, 1998). Thus,our results should be taken as only a beginning analysis of the influence of religious views on capital punishment attitudes.

Moreover, we would propose that better measures of religion also need to be developed. In particular, we measured only one aspect of compassionate religious beliefs-forgiveness. Future research should consider developing measures of other dimensions, such as love, salvation, hope, caring, and tolerance (see McHugh, 1978;Wuthnow, 1991,1995). Continued research in this area also might seek to examine the compassionate sides of religions outside the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. Forgiveness is a central concept in Judeo-Christian and Muslim theologies. Such is not the case, however, with Buddhism or Hinduism. As Elder (1998:158)points out, “The basic Buddhist and Hindu cosmology. zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA..has no formal place for human repentance and divine forgiveness.” This point is particularly important for research that extends beyond the boundaries of the United States. Although 88% of Americans report that they are Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish (Newport and Saad, 1997),nearly one-fifth of the world’s population is Hindu or Buddhist (Elder, 1998). Past research and the present study have been restricted to examining religious influences as they are most salient only in the American context.

Second, the geographic boundaries of the observed relationships within

the United States require further investigation. As we noted earlier, conflictingevidence existsregarding whether the relationship between fundamentalism and punishment attitudes is confined to the Bible belt or is more widespread (cf., Borg, 1997; Sandys and McGarrell, 1997; Young, 1992; Young and Thompson, 1995). In contrast to much of the recent research on religion and crime attitudes, which has been conducted on samples from a single metropolitan area in Oklahoma (Grasmick et al., 1992a,1993a, 1993b;Grasmick and McGill, 1994),our study used a statewide sample drawn from the Midwest United States. The geographical origin of our sample may help to explain why the effectsof fundamentalist beliefs were less consistent in our study than they have been in previous research conducted on samples from the Bible belt. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the effects zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA of forgiveness on correctional views would be sustained, or perhaps strengthened, in other geographic areas. Although national studies have not yet resolved the extent of fundamentalist influences, they have the capacity to investigate systematicallythe strength of the relationship between compassionate religious views and crime-related attitudes among different areas of the country.

Despite the limitations of our work, the substantive implications of our findings are extremely important. What criminology has been lacking in its investigation of religion and crime views is recognition of the compassionate side of religion. Wald et al. (1988:534) observe that “many students of politics reflexively treat religion as a force for order, social control, and conservative positions on public policy.” Criminologistshave exhibited the same tendency. Investigations of criminality, from Hirschi and Stark’s (1969) landmark study to the more recent work of Cochran et al. (Cochran, 1989;Cochran and Akers, 1989;Cochran et al., 1994;Grasmick et al., 1991a;see also Evans et al., 1995),have focused on the potentially constraining influence of “hellfire” religious beliefs. Of more direct relevance to the present study, the attitudinal research on religion and crime has concentrated on conservative or fundamentalist views as the bases of punitive orientations (see Blackwell and Grasmick, 1997;Borg, 1997;Britt, 1996;Curry, 1996;Ellison and Sherkat, 1993; Grasmick et al., 1991b;Grasmick et al., 1992b;Grasmick et al., 1992a,1993a,1993b;Grasmick and McGill, 1994; Leiber and Woodrick, 1997;Leiber et al., 1995; Wald, 1992;Wiehe, 1990;Young, 1992;Young and Thompson, 1995).

Given this focus on orthodoxy, criminologists risk caricaturing religion as only fundamentalist and as only leading to control or punishment. Social scientists have not attended to the possible effects of religious messages about salvation, forgiveness, and caring about others, yet such aspects of religion seem particularly relevant to assessingcorrectional attitudes. Anecdotal and historical evidence suggeststhat religion can lead to greater concern for the well being of offenders. For example, prior to the

APPLEGATE ET AL.

execution early in 1998 of convicted Texas murderer Karla Faye Tucker, several religious leaders, including Pope John Paul I1 and Pat Robertson, called for her sentence to be commuted to life in prison (Current Feature Story, 1998). Earlier efforts at reforming the correctional system and improving offenders also reflect the influence of religion (Pisciotta, 1994; Rothman, 1971, 1980). And many religious groups-such as Brother’s Keeper Ministries, Prison Fellowship International, and the Coalition for Prison Evangelists-continue to work for the salvation and reformation of criminals. More broadly, in-depth analyses by Wuthnow (1991,1995) have demonstrated that religious convictions can provide strong motivation to assist those who are less fortunate.

Gorringe (1996:264-265) has observed that “Christians believe that human sensibilities can change for the better, and that the gospel plays a crucial part in this.” The results reported here provide empirical evidence that particular aspects of religion can lead to greater leniency and greater support for offender reform efforts. Across all of our models, values of religiouslybased forgiveness were significantlyrelated to our measures of punitiveness and our measures of support for rehabilitation. Those who believed more strongly in forgiveness were less likely to support the death penalty, were less likely to indicate that they believed their local courts were too lenient, and were less punitive in general. In addition, despite relatively high levelsof support for treatment across the entire sample (see Appendix), the respondents who were more aligned with religiousforgiveness expressed even more favorable views toward rehabilitation. Notably, these relationships were observed even with other religious variables and other control variables considered potential predictors of public attitudes. Furthermore, in all but one of the models, the regression coefficient for forgivenesswas larger than any of the coefficients for the variables representing fundamentalist religious views (see Tables 2 and 3). What these results show is that conceptualization of the relationship between crime control preferences and religion must go beyond punitiveness and control. We must also recognize that religious beliefs can potentially be a motive force for humaneness within corrections.

The findings of our study argue for a complex portrait of the nature of public opinion about the punishment and rehabilitation of offenders. As Clear (1994) points out, for three decades, we have been in the midst of a “penal harm” movement that has trumpeted harsh punishment and, directly or indirectly, has characterized treatment as lenient and a failed enterprise (see also Cullen and Gilbert, 1982; Currie, 1998). Virtually every political elite has jumped on this “get tough” bandwagon (Beckett, 1997). Perhaps most importantly, the media often portrays the public as fed up with crime and hostile toward offenders by reporting the results of one-dimensional questions about punishment and sentencing (see, for

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

example, Weikel, 1994;Willing,1998). The penal harm movement is often justified in the media as being a manifestation of “democracy at work”of reflecting the “willof the people” (Beckett, 1997). Editorial writers, for example, frequently make this claim. In the Wall zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Street Journal, Paul Johnson (1994:A-10) contends that “public opinion, in its attitude toward crime, is overwhelmingly repressive”; citizens have scant interest in “reforming” offenders and instead “want them punished, as severely and cheaply as possible.” These views, moreover, are now taken as “accepted fact.” In a recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Ditton and Wilson (1999:2) assert that “sentencing reform policies have paralleled the mood of the country on crime and punishment.

...Over the past two decades,” they observed,“sentencing requirements and release policies have become more restrictive, primarily in response to widespread ‘get tough on crime’ attitudes in the Nation.”

Although many Americans harbor punitive sentiments, the risk is that the portrayal of the public as exclusively “punitive” constructs a social reality that is distorted in that it ignores the more compassionate side of public opinion, including the continuing support for rehabilitation among citizens (see Applegate et al., 1997). A salient issue is why, in the face of a persisting penal harm movement, such support for offender treatment has been sustained? One possible source of the tenacity of rehabilitation as a correctional ideology is the Judeo-Christian belief in forgiveness and, relatedly, the belief that sinners of all sorts can be transformed (“born again”). Phrased differently, a religious belief in forgivenesspotentially is dissonant with the idea that humans-even those who have committed harmful acts-should merely be warehoused and forfeited as beyond redemption.

There also is the possibility that religious forgivenessgives force to specific correctional reforms. Two current reforms are particularly noteworthy. First, in a minimum-security facility outside Houston, Prison Fellowship Ministries has initiated a “faith-based’’ prison. The Texas Department of Corrections furnishes the facility,the correctional officers, and inmate living costs. However, Prison Fellowship Ministries administers the unit and, most importantly, runs the programs. The purpose of a faith-based prison is to secure inmate rehabilitation through “inner change.” This is accomplished both through religious instruction/prayer and through treatment programs-staffed by tens of volunteers from the community-that seek to “restore” offenders. These programs include educational tutoring, family support groups, community service projects, and aftercare in the community for released offenders. Underlying this correctional approach is, again, the religious belief that inmates are not beyond forgiveness and that they can be “saved” through the power of Christian love and communal support (Cullen et al., 1999;Niebur, 1998).

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Second, although informed by a variety of intellectual traditions (Braithwaite, 1989, 1998),Immarigeon and Daly (1997) contend that the “bedrock of restorative justice, in Canada and the United Statesat least, is religious and moral theory” (see, especially, Van Ness and Strong, 1997). Restorative justice has emerged as an important correctional paradigm that is influencing policies in a variety of states and local jurisdictions (Levrant et al., 1998). Significantly,it draws much of its strength from the support it receives from diverse religious groups, including those usually defined as liberal and those often seen as evangelical(such as Charles Colson’s“JusticeFellowship”). The transcending link between these groups is the belief that sanctions must move beyond revenge to include the possibility of forgiveness. In the ideal, restorative justice is a form of “tough love,” requiring from offenders personal accountability and actions to compensate victims and the community for the harm that has been inflicted. But restoring the offender requires from the victim or community a genuine, if at times grudging,forgiveness as the first step toward full reintegration (Dickey, 1998). An effective strategy for promoting restoration may be to draw on religious themes of forgiveness.

In closing,we would reiterate that religion remains a powerful force in the United States and that its effects are likely to be complex. Buildingon research on the connection between fundamentalism and punitiveness, our study shows that the compassionate side of religion-the belief in forgiveness-can also shape how Americans “think about crime.” In particular, beyond secular political orientations, support for progressive crime control policies, such as restoration, may have at least part of their roots in religious beliefs that are optimistic about the capability of even the most wicked among us to change for the better.

REFERENCES

Ammerman, Nancy T.

1982

Operationalizing evangelicalism:An amendment. Sociological Analysis 43:170-172.

1987 1991 Bible Believers: Fundamentalistsin the Modern World. New Brunswick, N.J.:Rutgers University Press. North American Protestant fundamentalism. In Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby (eds.), FundamentalismsObserved. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Applegate, Brandon K.

1997

Specifying Public Support for Rehabilitation:A Factorial Survey Approach. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Applegate, Brandon K., Francis T. Cullen, and Bonnie S. Fisher

1997

Public support for correctional treatment:The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. Prison Journal 77:237-258.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

Applegate, Brandon K., Francis T. Cullen, Bruce G. Link, Pamela J. Richards, and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce

1996 Determinants of public punitiveness toward drunk driving: A factorial survey approach. Justice Quarterly 1357-79.

Baldwin, Matthew

Barkan, Steven E. and Steven F. Cohn

1994 Racial prejudice and support for the death penalty by whites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31:202-209.

Beatty, Kathleen M. And Oliver Walter 1984

Religious preference and practice: Reevaluating their impact on political tolerance. Public Opinion Quarterly 48:318-329.

Beckett, Katherine 1997

Making Crime Pay: Law and Order in Contemporary American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Blackwell, Brenda Sims and Harold G. Grasmick

1997 Internet URL zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA http:llstudent-www.uchicago.edu/users/mbaldwin/crime.html

1997 1980

Random drug testing and religion. Sociological Inquiry 67:135-150.

Blumstein, Alfred and Jacqueline Cohen

Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public’s view. Law and Society Review 14:223-261.

Bohm, Robert M. 1991

American death penalty opinion, 1936-1986A critical examination of the Gallup polls. In Robert M. Bohm (ed.), The Death Penalty in America: Current Research. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Borg, Marian J. 1997 34:25-45.

The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Bowers, William

Bowers, William, Margaret Vandiver, and Patricia H. Dugan

1990 1994 The death penalty’s shaky support. The New York Times, May 28.

A new look at public opinion on capital punishment: What citizens and legislators prefer. American Journal of Criminal Law 22:77-150.

Braithwaite, John 1989 1998

Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Restorative justice. In Michael Tonry (ed.), Handbook of Crime and Punishment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Britt, Chester L. 1996

Race, religion and support for using the death penalty. Paper Presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, Ill.

Brown, Michael P. and Preston Elrod 1995

Electronic house arrest: An examination of citizen attitudes. Crime and Delinquency 41:332-346.

Bureau of the Census

1994 County and City Databook: 1994. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office.

Clear, Todd R. 1994

Harm in American Penology: Offenders, Victims, and their Communities. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cochran, John K. 1989 9:147-162.

Another look at delinquency and religiosity. Sociological Spectrum

Cochran, John K. and Ronald L. Akers

1989 Beyond hellfire: An exploration of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26:198-225.

Cochran, John K., Peter B. Wood, and Bruce J. Arneklev 1994 31:92-123.

Is the religiosity-delinquency relationship spurious? A test of arousal and social control theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Cullen, Francis T., Gregory A. Clark, John B. Cullen, and Richard A. Mathers

1985 Attribution, salience, and attitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior 12:305-331.

1988

Cullen, Francis T., John B. Cullen, and John F. Wozniak Is rehabilitation dead? The myth of the punitive public. Journal of Crime and Justice 16:303-317.

Cullen, Francis T. and Karen E. Gilbert

1982 1990

Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

S. Burton, Jr.

Public support for correctional treatment: The tenacity of rehabilitative ideology. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:6-18.

Cullen, Francis T., Jody L. Sundt, and John F. Wozniak 1999

The virtuous prison: Toward a restorative rehabilitation. Unpublished paper, University of Cincinnati.

Current Feature Story: Pope, Robertson Plead to Stop Woman’s Execution. 1998

Cullen, Francis T., Sandra Evans Skovron, Joseph E. Scott, and Velmer zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Religion Today February 2. Internet URL: zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA http://www.religiontoday.com/ CurrentFeatureStory/

Currie, Elliott

Curry, Theodore R. 1998 1996

Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Conservative Protestantism and the perceived wrongfulness of crimes: A research note. Criminology 34453-464.

Dickey, Walter J. 1998 1978

Forgiveness and crime: The possibilities of restorative justice. In Robert D. Enright and Joanna North (eds.), Exploring Forgiveness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Dillman, Don A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

Ditton, Paula M. and Doris J. Wilson 1999 Truth in Sentencingin State Prisons. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Douglas, J. D. and Merrill C. Tenney

Durham, Alexis M. 1989 1989

NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.

Judgmentsof appropriate punishment: The effects of question type. Journal of Criminal Justice 17:75-85.

Durham, Alexis M., H. Preston Elrod, and Patrick T. Kinkade 1996 13~705-736.

Public support for the death penalty: Beyond Gallup. Justice Quarterly

Elder, Joseph W. 1998

Expanding our options: The challengeof forgiveness.In Robert D. Enright and Joanna North (eds.), Exploring Forgiveness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ellison, Christopher G., John P. Bartkowski,and Michelle L. Segal 1996 ConservativeProtestantism and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces 741003-1028.

Ellison, Christopher G. and Marc A. Musick 1995 1993 1995

ConservativeProtestantism and public opinion toward science. Review of Religious Research 36245-262.

Ellison, Christopher G. and Darren E. Sherkat

ConservativeProtestantism and support for corporal punishment. American SociologicalReview 58131-144.

Evans, T. David, Francis T. Cullen, R. Gregory Dunaway, and Velmer S. Burton, Jr. Religion and crime reexamined:The impact of religion, secular controls, and social ecology on adult criminality. Criminology33:195-224.

Finamore, Frank and James M. Carlson 1987

Religiosity, belief in a just world and crime control attitudes. Psychological Reports 61:135-138.

Flanagan, Timothy J. 1996 1996

Reform or punish Americans’ views of the correctional system. In Timothy J. Flanagan and Dennis R. Longmire (eds.), Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Flanagan, Timothy J. and Dennis R. Longmire (eds.) Americans View Crime and Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Fosdick, Harry E. 1938

Fox, John 1991

A Guide to Understanding the Bible: The Development of Ideas within the Old and New Testaments. New York: Harper and Row.

Regression Diagnostics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Garland, David 1990

Punishment and Modern Society:A Study in SocialTheory. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Gay, David A., Christopher G. Ellison, and Daniel A. Powers

1996 In search of denominational subcultures: Religious affiliation and “profamily” issues revisited. Review of Religious Research 38:3-17.

Gorringe, Timothy 1996

God’s Just Vengeance: Crime, Violence and the Rhetoric of Salvation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gorsuch, Richard L. and Judy Y. Hao 1993

Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and its relationships to religious variables. Review of Religious Research 34:333-347.

Grasmick, Harold G., Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and John K. Cochran 1991a 1991b

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’’: Religiosity and taxpayers’ inclinations to cheat. Sociological Quarterly 32:251-266.

Grasmick, Harold G., Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and M’lou Kimpel

Protestant fundamentalism and attitudes toward corporal punishment of children. Violence and Victims 6283-298.

Grasmick, Harold G., Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and Brenda Sims Blackwell Religious beliefs and public support for the death penalty for juveniles and adults. Journal of Crime and Justice 16:59-86.

Grasmick, Harold G., John K. Cochran, Robert J. Bursik, Jr., and M’Lou Kimpel

1993a 1993b Religion, punitive justice, and support for the death penalty. Justice Quarterly 10: 289-314.

Grasmick, Harold G., Elizabeth Davenport, Mitchell B. Chamlin, and Robert J. Bursik, Jr.

1992a Protestant fundamentalism and the retributive doctrine of punishment. Criminology 30:21-45.

Grasmick, Harold G. and Anne L. McGill 1994

Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward juvenile offenders. Criminology 3223-46.

Grasmick, Harold G., Carolyn S. Morgan, and Mary B. Kennedy 1992b 731177-187.

Support for corporal punishment in the schools: A comparison of the effects of socioeconomic status and religion. Social Science Quarterly

Greeley, Andrew 1993 Religion and attitudes toward the environment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:19-28.

Heller, Scott 1998 (eds.) 1975

Emerging field of forgiveness studies explores how we let go of grudges. Chronicle of Higher Education, July 17:A18-A20.

Hindelang, Michael J., Christopher S. Dunn, Alison L. Aumick, and L. Paul Sutton

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-1974. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Hirschi, Travis and Rodney Stark 1969

Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems 17:202-213.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

Hoffman, John P. And Alan S. Miller

1997 Social and political attitudes among religious groups: Convergence and divergence over time. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 3652-70.

Hough, Mike, Helen Lewis, and Nigel Walker

1988

Factors associated with “punitiveness” in England and Wales. In Nigel Walker and Mike Hough (eds.), Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries. Brookfield, Vt.: Gower.

Hunter, James D.

1982

1991

Operationalizing evangelicalism: A review, critique, and proposal. Sociological Analysis 42:363-372.

Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic.

Immarigeon, Russ and Kathleen Daly 1997

Restorative justice: Origins, practices, contexts, and challenges. ICCA Journal on Community Corrections 8 (December):13-18.

Jelen, Ted G. 1989

Biblical literalism and inerrancy: Does the difference make a difference? Sociological Analysis 49:421-429.

Johnson, Byron 1994

To rehabilitate or punish: Results of a public opinion poll. American Jails 8 (November/December):41-43.

Johnson, Paul 1994 Crime: The people want revenge. The Wall Street Journal, January 4:A10.

Jones, L. Gregory 1995 Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.

Kelley, Jonathan and John Braithwaite 1990 Public opinion and the death penalty in Australia. Justice Quarterly 7529-563.

Kellstedt, Lyman A.

1989 The meaning and measurement of evangelicalism: Problems and prospects. In Ted G. Jelen (ed.), Religion and Political Behavior in the United States. New York: Praeger.

Kellstedt, Lyman A. and Corwin Smidt 1991

Measuring fundamentalism: An analysis of different operational strategies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30259-278.

Kirkpatrick, Lee A. 1993

Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32:256-268.

Langworthy, Robert H. and John T. Whitehead 1986 24575-591.

Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness. Criminology

Layman, Geoffrey C.

APPLEGATE ET AL.

1997 Religion and political behavior in the United States: The impact of beliefs, affiliations, and commitment from 1980 to 1994. Public Opinion Quarterly 61:288-316.

Leiber, Michael J. and Anne C. Woodrick 1997

Religious beliefs, attributional styles, and adherence to correctional orientations. Criminal Justice and Behavior 24:495-511.

Leiber, Michael J., Anne C. Woodrick, and E. Michele Roudebush Religion, discriminatory attitudes and the orientations of juvenile justice personnel: A Research Note. Criminology 33:431-449.

1995

Levrant, Sharon, Francis T. Cullen, Betsy Fulton, and John F. Wozniak 1998

Reconsidering restorative justice: The corruption of benevolence revisited? Crime and Delinquency 45:3-27.

Marty, Martin E. and R. Scott Appleby 1991

The Fundamentalism Project: A user’s guide. In Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby (eds.), Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

McCorkle, Richard C. 1993

Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime and Delinquency 39240-252.

McGarrell, Edmund F. and Timothy J. Flanagan (eds.) 1985

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-1984. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

McGarrell, Edmund F. and Marla Sandys 1996

The misperception of public opinion toward capital punishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death penalty support. American Behavioral Scientist 39:500-513.

McHugh, Gerald A. 1978

Christian Faith and Criminal Justice: Toward a Christian Response to Crime and Punishment. New York: Paulist.

Miller, JoAnne, Peter H. Rossi, and Jon E. Simpson 1986 Perceptions of justice: Race and gender differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law and Society Review 20313-334.

Social background and the sentencing behavior of judges. Criminology

Newport, Frank and Lydia Saad

Myers, Martha zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA A. 1988 26~649-675.

Religious faith is widespread but many skip church. Gallup Poll Monthly 378:20-29.

Niebur, Gustav

SPSS 8.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: PrenticeHall. 1997 1998

Using religion to reform criminals. New York Times, January 18, Section 1:16.

Norusis, Marija J. 1998

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

Osborne, Yvonne Hardaway and Neil B. Rappaport 1985 Sentencing severity with mock jurors: Predictive validity of three variable categories. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 3:467-473.

Pisciotta, Alexander W. 1994

Benevolent Repression: Social Control and the American ReformatoryPrison Movement. New York: New York University Press.

Regnerus, Mark D., Christian Smith, and David Sikkink 1998

Who gives to the poor? The influence of religious tradition and political location on the personal generosity of Americans toward the poor. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 37:481-493.

Roof, Wade C. and William McKinney 1987

American Mainline Religion. New Brunswick,N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Roof, Wade C. and Jennifer L. Roof 1984

Review of the polls: Images of God among Americans. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 23:201-205.

Rossi, Peter H. And Richard A. Berk 1997

Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared. New York: de Gruyter.

Rothman, David J. 1971 1980

The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown. Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and its Alternatives in Progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.

Samuel, William and Elizabeth Moulds 1986

The effect of crime severity on perceptions of fair punishment: A California case study. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

77~931-948.

Sandys,Marla and Edmund F. McGarrell 1995 1997 Attitudes toward capital punishment: Preference for the penalty or mere acceptance? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32391-213. Beyond the Bible belt: The influence (or lack thereof) of religion on attitudes toward the death penalty. Journal of Crime and Justice 20: 179-190.

Schmalzbauer, John 1993 Evangelicalsin the new class: Class versus subcultural predictors of ideology.Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 32:330-342.

Shorto, Russell

Smith, Tom W. 1997 1990 1998

Belief by the numbers. New York Times Magazine, December 7:60-61.

Classifying Protestant denominations. Review of Religious Research 31~225-245.

Trendlets: B. Crime and punishment: An update. GSS News 12(August): 5.

Stark, Rodney and William S. Bainbridge 1996

Religion, Deviance, and Social Control. New York: Routledge.

Sundt, Jody L., Francis T. Cullen, Brandon K. Applegate, and Michael G. Turner

1998 The tenacity of the rehabilitative ideal revisited: Have attitudes toward offender treatment changed? Criminal Justice and Behavior 2k426-442.

Taylor, D. Garth, Kim L. Scheppele, and Arthur L. Stinchcombe 1979

Salience of crime and support for harsher criminal sanctions. Social Problems 26:413-424.

Thomson, Douglas R. and Anthony J. Ragona

1987 Popular moderation versus governmental authoritarianism: An interactionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions. Crime and Delinquency 33:337-357.

Tbrner, Michael zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA G., Francis T. Cullen, Jody L. Sundt, and Brandon K. Applegate Public tolerance for community based sanctions. Prison Journal 77:6-26.

1997 1982

Tyler, Tom R. and Renee Weber

Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime or symbolic attitude? Law and Society Review 17:21-45.

Van Ness, Daniel W. and Karen H. Strong

Wald, Kenneth D. 1997 1992

Restoring Justice. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Religion and Politics in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.

Wald, Kenneth D., Dennis E. Owen, and Samuel S. Hill, Jr. 1988 82531-548.

Churches as political communities. American Political Science Review

Warr, Mark 1995 Public opinion on crime and punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly 59~296-310.

Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford 1984 Public goals of punishment and support for the death penalty. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21:95-111.

Weikel, Dan 1994 August 28zA16-17.

More in O.C. now rate crime as no. 1concern. Los Angeles Times,

Whitehead, John T. 1998 “Good 01’ boys” and the chair: Death penalty attitudes of policy makers in Tennessee. Crime and Delinquency 44:245-256.

Wiehe, Vernon R. 1990

Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence 5:173-186.

Willing, Richard 1998

Executions and death sentences down in 1998.USA Today, December 21:14A.

Wimberly, Edward P.

1997 Recalling Our Own Stories: Spiritual Renewal for Religious Caregivers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

Wuthnow, Robert 1991 1995 Acts of Compassion: Caring for Others and Helping Ourselves. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Learning to Care: Elementary Kindness in an Age of Indifference. New York: Oxford University Press.

Young, Robert L. 1992

Religious orientation, race and support for the death penalty. Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion 31:76-87.

Young, Robert L. and Carol Y. Thompson 1995

Religious fundamentalism, punitiveness, and firearms ownership. Journal of Crime and Justice 18:81-98.

Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correctional Intervention.

Francis T. Cullen is a Distinguished Research Professor in the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. He received his Ph.D. in sociologyand education from Columbia University in 1979. He is past editor of Justice Quarterly and of the Journal of Crime and Justice, and has served as president of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. He is a Fellow of both Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences(ACJS) and the American Society of Criminology. His books include Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory,Reaffirming Rehabilitation, Corporate Crime Under Attack, Criminological Theory, Criminology, Combating Corporate Crime, Contemporary Criminological Theory, and Offender Rehabilitation. He has published more than 100 works, primarily in the areas of criminological theory, white-collar crime, and correctional policy.

Bonnie S. Fisher is an Associate Professor in the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Her main research interests are in the areas of crime prevention and criminal victimization on college campuses. At present, she is engaged in a project focusingon the measurement, extent, and causes of the sexual victimizationof college women.

Thomas Vander Ven is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Hofstra University. His current research interests are in the areas of work, family, and delinquency, inequality and crime, fear of crime, and domestic violence.

Brandon K. Applegate is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida. He has published several articles on public attitudes toward crime control policies, the effectiveness of correctional treatment, and decision making among criminal justice professionals, and he is coeditor ofzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

APPLEGATE ET AL.

APPENDIX

PUNITIVENESS INDEX

Criminals deserve to be punished because they have harmed society (mean = 5.01, S.D. = 0.90).

Punishing criminals is the only way to stop them from engaging in more crimes in the future (mean = 3.90, S.D. = 1.54).

We should put criminals in jail so that innocent citizens will be protected from criminals who victimize them-rob or hurt them-if given the chance (mean = 4.96, S.D. = 0.99).

Sincemost criminalswill commit crimes over and over again,the only way to protect society is to put these criminals in jail and throw away the key (mean = 3.78, S.D. = 1.51).

REHABILITATION INDEX

It is important to try to rehabilitate juveniles who have committed crimes and are now in the correctional system (mean = 5.11, S.D. = 0.91).

It is important to try to rehabilitate adults who have committed crimesand are now in the correctional system (mean = 4.45, S.D. = 1.11).

We should try to rehabilitate women who have broken the law (mean = 4.65, S.D. = 1.03).

We should try to rehabilitate men who have broken the law (mean = 4.55, S.D. = 1.08).

It is a good idea to provide treatment foroffenderswho are supervised by the courts and live in the community (mean = 4.48, S.D. = 1.21).

It is a good idea to provide treatment for offenders who are in prison (mean = 4.42, S.D. = 1.06).

Rehabilitation programs should be available even for offenders who have been involved in a lot of crime in their lives (mean = 3.46, S.D. = 1.54).

The best way to rehabilitate offenders is to try to help offenders change their values and to help them with the emotional problems that caused them to break the law (mean = 4.60, S.D. = 1.08).

The best way to rehabilitate offenders is to give them a good education (mean = 3.69, S.D. = 1.34).

The best way to rehabilitate offenders is to teach them a skillthat they can use to get a job when they are released from prison (mean = 4.29, S.D. = 1.24).

FORGIVENESS AND FUNDAMENTALISM

FORGIVENESS

In order to receive God’sforgiveness,it is important that we forgive those who sin against us (mean zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA = 4.36, S.D. = 1.33).

God teaches that even if someone has lived a life of crime, they should be forgiven for their offenses if they are truly sorry (mean = 4.33, S.D. = 1.34).

It is important to hate the sin but to love the sinner (mean = 4.28,S.D. = 1.38).

BIBLICAL LITERALNESS

I believe the Bible is God’sword and all it saysis true (mean = 4.33,S.D. = 1.56).

I believe the miracles described in the Bible actually happened just as the Bible says they did (mean = 4.37, S.D. = 1.48).

PUNITIVE GOD

After I do something wrong,I fear God’spunishment (mean = 3.54,S.D. = 1.47).

People who are evil in this world will eventually suffer in Hell (mean = 4.12, S.D. = 1.45).

God knows everything a person does wrong (mean = 4.84, S.D. = 1.30).

RELIGIOUS SALIENCE

Religion is a very important part of my life (mean = 4.58, S.D. = 1.30).

I would describe myself as very religious (mean = 3.72, S.D. = 1.34).

Religion should influence how I live my life (mean = 4.74, S.D. = 1.26).

When I have decisions to make in my everyday life, I usually try to find out what God wants me to do (mean = 3.96, S.D. = 1.42).

APPLEGATE ET AL.