Citizens and Punitive Attitudes:A pilot study of Spanish

university students

Daniel Varona1

Summary:

1 The origin of this project is a study carried out byGonzalo Escobar and Daniel Varonahttp://www.gencat.net/justicia/temes/cejfe/recerca/cateleg/cronologic/inv2007/index.html. Josep Cid and Juan José Medinahelped me plan this research project. Lorena Antón did thestatistical analysis of the data collected in the survey (bymeans of the SPSS programme). Joel Martí deserves a specialmention for his patience on countless occasions with helpingme to understand and to present the results of this researchcorrectly. I would like to give a most sincere thank you toall of these people. This study is part of the researchproject funded by the Spanish Ministry for Education andScience (Políticas de Reinserción en el ámbito penal – ReintegrationPolicies in Criminal Law, DER 2008-05041) and as aconsolidated research group (Research Group in CriminologyApplied to Penology, AGAUR, SGR 08024), it has receivedsupport from the Autonomous Government of Catalonia. TheCentre of Studies and Specialist Training of the AutonomousGovernment of Catalonia (Centre d' Estudis i Formació Especialitzada of theGeneralitat de Catalunya) (grants to carry out research projects oncriminal sentencing, 2006) has also lent its support to thisproject.

2 Daniel Varona GómezOne of the most important topics of the study of

criminology in the 21st century is research on thepunitive attitudes of citizens. This derivesfundamentally from a growing concern about thephenomenon known in criminological literature as‘punitive populism’, which many developed countriesseem to be experiencing. As the name suggests, one ofthe motors or characteristics of this phenomenon is theapparent social demand for a tougher response to crime.Much of the research that exists in comparativeliterature concludes that, in fact, today’s societydoes not display more punitiveness, or that at leastthe idea of punitive populism needs to be qualified,but no thorough research has been done to date in Spainfrom which we can draw any solid conclusions regardingthe punitive attitudes of Spanish citizens. The aim ofthis paper is to present a pilot study of the punitiveattitudes of citizens based on a survey of studentsfrom the University of Girona (UdG) regarding criminaljustice and the punishment of offenders.

I. Introduction: Presentation of theresearch

One of the most important topics of the study ofcriminology in the 21st century is research on thepunitive attitudes of citizens. Never before hascriminological literature, especially from Anglo-Saxoncountries, been so concerned with trying to assesspublic opinion on the workings of the criminal justicesystem. This research has examined crime itselfincluding its causes and possible prevention etc, howthe system deals with criminals including types ofpunishment, their intensity etc, and also thedifferent agents and institutions that intervene in

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 3this process including judges and trials, prosecutors,the police and prisons etc2. This interest in analysing and assessing citizens’

punitive attitudes probably derives from the growingconcern about the phenomenon known in criminologicalliterature as ‘punitive populism’ which many developedcountries seem to be experiencing, driven it seems byan apparent social demand for a tougher response tocrime.When appeal to ‘popular demand’ would appear to have

become one of the basic directives of the design ofcurrent criminal policy, it is essential to know whatexactly citizens demand of the criminal justice system.What must be considered is whether or not politiciansreally are responding to citizens’ demands, and whetheror not these demands are based on sound knowledge ofthe criminal justice system or on beliefs that are nota true reflection of reality. Obviously, research oncitizens’ punitive attitudes is required3.Research on citizens’ punitive attitudes is

particularly necessary in Spain because no previousresearch has been carried out here that enable us todocument in detail what could be called the ‘myth ofcitizens’ punitivism’ (MARUNA/KING,2004: 87 et seq.)This is because existing research from other countrieshas demonstrated that categorically defining publicopinion as punitive is over-simplistic and mistaken, asthis issue is far more complicated and subtle than a

2 ROBERTS/HOUGH (2005:3) talk about a “dramatic increase inthe volume of research upon public attitudes to criminaljustice” from the beginning of the 1990s.

3 This is a statement shared with comparativecriminological literature. See ROBERTS/STALANS/ INDERMAUR/HOUGH (2003:167-168), which emphasizes the need to measurecitizens’ attitudes toward the criminal justice systembetter, as the superficial measurement of public opinion ispart of the process that lends support to punitive populism.

4 Daniel Varona Gómezsingle word definition can describe (MAURA/KING, 2004:87 et seq.). Criminological research also indicatesthat citizens, when faced with the task of deciding theappropriate penalty for a specific case, do not tend toimpose more severe punishments than those imposed byjudges and criminal tribunals(ROBERTS/STALANS/INDERMAUR/HOUGH, 2003:29 et seq.).This leads to the question of whether citizens’punitivism in Spain is also a myth propagated byerroneous beliefs and used, intentionally or not, bypolitical parties in their ‘war on crime’.In Spain there are several data sources available

including the Eurobarometers, studies from the Centrefor Sociological Research, studies from the Council ofJudicial Power and Victimization Surveys, that give usan insight into citizens’ views of criminal justice aswell as their punitive attitudes4. However, no specificresearch has yet been carried out in Spain to assesscitizens’ these attitudes. This research is intendedto be a first step toward such an assessment.

2. Method The basis of this study was a survey included as an

annex to the British Crime Survey of 1996 (HOUGH/ROBERTS,1998). This was the ‘instrument’ chosen because it wasspecifically designed to reveal public opinion abouthow the criminal justice system operates and regardspunitive attitudes. Nonetheless, in translating thesurvey and adapting it to the Spanish system and tocertain specific research objectives, it underwentsignificant changes which allow us to claim that thefinal survey used was in part original5.

4 See VARONA (2009) and LARRAURI/VARONA (2011, in this volume).

5 First, we had to filter out certain questions which werenot relevant to the current crime situation in Spain.Second, questions were added in an attempt to adapt the

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 5The survey was distributed by email to a sample groupof students from the University of Girona (UdG)6. Morespecifically, the data of the sample was:

Sample: university students (UdG). Sample description: N (total population) = 12034 z (confidence level) = 2 e (margin of error) = 0.0339 (3.39%) P = Q (population variance) = 50% n (population surveyed) = 813

Some sample characteristics (n=813)

52% are female Age distribution: 17-23 (63%) / 24-30 (28%) / 31-37

(5%) / 38-44 (2%) / 44-51 (1%)The methodology used to carry out this research had to

address two main issues. First, the question as towhether or not this was a representative sample. Itmust be stated that the distribution method chosen was,for budgetary reasons, sending the survey by email.Therefore, a quota sampling to try to find arepresentative group to interview in person was notcarried out. We certainly cannot ensure, therefore,

original questionnaire to the latest knowledge aboutpunitive attitudes (in particular to information regardingthe ‘causes’ of punitiveness, based on the study carried outby MARUNA/KING, 2004). Third, questions were introduced totry to achieve specific research objectives (first, publicopinion about alternative penalties to prison and second,citizens’ perception of the relationship between immigrationand crime).

6 Girona is a northern city of Spain, near to the Frenchborder, with approximately 100.000 inhabitants. Thedistribution of the survey (an email explaining the researchproject and giving an internet address for the questionnairewhich was to be filled out by the respondent was sent) wasconducted between the last three months of 2006 and thefirst three months of 2007

6 Daniel Varona Gómezthat those who responded to the survey were not in someway especially sensitive to the subject of crime.Consequently, we must be very cautious whengeneralising about the results of our sample. Moreover,the response rate to the emailed survey was low, infact less than 10%, as tends to happen when using thistype of distribution method. However, the total numberof completed surveys (n = 813) was high enough forstatistical analysis.Second, another major problem that this research faces

is whether or not the sample is too biased in that itis a university population. Some research (for exampleMARUNA/KING, 2004:98) suggests that educational levelis a factor to be taken into account when explainingthe punitive attitudes of the general population, inthe sense that the higher the education level the lowerthe punitive attitude tends to be. However, we believethat this bias is not very significant and thereforeshould not appreciably affect the results of thisresearch7. This, of course, is only a hypothesis. Onlywhen we are dealing with a truly representative sampleof the population will the results that we are nowgoing to analyse be generally valid.

7 Basically, there are two reasons: first, that althoughthere is certain criminological research that underlines therole of education in shaping punitive attitudes, it is notthought to play a major role as such (MARUNA/KING, 2004:98-99). Second, the results of our research on the punitiveattitude in a specific case scenario (Scenario 1 of ourresearch, which is in fact the type of case scenario used invictimization surveys conducted everywhere) are very similarto those documented in some victimization surveys conductedfor the general population. See for exampleGARCÍA/PÉREZ/BENÍTEZ, 2006:167 et seq.; about avictimization survey carried out in 2006 in Malaga. In ourresearch (at least with regards to this specific casescenario) a more punitive attitude was recorded than in somevictimization surveys carried out on the general population(for example, for Catalonia, that suggested by LUQUE, seeLUQUE, 1999:159 et seq.)

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 7Another point worth mentioning regarding the survey

design is the development and distribution of twoparallel surveys (A and B). The two surveys differ inthe nationality of the offenders in the four casescenarios (see in detail infra 3.5). The aim was toanalyse the role that the nationality of the offenderand immigration in general might play in developing amore o less punitive attitude. Certainly, this research does present significant

controversial methodological issues, which means itcannot be considered a complete study on the punitiveattitudes of the Spanish people. However, the main aimof this research was far more modest: to present apilot or exploratory study on punitive attitudes thatwould obviously require further investigation so as toreaffirm, qualify or refute its findings.

3. Results of the research and discussionThe most relevant results of this research are:

3.1. Crime as ‘problematic’As comparative research has shown, the first thing that

should be taken into account is that citizens see theissue of crime as ‘problematic’. We say ‘problematic’because crime is certainly given a higher valuation (bothquantitative and qualitative) than the real situationwarrants. Thus, citizens believe that:

crime is constantly on the rise a high percentage of crime is violent crime the majority of criminals are reoffenders or

regular offendersThese attitudes are revealed in the answers given to the

following questions included in the survey:

8 Daniel Varona GómezDiagram 1: Crime rate

As shown, a large majority of the sample group, 67.6%,think that crime is increasing, even though the dataavailable does not seem to provide a sound basis forthis feeling of ‘an uncontrollable avalanche of crime‘8.

8 Certainly in Spain, the fact that there are no reliable(methodologically) general surveys on victimization meansthat it is difficult to give a conclusive answer to therecurrent question about the increase or decrease in thecrime rate. Official data on crime (police data) indicatesthat in recent years the number of crimes carried out hasdecreased slightly, while the infractions that haveincreased are classified as misdemeanors (GARCÍA/PÉREZ,2005:25 et seq.) Regarding victimization surveys conductedin specific areas, it should be noted that data fromvictimization surveys conducted in Malaga suggest that therehas been no increase in crime (GARCÍA/PÉREZ/BENÍTEZ,2006:47et seq.). However, data from victimization surveysconducted in Catalonia show an increase in crime between1999 and 2008, although with a stable trend last years (seelatest data in ESPC, 2009http://www.gencat.cat/interior/docs/InformeESPC2009.pdf ).Also the data from the victimization survey carried out inBarcelona shows an increase in crime every year from 1999(14,3) to 2006 (21,1), but then a decrease (2007: 20,3;2008: 20,1http://w3.bcn.es/fitxers/home/victimitzaci.5901.452.pdf ).

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 9Another important diagram is that shown below which

refers to the percentage of crimes that citizensbelieve involve violence or intimidation of the victim:

Diagram 2: Rate of violent crime

As shown in diagram two, a majority of those surveyed(57.9%) think that at least half of all crimes involveviolence. In fact, the largest percentage, 34.2%, thinkthat between 60% and 80% of crimes are violent. Yet allthe data we have available indicates that thispercentage is, in reality, far smaller9.Finally, another important set of data regarding crime

as ‘problematic” refers to the percentage of crimes

9 For example, police data on known crimes in 2004 indicatethat 5.83% of crimes are offences of violence against theperson (note that almost 70% of these crimes are domesticviolence), 0.90% are sexual offences and 80.11% areconsidered to be property crimes, of which 10.94% areaggravated robbery with violence/intimidation, which is also8.77% of the total crimes. TOTAL (5.83 +0.90+8.77=): 15.5%of crimes could be considered to involve violence orintimidation of people (data extracted from GARCÍA/PÉREZ,2005). Some surveys on victimization consider this figure tobe higher, but in either case the figure is well below thelevel citizens believe it to be (according to data providedby the ESPC, 2008, 28% of recognized victimization includeacts of violence or intimidation).

10 DanielVarona Gómezthat are believed to be committed by ‘professionalcriminals’ be they reoffenders or habitual offenders.

Diagram 3: Recidivist / habitual offender rate

As 67.4% of those surveyed believe that at least halfof all criminals are reoffenders or habitual offenders,their belief is that ‘professional criminals’ exist.Yet, this is another belief that the official dataavailable does not seem to confirm10.

10 This is data which again is difficult to obtain forSpain. In the judicial statistics from INE (NationalInstitut of Estatistics), which seem to present some faultymethodology, there is some data on reoffenders that says,for example, that in the year 2003 for every 120,000 ‘crimesstudied’, 25.400 were committed by reoffenders (just over21%). More reliable, although from a geographically limitedrepresentative sample, is data about the rate of reoffendersprovided by a study of criminal convictions in the CriminalCourts of Barcelona (CID/LARRAURI, editors, 2002:30 et

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 11In summary, from the answers given to these three

survey questions, we can deduce that citizens believethat crime is on the rise, that it is largely violentand that it is carried out by ‘professionals’.

3.2. The benevolence of the criminal justicesystem in Spain

Another fundamental issue that emerges from ourresearch is that citizens believe that the criminaljustice system deals too leniently with criminals. Thisissue has been systematically documented in comparativestudies. Specifically, citizens believe that:

sentences given to criminals are, in general,lenient

seq.). The data from this study shows that 70.5 of every 100defendants have no antecedents (58 have a completely cleanrecord, 8 have an annullable record, 3.5 have a subsequentrecord, and 1 has an annullable and later record), and that29.5 defendants do have a previous criminal record of which10 are habitual offenders. In any case, as the results show,this figure is nowhere near the figure given by the majorityof respondents when asked what percentage of crimes werecommitted by reoffenders or habitual offenders (50% ofcrimes).

12 DanielVarona Gómez

there is a large difference between thepenalties imposed by judges and the penalties that should be given

penalties are often not completed in fullThese attitudes are clearly illustrated in the answers

to the following questions included in the survey:

Diagram 4: Benevolence/Severity of punishments given

In general, would you say that sentences handed down by the courts are too tough, about right, or too lenient?

2,1 8,2

16,6

50,3

20,4

Much too toughA little too toughAbout rightA little too lenientMuch too lenient

A large majority of those surveyed (70.7%) think thatthe penalties imposed by judges are too lenient (infact, 20.4% of those surveyed think they are ‘verylenient’). This finding was confirmed when citizens were asked

what penalty they believed judges gave in a specificcase and the sentence they thought judges should havegiven in that same case.

Diagrams 5 and 6: The difference between the penalty believed judges gaveand the penalty believed judges should have given (in a rape case)

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 13

As shown, there is a very significant differencebetween the percentage of offenders that citizensbelieve are given a prison sentence for committing rape(more than half believe that this is less than 50%),and those that believe that these offenders should besent to prison (67.7% were of the opinion that allrapists should receive a prison sentence, while only4.8% of respondents believe that judges always givethose who commit rape a prison sentence). This clearlyshows that citizens believe there is a largediscrepancy between the penalties given and the onethey themselves would give for the same crime.

14 DanielVarona GómezFinally, citizens’ image of a lenient criminal justice

system is confirmed by the question concerningenforcing prison sentences.

Diagram 7: Serving prison sentences

If som eone is sentenced to serve 12 m onths, how long, on average, do you think they will actually spend in prison?

33,2

38,3

22,3

5,7

1 to 3 m onths3 to 6 m onths6 to 9 m onths9 to 12 m onths

As shown, a large majority (71.5%) believe that thetime spent in prison is less than half of the length ofthe sentence originally imposed. Nevertheless, we knowthat the reality is very different11.All in all these results paint quite a depressing

picture: citizens believe that crime is an increasinglyserious and pressing problem, and that rather thanreacting promptly and firmly the criminal justicesystem gives lenient sentences that are not adequatelyserved. In all, this could indicate that there is awidespread punitive attitude within the population, andthat citizens are extremely disgruntled about thisflagrant contradiction between the seriousness of theproblem and the disappointing response of the criminaljustice system. However, according to the data gatheredin this research the reality, as discussed below, isvery different.

11 The key point is that the 1995 Criminal Code withdrew themain prison benefit system that existed (the ‘reduction oftime served’ for work done in prison), which in practice hasput the effective compliance of penalties very close to thejudicially imposed penalty. The reduction in the percentageof parolees has also contributed to this (CID, 2005 and2008).

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 15

3.3. The myth of ‘citizens’ punitiveness’As previously mentioned, the results obtained in this

study so far could lead us to believe that citizenswould tend to display a very punitive attitude whenasked about suitable punishment for a specific case(the ‘case scenario’ technique), if they believe crimeis a much more serious problem than it really is and ifthey also believe that the criminal justice systemtreats offenders too leniently. It would not besurprising then if citizens demanded more severepenalties for all types of crime.However, the results of our study contradict this

hypothesis: the sample group does not display aparticularly punitive attitude. In fact, the attitudedisplayed is quite the contrary. As discussed below,the respondents:

when faced with hypothetical cases gave morelenient, and in some cases much more lenient, sentencesthan were actually imposed by judges in similar cases

display widespread support for alternativepunishments rather than prison sentences

also display widespread support for arehabilitative emphasis in the punishment

have a ‘social’ or ‘structural’ view of crimeOverall, these results seem to confirm the ‘myth of

citizens’ punitiveness’. The four issues mentionedabove are analysed below in more detail.

3.3.1. Punishments given in the case scenarios

16 DanielVarona GómezThe survey presented four case scenarios involving

crimes of average seriousness, the area where citizens’choice between prison sentences and other punishmentsare really put to the test. The results for these casescenarios are shown below: a) Recidivist burglar12

As shown, respondents chose the penalties ofcompensation for the damage done (50.8%), CommunityService (45.6%) and fines (31.5%), with imprisonmentbeing the fourth choice for just over a quarter of thesample group (28.4%)13. If we consider that within theframework of our current Criminal Code, the punishmentfor this crime, breaking and entering, committed by areoffender, is a prison sentence of between three and ahalf and five years (articles 241 and 66.1 3rd CC), thejudge in our case scenario would almost certainlyimpose a prison sentence without the possibility of asuspended sentence. Only a minority (28.4%) of oursample group believe that prison is an appropriate

12 The percentages in the four case scenarios do not add upto 100 because the survey gave respondents the option tochoose more than one penalty.

13 The following survey question asked those that had chosenprison as the appropriate penalty to specify the duration ofthe sentence. The majority (62.5%) sentenced the offender toprison for 1 month to 1 year. Only 17.7% of the sample groupconsidered a prison sentence exceeding two years to beappropriate.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 17punishment. Furthermore, the prison sentence imposedby judges in similar cases is far longer than thatconsidered to be appropriate by a large majority ofrespondents.b) Drink driving (causing an accident with minor injuries and damage toproperty)

Again, prison is not the penalty considered to be mostappropriate by far (25.3%)14, even though one of therecent amendments to the Criminal Code (LO 15/2003)introduced this as an optional main punishment underarticle 379 CC, and the most recent amendment to theCriminal Code (LO 15/2007) makes it clear that thelegislator would like to see prison sentences given for‘road crimes’15.

14 Regarding their duration, again a significant majority(65%) considered a prison sentence of between 1 month and 1year to be appropriate.

15 This is an area where the penalty declared by the law andthe one finally imposed by the judge may vary significantlybecause, as we have pointed out, in these kinds of offencesimprisonment is an optional sanction. Experience tells usthat the vast majority of convictions in such cases involvethe temporary deprivation of driving licenses and theimposition of a fine (with an order of community serviceadded in the last amendment to the CC). We are thus facedwith a situation which could graphically be called a

18 DanielVarona Gómez

c) Regular domestic violence (with minor injuries/bodily harm):

In this case, half of the respondents considered thatthe most appropriate punishment was a suspendedsentence with a treatment programme for domesticabusers. In all, 37.8% of respondents believed that aprison sentence was an appropriate punishment for thisoffence, making it the case scenario with the highestpercentage of respondents considering imprisonment to

‘symbolic penalty’ because the legislation seems to wantcriminal law to clearly specify that this is a crime thatwarrants a prison sentence (presumably to send a strongwarning to citizens) yet this is not, in fact, the penaltythat is normally given for this crime. This raises thefollowing question: certainly compared to the Criminal Codewhich considers imprisonment to be the appropriate penaltyfor the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol,people have a much less punitive attitude. However, if thispercentage is compared with the actual enforcement of prisonsentences for these offences, it is much more punitive. Inmy opinion, while this is true, what is important is thatmost citizens do not support the idea that imprisonment isthe appropriate punishment for this crime.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 19be a suitable penalty16. This suggests that thecampaigns to sensitise citizens to the seriousness ofdomestic abuse carried out in Spain over the last fewyears has had a strong impact on our young people17.

d) Drug trafficking (lower class drugs sold by an addict)

16 Moreover, although again the majority (60.1%) chose aprison sentence of between 1 month and 1 year, 32.2% of thesample group were in favour of a prison sentence of morethan two years.

17 The significant percentage of respondents who favouredelectronic control (24.2%) for this case scenario must alsobe highlighted. The fact that this is a much higherpercentage than for the other case-scenarios suggests thatpeople clearly understand that for this type of crime thereis a serious problem of future reincidence and thereforeefforts should be made to monitor these offenders.

20 DanielVarona Gómez

Again, the punishment chosen as the most appropriateby a huge 63.5% of respondents was a suspended sentencewith a drug rehabilitation programme, indicating thatthose who answered the survey understand that this typeof offence has a highly specific etiology which needsaddressing rather than just a form of punishment forthe crime committed. In fact, this is the case scenariowith the lowest percentage of respondents who chose aprison sentence as the appropriate penalty (18%)18,even though, paradoxically, it is the one that theCriminal Code sanctions most strongly19. In summary, in none of the case scenarios is prison

the penalty considered to be the most appropriate in

18 Perhaps this item of data is affected by the sample groupchosen (university students). It must be noted, however,that the minority that chose prison as the penalty seem tobe more punitive than in the other case scenarios (thepercentage of respondents who considered prison sentences ofbetween 1 month and 1 year to be suitable went down to50.8%).

19 The penalty laid out by article 368 CC for drugtrafficking in the case of cocaine is three to nine years inprison, although certainly the issue of drug addiction onthe part of the accused means that he may avoid imprisonment(depending on the sentence ultimately imposed) if therequirements of article 87 CC (probation) are fulfilled.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 21the opinion of the majority of the respondents, whichwould seem to confirm the ‘myth of citizenpunitiveness’.

3.3.2 Strong support for alternatives to prison

The data obtained from questions included in thesurvey which attempted to evaluate citizens’ supportfor alternatives to prison also seems to confirm thismyth. This data, as explained in more detail below,suggests strong citizen support for other types ofpenalties.First, the data for the case scenarios outlined

previously confirm that citizens have a positive viewof alternative penalties to prison because, as we haveseen in all of these case studies, the punishment (orpunishments) considered to be most suitable were alwaysan alternative to prison, especially when it wasconsidered to be a penalty which included a form ofrehabilitation. Secondly, two of the research questions were

specifically designed to assess the level of supportthat alternative penalties received. The first of thesequestions asked whether the respondent would be willingto impose an alternative penalty in the case of anoffender having a previous criminal record, knowingthat it is with these particular cases that criminaljudges are very reluctant to do so20.

Diagram 8: Alternatives to prison for offenders with a criminal record

20 See data from the study on a representative sample ofsentences of the Criminal Courts of Barcelona inCID/LARRAURI (2002:58)

22 DanielVarona Gómez

       As shown, for the vast majority of respondents (78%)

the fact that the offender has a criminal record shouldnot prevent them from receiving an alternative penaltyto prison. This, however, is not the case in thecriminal justice system.The second question was designed to evaluate the level

of support given to a specific alternative to a prisonsentence: a suspended prison sentence. We explicitlywanted to ask about this alternative imagining it to bethe most controversial or frowned upon by citizens,because it can easily be interpreted as a simple‘pardon’ of the penalty21.

21 Thus, for example, in our penal doctrine CEREZO considers(2004:37 et seq. 155 et seq.) that "The possibility ofgranting, in general, the suspension of prison sentences ofless than two years (...) is, in my opinion, seriouslydetrimental to the demands of general prevention and to thereaffirmation of the legal system in the interests ofspecial prevention”.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 23Diagram 9: Valuation of a suspended sentence

As shown, the data again demonstrates a very positivepublic opinion of the possibility of a suspendedsentence (only 15.4% completely ruled out thisalternative), even though they make it clear that thissuspension should be more than a simple ‘pardon’: 43.3%wanted some kind of control or supervision, and 21%approved of the idea of suspension of the sentenceprovided that the prison sentence was replaced byanother penalty.Finally, the responses to another question included in

the survey could be interpreted as support foralternatives to prison sentences:

Diagram 10: solutions to prison overcrowding

24 DanielVarona GómezAs shown, a large majority, 60.6%, of respondents were

in favour of finding alternate methods to imprisonment,but ones which are more punitive than a simplesuspension of the prison sentence.

3.3.3. Widespread support for a rehabilitativeapproach

As well as refuting the idea of a widespread punitiveattitude among citizens, the responses to the questionsincluded in the survey can also be seen to lend strongsupport to the idea of a rehabilitative approach topunishment. We have already seen how in the case scenarios and in

the specific questions about alternative penalties toprison, respondents essentially support the idea ofpunishments which contemplate rehabilitation of theoffender. Respondents emphasize that the penalty mustgo beyond simply repressing undesirable conduct to alsoattempting to deal with the causes of the criminalbehaviour and to reintroduce the person into society. Second, and more specifically, it must be emphasized

that the results of this research show that peoplebelieve in rehabilitation as a purpose of punishment ingeneral, especially if it seen to be ‘vitallyimportant’ or a basis right that the criminal justicesystem should take into consideration:

Diagram 11: The purpose of punishment

W hich one do you think has to be the prim ary purpose of sentencing?

40,2

32,1

6,2

20,2 Provide proportionalpunishm entRehabilitation of offender

Provide restitution /reparationIncapacitation

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 25As shown, almost a third of respondents believe that

rehabilitation is the main purpose of punishment,making it the second most chosen option. Thispercentage, however, increased significantly when weasked simply whether rehabilitation should be a purposeof punishment that the criminal justice system musttake into account.

Diagram 12: Belief in rehabilitation

As shown, a large majority of respondents agree withrehabilitating offenders, including reoffenders.

3.3.4. A social or structural view of crime.

Lastly, a fourth indication that attributing apunitive attitude to citizens without qualification iserroneous may be illustrated in the answers given tothe questions that highlight what we could call a‘social or structural’ view of crime. This is a beliefthat crime is a social phenomenon the causes andsolutions of which must be found in a series of socialfactors and not in the simple will and autonomy of theoffender.This is relevant to punitive attitudes, as we will see

later, because the hypothesis is that citizens who seecriminal activity as the result of free will believethat the offender has ‘earned’ himself the punishmentthat the system believes to be appropriate. On the

26 DanielVarona Gómezother hand, citizens who believe that criminal activityis fundamentally linked to social factors, and thattherefore it is in some way a common socialresponsibility, will advocate more moderate punishmentsas the aforementioned key factor means that the onus ofcriminal activity should not lie solely with theoffender. In short, the results of our research demonstrate a

generally favourable attitude towards the social viewrather than the individual view of criminal behaviour.Thus, when specifically asked about this matter, amajority of respondents point to the ‘social origin’of criminal behaviour.

Diagram 13: The origin/causes of criminal behaviour

Furthermore, the question relating to the causes ofthe increase in crime22 also reveal this social orstructural view of criminal behaviour:

Diagram 14: Reasons for the increase in crime23

22 More specifically, respondents who felt that delinquencyhad increased (as previously seen, they were the majority)were asked what attributed to this increase.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 27

Lastly, in the answers to the question relating toeffective ways of preventing crime, we find the sameview.

Diagram 15: Effective ways of preventing crime

As shown, the most frequent response links crime

prevention to a change in the model of society (values,education, etc), and not directly to punishment, and in

23 This diagram also highlights that even though mostrespondents believe, as we saw previously, that crime isconstantly increasing and that the penalties imposed byjudges are lenient, they do not seem to link the two issues,as ‘lenience of sentences’ is only mentioned by a minority(11.69%) as a cause of increased crime.

What do you think are the reasons for the increase in criminal activity?

11,69

46,942,0

4

28,57

10,76

Leniency of the penaltiesIncreasing social andeconomic inequality, Loss of values ,

Police ineffectiveness

Immigration increase

Other

28 DanielVarona Gómezparticular not to an increase in the number ofpenalties24. In conclusion, according to the results of our

research, the punitive citizen seems to be a myth andnot a reflection of reality.

3. 4. ‘Causes’ of punitivenessAnother aim of this research was to try to ascertain

the causes, or rather the variables, that could explainthe origin of punitive feelings among citizens as wellas influence or encourage them.To this end, we created a sub-sample group of the

total respondents surveyed (n=813) which we called thepunitive sample group (PS). These respondents had saidthat the suitable penalty in the four case scenarioswas a prison sentence (n=37)25. This sub-sample was thenanalysed in relation to a series of variables that apriori we identified as possibly relevant in line withspecialized comparative literature on this subject. Infact, the questions included in the survey were alreadyspecifically designed to keep this series of possiblyrelevant variables in mind when forming a more or less

24 The option of imposing tougher penalties was mentioned byonly 10.7% of respondents, while 7.1% also link preventionto penalties but in the sense that the increased use ofalternative punishments to prison sentences could be moreeffective.

25 It should be stated from the outset that the sub-sampleof punitive people is very small (37 people, ie 4.6% of thetotal sample), which in itself confirms the point madeearlier concerning the myth of citizen punitiveness. Infact, of the total sample a significant 38.1% does notconsider prison to be an adequate punishment in any of thecase scenarios, 23.2% only consider imprisonment to besuitable in one case, 18.7% in half of the cases and 12.9%in three of the four scenario cases.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 29punitive feeling. We placed these variables into threecategories:

Personal variables: linked to personalcharacteristics such as age, occupation and politicalstance

Cognitive variables: linked to the knowledge that therespondents have or valuation that the respondentsgive to certain questions related to how the criminaljustice system works, including the crime rate, therepeat offender rate, the rate of violent crime,homicides, valuation of the penalties imposed,penalties by judges, the role of judges, the police,the aim of the punishments etc.

Emotional variables (or intimate beliefs;MARUNA/KING, 2004:95): linked to questions concerningpeople’s intimate beliefs, or emotional variablesidentified by specialist comparative literature asrelevant when forming a more or less punitiveattitude. These variables include previousvictimisation, opinions about the origin or thecauses of crime, belief or not in offenderrehabilitation and opinions about the social andeconomic state of the country.

After cross-referencing the sample group of punitivecitizens with all the variables defined, thosevariables that were shown to be relevant (using thechi-square test with the statistical analysis programmeSPSS) were the following:

a) Personal variables

The only personal variable that correlated with thepunitive attitude in a relevant way was the politicalstance of the person. The people who defined themselvesas right wing had a much more punitive attitude thanthe rest of the respondents. On the other hand, those

30 DanielVarona Gómezthat considered themselves to be left-wing had a muchless punitive attitude than average.

Table 1: Political stance and punitive attitudes       Political

stance   

  Right/Centre-right

Left/Centre-left

Centre/Apolitical

Total

Punitive 10% (6) 3,3% (19) 6,9% (12) 4,6% (37)Non punitive

90% (54) 96,7% (549) 93,1% (162) 95,4% (765)

Total 100% (60) 100% (568) 100% (174) 100% (802)

p=0,033The difference is even greater if we further divide

the political spectrum26. The rest of the personalvariables were not relevant in the chi-square test27.

b) Cognitive variables

With regards to the variables related to knowledge orvaluation of certain aspects of crime and of how thecriminal justice system works, the most relevant in thechi-square tests was the opinion concerning the

26 If only those who consider themselves to be right-wingare taken into account, the percentage of punitive people inthis group increased to 30.8% (n = 4). Regarding those whodefined themselves as left-wing, the percentage of punitivepeople decreases to 2.6% (n = 9). In this case thestatistical analysis is even more significant (s = 0.000),but it is based on smaller groups.

27 The men showed a slightly more punitive attitude than thewomen (5% and 4.3% respectively form the punitive sample),but this was not statistically significant. Regardingworking status, respondents who did not work (in addition tostudying) also had a slightly more punitive attitude thanthe respondents who worked (even if this was sporadically)during the course (6% and 4.9% respectively form thepunitive sample), although this was not a statisticallysignificant difference in the chi-square test.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 31penalties imposed by criminal judges. Morespecifically, the people who think that the penaltiesimposed by judges are lenient are those thatdemonstrate a more punitive attitude, as reflected inthe table below.

Table 2: Opinion about the toughness of sentences and punitiveattitudes

Court sentencesare tough / about right /

lenient  Tough About right Lenient Total

Punitive 0% (0) 2,2% (3) 5,95 (34) 4,6% (37)

Not punitive 100% (84) 97,8% (132)94,1%(541)

95,4%(776)

Total 100% (84) 100% (135) 100% (575)100%(813)

p=0,019 Secondly, the view of the purpose of punishment was

also relevant. More specifically, the people who seethe purpose of punishment as fundamentally and solelypunishment, or retribution, or incapacitation of theoffender are more punitive than those who first andforemost consider the rehabilitation of the offender orthe repair of the damage caused:

Table 3: The aim of punishment and punitive attitudesRetribution /incapacitation

Rehabilitation / reparation Total28

Punitive 6,3% (31) 1,9% (6) 4,6% (37)Not punitive 93,7% (460) 98,1% (305) 95,4%(765)Total 100% (491) 100% (311) 100% (802)

p=0,004

28 Retribution (6.1%), rehabilitation (2.3%), reparation(0%) and incapacitation (6.7%).

32 DanielVarona GómezThirdly, another important cognitive variable was the

opinion about crime prevention. More specifically, thepeople who were more likely to agree with options suchas ‘increase the number of policemen and penalties’,and ‘implement a more restrictive immigration policy’are more punitive.

Table 4: Crime prevention and punitive attitudes (PAP:alternatives to prison)   Increase

discipline /

Change society

Improve economic conditions

Increasepenalties/ number ofpolice

Increaseuse ofcommunityservice

Restrictiveimmigrationpolicy

Total

Punitive3,3% (15) 4,8% (5) 10,5% (11) 0% (0) 7,8% (6) 4,6% (37)Not Punitive

96,7% (446) 95,2% (100)89,5% (94) 100% (58)92,2% (71)95,4%(769)

Total 100% (461) 100% (105)100% (105) 100% (58)100% (77)100% (806)

p=0,005 The fourth relevant variable was the respondents’

preferred solution to the current problem ofovercrowding in prisons. As shown in the table below,the people who prefer the idea of building more prisonseven if this means increasing taxes or reducingspending in other areas are more punitive.

Table 5: Solution to prison overcrowding and punitive attitudes  New

penaltiesBring forwardparole

Build more prisons Total

Punitive 5,3% (26) 1% (2) 8,8% (9) 4,7% (37)Notpunitive

94,7% (467) 99% (203) 91,2% (93) 95,3%(763)

Total 100% (493) 100% (205) 100% (102) 100% (800)

     p=0.09Finally, statistical tests also showed that, rather

surprisingly, previous experience of prisons, either asa visitor or for any other reason, was relevant. Thesurprising thing is perhaps that previous experience

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 33was correlated with a stronger punitive attitude whenwe would probably have expected the opposite:

Table 6: Previous experience of prison and punitive attitudes  Yes No TotalPunitive 10,4% (11) 3,7% (26) 4,6% (37)Not punitive 89,6% (95) 96,3% (676) 95,4%(771)Total 100% (106) 100% (702) 100% (808)

      p=0,008 

As shown, for the cognitive variables some of theresults are quite logical as they already match a moreor less punitive attitude, for example variables suchas opinion on crime prevention and the solution toprison overcrowding. In this sense the findings arequasi-tautological. The other correlations discovered,such as the relationship between the opinion about theseverity of penalties and punitive attitudes, are moreinteresting. This showed that the erroneous image thatpeople have of the criminal justice system, or in otherwords the biased image provided by the media that thecriminal justice system treats offenders‘benevolently’, can cause a sense of ‘uneasiness’ orconcern, which in turn creates a punitive feeling as areaction to the perceived passivity or leniency of thesystem. Second, the relationship found between punitiveattitudes and views on the purpose of punishment areinteresting because, as is discussed in detail below,this confirms one of the key findings of this research:the belief in the rehabilitation of offenders as afairly effective antidote against punitive attitudes.Third and finally, the correlation between previousexperience of prison and punitive attitudes does notseem to have a sound explicative hypothesis29.

29 As for the rest of the variables, although they did notshow a significant correlation in the chi-square test, it isworth mentioning that the sample of punitive people tendedto believe that there is more crime, that there are more

34 DanielVarona Gómez

c) Emotional Variables

Finally, regarding emotional variables the first thingto emphasize is that having been a victim of a crimewas not shown to be statistically relevant when forminga more or less punitive attitude. This confirms thefindings of previous research which concludes thatattributing a punitive feeling per se to the victims ofa crime is an error (MARUNA/KING, 2004:92-93)30. Neitherwas there any statistical significance to the questiondesigned to illustrate whether ‘social and economicanxiety’ was related to punitive attitudes31.The variables that did show notable statistical

significance were those related to opinions on theorigin or causes of crime and a belief, or not, in therehabilitation of offenders. This confirms the results

homicides, that the crimes that are committed are moreviolent and that the percentage of reoffenders or habitualoffenders is higher.

30 In fact, although we have already said that it has nostatistical significance, it is worth highlighting thatthere is a tendency for victims to be less punitive (2.6% ofpunitive people in the group of victims –n=232- and 5.4% inthe group of non-victims). This seems to also be an issuewhere the results are affected by the sample selected forthe research (university students), as studies have shownthat although young people are the most victimized sector ofthe population they are also the ones that declare to havesuffered less subjective affectation as a result of thecrime (see ESPC, 2006, pages 13, 17-18http://www.gencat.net/interior/docs/InformeESPC2006.pdf. ).

31 In fact, contrary to expectations, those that thoughtthat the economic and social situation is better now werethe ones that had a more punitive attitude (6.7% of thosewho believe this were from the punitive group, while 4.6% ofthe punitive group thought that ‘the economic and socialsituation is getting worse and worse, and 1.5% of this groupthought that the economic and social situation has notchanged and can be considered to be acceptable).

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 35of some comparative studies that have highlighted theenormous importance of emotional variables inexplaining punitive attitudes (MARUNA/KING, 2004:95 and99).32 More specifically, regarding the origin or causesof crime, it was shown that those who view crime as aresult of free will and rational decision making on thepart of offenders are far more punitive than those whoview crime as the product of a range of social andeconomic factors.

Table 7: The origin of crime and punitive attitudes  Free will and

rationaldecision making

Product of socioeconomic Factors

Mental deficiency/addiction

Total

Punitive 9,8% (19) 2,7% (16) 14,3% (2) 4,6% (37)Non punitive 90,2% (175) 97,3% (578) 85,7% (12) 95,4%(765)Total 100% (194) 100% (594) 100% (14) 100% (802)

      p=0,000Second, regarding belief or not in the rehabilitation

of offenders, it was observed that those who have lessfaith in rehabilitation are more punitive:

Table 8: Belief in rehabilitation and punitiveattitudes  No, people cannot

ChangeYes, people can change33

Total

32 More specifically, the hypotheses are the following:first, regarding the causes of crime our response to it hasa lot to do with its perceived causes. Second, if we believethat the offender is a permanently and inherently ‘bad’person who will not change, we will obviously have a morepunitive attitude.

36 DanielVarona GómezPunitive 11,7% (16) 3,2% (21) 4,6% (37)Non punitive 88,3% (121) 96,8% (644) 95,4%(765)Total 100% (137) 100% (665) 100% (802)

      p=0,000These results concur with those already mentioned

regarding the purpose of punishment and punitiveattitudes. In light of these results, we could say that the

profile of a punitive person is somebody with a right-wing or centre-right political stance who believes thatthe purpose of punishment is retribution orincapacitation. He also thinks that the penalties givenby judges are lenient, that the best way to preventcrime is to increase the number of police officers andpenalties (as well as a more restrictive policy onimmigration) and that the solution to prisonovercrowding is simply to build more prisons.Regarding the causes of crime, the ‘punitive’ personbelieves that it is basically a life decision freelymade by the offender. In attributing free will to thematter of criminal activity, the ‘punitive’ tend tohave less faith in the idea of rehabilitatingoffenders. In contrast, the people who define themselves

ideologically as left-wing and who believe, first, thatcriminal behaviour is a phenomenon whose causes, andthus its possible solutions, are to be found in theeconomic and social structures of the country and,second, in the rehabilitation of the offenders, are theones that make up the less punitive social group.

3.5. Immigration and punitive attitudes33 In the questionnaire the option given said, ‘People can

change and therefore it is worth trying to rehabilitateoffenders, even if they are reoffenders, in order toreinsert them into society".

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 37Finally, in trying to determine the factors that

contribute to developing a more or less punitiveattitude we analysed the role that the ‘nationality ofthe offender’ and immigration in general might play. Inrecent years the phenomenon of immigration in Spain hasreached a rate and dimension that has never been seenbefore, and this increase in the number of immigrantshas tended to be too lightly and too frequently relatedto crime (see criticizing such relation MEDINA, 2006and RECHEA/FERNÁNDEZ/BENÍTEZ, 2004). One of theobjectives of this research was, therefore, toascertain whether this link often made by somepolitical parties and the mass media has in some waypenetrated the view of the general population.To this end, two parallel surveys were developed and

distributed randomly among respondents in such a waythat approximately half answered survey A and the otherhalf B. The only difference between the surveys wasthat the nationality of the offenders in the four casescenarios varied. The distribution of the nationalitiesand case scenarios is shown below:

  CASE SCENARIO ACASE SCENARIO BCASE SCENARIO CCASE SCENARIO DMODEL A Spanish Colombian Spanish MoroccanMODEL B Romanian Spanish Moroccan Spanish

The table below shows the percentages of respondentsthat were of the opinion that prison was an appropriatepunishment in each scenario case in relation to thevariable of the nationality of the offender: Table 9: A prison sentence for case scenarios in relation to offenders’nationality

  SCENARIO CASE A SCENARIO CASE BSCENARIO CASE CSCENARIO CASE DSpanish 28.9 23.4 35.8 15.6Foreign 28.5 27.4 40.6 20.6 

38 DanielVarona GómezAs shown, except for the first case scenario of the

recidivist burglar, there was a difference in thepercentage of respondents who opted for a prisonsentence according to the nationality of the offender.Prison was considered to be the appropriate punishmentmore often if the perpetrator of the crime was foreign.The difference was especially notable, reaching almostfive percent higher, in the cases where the offenderwas Moroccan. The results suggest, therefore, that thenationality of the offender does seem to make adifference to citizens when deciding which punishmentis appropriate. Respondents showed a more punitiveattitude if the offender was foreign, and especially ifthe offender was Moroccan, which is precisely one ofthe nationality groups that the mass media has mostclearly linked to crime. However, in statisticalanalyses (chi-square) the only significant associationto the 95% (p=0,05) detected was in the case scenarioof drug trafficking (case D), where there was a greaterpredisposition to see prison as the appropriatepunishment when the ‘protagonist’ of the case scenariowas Moroccan. Apart from the case scenarios where the nationality of

the offender was modified, the survey also included twoother questions where the design of the possibleanswers was meant to reveal the role that immigrationplays when forming more or less punitive attitudes.The first of these questions has already been

mentioned when we were discussing the ‘causes’ ofpunitiveness. More specifically, it referred to thecognitive variable concerning the most efficient waysto prevent crime (see supra Diagram 15). One of thepossible answers to this question was the developmentof a more restrictive immigration policy. The resultsshown in the table 4 demonstrate that the people wholinked crime prevention with a restrictive immigrationpolicy are more punitive.

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 39The second question designed to provide us with

information about the role that the nationality of theoffender plays was the one which referred to thereasons for the increasing crime rate mentioned above(for those who answered that the crime rate had indeedincreased over the two last years: see general resultsin Diagram 14). One of the possible answers to thisquestion was a direct the ‘increase in immigration’ inthis country. Again, the results show that the peoplewho agree with the statement are more punitive. Therefore, the results of these two questions which

were specifically designed to reveal information aboutthe role of immigration when forming punitiveattitudes, or to be more precise about the link that isfrequently made between immigration and crime, suggestthat punitiveness could indeed be fostered by mistrustof immigrants as a result of linking these nationalitygroups with crime. The hypothesis is that the fact thatthe offender belongs to a ‘foreign’ sector of thepopulation could contribute to a certain ‘distancing’from the perpetrators of crime, which in turn blocksany feelings of empathy or understanding that couldlimit the penalty given. Therefore, to the profile of the ‘punitive citizen’

outlined previously we could add that this person linksimmigration with crime. Surely this is another reasonto worry about such easy and indiscriminate connectionsfrequently made by some political sectors and the massmedia.

4. Conclusions.Obviously, as this is only an exploratory pilot study

we should be very cautious about drawing conclusionsfrom the research carried out. Furthermore, we havealready highlighted the methodological limitations of

40 DanielVarona Gómezour sample group34. Nevertheless, the results of ourresearch allow us to state the following. First, just as comparative research has accredited,

although the knowledge that citizens have about how thecriminal justice system works is quite scanty, what isclear is that they systematically tend to believe thatwe live in a time of constantly increasing crime(‘problematisation’ of the phenomenon), and that thecriminal justice system, and in particular judges, donot respond to this situation firmly enough.Therefore, there is a widespread view of thebenevolence of the system based on the belief that thepenalties given are a lot less tough than they reallyare, accompanied by the belief that they are nowherenear fulfilled.Second, the data collected in our research shows that

citizens cannot be defined as punitive, which concurswith the results of comparative research. In thedifferent case scenarios proposed, most respondentswere in favour of alternative penalties to prison,especially if they were seen to have a rehabilitativeobjective. Therefore, the data gained from this studyclearly supports the use of this type of punishment asa response to crime, even in cases where criminal lawconsiders that prison is the appropriate punishment.When asked about the causes of crime and its possibleprevention, respondents gave little support to theimposition of penal sanctions but instead tended toadvocate measures of a social character. This isconsistent with understanding crime as a phenomenon

34 To the ‘internal’ methodological limitations we shouldadd the problems inherent to the study of attitudes andpunitive feelings through surveying the population (see ingeneral, ROBERTS/HOUGH, 2005:18 et seq.; and in particular,GREEN, 2006, who suggests the need to improve this methodand to move on to using deliberative techniques to evaluatepublic opinion).

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 41that should not be contemplated from an individualisticview (in other words as a consequence of the free willof the offender), but should be seen as a result ofdiverse economic and social factors The extensivesupport that our research shows for rehabilitation asone of the main criteria when deciding appropriatepenalties is also significant. Therefore, we couldconclude that the label ‘benevolent’ that citizens tendto apply to the criminal justice system is in factsimply the result of ignorance about the real dimensionof the imposition and compliance of penalties, and alsofundamentally the result of the biased image of theworkings of the criminal justice system given by themass media. On the contrary, the data collected in thisresearch shows that it is the citizens themselves thatcould be considered to be ‘benevolent’. Our research confirms the ‘double lack of

understanding’ characteristic of this issue (ALLEN,2002:6): the way the public regard the criminaljustice system (they believe it to be very lenient withoffenders) and the way politicians regard publicopinion (they believe that citizens are a lot morepunitive than they really are).Third, with regards to the ‘causes’ or the ‘origin’ of

punitive attitudes, the factors that emerge as possibleexplanations are diverse, demonstrating a complexpanorama for attempting to understand punitivefeelings. For the variables that we have called‘cognitive’, the correlation between the view oropinion that citizens have of the penalties given byjudges (that they are systematically too ‘lenient’) andpunitive attitudes must be highlighted. Therefore,more information about how the criminal justice systemoperates could help combat the punitive attitudes thatcan emerge in response to the biased image (that it isbenevolent) of the criminal justice system provided bythe mass media. With regards to emotional factors thelack of faith in the rehabilitation of offenders and

42 DanielVarona Gómezthe view that crime is basically a result of the freewill of the individual must be highlighted. Therefore,the belief in rehabilitation and the understanding thatcrime is a problem whose causes (and eventual solution)are to be found in the very social structure of societyare demonstrated to be efficient antidotes to thedevelopment of punitive attitudes. Regardingideological factors, this research shows that citizenswho consider themselves to be right-wing (or centre-right) have a more punitive attitude.Fourth and finally, the data provided by this research

reveals that regarding the nationality of the offenderand the role that immigration plays in the matter ofcrime, respondents believe that the offender’snationality is a factor that could play a role whendeciding what the appropriate punishment should be,particularly if the offender is Moroccan. Respondentsthat link immigration and delinquency were also shownto have a more punitive attitude. The data provided by this research begs many

questions, not least if the variables mentioned reallydo encourage punitive feelings, what can be done aboutthem? This, obviously, is a question that goes farbeyond the scope of this study which is simply to marka starting point for the study of punitive attitudes inSpain.

ReferencesALLEN, Rob (2002), "What Does the Public Think about

Prison?" Criminal Justice Matters, 49:1, 6-41.CEREZO MIR, José (2004): Curso de Derecho Penal Español, Parte

General, Volume I (Introduction), 6th edition, Madrid:Tecnos. 

CID MOLINÉ, José (2005): “The Penitentiary System inSpain. The Use of Imprisonment, Living Conditions andRehabilitation”, Punishment and Society, 7(2):147-166. 

Citizens and Punitive Attitudes 43CID MOLINÉ, José (2008): “El incremento de la población

reclusa en España entre 1996-2006: diagnóstico yremedios”, Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, number6http://www.criminologia.net/pdf/reic/ano6-2008/a62008art2.pdf 

CID MOLINÉ, José / LARRAURI PIJOAN, Elena/ ESCOBARMARULANDA, Gonzalo / LAHOZ LÓPEZ, Jennifer / LÓPEZ YFERRER, Marayca / TÉBAR VILCHES, Beatriz / VARONAGÓMEZ, Daniel (2002): Jueces Penales y penas en España.Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch. 

ESPC (2009): Enquesta de Seguretat Pública de Catalunya, Catalan autonomous government, Department of the Interior http://www.gencat.cat/interior/docs/InformeESPC2009.pdf

EU ICS (2005): The burden of crime in the EU,http://www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu/downloads/EUICS_The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

GARCÍA ESPAÑA, Elisa / PÉREZ JIMÉNEZ, Fátima (2005):Seguridad ciudadana y actividades policiales, ODA Report 2005,Malaga: Interuniversity Institute of Criminology ofAndalusia, El Monte Foundation (Instituto AndaluzInteruniversitario de Criminología, Fundación El Monte).  

GARCÍA ESPAÑA, Elisa / PÉREZ JIMÉNEZ, Fátima / BENÍTEZJIMÉNEZ, M.José (2006): La delincuencia según las víctimas: unenfoque integrado a partir de una encuesta de victimación, ODA Report2006, Malaga: Interuniversity Institute of Criminologyof Andalusia, El Monte Foundation (Instituto AndaluzInteruniversitario de Criminología, Fundación El Monte).  

GREEN, David A. (2006): “Public opinion versus publicjudgement about crime. Correcting of “Comedy ofErrors”, British Journal of Criminology, volume 46, pages 131-154. 

HOUGH, Michael / ROBERTS, Julian (1998): Attitudes topunishment: findings from the British Crime Survey, Home OfficeResearch Study 179, London: Home Office. 

44 DanielVarona GómezLARRAURI PIJOAN, Elena (2005): “Populismo punitivo y penas

alternativas a la prisión”, in Bacigalupo, S. / Cancio,M. (coords.), Derecho Penal y Política Transnacional, Barcelona:Atelier, pages 283-305. 

LARRAURI PIJOAN, Elena / VARONA GÓMEZ, Daniel (2011):“Democracy at work?: Public opinion and penal reformsin Spain”, in Helmut Kury / Evelyn Shea (eds.),Punitiveness International Developments, BrockmeyerUniversitätsverlag,

MARUNA, Shadd / KING, Anna (2004): “Public opinion andcommunity penalties”, in A, Bottoms / S. Rex / G.Robinson (edit.) Alternatives to Prison, Options for an insecuresociety, Willan Publishing, pages 83-112. 

MEDINA ARIZA, Juanjo (2006): “Politics of crime in Spain,1978-2004”, Punishment and Society, volume 8 (2), pages183-201. 

RECHEA ALBEROLA, Cristina / FERNÁNDEZ MOLINA, Esther /BENÍTEZ JIMÉNEZ, María José (2004): Tendencias sociales ydelincuencia, Centre of Research in Criminology (Centro deInvestigación en Criminología) (University of Castilla-LaMancha), number 11http://www.uclm.es/Criminologia/pdf/11-2004.pdf  

ROBERTS, J. / STALANS, L.J. / INDERMAUR, D. / HOUGH, M.(2003): Penal Populism and Public Opinion, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. 

ROBERTS, Julian / HOUGH, Mike (2005): Understanding publicattitudes to criminal justice, Open University Press. 

VARONA GÓMEZ, Daniel (2009): “¿Somos los españolespunitivos?: actitudes punitivas y reforma penal enEspaña”, Indret, volume 1http://www.indret.com/pdf/599.pdf