Arguing for Criminal Justice Reform: Examining the Effects of Message Framing on Policy Preferences

Abstract

Across the U.S., policy makers are enacting criminal justice reform while limiting many of those reforms to low-level, non-violent offenders. Given the power the public wields in shaping policy, it is necessary to consider which arguments for reform are most effective and who is viewed as most deserving of those reforms. The current study finds that varying the argument for reform, such as highlighting racial inequities, does not affect support for reform policies, regardless of the type of offender. Additionally, although respondents generally supported reform policies, results revealed significantly less support for implementing those reforms for violent offenders. Finally, findings indicate that individuals who believe violent crime is more of a Black phenomenon are less likely to support reform. These findings demonstrate that, to enact broader reform, it is necessary to address the public’s preexisting opinions about crime more so than debate which rhetorical arguments should be used.