Is compassion the flip side of punitiveness? Incorporating COVID-19 crisis in experimental vignettes to examine support for visitation and vaccination in prison.

Abstract

ObjectivesThe public hold both punitive and pragmatic attitudes toward prison policy. Yet it is unclear whether the public supports compassionate efforts that do not directly relate to recidivism. This study explores the role of exclusionary symbolic aims (prioritizing non-prisoner groups), inclusionary symbolic aims (minimizing health risk for the vulnerable), and cost (taxes).MethodsUsing a quota-based national sample fielded in spring 2021 (N=1260), we embedded two experimental vignettes to assess support for vaccination priorities and personal protective equipment (PPE) for in-person visitation. We also examine respondent experiences (e.g., exposure to COVID-19, vaccine status, personal or vicarious arrest) and beliefs (e.g., political ideology, racial resentment, stigma).ResultsConsistent with dominant exclusionary symbolic aims, respondents showed strong preferences for non-prisoner groups in facilitating safe in-person visits (in long-term care facilities) and vaccine priorities (to prison guards). Inclusionary symbolic aims were less clear when examining risk from vaccine side effects or helping vulnerable populations (the elderly). High cost reduced support for compassionate policy.ConclusionsPublic support for policies aimed at maintaining the health of individuals who are incarcerated may be motivated by similar factors as punishment preferences.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11292-022-09523-z.