| This study employs intensive interviews with twenty-four residents of Oakland, California in an effort to develop a deeper understanding of public attitudes about criminal justice. Because of the nature of public opinion on this issue, it is a study of broad consensus and very limited dissent. Through the use of a screening questionnaire, two types of interviewees were selected. Those in the first group, who align themselves with the widespread movement to "get tough" on crime, are labeled believers; those in the second group, who question the wisdom of such a policy, are labeled dissenters.; Four major analytical avenues are pursued. First under discussion is the content of the participants' views. I set forth a conceptual dividing line between the believers and the dissenters, and illustrate this distinction with detailed portraits of selected participants. Second, I examine the motivations beneath the views which the interviewees hold: I argue that just four broad motivating values (security, desert, compassion, and social critique) emerge from the conversations of the participants. Third, I seek an explanation for the divergent views of the two groups of interviewees. What is it that enables or induces the dissenters to dissent, rather than to join in the dominant consensus? After rejecting a number of hypotheses, I focus on six elements of background and outlook which appear to have explanatory power. Fourth, I address the question of whether or not the participants' views about criminal justice are grounded in and consonant with their more general political belief systems. This is a discussion of the structure of interviewees' beliefs.; Finally, I suggest an answer to the broad question with which the study began: Why such consensus? How can it be that on the subject of crime--an issue of such enormous complexity and intractibility--there can exist such widespread public agreement regarding a solution?... |
