A review of the evidence

Organisations may be particularly interested in the key pointers for successful approaches to directly influence public opinion on crime and criminal justice. These focus principally on ‘deliberative democracy’, which can essentially be a method for more substantive, inclusive and balanced public debate.

This paper is likely to be most relevant to voluntary sector organisations interested in shifting punitive attitudes, such as those seeking prison and criminal justice reform. Researchers and students may also find it a useful starting point, for inspiring further enquiry. The lessons from the evidence and emerging insights into enhancing public debate, could also be of interest to those wanting to challenge punitive public attitudes on the issues of immigration and other beliefs that are based on prejudice or are otherwise vulnerable to manipulation.

Deputy Mayors for Policing and Crime and other devolved or public authorities, might therefore also consider how their practice of public engagement could be enhanced through more structured and informed dialogue.

Framing

In a fascinating section on how discussions on crime are framed and framed by the media in particular, Dr McNeil unpicks the way in which mainstream media oversimplifies crime and stimulates punitiveness by omitting the social factors behind crime. It also looks at how the media stokes fear and outrage by exaggerating crime, demonizing minority or lower social class groups and undermining progressive crime solutions.

Deliberative democracy

The review then explains how ‘Deliberative democracy’ theory and methods are capable of incorporating our understanding of the ways in which public opinions are formed and the practicalities on how to enhance public debate on crime.

The objective is to cultivate dialogue that prioritises facts and evidence. Deliberative theories often stress that a key objective of deliberating should be to challenge failures in the current political system to harness meaningful public participation on big issues, with too much influence afforded to powerful lobbyists.

Effective arguments

Dr McNeil concludes by reminding organisations wishing to stimulate constructive public debate that it is important to remember the importance of both reason and emotion and the advantage of blending emotional and factual framing, when engaging with the public in substantive discussions.

He reminds us that solely outlining the costs of criminal justice failure, like the expensive ineffectiveness of prison or the factors behind crime like addition and abuse, may not succeed in shifting punitive attitudes.

He sets out four key components of effective strategies:

1. Outline credible evidence for why preventative and rehabilitative approaches actually work to reduce crime – some evidence suggests punitive stances are often fuelled by a belief that only punishment works to stop crime or that people cannot change and therefore should be imprisoned or restricted. Fundamentally, this requires the presentation of ‘evidenced solutions’.
2. Provide sufficient detail and analysis to ensure any cost-benefit analyses are credible, as sceptics will be unpersuaded by broad statements on how the costs of crime can be prevented. Knowledge should not be assumed, and a full and effective narrative will likely outline the causal factors of crime, the effectiveness of interventions and the corresponding cost compared to punishment alternatives.
3. Provide a combination of moral reasons, real life case studies (e.g. lived experience presentation) and factual arguments for preventative or rehabilitative interventions, as different cohorts of the public require different emphases to feel fully persuaded.
4. Incorporate the perspectives of those with frontline expertise of working in criminal justice or other relevant disciplines including health and education, as their wisdom around what works may be particularly influential for shifting the attitude of others.