1999 TEXAS CRIME POLL

Dennis R. Longmire, Ph.D., Director
Lance Hignite, Coordinator

Criminal Justice Center
Survey Research Program
Sam Houston State University
Huntsville, Texas  77341
(409) 294-1651

e-mail:  ICC_DRL@SHSU.EDU
web site: Survey Research Program

Suggested citation format:

 

Longmire, Dennis R. and Lance Hignite (1999). 1999 Texas Crime Poll. Huntsville, Texas: College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University. http://www.shsu.edu/~icc_drl/1999_Texas_Crime_Poll.html.

PREFACE

This is the 32nd statewide survey completed under the auspices of Sam Houston State University’s Criminal Justice Center.  The Criminal Justice Center was established by the Texas Legislature in 1963 when it passed House Resolution 469.  This resolution called for Sam Houston State University to work in collaboration with the Texas Department of Corrections to establish a program of excellence with four objectives:
 

•  establish degree programs for individuals seeking careers in criminal 
   justice;

•  provide continuing education programs for professionals already
   employed in the field of criminal justice;

•  conduct research on the problems of crime and the administration of 
   justice; and

•  provide technical assistance to criminal justice agencies.


This survey and all activities conducted under the auspices of the Criminal Justice Center’s Survey Research Program help to fulfill the third of these objectives by reporting information on public opinions regarding criminal justice and related issues.  The first Texas Crime Poll was completed in 1977 and has been repeated annually since that date.  The general purpose of these surveys is to provide legislators, public officials, and Texas residents with a reliable source of information about citizens’ opinions and attitudes concerning crime and criminal justice related topics.

The Survey Research Program’s staff appreciates the continued support from Dean Richard Ward and Acting Dean Margaret Farnworth.  The staff would also like to thank Ms. Kay Billingsley for her editorial contribution to the project.  All opinions, interpretations, and any errors included in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors.

 

SECTION 1: THE 1999 SURVEY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE SAMPLES

The 1999 Texas Crime Poll involved a statewide telephone survey designed and commissioned by the Criminal Justice Center’s Survey Research Program at Sam Houston State University.  In that survey, conducted by Texas A&M University’s Public Policy Research Institute (PPRI) on behalf of Sam Houston State University in July and August of 1999, a total of 607 Texans were queried about their attitudes toward a wide variety of crime and criminal justice issues.  The questionnaire used can be viewed at 1999 SURVEY INSTRUMENT and a technical report showing the response rates and other pertinent information can be viewed at 1999 TECHNICAL REPORT.

All of the issues addressed this year were also included in the Spring 1979 Texas Crime Poll which was prepared by Raymond H.C. Teske and Charles R. Jeffords.  Copies of the previous report may be obtained by contacting the Survey Research Program at the above mentioned addresses.  Throughout this report, Texans’ responses to the questions in this year’s survey will be reported along with a discussion of some of the more substantive findings regarding the differences between the attitudes and experiences reported in 1979. It is important to note, however, that the data in this year’s survey were collected through the use of telephone interviews while the 1979 data were collected through a a “postal survey."  The 1979 survey also included many more items than those used in 1999, and the order in which the issues were presented to the respondents was not perfectly replicated. Appropriate consideration of these issues should be taken into account when looking at differences from one year to the other.

Issues included in the surveys focus on the public's:

• fear of crime;
• perceptions of police use of force;
• evaluations of the courts' sentencing practices;
• support for the use of the death penalty;
• willingness to consider probation for particular offenses;
• perceptions about the purpose of prisons;
• openness to the use of parole;
• perceptions about the purpose of the criminal and juvenile justice systems; 
  and 
• willingness to consider tax increases for criminal justice related services.

Table 1 provides comparative descriptive information about the respondents from the 1979 and 1999 surveys. In addition to the three demographic categories, the 1999 survey included questions about the respondent's age, political party affiliation, community size, religious preference, and household income. This report does not discuss how sub-groups perceive substantive issues due to limitations in the availability of similar data for the 1979 sample. Those interested in examining how these sub-groups perceive issues included in this year's survey may do so by downloading a copy of the 1999 data set which is located at Texas Crime Poll On-Line.


 

Table 1 
Number and Percent of Respondents by Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Education Level: 1979 and 1999

 

 

 

1979

 

 

1999

 

N

% of Total

 

N

% of Total

Gender

 

 

 

 

 

     Male

822

54

 

269

44

     Female

708

46

 

338

56

Race/Ethnicity

 

 

 

 

 

     White

1212

79

 

418

69

     Black/African American

101

7

 

57

9

     Hispanic

197

13

 

94

16

     Other

20

1

 

28

5

Education Level

 

 

 

 

 

     Less than high school

327

21

 

61

10

     High school graduate

428

28

 

148

24

     Some college

430

28

 

205

34

     College graduate

316

21

 

152

25

     Other

29

2

 

41

7


 

The samples included in 1979 and 1999 show that there are considerable differences in the proportion of males and females. Both years failed to yield samples with proportionate representation of men who constituted approximately 49% of the population and women who constituted approximately 51% of the population.  The 1979 sample was disproportionately male with 54% of its respondents falling into this group and the 1999 sample is disproportionately female with women composing 56% of the sample. Accordingly, any discussion of differences in the public's perceptions across these two periods of time must be sensitive to the gender compositions represented.

The majority of both samples reported being White with the 1999 survey including proportionately more non-whites than the 1979 survey. In 1999, 16% reported being Hispanic, 9% Black/African-American, and 5% recorded as Other.  Compared with census data, both samples underrepresented all of the minority ethnic populations in Texas.  The most current census estimates show that in 1999 approximately 56% of Texans are White, 29% Hispanic, 12% Black/African-American, and 3% fall into Other racial/ethnic categories.  Accordingly, findings concerning differences across ethnic subgroups will not be reported in this analysis.

Respondents to the 1999 survey had considerably higher levels of educationthan the 1979 respondents. While two-thirds of the 1999 sample (66%) reported having had some college, almost one-half of the 1979 sample (49%) had only a high school degree or less.  This difference also needs to be taken into consideration when reviewing changes from year to year.


 

SECTION 2: FEAR OF CRIME

In both years, the respondents were asked whether or not there was any area within a mile of their homes where they would be afraid to walk alone at night.  A similar question was asked about whether or not there was any area within one block of their homes where they would be afraid to walk alone at night. The wording of these questions reflects early attempts to measure "fear of crime" and, in spite of the use of considerably more sophisticated measures in recent surveys, responses to these questions continue to represent a valid measure of people's "fear of crime."  The responses to these items for both 1979 and 1999 are reported in Table 2.


 

Table 2 
Fear of walking near home at night: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: Is there any area within one mile of your home where you would be afraid to walk alone at night? and Would you be afraid to walk alone within one block of your home at night?)

 

Afraid to walk alone at night:

1979

 

1999

     within one mile of home

 %

 

%

          Yes

54

 

31

          No

43

 

67

          Don't Know/No Response

  3

 

  2

     within one block of home

 

 

 

          Yes

23

 

19

          No

74

 

80

          Don't Know/No Response

  3

 

  1


 

These figures show that Texans are considerably less afraid of crime today than they were in 1979.  Over one-half of the 1979 respondents reported that they would be concerned walking alone at night within one mile of their homes and another 23% reported being afraid to walk alone at night within one block of their homes. In 1999 less than one-third of the respondents reported being afraid to walk alone within one mile of their homes (31%) and 80% reported having no fear of walking alone at night within one block of their homes.  In light of the earlier observation that the 1999 sample is disproportionately female, this finding is even more significant because research consistently demonstrates that women are more likely than men to express fear of crime.


 

SECTION 3: PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE USE OF FORCE


How "tolerant" or "concerned" the public is about the use of force by police officers has always been a topic of considerable interest.  In the 1979 survey, there were a series of questions designed to identify how "constrained" police policies should be concerning the use of deadly force.  These questions were followed up with a series of questions designed to measure whether or not citizens thought the police were using appropriate levels of force in their interactions with the community, in general as well as in their interactions with criminals, in particular.  These questions were repeated in the 1999 survey, and the results for each year are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.


 
 


Table 3.1 
Perceptions of when deadly force is allowable: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: As a policy should police be allowed to use deadly force.  .  . insert descriptions as follows . . .?)

 

Percent responding "yes"

1979

 

1999

     to prevent

%

 

%

          minor crimes against property

  3

 

16

          major crimes against property

34

 

54

          crimes of violence

69

 

90

     to stop someone running from

 

 

 

          minor property crime

  6

 

17

          major property crime

41

 

54

          violent crime

74

 

85

          traffic violation

  6

 

15

     to protect themselves from serious injury or death

92

 

96

 

Table 3.1 shows that Texans today are considerably more tolerant of the use of deadly force by the police than they were in 1979.  More specifically, people today seemed to be much more willing to permit police to use deadly force to prevent crime .  Fifty-four percent reported that police policies should allow police to use deadly force to prevent major crimes against property. Ninety percent support policies that would allow police to use deadly force to prevent crimes of violence. In 1999, Texans were also more supportive of the use of deadly force by the police to stop someone running from crimes or to protect themselves; however, the differences between 1979 and 1999 are not as marked in these situations as they are in the "crime prevention" situations.


 

Table 3.2 
Public Opinions about Excessive Use of Force by Police: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: In general, do you believe that the police in Texas use too much force in dealing with criminals? and In general do you believe that the police in Texas use too much force in dealing with citizens?)

 

 Do police use too much force in dealing with: 

1979

 

1999

     criminals?

%

 

%

          Yes

14

 

19

          No

81

 

69

         Don't Know/No Response

5

 

12

     citizens?

 

 

 

          Yes

36

 

25

          No

58

 

67

          Don't Know/No Response

6

 

8


 

When asked about their perceptions of whether or not law enforcement officers were using appropriate levels of force in their interactions with criminals and citizens in general, respondents in the 1999 sample were slightly more likely than the 1979 sample to express concerns about the levels of force used when dealing with criminals.  The 1999 respondents were considerably more likely than the 1979 respondents to report that they "don't know" whether or not police use too much force when dealing with criminals.  Almost one-fifth of the 1999 sample (19%) stated that they believe the police use too much force in dealing with criminals compared to only 14% of the 1979 sample. In contrast, the 1999 sample seems to be less concerned about police use of force in dealing with citizens than were the respondents to the 1979 survey.  Over one-third (36%) of the 1979 sample reported concerns in this area compared to only a quarter (25%) of the 1999 sample.


 

SECTION 4: EVALUATION OF COURT SENTENCING PRACTICES AND ATTITUDES ABOUT THE USE OF THE DEATH PENATLY

There were a series of questions included on both year's surveys which were designed to measure Texans' attitudes about the court system's sentencing practices.  These questions included an item asking citizens to evaluate the court's sentencing practices as well as items focusing on whether or not jurors ought to be informed of the parole eligibility dates for offenders while they are deliberating on their sentencing recommendations. 

The death penalty is also related to the sentencing functions of the Texas criminal court system.  In both 1979 and 1999, Texans' attitudes about the death penalty were measured by ascertaining whether or not they would support the use of the death penalty for a variety of different types of crimes.  While the US Supreme Court effectively restricted the use of the death penalty to crimes involving homicide in 1977, it is instructive to examine how Texans' support for its use in non-homicide cases has changed over the past 20 years.


 


Table 4.1 
Texans' Evaluation of Court Sentencing Practices: 1979 and 1999
 (Question wording: In general, when dealing with convicted criminals, do you feel the courts are too easy, doing a good job, or being too harsh?)

 

Percent responding:

1979

 

1999

     Doing a good job

22

 

26

     Too easy

71

 

60

     Too harsh

2

 

4

     Don't Know/No Response

5

 

9


 
 

Figures reported in Table 4.1 show that Texans were slightly less likely to see the courts as being "too easy" today than they were in 1979.  Sixty percent of the 1999 sample characterized the court's sentencing practices as "too easy" compared with 71% doing so in 1979.  Relatively few of the respondents in either year perceived the courts as being "too harsh" and almost the same proportions each year evaluated the courts as "doing a good job."


 
 


Table 4.2 
Texans' Attitudes About Whether or not Jurors Should Be Informed of Parole Eligibility Dates at Time of Sentencing: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: Before sentencing a defendant, should a jury be informed about the parole laws and how soon the defendant may be eligible for parole if he/she is sent to prison? In the 1999 survey, respondents who said "yes" were also asked, Do you think juries in capital murder trials should be told about the parole laws as they apply to people sentenced to "capital life?")

 

Percent responding:

1979

 

1999

     Yes (*These respondents were asked "capital life"
            follow-up; 1999 sample only)

89

 

94

     No

10

 

5

     Don't Know/No Response

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

*Should jurors be told about parole eligibility for "capital life?"

 

 

 

     Yes

N/A

 

93

     No

N/A

 

5

     Don't Know/No Response

N/A

 

2


 

In both 1979 and 1999, the great majority of Texans supported the proposition that  during their sentencing deliberations, jurors should be informed of the parole eligibility dates for convicted offenders. The motivations behind these sentiments in recent years are probably characterized by the public's general sense that offenders should be required to serve their entire sentences without any parole consideration being an option (see Table 6.2 below).

In recent years, the practice of informing jurors of parole eligibility dates has become common throughout Texas in all cases except those involving deliberations by jurors in capital punishment cases. In capital cases the defense has been prohibited from informing capital jurors that statutory law in Texas requires any person convicted of capital murder to serve an absolute minimum of 40 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole consideration. In the 76th Legislative Session (1999), Texas legislators passed into law a bill that makes such information available to capital jurors during sentencing deliberations. To ascertain whether or not the public approved of this law, a follow-up question to the more general one was asked in the 1999 survey.  Of those respondents to the 1999 survey who answered "yes" to the first general question about informing jurors of parole eligibility, an overwhelming 93% reported that they thought jurors should be informed of the parole eligibility dates for persons sentenced to "capital life."  Texans' attitudes about the appropriateness of the death penalty as a sentencing option are presented in Tables 4.3.


 


Table 4.3 
Percent of Respondents Supporting the Death Penalty for Different Crimes: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: Are you in favor of the death penalty for any of the following crimes?)

 

 Percent responding:

1979

 

1999

Murder

77

 

80

Rape

39

 

46

Treason

25

 

36

Armed robbery

14

 

17

Arson

  9

 

17

Kidnapping

31

 

31

Other

  7

 

19

% in favor of death penalty for at least one of the above crimes

79

 

80


 

The figures in Table 4.3 show that the overall number of people favoring the use of the death penalty as a sentencing option has retained a consistent level of support, with about 80% of the respondents to each year's survey supporting its use for some crimes. The figures also show Texans to be somewhat more tolerant of its use today than they were in 1979.  Only two years prior to the first survey, the US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was only constitutionally acceptable in cases involving murder (see Coker v. Georgia, 1977). Up until that time, Texas was among several jurisdictions that allowed for the use of this punishment in several non-homicide cases. As the results of the 1979 survey show, some Texan's continued to hold on to those beliefs, especially in cases involving rape (39%) or kidnapping (31%).  When asked the same question in 1999, there was an increase in the proportion of people supporting its use in all of the different crime categories, with the exception of kidnapping where the figures were the same from one year to the next.  The most significant change was in the increased number of people who are willing to accept the use of capital punishment for the crime category reported in Table 4.3 as "other."  In 1979, only 7% of the sample were listed in this category and a note to one of the tables included in the report identifies "child abuse" and "terrorism" as the most common crimes falling into this category.  In 1999, there were considerably more respondents falling into this category (19%). This shows a general tendency for today's Texans to be more tolerant of the use of capital punishment. As with the earlier survey, the most common "other" crime category mentioned in 1999 as appropriate for capital punishment involved crimes against children including "child molestation" which was mentioned by 7.6% of those favoring its use in "other" crimes and 3.8% supporting its use in cases involving "child abuse."  Terrorism was not mentioned by any of the 1999 sample.


 

SECTION 5: THE PUBLIC'S OPENNESS TO PROBATION FOR DIFFERENT OFFENSES

When asked whether or not they would support the use of probation instead of prison for different crimes, Texans were considerably more open to probation in 1999 than they were in 1979. Table 5 shows the results of a question that asked about Texan's support for probation as an option in cases involving 14 different crimes ranging in seriousness from murder and rape to shoplifting.  In 1999, there was an increase in the proportion of people supporting the use of probation as an option in each of the categories with the exception of "driving while intoxicated."  Also, there were fewer people in the 1999 survey who opposed the use of probation as a sanctioning option in any of the crime categories included in the survey.  The trend shows the most marked increases in the community's acceptance of probation as a sentencing alternative in cases involving "burglary," "robbery," "theft," and the "use of drugs other than marijuana."


 

Table 5 
Probation Consideration by Crime Types: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: People are sometimes allowed to serve their prison sentences by staying in their own communities instead of actually going to prison.  If the person breaks the rules of this “probation” he may then have to serve the sentence in prison.  Do you think that a person convicted of the following crimes should be considered for probation?)

 

Percent responding "yes" to the following crimes:

1979

 

1999

Aggravated assault

16

 

 30

Arson

11

 

 27

Auto theft

39

 

 58

Burglary

20

 

 44

Driving while intoxicated

60

 

 41

Murder

5

 

 7

Rape

6

 

 8

Robbery

9

 

 32

Sale of illegal drugs other than marijuana

12

 

 25

Sale of marijuana

32

 

 39

Shoplifting

65

 

 72

Theft

32

 

 57

Use of illegal drugs other than marijuana

24

 

 48

Use of marijuana

53

 

 59

Not in favor of probation for any of above

18

 

13


 

SECTION 6: PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE PURPOSE OF PRISONS AND THE USE OF PAROLE

In addition to asking questions about their openness to probation as an alternative sanction, both samples were asked questions designed to determine what Texans consider as important functions of the prison system. They were also asked whether or not they support the use of "early release from prison" depending on an inmate's behavior. The results of these questions for each year are reported in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.


 

Table 6.1 
Purpose of Texas Prisons: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: Prisons may serve a number of different functions.  How important of a function should each of the following be for Texas prisons? Order of options was randomized in the 1999 survey.)

 

Percent responding:

1979

 

1999

Rehabilitation

 

 

 

     very important

84

 

72

     somewhat important

11

 

22

     not important

2

 

4

     no response

3

 

2

Punishment

 

 

 

     very important

70

 

 82

     somewhat important

22

 

 15

     not important

4

 

 2

     no response

4

 

 3

Deterrence

 

 

 

     very important

77

 

 71

     somewhat important

15

 

 20

     not important

4

 

 5

     no response

4

 

 3

Incapacitation

 

 

 

     very important

43

 

 68

     somewhat important

37

 

 24

     not important

15

 

 4

     no response

5

 

3


 

The figures in Table 6.1 show that in both years a large proportion of Texans identified "punishment" as a "very important" purpose for prisons to serve. There were, however, considerably more people who identified "punishment" as a "very important" purpose for prisons to serve today (82%) than there were in 1979 (70%).  It is also noteworthy that considerably fewer people valued "rehabilitation" as a "very important" purpose for prisons in 1999 (72%) than in 1979 (84%). By far, the most significantshift in public attitudes, however, is that in 1999 considerably more Texans valued "incapacitation" as an important function for prisons than they did in 1979.  In the earlier study, only 43% of the sample considered "incapacitation" as "very important" compared to 68% of the 1999 sample.


 

Table 6.2 
Public Support for Parole: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: In regards to an inmate’s release from prison, should he or she serve the full sentence or be released early depending on his or her behavior in prison?)

 

Percent responding:

1979

 

1999

        serve full sentence

52

 

71

        be released early . . .

46

 

21


 

The figures in Table 6.2 show a consistent pattern with the responses to the earlier questions.  Texans in 1999 were considerably less supportive of the use of parole or "early release from prison." Almost one-half (46%) of the 1979 sample was willing to consider allowing an inmate to earn early release from prison through his or her good behavior.  Only one-fifth (21%) of the 1999 sample shared these sentiments.


 

SECTION 7: TEXANS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ADULT AND JUVENILE SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE AND SUPPORT FOR TAX INCREASES TO IMPROVE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES

The final section of this report represents an effort to determine what today's Texans think about the importance of different purposes for both the adult and juvenile justice systems.  It also presents the results of questions asked in both 1979 and 1999 concerning the public's willingness to support tax increases to improve specific criminal justice related services.  Tables 7.1 and 7.2 report the results of the questions focusing on these issues.


 

Table 7.1 
Level of Support for Different Purposes of Adult and Juvenile Justice Systems in 1999
(Question wording:  Now, when you think about the criminal justice system in general, how important do you think each of the following should be for the system that deals with adult criminals?  And What about the juvenile justice system? How important should each of the following be for the system that deals with juvenile offenders?  The order of options was randomized and the question was only asked in the 1999 survey.)

 

 Percent responding:

Adult
Criminal Justice

 

Juvenile 
Justice System

Rehabilitation

 

 

 

     very important

 68

 

92

     somewhat important

 26

 

  6

     not important

  4

 

  1

     no response

  1

 

  1

Punishment

 

 

 

     very important

 83

 

74

     somewhat important

 15

 

23

     not important

   1

 

  2

     no response 

   1

 

  1

Deterrence

 

 

 

     very important

 69

 

79

     somewhat important

 25

 

16

     not important

  4

 

 5

     no response

  2

 

<1

Incapacitation

 

 

 

     very important

 69

 

50

     somewhat important

 26

 

38

     not important

  3

 

10

     no response

  2

 

 2

Reconciliation 

 

 

 

     very important

 54

 

59

     somewhat important

 28

 

30

     not important

11

 

 6

     no response

  7

 

 5


 

The 1999 survey included a series of questions similar to those regarding people's perceptions about the purpose of prisons but designed to determine thier perceptions of the more general justice systems at large.  These questions were first asked with specific focus drawn toward the "justice system that deals with adult criminals" and were followed by a series of questions focusing the respondent's attention toward the "system that deals with juvenile offenders."  All of the traditional "functions" about the purpose of criminal justice were presented (rehabilitation, punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation) as well as a recently emerging "purpose" being referred to as "reconciliation" or "restorative justice" (defined in the question as "reconciling victims, offenders, and their communities."  These options were randomized to avoid any possible influence of question order on the responses.  It is also important to remember that these questions were not included in the 1979 survey so comparison of responses across time can not be made.

The figures in Table 7.1 show that today's Texans see punishment as the most important purpose, with 83% defining it as a "very important" function for the criminal justice system to consider when dealing with adult criminals.  While 74% of the respondents consider punishment to be "very important" when dealing with juvenile offenders, the respondents found rehabilitation to be far more important when dealing with juveniles.Ninety-two percent defined it as "very important" with juvenile offenders.  Texans also appear to be more supportive of deterrence and less supportive of incapacitation as important purposes for the juvenile justice system than the adult system. Over one-half of the respondents consider "reconciliation" to be "very important" functions for both the adult and juvenile systems with slightly more supporting this purpose when dealing with juveniles than adults.


 

Table 7.2 
Texans' Support for Tax Increases for Different Criminal Justice Services: 1979 and 1999
(Question wording: Would you be willing to have your taxes increased to support any of the following?)

 

Percent responding "yes" to:

1979

 

1999

     Improved police services

47

 

64

     Improved court system

35

 

63

     More judges

15

 

50

     More prison facilities

26

 

54

     Improved probation services

21

 

53

     Other

 4

 

N/A


 

There is considerably more support in 1999 than there was in 1979 for tax increases to improve and/or expand each of the different components of the criminal justice system.  While only 47% of the 1979 sample reported a willingness to support an increase in their taxes to improve police services, 64% of the 1999 sample said they would support a tax increase for this purpose. The 1999 sample was also considerably more likely than the 1979 sample to be willing to support tax increases to improve the court system and the delivery of probation services.  Today's sample was also more likely to support tax increases to hire more judges and to build more prison facilities than was the 1979 sample.