PUBLIC OPINIONS OF THE COURTS: DOES MASS MEDIA INFLUENCE

PUBLIC OPINION?

by

Latarcia R. Barnes

KEVIN BEAVER, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

HOWARD HENDERSON, PhD, Committee Member

SCOTT MIRE, PhD, Committee Member

Jim Wold, PhD, Acting Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2014
 UMI Number: 3614483

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3614483
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Latarcia R. Barnes 2014
 Abstract

The general public knows very little about the criminal justice system overall, which can

result in an assorted, often negative, opinions of the criminal justice system. The public’s

confidence in the criminal justice system is imperative to the operation of the criminal

justice system. Our criminal justice system relies on the participation from the

community in order to work. One speculation as to why the public has a less than

favorable opinion of the criminal justice system is that the system is viewed a mystery.

The public has no idea how each component of the criminal justice system works because

the majority of the public has had no direct contact with the criminal justice system. Most

information obtained about the criminal justice system, the public gathered from what

they hear and see from the media or from other people. Using secondary data from a

national survey, this dissertation analyzed mass media, specifically TV news,

newspapers, and TV judge programs, to determine these variables have an influence on

the relationship of the courts and public opinion in the United States. This dissertation

can be viewed as ground zero in terms of how the media began to influence the public’s

opinion of the criminal justice system, especially the court component. For this study, a

quantitative approach using a descriptive survey design was used. It was determined that

the respondents were not as influenced by mass media as anticipated. The findings of this

study were more consistent with the international literature than domestic literature on

this topic. This dissertation offers a better understanding of the connection between mass

media, even without the more modern aspects of the media such as the internet, and the

public’s views of the courts. This dissertation presents valuable information for

satisfaction with the courts and attitude toward the courts that has not been seen in the
current literature on this subject. In conclusion, recommendations were provided offered

to further advance the research in this area.

 Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, James and Ruth Barnes. Thank you

for always being there for me. You both have been on this long journey with me for every

peak and valley. This is our greatest peak! I appreciate everything. I love you both.

v
 Acknowledgments

I must acknowledge my mentor, Dr. Beaver: thank you, thank you, thank you.

Had it not been for your guidance and patience, I do not believe I would have completed

this long process. I really appreciate your approach; it made me go beyond my limits to

become the scholar I needed to be to get to the finish line. I would like to thank everyone

in my circle that has encouraged, supported, and prayed for me during this splendiferous

journey. I will not mention any names for fear of leaving someone out. Thank you for

hanging in there with me, even when I know I was less than pleasant. Please know that I

love you. We did it y’all! Last but not least, I have to thank God. There were times when

I know it was You who did it because I was clueless. It is said that if you put it out there,

He will manifest it and He did!!

v
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of tables viii

List of figures ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem (Hit Tab to enter page numbers) 1

Background of the Study 4

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 6

Rationale 7

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 9

Definition of Terms 11

Assumptions and Limitations 11

Nature of the Study 13

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction 15

History of public opinion of the courts 16

Media influence on public opinion 19

Theoretical framework 30

Summary 31

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

v
 Introduction 33

Statement of the problem 33

Research questions and hypotheses 34

Research Design 35

Sample 36

Instrumentation/Measures 37

Data Collection 40

Data Analysis 41

Limitations of methodology 41

IRB process 42

Ethical Considerations 43

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction 44

Description of the Sample 45

Results 46

Written explanation 47

Theoretical analysis 52

Summary 52

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Statement of the problem 54

Summary of the Results 54

Research Questions 56

v
 Discussion of the Conclusions in Relation to the Literature in the Field 57

Limitations 57

Recommendations for Future Study 59

Summary 62

REFERENCES 63

APPENDIX A. QUESTIONS USED FROM THE ORIGINAL STUDY 69

APPENDIX A. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK 71

v
 List of Tables

Table 1. Joint distribution of independent variables 46

Table 2. Joint distribution of dependent variables 47

v
 List of Figures

Figure 1. How do you feel the court handles violent crimes? 50

Figure 2. How do you feel the court handles drug crimes? 50

Figure 3. How do you feel about the courts? 51

v
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Public opinion of the criminal justice system is considered a salient public policy

issue (Buckler, Cullen, & Unnever, 2007). The general public knows very little about the

criminal justice system overall, which can result in an assorted, often negative, opinions

of the criminal justice system. The information the public does know about the system is

often wrong and could skew the public’s opinion of the criminal justice system. This

misknowledge could be harmful to the public as well as the criminal justice system.

The public’s confidence in the criminal justice system is imperative to the

operation of the criminal justice system (Indermaur & Roberts, 2009). Lack of

confidence in the system could be detrimental to the effectiveness of the operation of the

criminal justice system. Having a community distrust any component of the criminal

justice system could contribute to many problems in society. An increasingly skeptical

and less trusting public is one source of strain in the relationship between the courts and

the public (Rottman, Hansen, Mott, & Grimes, 2000).

Understanding the public’s opinion of the criminal justice system is important. If

society has a favorable opinion of the criminal justice system, then the community

supports and gives positive feedback about the system is given (Indermaur & Roberts,

2009). Our criminal justice system relies on the participation from the community in

1
order to work. It relies on victims to provide statements, and press charges. In addition, it

depends on witnesses to tell what they saw. When the public does not have confidence in

the justice system, it may have an adverse effect on the criminal justice system and its

components (Indermaur & Roberts, 2009). This low confidence could lead to disrespect

and dissatisfaction with those who are administering the system (Indermaur & Roberts,

2009). In turn, the criminal justice system will not operate as efficiently as it was

designed to.

One speculation as to why the public has a less than favorable opinion of the

criminal justice system is that the system is viewed a mystery. The public has no idea

how each component of the criminal justice system works because the majority of the

public has had no direct contact with the criminal justice system (Cushner, Hartley, &

Parker, 2009). The public only knows what they hear and see from the media or from

other people. In response, the administrators within the criminal justice system have felt a

need to make the system more accountable, more transparent, and more relevant to the

public to demystify the criminal justice system to the public (Indermaur & Roberts, 2009;

Cushner et al., 2009).

International research has been conducted to ascertain the public’s opinion of

various components of the criminal justice system. For example, in Canada, a study was

done to address the public’s perception of crime and justice (Stein, 2001). In this study,

Stein (2001) divided the criminal justice system into three components, the courts,

sentencing and corrections, and parole. The rationale was that it provided a picture of the

public’s perception of crime (Stein, 2001).

2
 In the United States, studies have been conducted to attempt to pinpoint the

public’s opinion of the criminal justice system. The methodology used in these studies

has been done by using national and state polls to answer the research questions.

Researchers realized that studying different areas of the criminal justice system may

assist in explaining the varied public opinion (Clawsom, Strine, & Waltenburg, 2003; St.

Amand & Zamble, 2001; Buckler, Cullen, & Unnever, 2007; Hazard, 2006; Roberts &

Doob, 1990; Kaukinen & Colavecchia, 1999; and Johnston & Bartels, 2010). For

example, studies where the public was question about the satisfaction of the law

enforcement, the Superior Court, court personnel, and state courts have been conducted

(Clawsom et al., 2003; St. Amand & Zamble, 2001; Buckler et al., 2007; Hazard, 2006;

Roberts & Doob, 1990; Kaukinen & Colavecchia, 1999; and Johnston & Bartels, 2010).

In these studies, different variables such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity were used in

an attempt to explain the different opinions of the criminal justice system by the public.

The intention of this dissertation is to examine variables, from a national study, to

further assist in explaining the public opinion of the courts. In this study, the court

component of the criminal justice system will be focal point to attempt to explain the

varied opinions. The variables in this study have not used to attempt to address why the

public has such varied opinion of the courts. The variables to be studied are mass media;

specifically TV news, newspaper, and TV judge programs. The information obtained

from these variables could help explain the varied opinions, in addition to possibly assist

in shaping the future improvements in the criminal justice system. Utilizing a

quantitative methodology in this dissertation will allow for the use of calculated score

values that will be statistically assessed of the selected variables. The usage of secondary

3
data eliminated the need for a site. Conducting this study analyzing the secondary data,

the results would hopefully determine if these variables of mass media, specifically TV

news, newspaper, and TV judge, had any impact on one’s opinion of the court component

of the criminal justice system.

Background of the Study

Research has revealed that the public has had reservations about various aspects

of the criminal justice system (Rottman & Tomkins,1999; Davis, 1997). For example, be

dated back to the 1800s when John Jay declined to return to the position of Chief Justice,

as requested by President Adams. John Jay stated the system was defective and caused

the public not to have confidence and respect for the system (Rottman & Tomkins,1999;

Davis, 1997). Research also underscored the need to understand the public’s varying

opinion about the criminal justice system, especially the court component (Salerno, 2009;

Tyler & Ho, 2002). That research was an attempt to determine if inconsistent opinions of

the public affected decision making by the administrators within the criminal justice

system to appease communities while staying true to the criminal justice system

philosophy. (Salerno, 2009; Tyler & Ho, 2002). Rottman, Hansen, Mott, and Grimes

(2000) conducted a national study on the public’s opinion of the court. The results from

the study showed numerous factors affected a person’s opinion of the court. The study

provided valuable data that has been used in other studies to explain the public’s

perception of the courts. Utilizing that existing data set, those subsequent studies focused

on variables such as sex, race, and ethnicity, to explain the differences of opinions

(Higgins, Wolfe, Mahoney, & Walters, 2009; Higgins, Wolfe, & Walters, 2009). This

4
study will examine other variables from the study, such as TV news, newspapers, and TV

judge programs, in an attempt to explain the mixed opinions of the public in regards to

the courts. These variables have not been used in any other studies that address public

opinion of the courts. In addition, this study, like the priors, would explore national levels

of intersection of a population and court experiences with regard to perception of courts

(Rottman et al., 2000).

Statement of the Problem

Mass media is considered a major source of information for the general public

(Brickman & Bragg, 2007). As a major source, mass media is in a position to potentially

influence public opinion about the courts through its portrayal of the facts (Brickman &

Bragg, 2007). Research addressing the effects of mass media on individuals is limited

because the prior research does not address how mass communications involve human

agency, various technologies, and social institutions (Ericson, 1991). This dissertation

will analyze variables, such as mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV

judge programs, to determine if these variables affect a person’s satisfaction of the court,

one of the components of the criminal justice system. Prior studies used variables that the

participants cannot control. For example, the variables from the others studies, such as

race, sex, and ethnicity, are fixed. A person cannot select an ethnicity. This study will use

non fixed variables that can be manipulated by a person. For example, a respondent can

decide if they want to watch the news or not. Although this study will be using a decade

sample, it is unique in the fact the variables used are attributes that people can control.

The variables of this dissertation, mass media, such as TV news, newspapers, and TV

5
judge programs, which individuals can change because a person can decide whether to

access these mediums in order to be informed. This study could provide additional

reasons for the opinions through one’s experience with the court system to possibly better

ascertain why certain members of society respect or have lack of respect for the criminal

justice system in our present society.

Purpose of the Study

In our society, the public is fascinated with crime and justice (Dowler, 2003). This

fascination comes from lack of firsthand knowledge about the criminal justice system; the

media is one source that provides the information. Mass media play an important role in

the construction of criminality and the criminal justice system (Dowler, 2003; Dowler,

Fleming & Muzzatti, 2006). Therefore the publics’ perception of criminals, victims,

deviants, and criminal justice officials is greatly determined by what the mass media

portrays. This may be one of the main reasons there is such a diverse opinion of the

criminal justice system (Dowler, 2003; Dowler et al., 2006).

Current studies that address the public perception of the criminal justice system

have offered some reasons for the different views, but have proven to be anecdotal and

have little to no theoretical foundation (Higgins et al., 2009). The studies have evaluated

the quality of police and the courts in response to the views of how legal authorities deal

with those who they encounter in the community (Tyler & Ho, 2002). Public

dissatisfaction had been the theme for these studies, regardless of where or what country

the study was conducted (St. Amand & Zamble, 2001; Cao, 2011; Kaukinen &

Calovecchia, 1999; Higgins et al., 2009). It is important to note that the studies conducted

6
outside the United States found that disapproval of the court system was due in large part

to the “soft” sentences imposed (St. Amand & Zamble, 2001; Cao, 2011; Kaukinen &

Calovecchia, 1999; Indermaur & Roberts, 2009). The studies conducted in the United

States found that dissatisfaction was due to class and race biasness (St. Amand &

Zamble, 2001; Cao, 2011; Higgins et al., 2009; Kaukinen & Calovecchia, 1999).

Finally, this research is different from the other publications that have previously

used the dataset from the original study conducted in 2000 because of the variables use.

This study will assess public opinion of the courts by looking at the variables such as TV

news, newspaper, and TV judge programs that is defined as mass media for purposes of

this study. These variables have not been used in prior studies. Most of the prior studies

looked at race, racism, sex, and ethnicity to assessing public opinion and the court

experience (Longazel, Parker, & Sun, 2011; Higgins et al., 2009; Higgins et al., 2009;

Kalscheur, 2009; Buckler, Unnever, & Cullen, 2008; Buckler et al., 2007; Sun & Wu,

2006; Higgins & Jordan, 2005; Rottman, Hansen, Mott, & Grimes, 2003). The most

recent study used the unknown responses from the respondent’s answers given in the

original study (Young, 2012). The variables to be used for this study offer a different

perception of an explanation the public opinion of the court system. In addition, this

unique premise that mass media may affect how the public views the court component of

the court system may offer another possible explanation of the varied opinions of the

court system.

7
 Rationale

Informing the citizens is the foundation for a well-functioning society (Lock,

1999). In addition, where members of the public do not value the protection of criminal

defendants, the wishes of an unprotected public will be reflected in court decisions and

public policy (Lock, 1999). For some time, it has been believed that the news media has

played a pivotal role in the formation and transformation of public attitudes towards the

criminal justice system and those involved (Roberts & Doob, 1990). When the public is

asked where they obtain most of their information about crime, the resounding answer is

the mass media, especially news coverage of crime (Warr, 2002). Mass media supplies

information to the public about the criminal justice system. Given the media’s ability to

influence public opinion, there remains a substantial gap in the literature (Johnston &

Bartels, 2010).

In conducting this study, the aim is to analyze the influence of mass media on the

relationship of the courts and public opinion in the United States. This study attempts to

close that gap in literature. Measuring the impact of media coverage on the public’s

opinion, of the criminal justice system, is a daunting task due to the difficulty of isolating

media messages on crime from other sources of information, such as rumor,

conversations with others, and personal experience (Warr, 2000). Moreover, it is difficult

to believe that the media has little or no effect on public perceptions where the public

cites the media as the primary source of information and spends so much time watching

mass media (Warr, 2000). This study could provide critical information to assist those in

the criminal justice system who make and enforce law to assist them in assessing the

8
changing needs of the diverse culture they are charged with protecting and serving. While

the professionals exhibit understanding, the average public may not.

Research Questions

Research questions, from a quantitative perspective, seek to determine the

relationship between variables. By using a descriptive quantitative study and analysis

strategy, a researcher can then obtain vital information, regarding the central

phenomenon identified and the association between selected variables.

This study sought to identify the factors that influence public opinion of the court

system, specifically, the influence of mass media, such as TV news, newspapers, and TV

judge programs, on the public’s opinions and perceptions. The three research questions

were designed to illicit specific factors that affect the public’s satisfaction of the court

component of the criminal justice system. The three research questions are:

1. What is the relationship between the perception of TV news and public’s satisfaction

of the court system?

H1o: There is no significant relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

H1a: There is a significant relationship between TV news and public’s satisfaction of

the court system.

2. What is the relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system?

H2o: There is no significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

9
 H2a: There is a significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

3. What is the relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system?

H3o: There is no significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

H3a: There is a significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

Significance of the Study

This dissertation utilizes data from a national study that identified numerous

variables that could be used in an attempt to explain the public’s opinion of the court

component of the criminal justice system. The original data have been used in studies that

date back from 2000 to when the study was first conducted to as recent in a dissertation

that was completed in 2012. In the most recent use of this secondary data, Young (2012)

used this data, in addition to eleven other nationally representative datasets, to analyze

individual and question characteristics that predict don’t know (DK) responses. The

earlier studies that have cited the original data addressed race, ethnicity, and gender

variables to assess how the public views the court system (Longazel et al., 2011; Higgins

et al., 2009; Higgins et al., 2009; Kalscheur, 2009; Buckler et al., 2008; Buckler et al.,

2007; Sun & Wu, 2006; Higgins & Jordan, 2005; Rottman et al., 2003). All of these

studies were conducted in the 2000s and found that minorities, specifically, African

10
Americans and females, felt unsatisfied with the court system. In a society where it is

easy to use being a minority to explain the wavering opinions of the criminal justice

system, this study offers other explanations as to why the public views the criminal

justice system as it does. This study concentrates on non-human variables and focuses on

the court, one component of the criminal justice system.

This dissertation can be viewed as ground zero in terms of how the media began

to influence the public’s opinion of the criminal justice system, especially the court

component. This study examines mass media or “traditional media” as opposes to the

new ways of communication such as the internet, blogs, and social media. This study, in

conjunction with the prior studies, will support the main purpose of the original study

which is to inform court administrators, judges, and community leaders about “meeting

the justice needs of a multicultural society” (Rottman, et al., 2003). The study of factors

that influence public opinion of the court component of the criminal justice system by

addressing the role of mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge

programs, is significant for many reasons. The variables used in the study are relevant to

understanding the role of mass media and its influence on public opinion and perceptions

of the courts. This exploration of the specific factors that affect public opinion of the

court component of the criminal justice system was lacking in the current literature. This

study is significant in that it could be seen as the foundation of the subsequent studies that

study media, crime, and criminal justice system.

11
 Definition of Terms

Court component. The experience one has with the judge, court personnel,

sentencing, and perceived fairness in disposing of the criminal case (Rottman et al.,

2000).

Criminal justice system. The process and agencies that implements how the state

responds to behavior deemed unacceptable. This is done by a delivery of steps as follows:

charge, prosecution, trial, sentence, appeal, and punishment (Hudson, 2006).

General strain theory. This theory posits people commit crimes in responses to

strains or stressors (Agnew, 2006).

Mass media. A means of public communication, such as TV, newspapers,

magazines, and radio, used to reach a large audience in a short amount of time (Mass

media, 2008; Mass media, 2009).

Quantitative research. A type of research that is a means for testing objective

theories by examining the relationship among variables (Creswell, 2009).

Assumptions and Limitations

There were several assumptions and limitations identified during the construction

of the proposal of this quantitative dissertation. The first assumption for purposes of this

study was mass media, specifically, TV news, newspaper, and TV judge programs,

contribute to the negative view of the world with the “if it bleeds, then it leads” type of

story reporting. This negativity helps facilitate strains in a person’s life and could affect

how that person views court decisions (Agnew, 2006). The information gained from the

media affected the person, whether positive or negative. A second assumption is that no

12
other study in the United States has addressed mass media such as TV news, newspaper,

and TV judge programs in addressing the opinions of the court system by the public.

Finally, it is assumed that when using existing data in a new study, the researcher has a

basic knowledge of research principles and techniques to uphold the integrity of the data

(Doolan & Froelicher, 2009). This is due to the unique challenges that are specific to

utilizing an existing data set (Doolan & Froelicher, 2009).

In addition to the assumptions, there are a few limitations. One limitation in

utilizing secondary data in a new study is that the questions have to be designed so the

existing data can be used to answer the questions from the new study (Doolan &

Froelicher, 2009). This may limit the scope of the questions to be asked. Therefore, the

questions will have to be constructed to be relevant and timely. A second limitation deals

with the type of study. The existing study was a telephone study and obtaining that

information was time consuming for the researcher who had to read the survey, as well as

the participant who chose to answer the question. Both may feel the need to rush to end

the interview. In addition, due to the method of delivery of the survey, many may not

respond therefore causing low participation. Another limitation is the data is over 10

years old and utilized an older form of obtaining the data, the landline. Despite the age

and method of obtaining the data, recent surveys have used this data. For example, this

data was used in a dissertation in 2012 to analyze don’t know responses (Young, 2012). It

was also used in 2011 in a study to assess perceived procedural injustice among court

users (Longazel et al., 2011). A third limitation is that the telephone survey was collected

over a decade ago which was potentially problematic, in that the numbers called could

have been land line numbers. Potential participants may not have been reached because

13
cellular phones were becoming popular, people were beginning to eliminate land lines,

and those cellular phone numbers may not have been accessed by the researchers.

Telephone surveys could result in low participations because potential respondents may

not answer the phone or may hang up. Finally, utilizing telephone surveys will exclude

potential participants without a valid phone numbers. People often change telephone

numbers and do not update the contacts therefore telephone surveys may not reach

potential participants.

Nature of the Study

For this dissertation, quantitative approach using a descriptive survey design was

used. The study will assess secondary data from a national survey entitled, Public

Opinion on the Courts in the United States. The target population sample of 1005

randomly selected respondent, the sample included supplemental oversamples of 308

African-Americans and 254 Latinos (Rottman et al., 2000). There was an oversample for

minorities to correct the underrepresentation of minorities in surveys and population due

to low participation with surveys (Fogel, Ribisl, Morgan, Humphreys, and Lyons, 2008;

National, 1999). This is unique because without this oversampling, the results would not

be as accurate in attempting to show a true representation of the society. Official statistics

struggle to include accurate information on “hard to reach” groups, often relying on

assumptions and extrapolation (Grant & Bowling, 2011). This study utilizes secondary

data that includes the oversampling. The oversampling provides more accurate results

that are indicative of the population. The more accurate results should outweigh the aged

data. In all ethnic groups, over half of the participants were chosen based on court

14
experience within the last 12 months before the study (Rottman et al., 2000). Participants

had to be residents of the United States, had to have a valid telephone number, and were

over the age of 18 years old. Participants were excluded if they are younger than 18 years

of age, do not have a valid telephone number, and were not residents of the United States.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

The organization of the remainder of this study will consist of 4 more chapters. In

Chapter 2, a literature review of relevant literature is presented. In addition, the

conceptual theoretical framework for the research is discussed. Chapter 3 entails how the

study was conducted. It will also detail the research design, the sampling method, the

instrument used, and how the date was collected. Finally, it will describe the analysis

process and ethical concerns for the proposed study. In Chapter 4, there will be an

explanation of the statistical analyses of this research primary results and research

method used. This chapter will also examine the credibility and validity of the data

results and provide conclusions. Finally, in Chapter 5, it will propose an explanatory

evaluation of the study’s results and any implications of the study. In addition,

conclusions and recommendations for further research will be provided.

15
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This study is an offspring of a ground breaking study conducted in 2000 by David

Rottman, Randall Hansen, Nicole Mott, and Lynn Grimes for the United States

Department of Justice. The study, entitled Public Opinion of the Courts in the United

States, 2000, was done in an attempt to answer two fundamental questions to assist in

understanding the public’s opinion of the courts (Rottman, et al., 2000). The questions

were (1) Do African Americans, Latinos, & Whites view the state courts differently? and

(2) What impact did recent direct court experience have on people’s opinions about state

courts? (Rottman et al., 2000). This study provided valuable information that would be

the basis for future studies.

The literature review found information about the influences of the media on the

public’s opinion of the court component of the criminal justice system. Little information

related to the specific influences of mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers, and

TV judge programs, on public opinion of the courts within the criminal justice system

thus revealing a gap in the literature.

Theoretical Framework

General strain theory posits that crime is committed when people cannot get what

they want by being law abiding citizens. People become frustrated or angry, and they

may (a) try to get what they want through criminal avenues, (b) in anger, lash out at

others, (c) self-medicate to feel better (Agnew, 2006). Strains are occurrences or stressors

16
that may cause an individual to act break the law (Akers & Sellers, 2009; Agnew, 2006;

Cullen & Agnew, 2006). There are three major types of strains: the loss of something

good, receiving something bad and the failure to get something they want (Akers &

Sellers, 2009; Cullen & Agnew, 2006; Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2007). Strains also affect

how a person looks at different events in life. In this study, strains are identified as

information received from the media, such as TV news, newspapers, and TV judge

programs, to ascertain if what was learned makes a difference in the public opinion of the

courts. For example, the strains of learning information from the media, whether deemed

by the viewer as positive, negative, or indifferent, would affect an opinion of the court

system.

General strain theory posits people commit crimes in response to strains or

stressors. Under the general strain theory, crime is committed due to the strains in one’s

life (Agnew, 2006). In doing so, they are attempting to obtain what they desire by ill-

gotten gains. Strains also affect how a person looks at different events in life. In this

study, strains are addressed. All of the variables used in this study could be considered

strains. This study will examine whether the information learned from the media could

determine if those variables make a difference in the public opinion of the courts. For

example, the strains of the information gathered, whether positive, negative, or

indifferent would affect an opinion of the court system. Analyzing secondary data from a

national survey will use this theory to see if the variables, which could be viewed as

strains, affect one’s perception of the court component of the criminal justice system. It

would be determined if the decisions rendered by the courts, regardless of public

perception of the decisions, contribute to that perception. Prior studies that have focused

17
on age, race, and ethnicity, have shown that different forms of justice coalesce in latent

measures of justice.

History of Public Opinion of the Courts

Studying how the public evaluates the courts is important in order to maintain

public confidence and perceptions of legitimacy in the courts (Higgins et al., 2009). In

addition, the studies track the trends of public opinion acting as a gauge in measuring

satisfaction of important government services (Sims & Johnston, 2004). However, most

of the prior research focused on demographic markers of an individual to ascertain if

these markers influence one’s opinion of the courts (Higgins et al., 2009; Sims &

Johnston, 2004). The original data has been used in studies that date back from 2000 to

when the study was first conducted to as recent in a dissertation that was completed in

2012. Young (2012) used this secondary data, in addition to eleven other nationally

representative datasets, to analyze individual and question characteristics that predict

don’t know (DK) responses. The remaining studies that have been citied using the

original data addressed race, ethnicity, and gender variables to assess how the public

views the court system (Longazel et al., 2011; Higgins et al., 2009; Higgins et al., 2009;

Kalscheur, 2009; Buckler et al., 2008; Buckler et al., 2007; Sun & Wu, 2006; Higgins &

Jordan, 2005; Rottman et al., 2003).

The original study, Public Opinion of the Courts in the United States, 2000, was

designed to look at the interrelationship between racial and ethnic group membership and

court experience (Rottman et al., 2003). This relationship had not been addressed in prior

studies. In addition, national data had not been used to assess if court experience

influenced the vices of racial and ethnic groups in a similar fashion (Rottman et al.,

18
2003). This study found the public gave its courts middling rating of support and low

ratings of fairness in procedures, outcomes, and equality of group treatment (Rottman et

al., 2003). The results found there was a consensus that there was unequal treatment of

low income people which was more prevalent than inequality in the treatment of African

Americans or Latinos (Rottman et al., 2003). The study also found there was a

continuous important of perceptions that courts were too costly or slow for the public’s

overall opinion of the courts to be favorable. Furthermore, as a group, if recent court

experience, there was a slightly negative opinion about the courts, even if personal

experience was rated positively (Rottman et al., 2003). Finally, the influence from court

experience was stronger than that from race (Rottman et al., 2003).

The Rottman et al. study had a plethora of information that provided data for

future studies. In 2006, a study was conducted to examine the influences of race, gender,

and recent court experience on citizen’s perception of the courts in their communities

(Sun & Wu, 2006). This study used the data from the Rottman et al., 2003 to assess

variations in perception of the courts along four dimensions. They were differential

treatment, fair procedure and outcome, concern and respect, and overall evaluation (Sun

& Wu, 2006). This study found that race and ethnicity and gender did matter in assessing

court perception (Sun & Wu, 2006). Specifically, racial minorities, such as Blacks and

Latinos, were more likely than Whites to have negative attitudes toward the courts (Sun

& Wu, 2006). Sun & Wu (2006) also found citizens with recent personal contact with

courts were more likely than those with no recent contact to have negative perceptions of

the courts in terms of fair procedures and outcomes and concern and respect. There was

also the effect of court experience that reduced attitudinal difference between Whites and

19
Latinos. The study also found that citizens who rated the police negatively perceived

being discriminated by police tended to have negatives attitudes toward courts (Sun &

Wu, 2006). Finally, the study indicated that citizens extended their perceptions of

broader social issues, such as equal opportunity in society, into their evaluation of the

local and state courts (Sun & Wu, 2006).

Another study used the date from the 2000 study was “Sex and Experience:

Modeling the Public’s Perception of Justice, Satisfaction, and Attitude Toward the

Courts”. This study was conducted in 2009 by George H. Higgins, Scott E. Wolfe, and

Nelseta Waters. This study addressed the influence of sex in the possible connection

between justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the courts (Huggins et

al., 2009). The results showed that there are sex differences in the latent measures of

justice; the sex differences had a negative attitude toward the courts (Huggins et al.,

2009). Finally, the impact of justice on attitudes toward the courts was partially

medicated by satisfaction of the courts (Huggins et al., 2009).

“Race, Ethnicity and Experience: Modeling the Public’s Perception of Justice,

Satisfaction and Attitudes Toward Courts” was also published in 2009 utilizing the

national survey. Written by George E. Higgins, Scott E. Wolfe, Margaret Mahoney, and

Nelseta M. Walters, this study examined the influence that race, ethnicity, and experience

with the courts has on the interconnection between justice satisfaction with the courts,

and attitudes toward the courts (2009). This study found different forms of justice

coalesced into a latent measure of justice. For example, the study found Blacks were less

likely than Whites to see justice in the courts, while those with more experience with

court courts were likely to be satisfied with the courts (Higgins et al., 2009). Finally, the

20
study found there were differences in attitudes toward the courts in regards to race and

ethnicity (Higgins et al., 2009).

In 2011, the data from the Rottman et al., 2003 study was used to test critical race

theory (CRTs). CRTs posits in American society, racism is indigenous, neutrality is a

myth, experimental knowledge of minorities should be privilege, race is just a social

construction so it cannot explain attitudes or behaviors (Longazel, Parker, & Sun, 2011).

This study was done to examine whether race and ethnic groups experience court

differently and whether the difference could be accountable by how participants in the

court proceedings experience race differently (Longazel et al., 2011). It found racial

disparities in perceived procedural injustice exists, but following CRT, the researchers

were able to get beyond a mere acknowledgment of the existence and work toward

understanding how racial disparities exist (Longazel et al., 2011).

Finally, the secondary data from Rottman et al., 2003 study was used in 2012 in a

dissertation in conjunction with eleven other nationally representative datasets. The data

was used to analyze individual question characteristics that predicted don’t know (dk)

responses (Young, 2012). Young (2012) found respondents increased their use of dk

responses within a single survey, consistent with the belief that survey dk responses were

the result of survey satisficing. In addition, it was found, dk responses were fairly

consistent between surveys and including this response option in a survey design may be

useful since identifying likely future study dropouts is an important step in improving

panel data response rates (Young, 2012).

21
 Media Influence on Public Opinion

The literature about media and the criminal justice system is sparse. In the United

States, the mass media plays a major role in how the general public views the criminal

justice system because the media is where most people obtain their information (Howell-

Collins, 2012). However, internationally, mass media’s information is viewed more as

entertainment (Ericson, 1991). Therefore it is imperative when examining the literature;

it is divided into two categories, international and domestic. In addition, the literature

addresses issues such as media influence on the public’s view of sentencing, media

coverage of law, media crime, and public culture, communicating with the media,

differential media exposure, and media presence in the courthouse influence on public

opinion to name a few (Roberts & Doob, 1990; Hans & Dee, 1991; Dowler, Fleming &

Muzzatti, 2006; Cushner et al., 2009; Johnston & Bartels, 2010; Fusco & Sabourin,

2012). The articles, that addressed the issues of news media influences on public view of

sentencing; mass media, crime, law, and justice; media crime and public culture; myths

and misconceptions about sentencing; and media presence in the courthouse, were in

reference to areas out of the country such as Canada and Australia (Roberts & Doobs,

1990; Ericson, 1991; Dowler et al., 2006; Gelb, 2006; Fusco & Sabourin, 2012). The

media articles that were addressed the media and criminal justice system in the United

States was the amount and type of media access, media coverage of the law, media

influence on civil liberties, tabloid justice-style media coverage, media crime, and

differential media exposure (Graber, 1980; Hans & Dee, 1991; Lock, 1999; Fox, Van

Sickel, & Steiger, 2007; Cushner et al., 2009; Johnston & Bartels, 2010).

22
International Studies Conducted on Media Influence on Public Opinion of the

Courts

Roberts and Doob’s article reported the results of three studies that examined

media coverage on public opinion of sentencing (1990). The news media is the public’s

main source of information about sentencing (Roberts & Doob, 1990). Subjects who read

actual newspaper stories about sentencing that appeared in Canadian newspapers rated

most reported sentences as too lenient (Roberts & Doob, 1990). The article concluded

that the mass media, in reporting individual sentences handed down in individual cases as

if the issues involved were very simple, do not appear to present sentences in a manner

that allows members of the public to draw reasonable conclusions about sentencing

(Roberts & Doob, 1990).

In 1991, Richard V. Ericson wrote an article, “Mass Media, Crime, Law and

Justice: An Institutional Approach”. He stated mass media is a source of interpretation,

along with other sources, not the primary source of a person’s knowledge about crime,

law, and justice (Ericson, 1991). Reality is not distorted by mass media, but provides an

institutional mode of classifying and interpreting reality-that helps people to construct

their own organizational realities (Ericson, 1991). Furthermore, the primary influence of

mass media, which helps a person generate their own knowledge, their own capacity for

action (Ericson, 1991). Instead of being a harmful influence, mass media helps construct

a foundation that helps an individual to maintain order in their daily lives (Ericson, 1991).

In the article, “Constructing Crime: Media Crime and Popular Culture”, Dowler,

Fleming, and Muzzatti posit that although crime is newsworthy and often produced as

informative, in Canada and North America society, it is a central component in

23
entertainment (2006). The Canadian viewers being exposed to American reality TV

experience what is called the “CSI effect”. This “CSI effect” relates to the popularity of

CSI, Criminal Minds, Crossing Jordan, and other television programs that portray

scientific forensic evidence-gathering procedures to catch criminal (Dowler et al., 2006).

This “effect” has caused a rise in the expectations of real time crime to be solved and

presented in a manner very similar to how it is done on television.

The Sentencing Advising Council in State of Victoria Australia conducted a

yearlong project to ascertain and analyze knowledge about public opinion on sentencing

nationally and internationally. The goal was to gauge public opinion on the wide range of

issues. Conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canady, the study found

that given the ubiquity and popularity of the mass media (tabloid newspapers in

particular), they play an integral role in the construction of both public opinion and the

public “reality” of crime (Gelb, 2006). Due to the selective reporting, crime stories are

not complete and accurate pictures given by the newspapers. They focus on the most

violent, dramatic crime stories that paint a picture of crime for the community that

overestimates the prevalence of crime in general (Gelb, 2006). In doing so, the public’s

concern about crime typically reflect crime as depicted in the media, rather than trends in

actual crime rates (Gelb, 2006). In addition, media provide little systematic information

about the sentencing process or its underlying principles (Gelb, 2006). This is consistent

with prior research but the media omits germane points that judges use to determine

sentences. This lack of information has been attributed to the public falsely generalization

that the entire sentencing process is too lenient (Gelb, 2006). Finally, in what the media

reports is critical in the development of public opinion on sentencing, as its presents an

24
inaccurate and incomplete picture of sentencing practice, thereby contributing

significantly to a misinformed public (Gelb, 2006).

In a final article, “Public Opinion on Media Presence in the Courthouse”, the

authors addressed pretrial publicity (Fusco & Sabourin, 2012). This study expanded an

unpublished study that addressed media access in Quebec courthouses. In the original

study, it was found the public supported restricted media access in courthouses. The

subsequent study quantitative survey by Fusco and Sabourin (2012) found 80% of the

participants again supported media restriction in the Quebec courthouses.

Domestic Studies Conducted on the Influences of Media and Public Opinion

In the United States, the literature about media in the criminal justice system

focuses on the amount and type of media access, media coverage of law, medial influence

on civil liberties, tabloid justice-style media coverage, differential media exposure, and

court personnel communication with the media. In the first study, Graber analyzed the

amount and kind of mass media information given to the public for assessing crime and

the criminal justice system (1980). In 1990, Edith Greene published an article about the

media effects on jurors. A year later, another article was published by Hans and Dee

looked at the media impact on juries and the public. David Harris looked at CourtTV,

conventional television, and public opinion in his article (1993). Shmuel Lock (1999)

addressed how the media influenced crime, public opinion and civil liberties in his book.

Kimberlianne Podlas addressed television’s syndicated courtrooms bias of the juror

citizenry (2001). Cushner, et al., in their article “Spreading the News”, communication

with the media and court professionals are discussed (2009). In an article, Johnston and

Bartels, “Sensationalism and Sobriety” discussed two types of media exposure,

25
sensationalism and sober, and their potential effect on attitudes toward American courts

(2010). The influence of the media on inmates and their families were studied in a

dissertation written by Howell-Collins (2012).

In the period from January 15, 1976 to January 14, 1977, a study was conducted

to analyze the amount and kind of mass media information given to the public about

crime and the criminal justice system (Graber, 1980). The entire content of major print

and electronic news sources were studied. Media content included an examination of the

subject matter discussed by media as well as the placement and emphasis given to various

types of stories was the topic (Graber, 1980). Audience perceptions were checked

through multiple interviews and through daily reports from respondents. The results

found crime news received ample coverage and display compared to other types of news

and disproportionality emphasized street crimes as compared to white collar crime

(Graber, 1980). The study further found the media supplied data about specific crimes

without sufficient analytical, contextual information, leading citizens to infer that

criminals threatened a legitimate social system (Graber, 1980). But radical criminologist

asserts media deliberately show criminals and victims as flawed in character, non-white,

and lower class proved to be erroneous. The study showed the public was the one who

attributed these characteristics to criminals (Graber, 1980). The study indicated

individuals and group perceptions concerning crime varied because of selectively in

choosing media and differences as in community attitudes and personal preferences

(Graber, 1980). The study findings contradicted assumptions about mass media’s power

to generate uniformity of public opinion (Graber, 1980).

26
 In Greene’s article, “Media Effects on Jurors”, the impact of media coverage of

legal issues on jurors was examined (1990). The author believed that jurors’ decisions

may be influenced by the vast legally relevant information obtained from media sources,

such as newspaper reports, radio and television news, advertising, movies, and televised

crime shows and courtroom scenes (Greene, 1990). It was found people, who watch a lot

of television known as heavy viewers, do internalize beliefs they viewed on television

crime dramas. Also, it was surmised that social schemata had influence in transforming

internal beliefs into judgments and decisions made during jury trials (Greene, 1990). The

author concluded that the media alone does not play a major factor in jurors’ decisions

(Greene, 1990).

Hans and Dee posited due to the public’s lack of direct experience with the

criminal justice system, most of the known information comes from the media (1991).

They reviewed and analyzed the impact of the media coverage of the laws on the public.

They did this by considering how the media presented law crime and justice (Hans &

Dee, 1991). It was found that the media mirrors present a distorted view of the law (Hans

& Dee, 1991). Further, this distinction did affect people’s knowledge of and attitudes

toward law and crimes (Hans & Dee, 1991).

In his article, Harris (1993) compares how the criminal justice system is portrayed

by conventional television and by Court TV. Court TV, at the time, was a cable television

network that showed virtually unedited versions of trial. This pioneer channel allowed the

public to experience the entire judicial process without bias (Harris, 1993). However, this

channel was exclusively trials, which is abstracted from the rest of the criminal justice

system (Harris, 1993). In addition, the channel only televised trials that appealed to the

27
views (Harris, 1993). Harris concluded despite its shortcomings, Court TV was a needed

item to provide the public with a more accurate perspective of the court component of the

criminal justice system (Harris, 1993). This channel educated and explained the criminal

justice system to the public who, without it, would not understand (Harris, 1993).

Lock posited by informing the public sets the foundation for a well-functioning

society (1999). If the community doesn’t value protection of the criminals, the wishes of

the uninformed public will be reflected in the court decisions and public policy.

Following that theory, it is vital for the public to be educated in order make informed

decisions (Lock, 1999). Lock found that the public gets their opinion about the courts

from the mass media. In do so, the information received is sensationalized. Thereby the

public opinion of crime and the criminal justice system is negative. Lock referred to the

media coverage of the OJ Simpson trial (1999).

To examine the effect of the temperament and activity of television syndicated

judges on pool jurors, Kimberlianne Podlas, conducted a study. The hypothesis was that

prior juror service may immunize citizens against misconceptions, negative attitudes

about, or the priming effects of the television bench (Podlas, 2001). The sample came

from those people called for jury duty. This was done to combat prior studies that stated

there was the lack of generalizability to actual jurors (Podlas, 2001). Waiting jurors were

asked to complete a questionnaire and as compensation, they were allowed to keep their

pen and given a candy bar (Podlas, 2001). 225 of 241 questionnaires were analyzed. The

responses provided strong support that syndicated court shows cultivated in frequent

viewers a view of aggressive, inpatient and opinionated judiciary (Poldas, 2001). The

author concluded that these types of court shows can be equated to a “Trojan horse”, in

28
that it tis picked with an army of misperceptions that created an enduring heuristic tool

for jurors (Poldas, 2001). This has profound and problematic ramifications on trials,

verdicts, and the justice system as a whole (Poldas, 2001).

In their book, Tabloid Justice: Criminal Justice in an Age of Media Frenzy, Fox et

al. posited that in the United States has entered an era of sustained tabloid justice. This

era is where mass media, in both their traditional and emerging forms, focus

predominantly on the sensationalistic, personal, and lurid details of unusual and high-

profile trials and investigations (2007). In the book, “tabloid justice” referred to tabloid

justice cases or tabloid justice coverage (Fox et al., 2007). In defining tabloid justice, the

authors found three tenets. The first stated a great deal of legal news has become a venue

for entertainment instead of a venue of education the public or for reporting breaking

events with real substance. In addition to being entertainment as oppose to being

informative, the tabloid justice is the frenzy of media activity that envelops a given legal

proceeding (Fox et al., 2007). One of the examples given was that during the 2005

Michael Jackson trial, all of the major news outlets such as NBC, CNN, Fox, CBS, and

Court TV erected large camera towers outside the courthouse, even though the only

footage available was that of Michael Jackson entering and exiting the building daily

(Fox et al., 2007). The final tenet is that there is a presence of an eagerly attentive public

that witnesses these legal events and to some degree uses them as a means to understand

and assess the legal system and the judicial process (Fox et al., 2007). In regards to the

mass media effects on the public’s attitudes, the authors believed that intense media

exposure alters the public’s views of reality (Fox et al., 2007). They did point out it was

important to note that misconceptions may vary widely depending on both the audience

29
and the particular medium conveying the message (Fox et al., 2007). The correlation

made was that television is a powerful medium for transmitting a sense of realism and

emotional appeal (Fox et al., 2007). The conclusion posited was that this tabloid justice-

style media coverage has distorted the public’s perception of the legal system (Fox et al.,

2007).

In 2008, blogger Marcy Wheeler, PhD penned an article entitled, “How

Noninstitutional Media Change the Relationship between the Public and Media Coverage

of Trial”. Dr. Wheeler (2008) explored the distinction between institutional and

noninstitutional media which went beyond the simple “old” media and “new “media.

Institutional media was described as media that uses a fairly static narrative structure as

seen with news media. Noninstitutional media was classified as media outlets that are

increasingly associated with the internet, such as blogs (Wheeler, 2008). By looking at

high profile criminal stories, such as Monica Lewinsky and The Duke Lacrosse Case, she

accessed noninstitutional media lacked the structure and constraints of the

institutional/traditional sources of media, they could report these stories differently

(Wheeler, 2008). She found this difference was proven to be valuable to for the legal

coverage of these stories and media sources (Wheeler, 2008). It was concluded using

nontraditional media should be done with caution because the proliferation of this type of

media opens the door for the risk of dubious reliability (Wheeler, 2008). This meaning, it

is educating the public while making them active participants in the criminal justice

system. This influence could make a person’s opinion positively or negatively.

In “Spreading the News”, the authors discussed communication with the media in

high profile cases. Cushner, Hartley, and Parker (2009) looked at media-court

30
relationships in the age of modern technology while dealing with a shifting and involving

media. They posit the court media relationship touch on issues as lofty as First

Amendment laws and as mundane as event planning (Cushner et al., 2009). The authors

concluded that not all forms of communication were equal (Cushner et al., 2009).

Regardless of the communication avenue, the general rule for media-court relationships

was formed to be professional and ethnical at all times, regardless of form of

communication. The article concluded the courts handling future high profile trials

should attempt to foster a productive relationship with the media to communicate their

message (Cushner et al., 2009). This can be done by relying on the newer forms of

communication that includes the latest advances on the internet (Cushner et al., 2009).

In “Sensationalism and Sobriety”, Johnston and Bartels (2010) examined two

different types of media, sensationalist and sober. Sensationalists, is seen as

nontraditional media that comes from political talk radio and cable news which are often

depicted as institutions of “no holds barred” arena (Johnston & Bartels, 2010). It provides

harsh unbridle criticism of political court decisions (Johnston & Bartels, 2010). Sober

media which are considered traditional source are most national newspapers and network

news (Johnston & Bartels, 2010). In their article of two national surveys, it was found

that exposure to sensationalist media did indeed exhibit negative consequences for

evaluative dimensions of the Supreme Courts and state courts, whereas exposure to

traditional, sober media sources exhibit positive effects on court evaluations (Johnston &

Bartels, 2010).

In the dissertation, Court of Public Opinion: How the Convicted Perceive Mass

Media have Affected Their Criminal Trials and Personal Lives, sensationalism and crime

31
news coverage were addressed (Howell-Collins, 2012). Howell-Collins posited mass

media did affect criminals, their sentences and families. Through sensationalism, the

crime news reported distorted views of crimes, criminals, and criminal justice policy by

not providing the complete picture (Howell-Collins, 2012). In doing so, the uninformed

public forms misconstrued decisions about crime and criminal based upon a crime story

that is often impersonal. Today’s crime stories fail to explore the personality of the victim

or perpetrator (Howell-Collins, 2012). The dissertation concluded that the inmates in the

study did feel that there were dramatic effects in the wake of the media coverage of their

cases on both their trials and their lives (Howell-Collins, 2012).

Summary

The literature review clearly suggests there is a value in developing a deeper

understanding of the various factors that influence the public’s opinions of the court

component of the criminal justice system. The existing literature on media and the

criminal justice system address demographic variables and the public opinion of the

courts. The international articles addressed media and non-demographic issues. This

dissertation is similar to the international articles in that it will analyze public opinion of

the courts while looking at the medial. Similar to the Johnson and Bartels’s article, this

dissertation will evaluate what they describe as sober media and the traditional media.

This is important because the trend serve as a starting point in accessing the effect of

media on the public’s opinion of the criminal justice system, specifically the court

component. Prior research showed that media genres newspaper and other print media in

the mid-1990s provided a relatively benign coverage of the court system (Johnston &

32
Bartels, 2010). This current study could be important in changing the opinion of the

public by possibly offering guidance in regulating the modern media sources. In addition,

the findings of this dissertation could be critical because the media is where many people

find out information about the criminal justice system, therefore the media is instrumental

in shaping the public’s opinion of the courts and the criminal justice system. The

information found ascertained in this study could be used to effect change in providing a

more accurate view of the criminal justice system, in addition to assist in more criminal

justice news other than sensationalized crime stories.

33
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapters 1 and 2 of this research study examined the existing literature to support

that the topic of study for this dissertation. They also illustrated a gap in the research in

reference to the public’s opinion of the courts and mass media. The purpose of this

chapter is to investigate the methodology and research design used for this study. The

first part of the chapter reiterates the problem statement while explaining the research

design used to address the research questions explored in the study. Next, the study

population and sampling procedure are discussed. Subsequently, the instrument, data

collection and analysis of the study are discussed. The chapter concludes with a

discussion of the limitations, IRB process, and ethical consideration from the research.

Statement of the Problem

This study analyzed other variables from the original study, such as mass media,

specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, to determine if these

variables affect a person’s satisfaction of the court, one of the components of the criminal

justice system. Prior studies used variables that the participants cannot control. For

example, the variables from the others studies, such as race, sex, and ethnicity, are fixed.

A person cannot select an ethnicity. The variables of this dissertation, mass media,

34
specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, can be controlled. A person

can decide whether to access these mediums in order to be informed. For example, a

respondent can decide if they want to watch the news or not. Although this study used a

sample that was over a decade old, it is unique in the fact the variables used are attributes

that people can control. This study could provide additional reasons to better ascertain

why certain members of society respect or have lack of respect for the court component

of the criminal justice system in our present society.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system?

H1o: There is no significant relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

H1a: There is a significant relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

Research question 2: What is the relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system?

H2o: There is no significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

H2a: There is a significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

Research question 3: What is the relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system?

35
 H3o: There is no significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

H3a: There is a significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

Research Design

Quantitative research has two strategies of inquiry: surveys and experiments

(Creswell, 2009). Using survey research provided a quantitative or numeric description of

trends, attitudes, or opinions of the population by studying a sample of that population

(Creswell, 2009). Survey research involves acquiring information about one or more

groups of people-perhaps about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes, or previous

experiences-by asking them questions and tabulating their answers (Leedy & Ormrod,

2010). This research study utilized a quantitative research design. This type of design was

appropriate because secondary data was analyzed. Specifically for this dissertation, the

quantitative survey research will provide a numeric description of the opinion of the

public about the court component of the criminal justice system.

The questions for the survey were closed ended where the participants answered

the questions by using several Likert-type scales. Likert scales are widely used in attitude

measurement research (Bordens & Abbott, 2008). A Likert scale is used to provide a

series of statements to which participants can indicate degrees of agreement or

disagreement (Bordens & Abbott, 2008). These types of scales are the 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9

point scales (Sclove, 2001). In this dissertation, the scales are based on seven and eight

points.

36
 Sample

For the original study, the target sample was 1005 randomly selected participants.

Participants had to be residents of the United States, have a valid telephone number, and

be over the age of 18 years old. In the target sample, the researchers oversampled. The

supplemental oversample consisted of 308 African Americans and 254 Latinos (Rottman

et al., 2000). This sample size was based on the population of <100,000 people (Israel,

2009). The margin of error was approximately +-3.15%. The margin of error is

considered acceptable in educational and social sciences studies for categorical data

(Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).

Rottman et al., (2000), stated the following in the original study:

this sampling strategy sought to correct for the tendency of telephone

surveys to underrepresent minority groups . Among all ethnic groups,

approximately half of the participants were to be chosen based on recent

(within the past 12 months) court experience. This was difficult to

achieve. Latinos who had recent court experience and who were willing to

be interviewed were difficult to locate. The cost per interview reached a

point at which it was necessary to stop the data collection process for that

subgroup. As a result, 40 percent rather than the desired 50 percent of

Latinos in the sample had had a recent court experience. In general, the

number of African Americans and Latinos in the sample with recent court

experience is small. (p. iv)

37
 The sample will account for the over representation of the minority groups to

ensure there is a similar proportion as in the American society, despite the smaller

number (National, 1999; Rottman & Hansen, 2000). There was an oversample for

minorities to correct the underrepresentation of minorities in surveys and population due

to low participation with surveys (Fogel, Ribisl, Morgan, Humphreys, and Lyons, 2008;

National, 1999). This was unique because without the oversampling, the results would

not be as accurate in attempting to show a true representation of the society. Official

statistics struggle to include accurate information on “hard to reach” groups, often relying

on assumptions and extrapolation (Grant & Bowling, 2011). Utilizing secondary data,

that includes the oversampling, should provide more valid results that represents the

population. The more accurate results should outweigh the aged data. In all ethnic

groups, over half of the participants were chosen based on court experience within the

last 12 months before the study (Rottman et al., 2000).

Instrumentation/Measures

Instrumentation

In the original study, the project staff at the National Center for State Courts

designed the survey instrument and revised it based on a review by the advisory

committee members and staff from the Indiana University Public- ICPSR 3864 -Opinion

Laboratory (IUPOL) (Rottman et al., 2000). There were pretests used to refine the survey

instrument. According to the original study, there were two set of questions in the final

instrument (Rottman et al., 2000). Rottman et al., 2000 stated in the original study that:

38
 the first set of questions was directed at all respondents. The second set of

questions was directed only at those respondents with court experience in the last

12 months. A translator under contract to the IUPOL prepared a Spanish version

of the survey instrument. The translation was reviewed and revised by two

certified Spanish court interpreters. The interviews were conducted by

professional interviewers at the IUPOL from special facilities on the Indiana

University-Purdue University Indianapolis campus. All interviewers received at

least four hours of general training in addition to specific training for this project.

Most of the interviewers had previous experience in other survey research

projects. (p. iv)

The sample used was a national, random-digit-dialing sample with quotas based

on the Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method of respondent selection (Rottman et al., 2000). The

Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method respondent selection method is used when telephone

surveys are conducted. This method built on the Kish selection method, the interviewer's

list the age and sex of the adult members of the household and their relationship to the

head of household and then consult a table to choose the correct respondent (Gaziano,

2008). The Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method respondent selection method required two

questions: (1) How many persons (18 years or older) live in your household…counting

yourself? and (2) How many of them are men (Gaziano, 2008)? After the interviewers

obtained that information, they requested the appropriate respondent once they consulted

one of the four versions of the simplified selection tables randomingly assigned to

households (Gaziano, 2008). Since this selection method specified that the respondent be

the youngest or oldest male or female, it involved a small violation of random sampling

39
and full coverage because some adults in households of three or more adults of the same

sex had no opportunity to be chosen (Gaziano, 2008). The amount of bias depends on the

proportion of persons in the population barred from the sample and the degree to which

they differ from the respondents in the variables studied (Gaziano, 2008).

Measures

The measures, for this dissertation, consisted of attitudes towards the courts,

satisfaction with the courts, and mass media, specifically TV news, newspaper, and TV

judge programs.

Attitudes toward the courts. One of the dependent variable in this study

obtained the participant’s attitude toward the courts. For example, the respondent

answered the question “how do you feel about the courts?” On a 7 point Likert type scale,

the answers ranged from 1 (least favorable) to 7 (no answer/refuse). The higher numbers

up to 5 that were most favorable were indicative of more positive attitude to the courts.

Satisfaction with the courts. The second dependent variable for the study

obtained the participant’s satisfaction with the courts. Specifically, the questions that

were answered were “how well do you think the courts handled the violent crime cases?”

and “how well do you think the courts handled the drug crime cases?”. The questions

were answered using an 8 point Likert type scale where the answers ranged from 1 (least

favorable) to 8 (no answer/refuse). The higher numbers up to 5 that were most favorable

were indicative of greater satisfaction with the courts.

TV news. One of the independent variables for the study obtained the

respondent’s TV news watching. The questioned asked was “how important was what

was on the TV news?” The questions were answered using an 8 point Likert type scale

40
where the answers ranged from 1 (very important) to 8 (n/a). The lower numbers up to 3

that were most favorable were indicative of the importance of the TV news.

Newspapers. Another independent variable for the dissertation addressed the

respondent’s reading of the newspaper. The question was “ how important was what in

newspapers?” The questions were answered using an 8 point Likert type scale where the

answers ranged from 1 (very important) to 8 (n/a). The lower numbers up to 3 that were

most favorable were indicative of the importance of the newspaper.

TV judge programs. The final independent variable addressed the respondent’s

watching judge shows on TV. The question was “how important was TV judge

programs?”. The questions were answered using an 8 point Likert type scale where the

answers ranged from 1 (very important) to 8 (n/a). The lower numbers up to 3 that were

most favorable were indicative of the importance of what was viewed on the TV judge

programs.

Data Collection

During the timeframe of March 22, 2000, and May 3, 2000, the interviewers

conducted 1,567 telephone interviews with randomly selected residents of the United

States (Rottman et al., 2000). Selected phone numbers were called until an interview was

successfully conducted or: (1) the respondent refused to participate on three separate

occasions, (2) a disconnected or not-in-service number was encountered, or (3) attempts

to call the number yielded a no answer, busy signal, or answering machine on 20 separate

occasions (Rottman et al., 2000).

41
 Data Analysis

The original study utilized several Likert-type scales for the respondents to

answer the questions. The information was coded and placed in a database. In order for

this researcher to use the original data, registration was required to obtain to read and

analyze that data. For this study, the entire secondary sample was used to ascertain

information.

To analyze each research question, a Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient would be used to measure the strength of association between two intervals or

ratio scale variables (Martin, 2004). This method was selected because the data in the

original study was coded in percentage. In this dissertation, the dependent and

independent variables were analyzed using percentage measures from the original study’s

codebook. This would be done prove or disprove each hypothesis.

Limitations to methodology

Data

A limitation in utilizing secondary data in a new study is that the questions have

to be designed so the existing data can be used to answer the questions from the new

study (Doolan & Froelicher, 2009). This may limit the scope of the questions to be asked.

Therefore, the questions have to be constructed to be relevant and timely.

Another limitation is the data is over 10 years old. Despite the age of the data,

recent surveys have used this data. For example, this data was used in a dissertation in

42
2012 to analyze don’t know responses (Young, 2012). It was also used in 2011 in a study

to assess perceived procedural injustice among court users (Longazel et al., 2011).

Survey delivery

The existing study was a telephone study. To conduct the study, it was time

consuming for the researcher who had to read the entire survey to the participant. It was

also time consuming for those who chose to participate. After a short while, both parties

may have felt the need to rush to end the phone call. For the interviewer, it may be a

concern they were losing the interest of the participant. The participant may have wanted

to end the survey because it was interrupting what they were doing prior to the phone

call.

The telephone survey was collected over a decade ago which was potentially

problematic, in that the numbers called were land line numbers. Potential participants

may not have been reached because cellular phones were becoming popular. People were

beginning to eliminate land lines for cellular phones. Those cellular phone numbers may

not have been accessed by the researchers. In addition, telephone surveys could result in

low participations because potential respondents may not answer the phone or may hang

up. Finally, utilizing telephone surveys excluded potential participants without a valid

phone numbers. People often change telephone numbers and fail to update the contacts

therefore telephone surveys may not reach potential participants.

IRB Process

This dissertation was reviewed by Capella’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and

deemed not research. The phrase “not research” with the IRB means that my submission

43
does not meet the definition of human subject research, and no further review is needed.

It was determined that this research study did not meet the federal regulations definition

of Human Subjects Research.

Ethical Considerations

Utilizing secondary data for this study eliminated any ethical considerations

needed for the sample population because this study used raw data established from the

original study. The raw data had been coded so there is no way to ascertain any

identifiers to the participants of the study. Consequently, the subjects of this study had no

identifiers that would allow anyone to contact them.

44
 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to assess the public’s opinion of the courts by

evaluating mass media. This dissertation has taken the fundamental steps in advancing

scientific knowledge in the specialization of criminal justice and criminology. Also, it has

fulfilled an important gap in the literature about the value of mass media in the public’s

opinion in making the court component within the criminal justice system.

The main point of this chapter is to compile the research design and present the

findings and conclusions of the study. In addition, a description of the data analyses

conducted is discussed. Finally, the description of the quantitative methods and results of

the study is presented in this chapter. Data were obtained through the distribution of

survey created by the project staff at the National Center for State Courts. Survey data

were collected from 1,567 telephone interviews with randomly selected United States

residents. This dissertation was designed to address three research questions with the

purpose of determining if there were correlations between independent variables and

dependent variables. To be more specific, to examine if mass media, TV news,

newspapers, and TV judge programs, had an effect on the public’s opinion of the courts.

This was assessed by looking at satisfaction with the courts and attitudes towards the

courts.

45
 Description of the Sample

In the target sample of 1005 randomly selected participants, the researchers

oversampled. The supplemental oversample consisted of 308 African Americans and 254

Latinos (Rottman et al., 2000). This sample size was based on the population of <100,000

people (Israel, 2009). The margin of error was approximately +-3.15%. The margin of

error is considered acceptable in educational and social sciences studies for categorical

data (Bartlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).

This sample accounted for the over representation of the minority groups to

ensure there was a similar proportion as in the American society, despite the smaller

number (National, 1999; Rottman & Hansen, 2000). The oversample for minorities was

done to correct the underrepresentation of minorities in surveys and population due to

low participation with surveys (Fogel, Ribisl, Morgan, Humphreys, and Lyons, 2008;

National, 1999). This was unique because without this oversampling, the results would

not be as accurate in attempting to show a true representation of the society. Official

statistics struggle to include accurate information on “hard to reach” groups, often relying

on assumptions and extrapolation (Grant & Bowling, 2011). Utilizing secondary data,

that included the oversampling, provided more valid results that represent the population.

The more accurate results should outweigh the aged data. In all ethnic groups, over half

of the participants were chosen based on court experience within the last 12 months

before the study (Rottman et al., 2000).

46
 Instrumentation

Instrumentation

In the original study, the project staff at the National Center for State Courts

designed the survey instrument and revised it based on a review by the advisory

committee members and staff from the Indiana University Public- ICPSR 3864 -Opinion

Laboratory (IUPOL) (Rottman et al., 2000). There were pretests used to refine the survey

instrument. According to the original study, there were two set of questions in the final

instrument (Rottman et al., 2000). Rottman et al., 2000 stated in the original study that:

the first set of questions was directed at all respondents. The second set of

questions was directed only at those respondents with court experience in the last

12 months. A translator under contract to the IUPOL prepared a Spanish version

of the survey instrument. The translation was reviewed and revised by two

certified Spanish court interpreters. The interviews were conducted by

professional interviewers at the IUPOL from special facilities on the Indiana

University-Purdue University Indianapolis campus. All interviewers received at

least four hours of general training in addition to specific training for this project.

Most of the interviewers had previous experience in other survey research

projects. (p. iv)

The sample used was a national, random-digit-dialing sample with quotas based

on the Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method of respondent selection (Rottman et al., 2000). The

Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method respondent selection method is used when telephone

surveys are conducted. This method was built on the Kish selection method that required

47
the interviewers to list the age and sex of the adult members of the household and their

relationship to the head of household and then consult a table to choose the correct

respondent (Gaziano, 2008). The Troldahl-Carter-Bryant method respondent selection

method required two questions: (1) How many persons (18 years or older) live in your

household…counting yourself? and (2) How many of them are men (Gaziano, 2008)?

After the interviewers obtained that information, they requested the appropriate

respondent once they consulted one of the four versions of the simplified selection tables

randomingly assigned to households (Gaziano, 2008). Since this selection method

specified that the respondent be the youngest or oldest male or female, it involved a small

violation of random sampling and full coverage because some adults in households of

three or more adults of the same sex had no opportunity to be chosen (Gaziano, 2008).

The amount of bias depends on the proportion of persons in the population barred from

the sample and the degree to which they differ from the respondents in the variables

studied (Gaziano, 2008).

Results

From the original study, this researcher identified three questions to answer if

mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, affected the

public’s satisfaction with the court component within the criminal justice system. The

questions were “how do you feel about the courts?”, “how well do you think the courts

handled the violent crime cases?”, and “how well do you think the courts handled the

drug crime cases?” Table 1 displays the joint distribution of the independent variables of

the study. Table 2 displays the joint distribution of the dependent variables for the study.

48
Table 1.

Joint distribution of independent variables

TV News Newspapers TV Judge Programs Marginal

Probability
Very important 9.6 10.8 3.5 23.9

Somewhat 17.6 18.8 7.2 43.6

important
Not at all 8.8 6.6 24.1 39.5
important
Don’t know 0.8 0.9 2.3 4

No 1.3 1.0 0.8 3.1

answer/refuse
N/A 61.9 61.9 62.1 185.9

Total 100 100 100 300

49
Table 2.

Joint distribution of dependent variables

Court Court How do you feel Marginal

handles handles drug about courts? Probability
violent crimes?
crimes?
Lowest 10.3 15.1 10.6 36

2 12.3 13.6 10.5 36.4

3 25.6 25.1 52.2 102.9

4 24.8 21.5 18.1 64.4

Highest 14.8 14.2 6.3 35.3

Not familiar 5.5 5.0 0 11

Don’t know 6.7 5.2 2.1 14

No 0.1 0.1 0.2 .4

answer/refuse
Total 100.1 99.8 100 300.4

Written Explanation

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system?

H1o: There is no significant relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

H1a: There is a significant relationship between the perception of TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

50
 In answering the research question 1 what is the relationship between the

perception of TV news and public’s satisfaction of the court system?, the data was

compared. This was done by looking at the values from the Lickert scale and comparing

the corresponding percentages. Independent variable TV news numbers were 1(very

important), 2(somewhat important), 3(not important at all), 4(m) (don’t know), 5(m)(no

answer/refuse), and 8(m)(n/a). Assessing the dependent variables questions, Likert type

scales were used. The first question, how well do you think the courts handled violent

criminal cases?, used an 8 point Likert type scale 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(highest),

6(not familiar), 7(don’t know), and 8(no answer/refuse). The second question, how well

do you think the courts handled drug crime cases?, also used an 8 point Likert type scale

where 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(highest), 6(not familiar), 7(don’t know), and 8(no

answer/refuse). The final question, how do you feel about the courts?, used a 7 point

Likert type scale where 1(least favorable), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(most favorable), 6(don’t

know), and 7(no answer/refuse). By comparing the corresponding numbers and values,

the data proved H1o, that there was no significant relationship between TV news and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

Research question 2: What is the relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system?

H2o: There is no significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

H2a: There is a significant relationship between the importance of newspapers and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

51
 Research question 2 asked what is the relationship between the importance of

newspapers and public’s satisfaction of the court system?. This question was analyzed the

same as research question 1, which was done by comparing the values from the Lickert

scale and the corresponding percentages. Independent variable newspapers values were

1(very important), 2(somewhat important), 3(not important at all), 4(m) (don’t know),

5(m)(no answer/refuse), and 8(m)(n/a). Assessing the dependent variables questions,

Likert type scales were used. The first question, how well do you think the courts handled

violent criminal cases?, used an 8 point Likert type scale 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4),

5(highest), 6(not familiar), 7(don’t know), and 8(no answer/refuse). The second

question, how well do you think the courts handled drug crime cases?, also used an 8

point Likert type scale where 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(highest), 6(not familiar),

7(don’t know), and 8(no answer/refuse). The final question, how do you feel about the

courts?, used a 7 point Likert type scale where 1(least favorable), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4),

5(most favorable), 6(don’t know), and 7(no answer/refuse). By comparing the

corresponding numbers and values, the data proved H2a: There is a significant

relationship between the importance of newspapers and public’s satisfaction of the court

system.

Research question 3: What is the relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system?

H3o: There is no significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

H3a: There is a significant relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system.

52
 Finally, research question 3 was what is the relationship between TV judge

programs and public’s satisfaction of the court system? Again, it was analyzed as the

prior two questions. Independent variable, TV judge programs, values were 1(very

important), 2(somewhat important), 3(not important at all), 4(m) (don’t know), 5(m)(no

answer/refuse), and 8(m)(n/a). Assessing the dependent variables questions, Likert type

scales were used. The first question, how well do you think the courts handled violent

criminal cases?, used an 8 point Likert type scale 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(highest),

6(not familiar), 7(don’t know), and 8(no answer/refuse). The second question, how well

do you think the courts handled drug crime cases?, also used an 8 point Likert type scale

where 1(lowest), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(highest), 6(not familiar), 7(don’t know), and 8(no

answer/refuse). The final question, how do you feel about the courts?, used a 7 point

Likert type scale where 1(least favorable), 2(2), 3(3), 4(4), 5(most favorable), 6(don’t

know), and 7(no answer/refuse). By comparing the corresponding numbers and values,

the data proved H3o: There is no significant relationship between TV judge programs and

public’s satisfaction of the court system.

Below are scattered plots that display above information. Figure 1 addresses

question as how the participants felt about the courts’ handling of violent crimes. Figure

2 discusses how the participants felt about the court’s handling of drug crime cases.

Finally, figure 3 address the participants felt about the courts overall.

53
 Figure 1.

70

60

50 How Important What Was on

TV News
40
How Important Was What in
News-paper
30
How Important Was TV
20 Judge Shows

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

How do you feel the court handles violent crimes?

Figure 2.

70
How Important
60
Was What on TV
News
50
How Important
What Was in
40
Newspapers
How Important
30
Was TV Judge
Shows
20
Frequency

10

0
0 5 10

How do you feel the court handles drug crimes?

54
 Figure 3.

How Important
70 Was What on
60 TV News
50 How Important
40 Was What in
30 News-papers
Frequency

20 How Important
10 Was TV Judge
0 Program
0 5 10

How do you feel about the courts?

Theoretical Analysis

For this dissertation, the theory used was the general strain theory. By definition,

the general strain theory posits people commit crimes in response to strains or stressors.

Under the general strain theory, crime is committed due to the strains in one’s life

(Agnew, 2006). Strains also affect how a person looks at different events in life. For this

study, the variables used in this study could be considered strains. It was examined to

determine whether the information learned from the media could make a difference in the

public opinion of the courts. For example, the strains of the information gathered,

whether positive, negative, or indifferent would affect a person’s opinion of the court

system. Based upon the evaluation of the data, the percentages found that out of the three

55
variables, TV judge programs were least important, and information from newspapers

viewed as most important. It was then found that the strains from the mass media,

specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, did not have a significant

effect on the respondent’s opinions of the court component of the criminal justice system.

Summary

The original study coded the data using percentages; therefore the Pearson

product-moment correlation coefficient was used. A correlational research technique was

used to scrutinize a relationship between two or more variables investigating the surface

relationship and not to probe for causal reasoning (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010; Creswell,

2009). Specifically, this investigation examined whether or not if there is a relationship

between the mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV Judge Programs and

the public’s opinion of the courts.

Based upon percentages of variables, it was determined that the respondents were

not as influenced by mass media as anticipated. The values of the variables compared

were close for percentage. For example, TV news did not influence have a significant

influence on how the respondent thought the court handled violent crime cases. Finally, it

should be noted that the finding did not include the not familiar and don’t knows, and no

answer/refuse values.

56
 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Statement of the Problem

This study analyzed other variables from the original study, such as mass media,

specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, to determine if these

variables affect a person’s satisfaction of the court, one of the components of the criminal

justice system. Prior studies used variables that the participants cannot control. For

example, the variables from the others studies, such as race, sex, and ethnicity, are fixed.

A person cannot select an ethnicity. The variables of this dissertation, mass media,

specifically TV news, newspapers, and TV judge programs, can be controlled. A person

can decide whether to access these mediums in order to be informed. For example, a

respondent can decide if they want to watch the news or not. Although this study used a

sample that was over a decade old, it is unique in the fact the variables used are attributes

that people can control. This study could provide additional reasons to better ascertain

why certain members of society respect or have lack of respect for the court component

of the criminal justice system in our present society

Summary of Results

The results from the data found that TV judge programs did not have significant

effect in how the respondents felt about the courts. TV news had a little more effect on

the participant’s opinion of the courts. Finally, it was found that newspapers did have a

significant effect on the participant’s opinion of the courts. This researcher found this

interesting since according to the domestic literature from the literature review of this

57
dissertation that the public obtains most of their information from the media about the

criminal justice system from the media. However, the findings of this study were more

consistent with the international literature. For example, the findings of this study

coincide with Richard V. Ericson’s 1991 article, “Mass Media, Crime, Law and Justice:

An Institutional Approach”. He stated mass media is a source of interpretation, along

with other sources, not the primary source of a person’s knowledge about crime, law, and

justice (Ericson, 1991). It would appear that the position taken by Dowler, Fleming, and

Muzzatti (2006) which was although crime is newsworthy and often produced as

informative, in Canada and North America society, it is a central component in

entertainment is true based upon the results from this study. Newspapers are an original

media sources for information in our society. The fact newspapers have an effect on the

respondent’s opinion of the court system could be explained by the makeup of the

respondent themselves. For example, despite the fact that age was not a variable used in

the original study, based upon other variables from the study, a profile of the participant

can be drawn. The average participant of the original study was over the age of 18 years

old, married and their educational level was high school diploma at minimum and/or

some college (Rottman et al., 2000). These variables are descriptive of mature,

dependable citizens of society. For example, the respondents were of voting age, are

employed, and had a stake in the community (Freymeyer, 2006). Marriage is seen as a

traditional institution in our society and tradition translates to stable. According to the

United Families International, married people are viewed as stable (Barlow, 2008).

Stability is the description of the average participant of this study.

58
 For generations, married people subscribed to the newspaper to get the

information about the community and society (Flanagin & Metzger, 20000. A picture that

comes to mind is a scene from old television shows, such as Leave it to Beaver or the

Cosby Show, where the parents were reading the newspaper and discussing its contents

with the family to inform and spend quality time. The tradition of reading the newspaper

for information declined with the increased usage of the internet (PewResearch, 2012).

This tradition may account for the significant effect of the newspapers on participants

about the courts. At the time of this study which was in 2000, the internet was not

viewed as credible, so the primary source for news was newspapers (Flanagin & Metzger,

2000). Media is viewed as one resource that individuals use to get information or advice

for daily living, to provide a framework for one’s day and to prepare oneself culturally

for the demands of upward mobility (Freymeyer, 2006). Furthermore, local newspapers

had been known to provide relatively comprehensive coverage of events occurring with a

community (Freymeyer, 2006).

Research Questions

The first research question was what is the relationship between the perception of

TV news and public’s satisfaction of the court system? Based upon the results from the

study, H1o was found. Specifically, there is no significant relationship between TV news

and public’s satisfaction of the court system. The second research question of what is the

relationship, between the importance of newspapers and public’s satisfaction of the court

system proved H2a. H2a stated there appeared to be a significant relationship between the

importance of newspapers and public’s satisfaction of the court system, proving. For the

59
final research question, what is the relationship between TV judge programs and public’s

satisfaction of the court system proved H3o. That hypothesis stated there is no significant

relationship between TV judge programs and public’s satisfaction of the court system.

Discussion of the Conclusions in Relation to the Literature in the Field

The results of this study make two contributions to the literature. This study

allows for a direct understanding of how mass media, specifically TV news, newspapers,

and TV judge programs potentially affect a person’s attitude toward the court component

of the criminal justice system. In addition, this dissertation offers a better understanding

of the connection between mass media, even without the more modern aspects of the

media such as the internet, and the public’s views of the courts. This dissertation presents

valuable information for satisfaction with the courts and attitude toward the courts that

has not been seen in the current literature on this subject.

Out of all of the mass media, it was found that newspapers, instead of TV news

and TV judge show have the most influence of a person’s attitude of the courts.

Americans rely mainly on media to obtain their information about the criminal justice

system, in addition to other areas, but at the time of the original study, newspapers were

the main medium. According to PewReserach (2006), from the years of 1950 through

1999, it was found that newspaper revenue grew seven percent a year. Between 2000

through 2006, by contrast, newspaper revenue only has grown by just 0.5%

(PewResearch, 2006). This study also found that in the first quarter of 2006, growth was

only 0.35% (PewResearch, 2006). This study shows that as people became more

60
comfortable with the internet, and it became more assessable, that is how information

was accessed.

Another explanation as to understand why newspapers had more of a significant

effect on the public’s opinion of the courts is that the information obtained from the

newspapers is seen as more reliable. Stories have been researched, reviewed, and edited

before going to print (PewResearch, 2006). Even though newspapers are in competition

with each other, all are distributed at the same time which is early in the morning. People

in the community could feel that fewer mistakes could be made with this type of

information provider because it has been vetted.

In addition, the TV judge programs have disclaimers at the end or beginning of

the shows that may be a contributor to the reason why these types of shows do affect the

public’s opinion of the court. These disclaimers are in small print at the bottom of the

screen. They state that people are paid a fee to come and participate on the show (Podlas,

2001). Disclaimers could signal to the viewer that these shows are not as real as they are

advertised, therefore be seen more as entertainment.

TV news is viewed as face paced because in a 30 minute show, about 20 stories are

covered. Each story provides a snapshot of the entire story presented. Many times, stories are

interrupted with “breaking news”. This breaking news may not be seen as reliable by the viewer

because most breaking news stories start with the phrase, “this just in…” and may not be viewed

as not being properly verified. Too often stories viewed as breaking news have been corrected in

later broadcasts.

The connection of mass media and the public’s opinion of the court are important.

Despite the fact that newspapers did affect one’s opinion, mass media overall began to

61
globalize with the increased popularity of the internet. The globalization of

communication, at the time of the original study, was in its infancy stage (PewResearch,

2006). Although this study did not include the internet, the connection is still apparent

and important. Newspapers were global, just not on the scale as it is today. At the time of

the study, citizens have always been able to subscribe to newspapers across the states, but

due to the delivery method of a hard copy, the information was dated when it arrived.

This made the newly acquired information, from the non local newspapers, was obsolete.

In addition, TV news and TV judge shows contributed to the globalization of

information. Although these shows were seen locally, many were also produced globally

for many areas. After the local news ends on every local channel, the national news

broadcasts. Information of all subjects is disseminated and is how the public learns about

events around the world. Finally, all of the TV judge shows are syndicated and are

considered reality courtroom drama shows. The shows focus on civil disputes which most

Americans will encounter as opposed to criminal cases (Kohm, 2006). This may account

for the fact that newspapers had more influence than any other media outlet because

morepeople are involved in civil cases then criminal cases.

Limitations

Data

There were numerous limitations for this dissertation. One limitation is that it

utilizes secondary data. The questions for this study had to be fashioned around the

variables identified by the original study. Therefore using secondary data in a new study

may mean the questions of the study may not be as timely and relevant as they could be.

62
A second limitation is the age of the data for this study. Using 13 year old data does not

incorporate new advances. For example, this investigation does not include the internet

which would more than likely change the results greatly. The presentation of the data in

the code book is a limitation also. The way the data was coded limited the way future

researchers could analyze the variables used from the original study.

This study only uses cross-sectional data. The possibility that perceptions of

justice attitudes change over time has been ignored. In addition, single item indicators of

attitudes are used (Higgins et al., 2009). Using this type of indicator narrows the

opportunity to capture the entire content of domain concerning attitudes. This limits the

researcher to think of the links between potential measures as causal measures (Higgins

et al., 2009).

Survey Delivery

How the original survey was administered was a limitation. The original study

used a telephone survey. First, the numbers called could have been land line numbers.

Potential participants may not have been reached because cellular phones were becoming

popular. People were beginning to opt for cellular phones instead of having land lines in

their homes. The researchers could not access cellular phone numbers. Telephone surveys

could result in low participations because potential respondents may not answer the

phone or may hang up. In addition to participants not answering phones or hanging up,

technology such as answering machines and caller ID has contributed to declines in

response rates and has increased costs of conducting telephone surveys (Kempf &

Remington, 2007). The exponential increase in cell phone utilization presents a challenge

to the tradition of random digit dial (RDD) surveys of households (Kempf & Remington,

63
2007). Finally, utilizing telephone surveys will exclude potential participants without a

valid phone numbers. People often change telephone numbers and do not update the

contacts therefore telephone surveys may not reach potential participants.

Another limitation of this dissertation of the telephone opinion survey is that the

specific questions are asked in a rapid fire method (Rottman & Hansen, 2000). In the

same fashion, the responses given by the participants had to be immediate and not

reflective. These answers did not provide the researcher with the respondent’s true

feelings on a topic. Often researchers count on social pressures and expectations that

encourage people to give an answer rather than indicate their lack of opinion or lack of

sufficient knowledge to form an opinion on a topic (Rottman & Hansen, 2000). Despite

all of these limitations, this study still proved to be valuable.

Recommendations for Future Research

Current Survey

There are a few recommendations for future research. The first recommendation

would be to repeat this study with adjustments to reflect current time. For example,

instead of a telephone survey, convert the study to an online survey. Online surveys allow

researchers to go global in reaching potential respondents. The internet will then be more

valued tool to obtain information from respondents living in different parts of a country

or around the world, simply and at a low cost (Evans & Mathur, 2005). In addition,

online surveys are flexible in formatting for dispersing to participants, convenient to

respondents to respond, and makes it easy for the researcher to follow up to increase

64
responses from potential participants. Furthermore, online surveys circumvent technology

like caller ID and voicemail.

Online surveys fit in with a respondent’s life. They could fill them in at their

convenience or can partially complete and return when the respondent wanted to. It is

argued that this may help explain the more ‘socially liberal’ attitudes seen in many online

surveys, as respondents on average tend to lead less home-based lives and so are less

cautious (Duffy, Smith, Terhanian, & Breme, 2005). Utilizing online surveys does not

require interviewers to be present and so interviewer effects are avoided (Duffy et al.,

2005). This is a significant advantage for certain types of study, particularly where social

desirability effects are likely to be large (Duffy et al., 2005). With online surveys,

respondents have a tendency to be more honest due to the self-reporting than having to

answer to a person with interviewer-administered surveys (Duffy et al., 2005).

Methodology

Another recommendation for future research is to change the methodology.

Possibly, had the original study been qualitative, more information could have been

obtained. As a qualitative study, the researcher could have asked broad and general

questions to obtain answers. In doing so, they could use follow up questions to get the

true essence of the respondent’s answer (Creswell, 2009). Research focusing on the

narratives of court users will allow a researcher to see specifically how one’s opinion of

the courts is influenced by media. This could better assess what specific media sources,

if any, influence the participants of the courts. Another method that could be utilized is

mixed method. For example, utilizing a mixed method design could be valuable to

examine the nature of relationship between media and public opinion of the court system.

65
With the use of a mixed method design, the measures of attitudes toward the courts and

satisfaction with the courts will be better understood. The combination of quantitative

and qualitative approaches will permit a greater analysis of the information collected for

a new study.

Broader Variables

A final recommendation for future research is to include more variables to attempt

to find out what is the public’s opinion of the courts. This study focused on mass media,

specifically TV news, newspaper, and TV judge programs. Future research could include

internet and other forms of media. It is understandable why the original study did not

include the internet. At the time when the study was conducted, people were still

experimenting with strategies to make sense of web-based information (Flanagin &

Metzger, 2000). Many people did not trust the information found via the internet. Due to

the relative newness of the internet, the lack of clearly established genres, and the scarcity

of explicit editorial polices for most websites suggest that the information on the world

wide web maybe dubious or difficult to appraise (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000).

In the dissertation, Internet Usage, Self-Regulatory Skills, and Personality Traits,

Donohoe found, that in the last ten years, daily use of personal computers and the Internet

has skyrocketed to nearly 200 million U.S. citizens (2007). Academic institutions have

made the Internet available to students for learning and research, but it has also become

an important venue for social and entertainment purposes (Donohoe, 2007). In addition,

the internet has become popular at the work place. Therefore, adding this variable could

be beneficial.

66
 Summary

This study discussed the introduction to the study’s problem as well as the

background of the study in Chapter 1. A review of the literature followed in Chapter 2,

where the study investigated variables related to the public’s opinion of the courts within

the criminal justice. In Chapter 3, the research methodology used in the study was

discussed. Next, in Chapter 4, the results of the study were articulated. Finally, in Chapter

5, conclusions were drawn about the present study and offered interpretations,

implications, and recommendations for future research. Social scientists, administrators

within the criminal justice system, and law makers need to step back from a focus on the

public’s opinions effects of the court component of the criminal justice system and put

the research on how to change the system to less bias and more efficient. In doing so,

practitioners in the criminal justice field, as well as the public, may gain substantial

insights that also have practical utility in assisting with dealing with those who encounter

the criminal justice system, especially the courts.

67
 REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (2006). Strain theory. In E. McLaughlin& J. Muncie (Eds.), The Sage

dictionary of criminology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation,

and application (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University.

Barlow, M. (2008, August). A guide to family issues: The marriage advantage. United
Families International. Retrieved from www.untiedfamilies.org.

Bartlett, II, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001, Spring). Organizational
research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information
Technology, Learning, & Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50. Retrieved from
www.osra.org/itlpj/bartlettkotrlikhiggins.pdf

Brickman, D. &Bragg, B. (2007, March). Does the media matter? Understanding the
impact of media coverage on public response to Supreme Court decision. Paper
presented at the Western Political Science Association Conference, Las Vegas, NV.

Bordens, K. S. & Abbott, B. B. (2008). Research design and methods: A process

approach (7th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Buckler, K., Cullen, F. T., & Unnever, J. B. (2007). Citizen assessment of local criminal
courts: Does fairness matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(5), 524-536.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.005

Buckler, K., Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2008). Perception of injustice revisited: A
test of Hagen et al.’s comparative conflict theory. Journal of Crime and Justice,
31(1), 35-57. doi: 10.1080/0735648X.2008.9721243

Cao, L. (2011). Visible minorities and confidence in the police. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53(1), 1-26. doi:10/3138/cjccj.53.1.1

Clawson, R. A., Strine, H. C., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2003). Framing Supreme Court
decisions: The mainstream versus the black press. Journal of Black Studies, 33(6),
785-800. doi: 10.1177/002193470303300604

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.

Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological theory: Past to present. Essential
reading (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.

Cushner, Q., Hartley, R., & Parker, D. (2009). Spreading the news. Judicature, 93(2), 52-

68
 61, 82. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.library.capella.edu/docview/274741217?account=27965

Davis, D. W. (1997). State of the State Survey. Attitudes toward crime and criminal
justice: What you find depends on what you ask (Briefing Report 97-20). Retrieved
from Michigan State University, Institute of Public Policy & Social Research website:
http://ppsr.msu.edu/SOSS

Donohoe, M. B. (2007). Internet usage, self-regulatory skills, and personality traits.

(Doctoral disseration). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 304792269).

Doolan, D. M., & Froelicher, E. S. (2009). Using an existing data set to answer new
research questions: A methodological review. Research and Theory for Nursing
Practice: An International Journal, 23(3), 203-215.
doi: 10.1891/1541-6577.23.2.203

Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice:
The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police
effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10(2), 109-126.
Retrieved from www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol10is2/dowler.html.

Dowler, K., Fleming, T., & Muzzatti, S. L. (2006). Constructing crime: Media, crime,
and popular culture. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 48(6),
837-865. doi: 10.3138/cjccj.48.6.837

Duffy, B., Smith, K., Terhanian, G., & Breme, J. (2005). Comparing data from online and
face- to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47(6). 615-639.
Retrieved from
http://jafxzjo.m-public.com/DownloadPublication/235_comparing-data.pdf

Ericson, R. V. (1991, Summer). Mass media, crime, law, and justice. The British Journal
of Criminology, 31(3), 219-249. Retrieve from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org.

Flanagin, A.J & Metzger, M. J. (2000, Autumn). Perceptions of internet information

credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 515-540.
doi: 10.1177/107769900007700304

Fogel, J., Ribisl, K. M., Morgan, P., Humphreys, K., & Lyons, E. J. (2008). The
underrepresentation of African Americans in online cancer support groups. Journal of
the National Medical Association, 100(6) 702-712.

Fox, R.L., Van Sickel, R. W., & Steiger, T. L. (2007). Tabloid justice: Criminal justice in
an age of Media frenzy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

69
Freymeyer, R. H. (2006). Length of residence and media coverage. The Social Science
Journal, 43, 227-238. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2006.02.003

Fusco, N.M. & Sabourin, M. (2012). Public opinion on media presence in the courthouse.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(2012), 35-42.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.11003

Gaziano, C. (2008). Troldahl-Carter-Bryant respondent selection method. In P. Lavrakas

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods. (pp. 909-911). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Doi: http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/10.4135/9781412963947.n591

Gelb, K. (2006, July). Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment
about sentencing. Sentencing Advisory Council. Canada: Victoria.

Graber, D.A. (1980). Crime news and the public. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Grant, R. L., & Bowling, A. (2011). Challenges in comparing the quality of life of older
people between ethnic groups, and the implications for national well-being indicators:
A secondary analysis of two cross-sectional surveys. Health and Quality of Life
Outcomes, 9(1), 109-109. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-109

Greene, E. (1990). Media effects on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14(5), 439-450.
doi: 10.1007/BF01044221

Hans, V. P., & Dee, J.L. (1991). Media coverage of law: Its impact on juries and the
public. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(2), 136-149.
doi: 10.1177/0002764291035002005

Harris, D. A. (1993, Winter). The appearance of justice: CourtTV, conventional

television, and public understanding of the criminal justice system. 35 Ariz. L. Rev.
785. Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

Hazzard. G. C. Jr. (2006, Winter). Remark: The rhetoric of disputes in the courts, the
media, and the legislature. 40 Ga. L. Rev. 559. Retrieved from
www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

Higgins, G. E. & Jordan, K.L. (2005). Race and gender: An examination of the models
that explain evaluations of the court system for differences. Criminal Justice Studies,
18(1), 81-97. doi:10.1080/14786010500071188

Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., Mahoney, M., & Walters, N. M. (2009). Race, ethnicity, and
experience: Modeling the public’s perceptions of justice, satisfaction, and attitudes
towards the courts. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 7(4), 293-310. doi:
10.1080/15377930903382282

70
Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Walters, N. (2009). Sex and experience: Modeling the
public’s perception of justice, satisfaction, and attitude toward the courts. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1/2), 116-130. doi: 10.1007/s12103-008-9058-7

Howell-Collins, M. (2012). Court of public opinion: How the convicted perceive mass
media have affected their criminal trials and personal lives. (Doctoral dissertation).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 1095366977).

Hudson, B. (2006). Criminal justice. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.). The Sage
Dictionary of criminology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Indermaur, D. & Roberts, L. (2009, November). Confidence in the criminal justice

system. Woden: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Israel, G. D. (2009). Determining sample size (PE0D6). Retrieve from University of

Florida IFAS Extension website: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pf006

Johnston, C.D. & Bartels, B.L. (2010). Sensationalism and sobriety. Differential media
exposure and attitudes toward American courts. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(2), 260-
285. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfp096

Kalscheur, B. (2009). Courting color-blind racism: Using perceptions of equal

opportunity and the U.S. court system to measure the prevalence of color-blind
ideology (Unpublished thesis). University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Kaukinen, C. & Colavecchia, S. (1999). Public perception of the courts: An examination

of attitudes toward the treatment of victims and accused. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 41(3), 365-384.

Kempf, A. M., & Remington, P. L. (2007). New challenges for telephone survey
research in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Public Health, 28(1), 113-
126. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144059

Kohm, S. A. (2006). The people's law versus judge judy justice: Two models of law in
american reality-based courtroom TV. Law & Society Review, 40(3), 693-727.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00277.x

Leedy, P. D. & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson.

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and
consequence (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

71
Longazel, J. G., Parker, L., & Sun, I. Y. (2011). Experiencing court, experiencing race:
Perceived procedural injustice among court users. Race and Justice, 1(2), 202-227.
doi: 10.1177/2153368710388292

Lock, S. (1999). Crime, public opinion, & civil liberties. The tolerant public. Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.

Martin, D. W. (2004). Doing psychology experiments (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Mass media (2008). In Collins English dictionary-Complete and Unabridged (8th ed.).
New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Mass media (2009). In American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Houghton Miffin.

National Center for State Courts (1999). How the public views the state courts: A 1999
national survey. Washington, DC: Hearst Corporation.

PewResearch. (2006, August 1). Can the ‘dead tree’ newspaper survive? A roundtable
discussion among industry experts. PewResearch Center for the People & the Press.
Retrieved from http://people-press.org/2006/08/01/can-the-dead-tree-newspaper-
survive

PewResearch. (2012, September 27). In changing news landscape, even television is

vulnerable: Trends in news consumption: 1991-2012. PewResearch Center for the
People & the Press. Retrieved from
http://people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-
vulnerable

Podlas, K. (2001). Please adjust your signal: How television's syndicated courtrooms bias
our juror citizenry. American Business Law Journal, 39(1), 1-24.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1714.2001.tb00409.x

Roberts, J.V. & Doob, A.N. (1990). News media influences on public views of
sentencing. Law & Human Behavior, 14(5), 451-468. doi: 10.1007/BF0104422

Rottman, D. B. & Hansen, R. M. (2000). How recent court users view the state courts:
Perceptions of whites, African-americans, and latinos (199-IJ-CX-0021). Ann Arbor,
MI: National Institute of Justice.

Rottman, D. B., Hansen, R., Mott, N., & Grimes, L. (2000). Public Opinion on the Courts
in the United States, 2000 (ICPRS 3864). Ann Arbor, MI: National Institute of Justice

Rottman, D.B., Hansen, R., Mott, N., & Grimes, L. (2003). Perceptions of the Courts in

72
 Your Community: The Influence of Experience, Race and Ethnicity, Final Report.
(NCJ 201356). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice.

Rottman, D. B. & Tomkins, A. (1999). Public trust and confidence in the courts: What
public opinion surveys means to judges. Court Review: The Journal of the American
Judge Association, 36(3), 24-31. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/publicpolicytomkins/12

St. Amand, M. D., & Zamble, E. (2001). Impact of information about sentencing
decisions in public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Law & Human
Behavior, 25(5), 515-528. doi: 10.1023/A:1012844932754

Salerno, S. (2009). Criminal injustice. Skeptic, 15(1), 34-41.

Sclove, S. L. (2001). Notes on Likert Scales. Retrieved from

http://www.uic.edu/classes/idsc/ids270sls/likert.htm.

Sims, B., & Johnston, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A
statewide study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 270-293.
doi:10.1177/0887403403252668

Stein, K. (2001, November). Public perception of crime and justice in Canada: A review
of opinion polls RR2001-e. Executive Summary. Department of Justice Canada.
Retrieved from
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/justice/J3-2-2001-1-1E.pdf

Sun, I. Y. & Wu, Y. (2006). Citizens’ perception of the courts: The impact of race,
gender, and recent experience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(5), 457-467.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.001

Tyler, R. T. & Ho, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with
the police and court. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Warr, M. (2002). Public opinion and crime. In J. Dressler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Crime
and Justice (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1277-1282). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.library.capella.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3403000215&v=2.
1&u=minn04804&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=cc61cea75bc684ea70db3dab2d7236e3

Wheeler, M. (2008, Fall). How noninstitutionalized media change the relationship

between the public and media coverage of trials. 71 Law & Contemp. Prob. 135.
Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic.

Young, R. (2012). Don’t know responses in survey research (Doctoral dissertation).

73
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1033585402)

74
 APPENDIX A. QUESTIONS USED FROM THE ORIGINAL STUDY

1. Trial courts handle different types of cases. As you know, there are civil cases and
criminal cases but courts also handle other kinds of cases involving, for example, family
problems and juvenile delinquency. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the very lowest
rating and 5 being the very highest, please tell me how well you think the courts in your
community handle each of the following kinds of cases.

a. Criminal cases involving violence, such as robbery.

1 Lowest
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 Highest
6 Not familiar (ONLY IF RESPONDENT VOLUNTEERS THIS
INFO)
7 Don't Know
8 No Answer/Refuse
b. Criminal cases involving drug abusers or drunk drivers
1 Lowest
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 Highest
6 Not familiar (ONLY IF RESPONDENT VOLUNTEERS THIS
INFO)
8 Don't Know
9 No Answer/Refuse
2a. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being least favorable and 5 being most favorable, how
would you rate how you feel in general about the courts in your community? If you feel
neutral, use 3.
1 Least favorable
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 Most favorable
6 Don't Know
7 No Answer/Refuse

13. How important to you are the following sources of information to your overall
impression of how the courts in your community work? Are they very important,
somewhat important, or not at all important?
h. What you see on television news
1 Very important
2 Somewhat important
3 Not at all important
4 Don't Know
5 No Answer/Refuse

75
 i. What you read about court cases in newspapers
1 Very important
2 Somewhat important
3 Not at all important
4 Don't Know
5 No Answer/Refuse
j. What happens during Television Judge programs such as Judge Judy or the
People's Court?
1 Very important
2 Somewhat important
3 Not at all important
4 Don't Know
5 No Answer/Refuse

From Public Opinion on the Court in the United States, 2000 (ICPRS 3864), by David
Rottman, Randal Hansen, Nicole Mott, N, & Lynn Grimes, 2000, National Institute of
Justice. Copyright 2000 by United States Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programs. Reprinted with permission.

76
 APPENDIX B. STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL WORK

Academic Honesty Policy

Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy (3.01.01) holds learners accountable for
the integrity of work they submit, which includes but is not limited to discussion
postings, assignments, comprehensive exams, and the dissertation or capstone project.
Established in the Policy are the expectations for original work, rationale for the policy,
definition of terms that pertain to academic honesty and original work, and disciplinary
consequences of academic dishonesty. Also stated in the Policy is the expectation that
learners will follow APA rules for citing another person’s ideas or works.
The following standards for original work and definition of plagiarism are discussed in
the Policy:
Learners are expected to be the sole authors of their work and to acknowledge the
authorship of others’ work through proper citation and reference. Use of another
person’s ideas, including another learner’s, without proper reference or citation
constitutes plagiarism and academic dishonesty and is prohibited conduct. (p. 1)
Plagiarism is one example of academic dishonesty. Plagiarism is presenting
someone else’s ideas or work as your own. Plagiarism also includes copying
verbatim or rephrasing ideas without properly acknowledging the source by author,
date, and publication medium. (p. 2)

Capella University’s Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06) holds learners accountable for
research integrity. What constitutes research misconduct is discussed in the Policy:
Research misconduct includes but is not limited to falsification, fabrication,
plagiarism, misappropriation, or other practices that seriously deviate from those
that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing,
conducting, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (p. 1)

Learners failing to abide by these policies are subject to consequences, including but not
limited to dismissal or revocation of the degree.

77
 Statement of Original Work and Signature

I have read, understood, and abided by Capella University’s Academic Honesty Policy
(3.01.01) and Research Misconduct Policy (3.03.06), including the Policy Statements,
Rationale, and Definitions.
I attest that this dissertation or capstone project is my own work. Where I have used the
ideas or words of others, I have paraphrased, summarized, or used direct quotes following
the guidelines set forth in the APA Publication Manual.

Mentor name
and school Kevin Beaver, Capella University
Learner signature
and date Latarcia R. Barnes 030714

78