CCJS 100 – Criminal Justice Policy - DUE FRIDAY

4: Criminal Justice Policy

Learning Objectives

In this section, you will be introduced to policy in the criminal justice system. Policies that can be examined

include issues related to juvenile justice, drug legislation, intimate partner violence, prison overcrowding, school

safety, new federal immigration laws, terrorism, and national security. After reading this section, students will be

able to:

• Examine the relationship between theory, research, and policy.

• Understand the factors involved in creating moral panics.

• Identify the stages involved in creating policy.

• Understand the role of evidence-based practice in policy.

• Reflect on how current events and politics shape policy.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What is a current example of a moral panic?

2. How does the media help influence policy?

3. If the media has so much influence over policy, how can we ensure fair and just laws and practices?

4. Think of a crime problem in your area. What policy would you enact to combat it and how would you

evaluate this policy to see if it was working?

5. What are some policies you can think of that have changed over time? (eg. Marijuana legalization)?

137

4.1. Importance of Policy in Criminal Justice

ALISON S. BURKE

Why is Policy so Important in Criminal Justice? Everyone is affected by the criminal justice system through public policy. Policy represents social control

and ensures members of society are compliant and conform to the laws. Policies include issues related: to

juvenile justice, drug legislation, intimate partner violence, prison overcrowding, school safety, new federal

immigration laws, terrorism, and national security.

Modern-day crime policies can be traced to changes in crime and delinquency in the 1960s. That decade

saw major increases in the crime rate along with widespread social unrest as a result of the Vietnam War and

the Civil Rights movement. The work of the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the

Administration of Justice highlighted the crime problem, and the criminal justice system’s failure to address

the problem. The commission called for new approaches, programs, policies, funding models, and research

on the cause of crime. In addressing the causes of crime (theory), and using appropriate data collection

(research), effective policies and programs could be proposed.

139

Theory-Policy-Research

When discussing crime policies, it is important to understand the difference between “crime prevention”

and “crime control.” Policies and programs designed to reduce crime are crime prevention

techniques. Specifically, crime prevention “entails any action designed to reduce the actual level of crime and/or the perceived fear of crime.”

1 On the other hand, crime control alludes to the maintenance of

the crime level. Policies, such as the three strikes law or Measure 11, seek to prevent future crime by

incapacitating offenders through incarceration. Other policies like sex offender registration acknowledge

that sex offenders exist and registering them will control the level of deviation, sometimes preventing-or

perceiving to prevent future offenses.

Public policies and laws are created at different levels of government, with micro-level policies enacted on

the local level and macro level applied at the federal or state level. For example, at the local level, some towns

and cities might create specific ordinances tailored to their unique needs, such as banning cigarette smoking

in the downtown area. At the federal level, policies are created that apply to the federal criminal justice

system and can apply to states as well. However, federal laws can differ from state laws, such as marijuana

legalization. Individual organizations can also make policies that address their individual agency needs, such

as requirements for local police officers. Therefore, depending on who creates the policies, they can be far-

reaching or extremely localized. 2

Fake News Exercise

1. Lab, S. (2016). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations. (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 2. Lab, S P., Williams, M.R. Holcomb, J.E., Burek, M.W., King, W.R., & Buerger, M.E. (2013). Criminal Justice: The Essentials (3rd ed.).

New York, NY. Oxford University Press.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

140

Fake News has received a lot of press lately. In fact “fake news” was the top word in 2017. For people under 30,

online news is more popular than TV news and people under 50 get half of their news from online sources.

Here are 4 steps for evaluating News:

1. Vet the Publisher’s Credibility.

• What is the domain name? A domain name that ends with “.com.co” is not to be trusted. Something

like abcnews.com looks legit, but if it is listed as abcnews.com.co, be wary.

• What is the publication’s point of view? Check out the “About Us” section to learn more about the

publishers. It will also tell you if the publication is meant to be satirical, like the Onion.

2. Pay Attention to Writing Quality.

• Does the publication have all caps or way too many emphatic punctuation marks?!?!?!? Proper

reporting does not adhere to such informal grammar. The article you are reading is probably not vetted.

3. Check out the Sources and Citations.

• Does the publisher meet academic citation standards? Your teachers and professors constantly tell you

to cite and reference appropriately. This is how we can check your sources. The same is true for online

news. Check the sources.

Ask the Pros

• Check out fact-checking websites like factcheck.org

Read more at https://www.summer.harvard.edu/inside-summer/4-tips-spotting-fake-news-story

Take the Fake News Quiz! https://www.channelone.com/feature/quiz-can-you-spot-the-fake-news-story/

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

141

4.2. The Myth of Moral Panics

ALISON S. BURKE

Moral panic has been defined as a situation in which public fears and state interventions greatly exceed the objective threat posed to society by a particular individual or group who is/are claimed to be responsible for

creating the threat in the first place. 1

Moral panics arise when distorted mass media campaigns create fear and reinforce previously held or

stereotyped beliefs, frequently centered around ethnicity, religion, or social class. Often, moral panics occur

swiftly, focusing attention on the behavior and then fluctuating concern over time. The most problematic

aspect of the moral panic is that the hysteria often results in a need to “do something” about the issue and

most commonly “results in the passing of legislation that is highly punitive, unnecessary, and serves to justify

the agendas of those in positions of power and authority.” Moral panics focus attention on what we should

fear and who we should blame for that fear. Instigators of moral panics frequently misinterpret data for their

own agenda. Cohen (1972) said at least five sets of social actors are involved in a moral panic. These include

1) folk devils, 2) rule or law enforcers, 3) the media, 4) politicians, and 5) the public. 2

Moral Panics, Sex Offender Registration, and Youth

In her article, “There Are Too Many Kids on the Sex Offender Registry,” Lenore Skensazy discusses the

unpopular view that perhaps sex offender registration is more harmful than helpful.

The purpose of sex offender registries is to prevent one of the worst of the worst crimes: sexual assault.

However, Roger Lancaster, author of “Sex Panic and the Punitive State” suggests that “Only a tiny fraction

of sex crimes against children are committed by people who are on the registry.” About 5 percent of people

on the list go on to commit another crime, a far lower recidivism rate than almost any other class of

criminals, including drug dealers, arsonists, and muggers (Skenazy, 2018, para 4).

1. Bon, S.A (2015, July 20). Moral Panic: Who benefits from fear? Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked- deeds/201507/moral-panic-who-benefits-public-fear

2. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. London: MacGibbon and Key Ltd.

142

“Available research indicates that sex offenders, and particularly people who commit sex offenses as

children, are among the least likely to re-offend,” Human Rights Watch has found. Furthermore, the U.S.

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the “single age with the greatest number of offenders from the

perspective of law enforcement was age 14.” This means that 14-year-olds, more than any other age, are

being placed on a lifetime registry.

Sometimes this results from minors engaging in consensual sexual encounters simply because they are

underage and cannot legally consent. And in some states, sexual contact is not required to end up on

the registry. In some instances, sexting under the age of 18 is a felony and can earn someone a place on

the registry. Until recently, Missouri offenders were grouped together in one category regardless of the

offense so individuals who urinated in public endured lifelong registration and were categorized with the

worst of the rapists and molesters. There was no distinction or tier structure.

Is lifelong registration appropriate punishment or is it being strictly punitive? Most offenders serve their

time in prison and therefore serve their debt to society. This is not the case with life long sex offender

registrants who can’t live near a school, park, or playground and must report to authorities anytime they

get a new job, a new place to live, or even a new hairstyle. They can never fully re-enter society and are

seen as never being able to be rehabilitated.

All these requirements are based on the “flawed but pervasive idea that those convicted of sex offenses

became incurable and predatory monsters requiring—and deserving—lifetime punishment,” writes Emily

Horowitz, a professor of sociology at St. Francis College and author of two books on this subject.

What would happen if the registry were to disappear? All other criminal laws would remain in place,

including increased penalties for repeat offenses. Only the list, and the dehumanization it wreaks would be

gone.

“If my child was victimized, I’d want to kill a person,” Horowitz says. “But what if my child was a

victimizer? I’d also want them to have a chance” (Skenazy, 2018, para 15).

Read more at: https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/there-are-too-many-kids-on-the

Ted Talk: How Fake News Does Real Harm

https://www.ted.com/talks/stephanie_busari_how_fake_news_does_real_harm?language=en

First, folk devils are the people who are blamed for being allegedly responsible for the threat to society. Folk devils are completely negative and have no redeeming qualities. This is how juvenile offenders, or “super-

predators” as they were referred to in the 1990s. The narrative went like this:

We’re talking about kids who have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future….And

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

143

make no mistake. While the trouble will be greatest in black inner-city neighborhoods, other places are

also certain to have burgeoning youth-crime problems that will spill over into upscale central-city districts,

inner-ring suburbs, and even the rural heartland…They kill or maim on impulse, without any intelligible

motive…The buzz of impulsive violence, the vacant stares and smiles, and the remorseless eyes…they

quite literally have no concept of the future….they place zero value on the lives of their victims, whom

they reflexively dehumanize…capable of committing the most heinous acts of physical violence for the

most trivial reasons…for as long as their youthful energies hold out, they will do what comes “naturally”:

murder, rape, rob, assault, burglarize, deal deadly drugs, and get high. 3

Folk devils are the embodiment

of evil and center stage of the moral panic drama. They have no redeeming qualities so it is easy for the

population to fear and hate them.

Second, the police or other law enforcement officials (prosecutors or even the military) are essential

for propagating the moral panic since they are responsible for upholding and enforcing codes of conduct

and expectations of the citizens. They are expected to protect society from the folk devils by detecting,

apprehending, and punishing their evil ways. Furthermore, the moral panic can offer law enforcement

legitimacy as moral crusaders and protectors. Law enforcement has a purpose to defend society and rid it of

the folk devils which threaten their safety and well being.

Third, the media are particularly powerful in creating and advancing the moral panic. Generally, news

media coverage of folk devils is often skewed and exaggerated. The media coverage often displays the folk

devils as much more threatening to society than they really are. Journalists feed public anxiety and fear,

which heightens the moral panic. Media influences policy in two ways:

(1) they select the “important” issues (agenda setting),

(2) they problematize policy by attaching meaning to it. In this way, the frame and construct the

narratives.

Agenda setting is the way the media draw the public’s eye to a specific topic. Framing refers to a type of agenda setting in a prepackaged way and narratives are about the story that is told. Said another way, framing focuses on the broad categories, segments, or angles through which a story can be told. Frames

include factual and interpretive claims that allow people to organize events and experiences into groups.

Narrative construction involves decisions by storytellers that determine the specific characters, plot, causal

implications, and policy solutions presented. Narratives are pictures that the public already accepts and

embraces (See Table 1 for examples of criminal justice frames and narratives). Journalists and reporters are

taught to tell stories through first-hand accounts and experiences people have because audiences care about

these human experiences and their stories more than they care about abstract societal issues. In theory, then,

journalists and reporters are the gatekeepers to the information and they choose how they organize and

present ideas to the public. This helps us create social meaning from events or actions (See Table 2 for

framing techniques). 4

Table 1: Criminal Justice Frames and Examples of Narratives

3. Dilulio. (1995). https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-j-dilulio-jr/the-coming-of-the-super-predators 4. Crow, D.A., & Lawlor, A. (2016). Media in the policy process: Using framing and narratives to understand policy influences. Review of

Policy Research. 33(5): 472-495

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

144

Frame Cause Policy

Faulty system Crime stems from criminal justiceleniency and inefficiency. The criminal justice system needs to get tough on crime

Blocked opportunities

Crime stems from poverty and inequality

The government must address the “root causes” of crime by creating jobs and reducing poverty.

Social breakdown

Crime stems from family and community breakdown Citizens should band together to recreate traditional communities.

Racist system The criminal justice system operates ina racist fashion African Americans should band together to demand justice

Violent media Crime stems from violence in the massmedia The government should regulate violent imagery in the media

Narrative Costume Characteristic

The PI Cheap suit and car Loner, cynical, shrewd, shady but dogged

The rogue cop Plainclothes, disguise, often has specialhigh tech equipment Maverick, smart, irreverent, violent but effective

The sadistic guard Unkempt uniform

Low intelligence, violent, racist, sexist, perverted, and enjoys cruelty, inflicting pain, and humiliation

The corrupt lawyer Expensive suite and office

Smart, greedy, manipulative, dishonest, smooth talker and liar, able to twist words, logic, and morality

The greedy businessman

Very expensive office and home, trophy wife

Very smart, decisive, and a polished, unquenchable sometimes psychotic need for power and wealth

[Footnote]Surette, R. (2011). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images, realities, and policies (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. [/footnote]

Table 2: Framing Techniques

Framing techniques per Fairhurst and Sarr (1996):

• Metaphor: To frame a conceptual idea through comparison to something else.

• Stories (myths, legends): To frame a topic via narrative in a vivid and memorable way.

• Tradition (rituals, ceremonies): Cultural mores that imbue significance in the mundane, closely tied to artifacts.

• Slogan, jargon, catchphrase: To frame an object with a catchy phrase to make it more memorable and relate-able.

• Artifact: Objects with intrinsic symbolic value – a visual/cultural phenomenon that holds more meaning than the object itself.

• Contrast: To describe an object in terms of what it is not.

• Spin: to present a concept in such a way as to convey a value judgment (positive or negative) that might not be immediately apparent; to create an inherent bias by definition. (Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. 1996. The art of Framing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

145

Fourth, politicians are also protagonists in a moral panic. They spin the public opinion and present

themselves as the safeguards of the moral high ground. They are similar to law enforcement in this drama

and they have an obligation to protect society from folk devils.

The fifth and final category of moral panic is the public. The public is the most important actor on the

stage. Public anxiety and fear over the folk devils is the central theme of moral panics. A moral panic only

exists because the public cries out for policymakers and law enforcement to “do something” and save them

from the alleged threat that has been created.

Carlson, M. (2018). Fake news as an informal moral panic: The symbolic deviance of social media during

the 2016 US presidential election. Information, Communication, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369118X.2018.1505934

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1505934?journalCode=rics20

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

146

4.3. The Stages of Policy Development

ALISON S. BURKE

The stages of policy development can generally be categorized into 5 general stages. U.S. policy

development encompasses several stages. Most policy models generally include the following stages: (1)

identifying the issue to be addressed by the proposed policy, (2) placement on the agenda, (3) formulation

of the policy, (4) implementation of the policy, and (5) evaluation of the policy. This is similar to the

community police response acronym SARA (scanning, analysis, response, and assessment) and uses some of

the same techniques, but on a much bigger, national level.

Dangerous Myths about Juvenile Sex Offenders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=81hy3AZjkr4

Identifying the Problem and Agenda Setting Identifying the problem involves addressing what is happening and why it is an issue. In criminal justice,

this might look at the increase of opioid use and overdoses or acts of youth violence. Once the issue is

identified, there can be a serious debate about the plans of the policy. Once it is decided what the policy will

look like, it is placed on the agenda. This is perhaps the most politicized part of the process as it involves

many different stakeholders. It involves identifying the legislative, regulatory, judicial, or other institutions

responsible for policy adoption and formulation.

Formulation and Adoption The next stage involved adopting the policy. Depending on the nature of the policy, this could involve a

new law or an executive order.

Implementation of the Policy Implementation is about moving forward, taking action, and spending money. It involves hiring new staff

or additional police officers. This is where policies often stall because of the lack of funding. For example,

a popular program in 1990, Weed and Seed, involved “weeding” out criminals (targeting arrest efforts) and

“seeding” new programs (instituting after-school programs, drug treatment facilities, etc.). The weeding

147

portion of the program was a great success, but the program ultimately failed because of a lack of funding to

adequately seed new community programming. Funding is a major roadblock for proper implementation.

Evaluation Finally, the evaluation examines the efficacy of the policy. There are three different types of evaluation:

Impact, Process, and Cost-benefit analysis. Impact (outcome) evaluations focus on what changes after the introduction of the crime policy.

1 Changes in police patrol practices aimed at reducing the level of

residential burglaries in an area are evaluated in terms of subsequent burglaries. The difficulty with impact

evaluations is that changes in the crime rate are rarely, if ever, due to a single intervening variable. For

example, after the implementation of curfew laws for juvenile offenders, juvenile crime decreased. Can

we say that was because of curfew laws? The entire crime rate for America decreased at the same time.

Attributing a single outcome based on a solitary intervention is problematic.

Process evaluations consider the implementation of a policy or program and involve determining the procedure used to implement the policy. These are detailed, descriptive accounts of the implementation of

the policy including the goals of the program, who is involved, the level of training, the number of clients

served, and changes to the program over time. 2

Unfortunately, process evaluations do not address the actual

impact policy has on the crime problem, just what was done about a specific issue or who was involved.

While this is indeed a limitation, it is essential to know the inner workings of a program or policy if it is to

be replicated.

Cost-benefit evaluations, or analysis, seeks to determine if the costs of a policy are justified by the benefits accrued. A ubiquitous example of this would be an evaluation of the popular anti-drug D.A.R.E.

program of the 1980s and 1990s. The D.A.R.E. program was a school-based prevention program aimed at

preventing drug use among elementary school-aged children. Rigorous evaluations of the program show

that it was ineffective and sometimes actually increased drug use in some youth. The cost of this program

was roughly $1.3 billion dollars a year (about $173 to $268 per student per year) to implement nationwide

(once all related expenses, such as police officer training and services, materials and supplies, school resources,

etc., were factored in). 3

Using a cost-benefit analysis, is that a good use of money to support an ineffective

program?

Policy formation is often a knee-jerk reaction to the current problem. Many policies are the result of

grassroots efforts to change something in their communities. For example, let us pretend the issue is youth

crime in our city. Kids are roaming the streets like packs of wild dogs, jeering at the elderly, and generally

making us feel unsafe. A proposed policy might be to hold parents accountable for their child’s misbehavior.

If parents are responsible, then they will take better care of their kids, right? Take, for example, Little Skippy.

He’s kind of a jerk. He smokes, curses, and recently stole his neighbor’s car. Arrested after crashing into the

drive-thru sign at the local Taco Bell, based on parental responsibility law, his mom and dad are to blame for

his reckless driving fiasco. Let’s look at the policy process.

1. Lab, S. (2016). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 2. Lab, S. (2016). Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 3. Shepard, E. (Winter 2001-2002) A new study finds. We wasted billions on D.A.R.E. Reconsider Quarterly,

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

148

1. How can this be instituted? Fine the parent? Sentence the parents to jail time? The policy

needs to be a concrete solution to a problem. Many states use fines instead of jailing the parents.

(Who’s to watch over the children if the parents are locked up?) Fines sound great. This will

make sure parents take an active interest in their children because they do not want to have to

pay money if their kid gets into trouble.

2. Who needs to be involved in lobbying for this law? Legislators? Senators? Local police?

Maybe even city officials, local school boards, and religious organizations. So it’s put on the

agenda and gets moved onto a ballot for an official vote. The citizens who think their city needs

to be tough on crime vote to approve this policy.

3. Bam, it’s law. It is implemented and now parents of juveniles delinquents are charged

fines. This actually is a law in nearly every state. In the 1990s, Silverton, Oregon, was a

model for communities interested in imposing ordinances that hold parents accountable for

their children’s behavior. In Silverton, parents can be fined up to $1,000 if their child is

found carrying a gun, smoking cigarettes, or using illegal drugs. Parents who agree to attend

parenting classes can avoid fines. Within the first two months after the law was passed in early

1995, seven parents were fined and many others registered for parenting classes.

Oregon has ORS 30.761 (2017), which states:

(1)In addition to any other remedy provided by law, the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor

child shall be liable for actual damages to person or property caused by any tort intentionally or recklessly

committed by such child. However, a parent who is not entitled to legal custody of the minor child at the

time of the intentional or reckless tort shall not be liable for such damages.

(2) The legal obligation of the parent or parents of an unemancipated minor child to pay damages under

this section shall be limited to not more than $7,500, payable to the same claimant, for one or more acts.

4. It is law, but is it effective? The evaluation stage of policy is critical. The goal is to curb youth crime

and we might expect to see a decrease in the juvenile crime rate. However, charging parents fines for the

misdeeds of their children actually increases recidivism! It’s true! A study of 1,167 youth in Pennsylvania found that the total amount of fines, fees and/or restitution significantly increased the likelihood of

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

149

recidivism 4 . Justice system–imposed financial penalties increase the likelihood of recidivism in a sample of

adolescent offenders 5

In particular, males, non-whites, and youth with prior dispositions and adjudicated

with a drug or property offense were at an increased likelihood of recidivism associated with owing fines

and fees (Piquero and Jennings, 2016). This is problematic as fees not only increase recidivism but also

increase the likelihood of a “revolving door” juvenile justice system for minority youth.

In the end, what is law is not always effective and what is effective is not always law. This is where evidence-

based practices come in.

4. Piquero and Jennings, 2016, Piquero, A. and Jennings, W.G. (2015) 5. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15 (3) p. 325-340).

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

150

4.4. Importance of Evidence Based Practices

ALISON S. BURKE

In the 1970s, Martin Robinson issued his infamous claim that “nothing works” in rehabilitating offenders. 1

In the 1980s, numerous research studies were published that contradicted this claim and proposed

alternative approaches to combating crime and effective interventions. Since then, countless researchers,

agencies, and even Congress have adopted the need to create comprehensive evaluations of effective

programs.

Evidence-based practices mean utilizing research in pursuit of identifying programs, policy initiatives, or

practices that work. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) “considers programs and practices to be evidence-

based when their effectiveness has been demonstrated by causal evidence, generally obtained through high-

quality outcome evaluations,” and notes that “causal evidence depends on the use of scientific methods to

rule out, to the extent possible, alternative explanations for the documented change.” 2

National research

clearinghouses are great resources for systematic literature reviews of effective public programs across a

plethora of areas, such as:

• the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse,

• the U.S. Department of Justice’s CrimeSolutions.gov,

• Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development,

• the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-

Based Programs and Practices,

• the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare,

• What Works in Reentry, and the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy.

With evidence-based practices comes evidence-based policymaking. Evidence-based policy-making

identifies what works, enables policymakers to use evidence in deciding budgets and policy, identifies where

there are gaps or information is lacking, monitors and measures key outcomes, and continuously uses the

1. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? - questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35: 22-54. 2. Crimesolutions.gov glossary (www.crimesolutions.gov/glossary).

151

information to improve performance and objectives. 3

The goal is to create a policy that can be enforced

consistently and can withstand political change.

Steps in Evidence-Based Policy Making

3. Pew-McArthur Report. (2014).

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

152

4.5. Re-Evaluating Policy

ALISON S. BURKE

Policies represent the current political climate and it is necessary to revisit and change them as necessary.

For example, in 1787, only white men over 21 could vote, and the President could serve for as long as he

was elected. Obviously, this changed. In the criminal justice world, many crimes are socially constructed and

mala prohibita rather than mala in se, so creating laws and policies around them is as short-lived and fleeting as the new most popular meme. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment states (1917):

“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of

intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United

States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

At the time, it was believed alcohol was the cause of crime, poverty, and social ills. Policy makers believed

that the prohibition of alcohol (1920-33), or the “noble experiment” as it was called, would reduce crime and

corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve

health and hygiene in America. 1

As you know, the experiment was an absolute failure. Crime actually

increased and became organized, alcohol became more dangerous to drink because of the lack of regulations

on bootlegged and black market production, corruption of public officials was rampant, and courts and

prisons were stretched to capacity.

Prohibition was eventually repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. There are many more laws and

policies enacted every year in the United States that represent a current political climate or agenda. It is

necessary, therefore, to reevaluate these policies, apply research the scientific method to assess their efficacy,

and change modifies or repeal the laws as society changes. The United States Constitution is a living

document, as are laws and policies.

Bizarre, Weird, and Funny Laws

As mentioned in this chapter, laws, and policies need to be revised and amended. Here are a few examples of

outdated, bizarre, and just plain old funny laws from around the country.

1. Thornton, M. (1991). Alcohol prohibition was a failure. Policy Analysis, 157:1-12. Retrieved https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/ pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf]

153

Alabama: No stink bombs or confetti, spray string or bathing in public fountains.

Alaska: It is illegal to get drunk or be drunk in a bar.

Arizona: It is unlawful to spit “in or on” any public building, park, sidewalk, or road. Furthermore, if you are

caught stealing soap, you must wash until the bar of soap has been completely used up.

Arkansas: Strictly prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas” incorrectly.

California: It is illegal to build, maintain, or use a nuclear weapon within Chico, California city limits.

Colorado: It is illegal to drive a black car on Sundays in Denver.

Connecticut: A pickle cannot be sold unless it bounces.

Delaware: No trick or treating on Sunday. If Halloween falls on a Sunday, door to door trick or treating must

happen on Saturday, October 30th.

Florida: It is a felony to sell your children. And if an elephant is left tied to a parking meter the parking fee has to

be paid.

Georgia: It is unlawful to eat fried chicken with utensils. “Finger lickin” good was made into law in 1961.

Hawaii: Billboards are strictly prohibited.

Idaho: It is illegal to engage in cannibalism or “non-consensual consumption” of another human. It is also illegal

for a man to give his fiancé a box of candy that weighs more than 50 lbs (22.5 kg).

Illinois: Fancy bike riding is a big no-no.

Indiana: Black cats must wear bells on Friday the 13th. And baths may not be taken between the months of

October and March.

Iowa: It is illegal to pass off margarine as butter and is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $625 fine.

Kansas: It is illegal to throw snowballs in Topeka.

Kentucky: Public officials must swear to not having been engaged in a duel with weapons.

Louisiana: It is illegal to steal another person’s crawfish.

Maine: It is illegal to use tombstones for advertising.

Maryland: It is illegal to swear or curse upon any street or highway in Rockville.

Massachusetts: You cannot dance to the national anthem.

Michigan: Before 2006, it was encouraged to kill starlings and crows.

Minnesota: Pig greasing competitions and turkey scrambles are considered misdemeanors. Furthermore, citizens

may not enter Wisconsin with a chicken on their head.

Mississippi: No limit on Big Gulp sizes.

Missouri: It is illegal to swing upon another person’s motor vehicle and honk their horn for them.

Montana: It is illegal to play Frisbee golf in non-designated areas.

Nebraska: No person afflicted with a venereal disease may get married.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

154

Nevada: In Eureka, it is illegal for you to kiss a woman if you have mustaches.

New Hampshire: It is unlawful to collect seaweed at night.

New Jersey: You may not murder someone while you are wearing a bulletproof vest.

New Mexico: It’s forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public (Carrizozo, New Mexico).

New York: Sliced or “altered” bagels carry an eight cents sales tax.

North Carolina: It’s against the law to sing off-key.

North Dakota: It is illegal to set off fireworks after 11 pm.

Ohio: Coal mines must provide toilet paper. And it is illegal to get fish drunk.

Oklahoma: It is illegal to be involved in a horse tripping event or wrestle a bear.

Oregon: Engaging in a test of physical endurance while driving is strictly prohibited.

Pennsylvania: It is illegal to sing in the bath and to use dynamite to catch fish.

Rhode Island: It is unlawful to impersonate an auctioneer.

South Carolina: It is illegal to work or dance on Sundays.

South Dakota: Farmers can set off fireworks to protect their sunflower crops.

Tennessee: Panhandlers must apply for a permit.

Texas: A program has been created that attempts to modify and control the weather. Additionally, you can be

considered legally married by publicly announcing a person as your wife/husband by saying it 3 times.

Utah: It is illegal to fish with a crossbow.

Vermont: A woman cannot wear false teeth without her husband’s permission.

Virginia: It’s against the law for a woman to drive a car in Main Street unless her husband is walking in front of

the car waving a red flag.

Washington: You cannot buy meat of any kind on Sunday. Additionally, a motorist with criminal intentions

must stop at the city limits and telephone the chief of police as he is entering the town. Most importantly, you can

be arrested or fined for harassing Bigfoot.

West Virginia: While whistling underwater is prohibited, you may take roadkill home for supper.

Wisconsin: It is illegal to serve margarine and their cheese must be “highly pleasing.”

Wyoming: You may not take a picture of a rabbit from January to April without an official permit.

2

Conclusion We can look at criminal justice policy through three perspectives: theoretical, political, and practical. The

2. Isaac. J. (2009). The Wacky World of Laws. San Diego, CA: Lawyer In Blue Jeans Group Publishing. Reader’s Digest Editors (n.d.). Here are 50 of the dumbest laws in every state. Reader’s Digest. Retrieved: https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/dumbest-laws-america/ Triangle Realty. (2018). Unusual Laws in Texas. Retrieved https://www.trianglerealtyllc.com/unusual-laws-in-texas/

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

155

theoretical perspective enables us to better understand the causes and consequences of crime and what can

be done insofar as crime control or prevention. By researching the theory behind the crime, we can better

implement effective policies. From a political perspective, studying policy confirms the need for evidence-

based practices and decisions based on research rather than fear and haphazard agenda setting. And finally,

the policy is practical. It utilizes theory, research, evidence-based practices to solve practical problems in the

world around us.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

156

5: Criminological Theory

Learning Objectives

This section introduces the importance of theory and theory creation. It also briefly describes some of the major

paradigms of criminal explanations. After reading this section, students will be able to:

• Distinguish between classical, biological, psychological, and sociological explanations of criminal

behavior.

• Understand the links between crime control policy and theories of criminal behavior.

• Demonstrate effective application of criminological theories to behavior.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How do we know what theories explain crime better than other theories?

2. How did the classical theory of crime influence the American criminal justice system?

3. Why is it difficult to study biological theories of crime without thinking about the social

environment?

4. Which theory do you think explains criminal behavior the best? Why?

5. Why do you think there have been so many different explanations to describe the origins of criminal

behavior?

157

5.1. What is Theory?

BRIAN FEDOREK

A theory is an explanation to make sense of our observations about the world. We test hypotheses and create theories that help us understand and explain the phenomena. According to Paternoster and Bachman (2001),

theories should attempt to portray the world accurately and must “fit the facts.” 1

Criminological theories

focus on explaining the causes of crime. They explain why some people commit a crime, identify risk factors

for committing a crime, and can focus on how and why certain laws are created and enforced. Sutherland

(1934) has referred to criminology as the scientific study of breaking the law, making the law, and society’s

reaction to those who break the law. 2

Besides making sense of our observations, theories also strive to make

predictions. If we understand why crime is happening, we can formulate policies or programs to minimize

it.

The building blocks of any theory are concepts. Crime, delinquency, and deviance are all concepts that

need to be defined. We seek to explain these concepts with other concepts. For example, some theories

may link crime with self-control. Self-control is another concept that needs to be defined. Once we define

“crime” and “self-control”, we need to measure them. Operationalization is the process of determining how

we will measure concepts, which are called variables. We could measure self-control in a number of different

ways. For example, we could test a person’s ability to resist temptation (The Marshmallow Test). Once we

test the relationship between two variables, we also need to make sure another variable is not affecting the

results. Spuriousness is when a third variable is causing the other two. We know that ice cream sales and

murder rates are positively correlated; when one goes up the other goes up. At first glance, someone may

claim that ice cream is causing people to kill. However, what do you think might be a better explanation?

Can you think of a third variable that might cause ice cream sales and murder rates to increase?

When we try to explain why crime occurs, we can look at it from many different perspectives. We can

create macro-level explanations and micro-level explanations. Macro-level explanations focus on group rate

differences. For example, why do some countries have more (or less) violent crime than others? Why do

young people commit more crime than older people? Why do males commit more crime than females?

Micro-level explanations center on differences among individuals. Macro-level explanations focus on societal

structures while micro-level explanations focus on processual differences.

1. Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (Eds.) (2001). Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Sutherland, E.H. (1934). Principles of criminology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

159

It’s “Just” a Theory Exercise

Many laypeople will give their opinions on the relationship between phenomenon based on their hunches or

observations; these are not theories. A theory explains and interprets the facts. A proper scientific theory must be

falsifiable. Criminologists who create theories test their hypotheses. Many times the theorist will modify his or her

theory based on the research. Upon more investigation, those theories that have yet to be falsified become accepted

as a valid description between the phenomenon.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has yet to be falsified. There are numerous unanswered questions, but as time goes

by, scientists are discovering more and more evidence to support the theory.

When I was an undergraduate student, I majored in Psychology; I thought I was in control of everything about

me. However, when I took my first criminology class, I realized the social environment also had an impact on who

I was becoming. For example, I did not choose my parents, their income, how many siblings I had, or where I lived.

Each of those had an impact on who I was and who I became friends with in my childhood. Most of my childhood

friends, who are still my friends, may have been based solely on how far away they lived from my parents instead

of their character, interests, or personality. What do you think?

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

160

5.2. What Makes a Good Theory?

BRIAN FEDOREK

Numerous criminological theories attempt to explain why people commit a crime. What makes one better

than another? How do we judge theories against each other? The natural and physical sciences mostly agree

on the knowledge of their disciplines. However, criminology is interdisciplinary, and many criminologists

may not agree on what causes criminal behavior. For instance, Cooper, Walsh, and Ellis (2010) have looked

at the political ideology of criminologists and their preferred or favored theories. Even one’s political leanings

can influence a person’s set of beliefs about the causes of crime. 1

We must apply the scientific criteria to test our theories. Akers and Sellers (2013) have established a set of

criteria to judge criminological theories: logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity,

and usefulness. 2

Logical consistency is the basic building block of any theory. It refers to a theory’s ability

to “make sense”. Is it logical? Is it internally consistent? A theory’s scope refers to its range, or ranges, of

explanations. Does it explain crimes committed by males AND females? Does it explain ALL crimes or just

property crime? Does it explain the crime committed by ALL ages or just juveniles? Better theories will have

a wider scope or a larger range of explanation.

A parsimonious theory is concise, elegant, and simple. There are not too many constructs or hypotheses.

Simply put, parsimony refers to a theory’s “simplicity”. A good scientific theory needs to be testable too. It

must be open to possible falsification. “Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed

to refutation than others; they take, as it were, greater risks…One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” (Popper, 1965, pp. 36-37). 3

After many tests and different approaches to research, those theories supported by evidence have empirical

validity. Thus, according to Gibbs (1990), the verification or repudiation of a given theory through empirical

research is the most important principle to judge a theory. 4

Finally, all theories will suggest how to control, prevent, or reduce crime through policy or program. The

1. Cooper, J., Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2010). Is criminology ripe for a paradigm shift? Evidence from a survey of American criminologists. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2, 332-347.

2. Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. New York: Oxford. 3. Popper, K.R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper Torchbooks. 4. Gibbs, J.P. (1990). The notion of theory in sociology. National Journal of Sociology, 4, 129-159.

161

premise of a particular theory will guide policy-makers. For example, if a theory suggested that juveniles

learn how to commit crime through a network of delinquent peers, policymakers will try to identify

juveniles at-risk for joining delinquent subcultures.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

162

5.3. Pre-Classical Theory

BRIAN FEDOREK

Comte (1851) was interested in epistemology, or in other words, how humans obtain valid knowledge.

He claimed human being’s progression of knowledge went through three separate stages – theological,

metaphysical, and scientific. 1

The theological stage used supernatural or otherworldly powers to explain

behaviors, the metaphysical used rational and logical arguments, and the scientific used positivism and

scientific inquiry. During the middle ages, spiritual explanations assumed human beings broke laws or did

not conform to conventional norms of society because he or she possessed by demons, the devil, or he or

she was a wizard or witch. These explanations assumed God-given “natural law”; thus, crime was equivalent

to sin. Governments had the moral authority to punish criminals/sinners and the state was acting on behalf

of God. As a result, the accused person could “prove” their innocence by a trial by battle (only the victor

is innocent) or trial by ordeal (innocent party would be unharmed while the guilty party would feel pain).

As you can imagine, punishments and justice were arbitrary and severe, especially when feudal lords, with

God’s permission, determined guilt. A person’s rank, status, and or wealth determined their punishment,

rather than the merits of the case at hand.

1. Comte, A. (1877). System of positive polity (4th vol.). New York: Burt Franklin.

163

5.4. Classical School

BRIAN FEDOREK

During the Enlightenment, citizens and social thinkers began to question how they were ruled. In the

Leviathan (1651), Hobbes made a few assumptions about human beings. 1

He assumed humans were at

conflict with one another, pursued their self-interests, and were rational. Moreover, people would create

authority figures out of fear of others, and people should democratically create rules that all citizens must

follow. Hobbes wanted a new type of government, one that was ruled by the people and not by monarchs.

He believed people had natural rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we grant the

assumption that people are rational, we would assume people have the ability to consider the possible

consequences of their actions. Hobbes was one of the first social contract thinkers. Social contract thinkers

believed people would invest in the laws of their society if, and only if, they know government protected

them from those who break the law. People will give up a little of their self-interests as long as everyone

reciprocates.

Building on Hobbes and other social contract thinkers at the time, humans were assumed to have free will

and were rational beings. We can choose one action over another based on perceived benefits and possible

consequences. Moreover, human beings are hedonistic. Hedonism is the assumption that people will see maximum pleasure and avoid pain (punishment). Consequently, if we grant the assumptions of classical

theory, we can hold people 100% responsible for their actions because it was a choice. These assumptions

have been the basis for the American criminal justice system since its inception. Although theories may

have changed the landscape of understanding criminal behavior and may have changed the philosophies of

punishments over time, the criminal justice system has maintained the assumption that crime is a choice.

Hence, we can hold offenders 100% responsible for their actions.

Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) was an Italian mathematician and economist. He was shocked by the unfair

treatment of the accused. In protest, he anonymously wrote An Essay on Crimes and Punishment (1764), which attacked Europe’s use of harsh treatment.

2 Ideally, he wanted to change the excessive and cruel

punishment by applying rationalistic, social contract ideas. At the time, judges had tremendous power to

determine guilt and create laws based on their decisions. Intellectuals well received his essay at the time, but

the Catholic Church banned it. His ideas were exceptionally radical at the time, mainly because his writing

questioned the power structures at the time.

1. Hobbes, T. (1651/1968). Leviathan. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books. 2. Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishments (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merril. (Original work published in 1764)

164

Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria (1738-1794)

Beccaria laid out his ideas about legal reform including how and why to create effective punishments.

His Essay was highly influential during the Enlightenment, and it may have served as a model during the creation of the American Criminal Justice system. For example, Beccaria advocated that punishments should

fit the crime and be proportional to the harm done, laws should only be determined by the legislature, judges

should only determine guilt, and every person should be treated equally under the law. He claimed the sole

purpose of the law was to deter people from committing the crime. Deterrence can be accomplished if the

punishment is certain, swift, and severe. These may seem like common sense today, but they were considered

radical ideas at the time.

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was an English philosopher and regarded as a founder of utilitarianism,

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

165

which is the belief that decisions are considered right or wrong depending on their effect. He believed a

person’s expectation of the future was most predictive for deterrence. Therefore, the utility of punishment

should be severe enough to deter people from crime. Punishment would promote happiness throughout

society by maximizing social benefits. He helped popularize classical theory throughout Europe. 3

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

3. Bentham, J. (1823). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

166

5.5. Neoclassical

BRIAN FEDOREK

Modern deterrence theory is perhaps the most dominant philosophy of the American criminal justice system.

Deterrence theory tries to change a person’s behavior through laws and punishments. As a form of social

control, there is a belief that perceived punishments will serve as a warning of possible consequences, which

would hopefully deter the person from committing the crime. There are two types of deterrence: general

deterrence and specific deterrence. General deterrence uses punishment to deter crime among people in the

general population. It uses punishment as an example for those people not punished. For example, capital

punishment can serve as an example to other would-be offenders if they were thinking about murder.

Specific deterrence uses punishment to reduce the crime of particular persons. The effect of the punishment

depends on the nature of the punishment and who is punished.

News Box. In 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 11, whcih established mandatory minimum sentencing for several serious crimes. Besides removing the judge’s ability to give a lesser sentence, Measure

11 prohibited prisoners from reducing their sentence through good behavior. Additionally, any defendant

15 years old or older who was accused of a Measure 11 offense was automatically tried as an adult. Recently,

the Oregon Justice Resource Center reported the effects of Measure 11 on juveniles, esepcially minorities.

Below are links to the news article and the report itself.

The Oregonian – “New Report Calls Measure 11 Sentences for Juveniles ‘Harsh and Costly'”

Oregon Justice Resource Center’s Report

Measure 11 Exercise

After reading the above box and hyperlinks, please explain why many juveniles are not deterred from committing

serious crimes in Oregon.

167

Classical ideology was the dominant paradigm for over a century, but it was eventually replaced by positivist

approaches that seek to identify causes of criminal behavior. However, classical ideology had a resurgence

during the 1970s in the United States. Neoclassical theory recognizes people experience punishments

differently, and a person’s environment, psychology, and other conditions can contribute to crime as well.

Therefore, crime is a choice based on context. Many crime-prevention efforts used classical and neoclassical

premises to focus on “what works” in preventing crime instead of focusing on why people commit criminal

acts.

Cornish and Clarke (1986) proposed a Rational Choice Theory to explain criminals’ behavior. 1

They

claimed offenders rationally calculate costs and benefits before committing crime and assumed people want

to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. The theory does not explain motivation, but instead, it expects

some people will always commit a crime when given the opportunity. They do not assume offenders

are entirely rational, but they do have bounded rationality. Bounded rationality is the constraint of both

time and relevant information; offenders must make a decision in a timely fashion with the information at

hand. Offenders cannot wait forever nor can they wait for more information before committing a crime.

For example, if you were walking down a street and noticed an open window in a parked car, you may

contemplate looking in. If you saw something inside, you may then consider stealing it. An entirely rational

person may look around to see if there are any witnesses, try to determine if the owner is coming back soon,

and so on. Ideally, you may wait until nightfall. However, you may miss your opportunity. Thus, you need

to make a quick decision with the relevant facts at that time.

That was an example of a “crime-specific” model. All crimes have different techniques and opportunities.

Additionally, they assume all crime is purposeful with the intention to benefit the offender. To dissuade

offenders, Rational Choice Theory emphasized the significance of informal sanctions and moral costs.

The theory advocates for a situational crime prevention approach by reducing opportunities. Reducing

opportunities is much easier to manipulate and change compared to changing society, culture, or individuals.

Ultimately, situational crime prevention strategies try to crime a less attractive choice.

Another neoclassical theory is Routine Activity Theory. Cohen and Felson (1979) claimed changes in the

modern world have provided more opportunities for offenders. 2

Since the conclusion of World War II, more

people have entered the workforce, and more people spend time away from home. Cohen and Felson stated

that three things must converge in time in space for a crime to be committed – a motivated offender, a

suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian.

1. Cornish, D.B., & Clarke, R.V. (1986). Crime as a rational choice. In R.V. Clarke and D.B. Cornish, The reasoning criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

2. Cohen, L.E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activiity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

168

The motivated offender is considered to be a given as there will always be people who will seize

opportunities to commit criminal offenses. Besides, there a variety of theories to explain why people commit

a crime. Suitable targets can be vacant houses, parked cars, a person, or any item. In reality, almost anything

can be a suitable target. Finally, the absence of a capable guardian facilitates the criminal event. What can

serve as a “capable” guardian? A plethora of people and things can serve as a guardian. For example, police

officers, security guards, a dog, being at home, increased lighting to allow other people to see, CCTV, alarm

systems, and deadbolt locks can each reduce opportunities by serving as a capable guardian. Routine activity

theory concentrates on the criminal event instead of the criminal offender.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

169

5.6. Positivist Criminology

BRIAN FEDOREK

If criminal behavior were merely a choice, the crime rates would more likely be evenly spread. However,

when European researchers started to calculate crime rates in the 19th century, some places consistently

had more crime from year to year. These results would indicate criminal behavior must be influenced by

something other than choice and crime, and must be correlated with other factors.

Positivism is the use of empirical evidence through scientific inquiry to improve society. Ultimately, positivist criminology sought to identify other causes of criminal behavior beyond choice. The basic

premises of positivism are measurement, objectivity, and causality. 1

Early positivist theories speculated that

there were criminals and non-criminals. Thus, we have to identify what causes criminals.

Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species (1859), which outlined his observations of natural selection. 2

A few years later, he applied his observations to humans in Descent of Man (1871), whereby he claimed that some people might be evolutionary reversions to an early stage of man.

3 Although he never wrote about

criminal behavior, others borrowed Darwin’s ideas and applied them to crime.

1. Hagan, F.E. (2018). Introduction to criminology: Theories, methods, and criminal behavior (9th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 2. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John

Murray. 3. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.

170

Charles Darwin

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

171

Atavistic features

5.7. Biological and Psychological Positivism

BRIAN FEDOREK

Trait theories assume there are fundamental differences that differentiate criminals from non-criminals.

These differences can be discovered through scientific investigations. Additionally, many early biological

and psychological theories used hard determinism, which implies people with certain traits will be criminals.

Cesare Lombroso was a trained medical doctor in Italy when he had an epiphany. As he was performing

autopsies on Italian prisoners, he started to believe many of these men had different physical attributes

compared to law-abiding people and that these differences were biologically inherited. In 1876, five

years after Darwin’s claim about some humans might be evolutionary reversions, Lombroso wrote The Criminal Man.

1 Lombroso claimed 1/3 of all offenders were born criminals who were atavistic (evolutionary

throwbacks).

He identified a list of physical features he believed to

deviate from the “normal” population. These included an

asymmetrical face, monkey-like ears, large lips, receding

chin, twisted nose, long arms, skin wrinkles, and many

more. Lombroso believed he could identify criminals

simply by the way they physically looked. Even though

his theory was widely rejected years later, it served as an

example of the first attempt to explain criminal behavior

scientifically.

A few decades after Lombroso’s theory, Charles

Goring took Lombroso’s ideas about physical differences

and added mental deficiencies too. In The English Convict, Goring claimed there were statistical differences in

physical attributes and mental defects. The focus on mental qualities led to a new kind of biological

positivism – the Intelligence Era. Alfred Binet, who created the Intelligence Quotient Test, believed

intelligence was dynamic and could change. He wanted to identify youths who were not performing well

1. Lombroso, C. (1876). The criminal man.

172

in school. Unfortunately, H.H. Goddard, like many Americans at the time, believed intelligence was innate

and static. That is, intelligence was fixed and could not change. Goddard gave IQ tests to sort people and

those who scored too low were institutionalized, deported, or sterilized. He was an early advocate to sterilize

those who were mentally deficient, especially “morons,” who were just smart enough to blend in with the

normal population. In 1927, the United States Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell allowed the use of sterilization. Even after Lombroso, Goring, and Goddard, contemporary research reveals intelligence is at least as

critical as race and social class for predicting delinquency (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977). 2

However, how

we measure intelligence and how we define intelligence are based on our preconceived assumptions of

intelligence. For example, is intelligence inherited? Is it related to the dominant culture? Or is it based more

on the person’s environment? Each has a least some element of truth.

Modern biological theorists have revealed that biology plays a role in our behavior, but we cannot say

how much or even how so. Twin studies and adoption studies examined the nature versus nurture debate.

Both play a role in our behavior. It is more nature and nurture. Perhaps the question ought to be “how do

our biological differences interact with our sociological differences?” There is not a crime gene per se, but

some genetic variations are correlated with anti-social behaviors. However, those with genetic variations are

not necessarily criminal because of genetics. Though it puts the individual at risk for such behaviors, a caring

and supportive environment often mitigates the impact of the genetic code.

Proximate causes, such as neurotransmitters, hormones, the central nervous system, and the autonomic

nervous system, have links to aggressive behavior too. However, many of these explanations have several

possible causal paths. For example, we know people with higher testosterone levels engage in more

aggressive behavior, but when people engage in aggressive behavior, their testosterone levels increase. We

do not know which causes which.

What about criminal personalities? What about sociopaths and psychopaths? The Gluecks (1950)

determined there was no real criminal personality; instead, there are some interrelated personality

characteristics that were clustered together. 3

Even after giving personality tests to criminals and non-

criminals, there does not seem to be any logical relevance to understanding the causes of crime. However,

there have been correlations between certain personality traits and criminal behavior. For example,

impulsivity, lack of self-control, inability to learn from punishment, and low empathy have all been linked

to criminal behaviors.

Consequently, none of these personality characteristics are criminal in and of themselves. The real danger

is when a person has many of these personality characteristics. Capsi et al. (1994) found that constraint

and negative emotionality, two super traits that contain a number of different characteristics, were “robust

correlates of delinquency” (p. 185). 4

In summary, researchers have been able to say that our biology and personality play a role in criminal

behaviors, but we cannot say how much or to what degree. The characteristics of our social environment

interact with our biology and personality. Human behavior is quite complex and it is difficult to determine

the true causality of human actions.

2. Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M.J. (1977). Intellegence and delinquency: A revisionist review. American Sociological Review, 42, 572-587. 3. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 4. Capsi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Silva, P.A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R.F., & Schmutte, P.S. (1994). Personality and crime: Are some

people crime prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship acrass countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32(2).

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

173

5.8. The Chicago School

BRIAN FEDOREK

Biological and psychological positivism looked at differences between criminals and non-criminals. Instead

of finding differences between kinds of people, the Chicago School tried to detect differences between kinds

of places. During the 1920-1930s, the University of Chicago was the vanguard for human ecology, which

is the study of the relationship between humans and their environment. Robert Park (1925) viewed cities as

“super-organisms,” comparing the city-human relationship to the natural ecosystems of plants and animals

that share habitats. Furthermore, Burgess (1925) proposed concentric zone theory, which explained how

cities grow – from the central business district outwards. 1

Concentric Zones

Shaw and McKay (1942), who were both former students of Burgess, began to plot the addresses

of juvenile court-referred male youths. They noticed many of the addresses were located in the zone

in transition. 2

Upon further investigation, Shaw and McKay noticed three qualitative differences in the

transitional zone compared to other zones. First, the physical status included the invasion of industry and the

largest number of condemned buildings. When many buildings are in disrepair, population levels decrease.

1. Burgess, E.W. (1925). The growth of the city. In R.E.Park, E.W. Burgess, and R.D.McKenzie, Jr., The city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

2. Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

174

Second, the population composition was also different. The zone in transition had higher concentrations

of foreign-born and African-American heads of families. It also had a transient population. Third, the

transitional zone had socioeconomic differences with the highest rates of welfare, lowest median rent, the

lowest percentage of family-owned houses. Interrelated, the zone also had the highest rates of infant deaths,

tuberculosis, and mental illness.

Shaw and McKay believed the zone in transition led to social disorganization. Social disorganization is the inability of social institutions to control an individual’s behavior. Since the zone in transition had people

moving in and moving out at such high rates, social institutions (like family, school, religion, government,

economy) and members could no longer agree on essential norms and values. As earlier stated, many

residents were foreign. Thus, speaking different languages and having different religious beliefs may have

prevented neighbors from talking to one another and solidifying community bonds. Overall, Shaw and

McKay were two of the first theorists to put forth the premise that community characteristics matter when

discussing criminal behavior.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

175

5.9. Strain Theories

BRIAN FEDOREK

Strain theories assume people will commit crime because of strain, stress, or pressure. Depending on the version of strain theory, strain can come from a variety of origins. Strain theories also assume that human

beings are naturally good; bad things happen, which “push” people into criminal activity.

Emile Durkheim viewed economic or social inequality as natural and inevitable. Furthermore, inequality

and crime were not correlated unless there was also a breakdown of social norms. According to Durkheim,

when there is rapid social change (like moving from an agrarian society to an industrial society) social

norms breakdown. There is too much too fast, and society needs to reevaluate normative behaviors. He

referred to the decline of social norms, or “normlessness,” as “anomie.” Moreover, social forces have a role

in dictating human thought and behaviors. He thought anomie was an inability of societies to control

or regulate individuals’ appetites. Although Durkheim was interested in looking at how societies change,

other researchers adapted his idea of anomie. In the previous section, Shaw and McKay retained the spirit

of Durkheim’s anomie but focused on neighborhoods instead of societies at large. Robert K. Merton also

utilized Durkheimian anomie.

Merton (1938) thought many human appetites originated in the culture of American society rather than

naturally. 1

Moreover, the “social structure” of American society restricts some citizens from attaining it.

Most, if not all, Americans know of the “American Dream.” No matter how you conceptualize the dream,

most people would define the American dream as achieving economic success in some form. The culturally

approved method of obtaining the American dream is through hard work, innovation, and education.

However, some people and groups are not given the same opportunities to achieve the cultural goal. When

there is a disjunction between the goals of a society and the appropriate means to achieve that goal, a person

may feel pressure or strain. Everyone is aware of the definition and promotion of the American dream. When

someone does not achieve this goal, he or she may feel strain or pressure. A person could be rejected or

blocked from achieving a cultural goal. Merton claimed there were five personality adaptations between the

goals of a society and the means to achieve them.

1. Merton, R.K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3.

176

Personality Adaptation Cultural Goals Institutionalized Means

I. Conformity + +

II. Innovation + –

III. Ritualism – +

IV. Retreatism – –

V. Rebellion + / – + / –

Conformists are the most common adaptation. Without it, societal norms and values would undermine the

cultural goals. Conformists accept the goals and legitimate means to achieve the goal. Innovators accept the

goal, but they reject the means or have their means blocked. Thus, they innovate ways to meet society’s

goal. Ritualists conform to the predominant means of achieving wealth and success through hard work, but

they may be blocked from achieving success, or they drop the social goal. For example, some people work

hard for the sake of working hard. They want their children to see the significance of work ethic above all

else, including monetary achievement. Retreatists do not share the shared values of society. Thus, they adjust

by dropping out of conventional society. Drug addicts, alcoholics, and vagrants are just some examples who

select this adjustment. Finally, rebels reject the current goals and means of society, but they want to replace

them with new goals and standards. They seek to establish a new social order.

Even though Merton’s theory could explain any strain, he emphasized economic strains. Cohen (1955)

claimed stress could come from a lack of status. 2

Cohen wanted to know why most juvenile crimes occurred

in groups. He explained that many youths, especially those in lower class families, rejected education and

other middle-class values. Instead, many teenagers would seek status and self-worth as a new value system.

When teens have no status, reputation, or self-worth, it led to severe strain. To achieve status, youths commit

a crime to gain status among their peer group. Cloward and Ohlin (1960) claimed more serious delinquents

sought “fast cars, fancy clothes, and well dames” (p. 97). 3

Assuming youths had no legitimate opportunities

to improve their economic position, youths would join gangs to pursue illegitimate opportunities to

achieve financial success. Criminal gangs provided youths illicit opportunities to gain money, conflict gangs

permitted youths to vent their frustrations, and retreatist gangs were double failures; they had no legitimate

or illegitimate means to increase income.

The general strain theory, by Robert Agnew, claimed strains come from myriad sources. Agnew defined

strain as any event that a person would rather avoid. Three types of strains include the failure to achieve

a positively valued stimulus, the removal of a positively valued stimulus, and the confrontation of negative

stimuli. Examples include parental rejection, child abuse, bullying, loss of job, loss of a loved one,

discrimination, and criminal victimization. However, the characteristics of some strains are more likely to

lead to crime. When a person views a strain as high in magnitude and unjust, and the pressure promotes

criminal coping mechanism, people with minimal social control are more likely to commit a crime. Strains

lead to negative emotions such as anger, depression, and fear. Some people without prosocial coping

mechanisms may commit a crime to vent, which can create social control issues (trouble in school, parents,

2. Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press. 3. Cloward, R.A., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

177

employers) as well as facilitate social learning (joining peers who also need to vent their frustration). Overall,

criminal behavior serves a purpose – to escape strain, stress, or pressure. 4

Coping Mechanism Example

Every one feels stress and each of us copes with stress, pressure, or shame differently. Shame can motivate us to

change for the better. For example, if you did poorly on an exam, you may start to study better. When you feel

stress, what do you do? When I ask students how they deal with stress, many go for a run or a walk, lift weights,

cry, talk, or eat ice cream. These are healthy (maybe not ice cream eating) and pro-social coping mechanism. When

I feel stress I write. Often, I write nasty emails and then delete them. Fortunately, I have never accidently sent one.

4. Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

178

5.10. Learning Theories

BRIAN FEDOREK

In the previous sections, strain theories focused on social structural conditions that contribute to people

experiencing strain, stress, or pressure. Strain theories explain how people can respond to these structures.

Learning theories compliment strain theories because learning theories focus on the content and process of

learning.

Early philosophers, like Aristotle, believed human beings learned through association. The thought implies

humans have a blank slate and our experiences build upon each other. It is through these experiences we

recognize patterns and linked phenomena. For example, ancient humans did not have the technological

advancements of global positioning satellites, which many people have on their phones. However, they used

other celestial bodies like the stars and moon to travel. When early humans looked to the heavens, people

began to recognize patterns in the stars. These patterns were consistent and enabled long-distance travel over

land and sea.

A few centuries later, Ivan Pavlov was studying the digestive system of dogs, when he noticed the dogs

started the digestive process before food was in sight. The dogs began to salivate when they heard the assistants’ footsteps. The dogs were associating the oncoming footsteps with the upcoming food. This type

of learning was called classical conditioning.

179

Classical Conditioning

The acquisition of this learned response occurred over time. The dogs’ salivary reflex was an

unconditioned response to the unconditioned stimuli (food). Pavlov wondered if he could get the dogs to

salivate with a neutral stimulus (i.e., a ringing bell). He would ring a bell then feed the dog. After a series

of these paired occasions, the dogs began to salivate at the sound of the bell alone. The salivation became a

conditioned response to a conditioned stimulus. The acquisition of this learned behavior (i.e., conditioned

response) will become extinct if the incentive is no longer associated. Human beings most certainly learn via

classical conditioning, but it is a passive and straightforward approach to learning. We may shudder when

we see flashing blue lights in our rearview mirror, salivate when food is cooking in the kitchen, or dance

when we hear our favorite song. We passively learned these paired events through our experiences. B.F. Skinner was also interested in learning and transformed modern psychology with operant

conditioning. Operant condition is active learning where organisms learn to behave based on reinforcements

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

180

and punishments. Using rats and pigeons, Skinner wanted animals to learn a simple task (i.e., pushing a bar

or key) through reinforcements. A reinforcement is any event that strengthens, or maximizes, a behavior.

We reinforce behaviors that we want to continue or increase. We can use positive reinforcement or negative

reinforcement. Positive is the addition of something desirable, and negative is the removal of something

unpleasant; they do not mean “good” or “bad.” For example, if we wanted to more people to wear seatbelts,

we would want to reinforce the behavior. A positive reinforcement may be praise or a reward for buckling

up. Newer model cars come equipped with seatbelt alarms. The will ring until you buckle up. Once you

buckle up, the sound stops. This is an example of negative reinforcement. Both examples reinforce the

behavior (wearing a seatbelt) but in different ways.

Consequently, if we want a behavior to stop or decrease, we punish that behavior. Punishments can also

be positive or negative. A positive punishment involves the presentation of something unpleasant whereas

negative punishment is punishment by removal. For example, a teenager breaks curfew and the parents

want their child to stop breaking curfew. The parents can punish the child in one of two ways. An example

of positive punishment would be scolding. A negative punishment would be removing the child’s driving

privileges. Both punishments seek to decrease the adolescent’s breaking curfew but in two different ways.

Punishment Exercise

How does the Criminal Justice System positively punish offenders? How does the Criminal Justice System

negatively punish? Give examples of both.

Edwin Sutherland (1947) was the first and created the most prominent statement of a micro-level learning

theory about criminal behavior. He first presented differential association theory in 1934, and his final

revision occurred in 1947. 1

His attempt tried to explain how age, sex, income, and social locations related

to the acquisition of criminal behaviors. Sutherland (1947) presented his theory as nine separate, but related

propositions, which were:

1. Criminal behavior is learned.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes: a) techniques of committing the crime,

which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple; b) the specific direction of the

motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.

5. The specific directions of motives and drives are learned from definitions of the legal codes as

favorable or unfavorable. In some societies, an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably

define the legal codes as rules to be observed, while in others he is surrounded by a person whose

definitions are favorable to the violation of the legal codes.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over

definitions unfavorable to violation of the law. This is the principle of differential association.

1. Sutherland, E.H. (1947). Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

181

7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. This means that

associations with criminal behavior and also associations with anticriminal behavior vary in those

respects.

8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns

involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those

general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and

values. 2

Sutherland describes the content of what is learned, but also the process of how it is learned. Ultimately,

he argued people give meaning to their situation; this meaning-making determined if they would obey

the law or break the law. Hence, this meaning-making explains how siblings, who grow up in the same

environment may differ in their behavior.

Ironically, Sutherland and B.F. Skinner were teaching at Indiana University during the late 1940s. For

some reason or another, Sutherland never used Skinner’s ideas of operant conditioning in his differential

association theory. However, Ronald Akers utilized both approaches in his “social learning” or “differential

reinforcement” theory. Akers’ theory comprised the four main concepts of differential association,

definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation/modeling. He was interested in the process of how

criminal behavior is acquired, maintained, and modified through reinforcement in social situations and

nonsocial situations. Differential associations refer to the people one comes into contact with frequently.

These peers are the source of definitions that favor obeying the law or breaking it. It is the most important

source of social learning. According to Akers, definitions are the meaning a person attaches to his or her

behavior. Those meanings can be general (i.e., religious, moral, or ethical beliefs that remain consistent)

or specific (i.e., apply to a specific behavior like smoking or theft). Differential reinforcements refer to the

balance between anticipated rewards or punishment and the actual reward or punishment. For example, if a

juvenile vandalized a storefront, his or her friends praise may reinforce that behavior. If the juvenile sought

more praise, he or she might continue vandalizing more property (the peers’ reactionary praise positively

reinforced the behavior). The final concept was imitation/modeling. Akers argued that human beings could

learn by observing how other people are rewarded and punished. Thus, some people may imitate other

people’s behavior, especially if that behavior was rewarded or not punished. 3

Finally, there have been some theories that focus more on the content of what is learned. Residents

who may live in disadvantaged neighborhoods, like in the transitional zone, my “learn” different things.

Subcultural theories focus on the ideas of what is learned rather than the social conditions that foster these

ideas. Some groups may internalize values that are conducive to violence or justify criminal behavior. 4

In

other words, where we grow up may influence what we learn about crime, police, government, religion,

etc.

2. Sutherland, E.H. (1947). Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. 3. Akers, R.L. (1994). Criminological theories. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. 4. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

182

5.11. Control Theories

BRIAN FEDOREK

Previously discussed theories asked why people commit crime. The methods used tried to identify the

driving forces behind a criminal’s behavior. For example, biological and psychological theories sought to

identify traits that determined criminality. Strain theories assumed people were good, but bad things happen,

which causes many to be pushed into criminal behaviors. Learning theories demonstrated the importance

of learning criminal attitudes to commit crimes. These attitudes, especially when reinforced, will prevail in

social situations. Control theories differ in their approach. Instead of assuming criminals have “something”

or experienced “something” that drives their criminal behavior, control theories ask why more people do not engage in illegal behavior. Control theories assume people are naturally selfish, and if left to their own

devices, will commit illegal and immoral acts. Control theories try to identify what types of “controls” a

person may have that stops them from becoming “uncontrollable.”

Early control theorists argued that there are multiple controls on individuals. Personal controls are

exercised through reflection and following pro-social normative behavior. Social controls originate in social

institutions like family, school, and religious conventions. Toby (1957) introduced the phrase “stakes in

conformity,” which is how much a person has to lose if he or she engages in criminal behavior. 1

The more

stakes in conformity a person has, the less likely they would be willing to commit crime. For example, a

married teacher with kids has quite a bit to lose if he or she decided to start selling drugs. If caught, he could

lose his job, get divorced, and possibly lose custody of his children. However, juveniles tend not to have

kids nor are they married. They may have a job, but indeed not a career. Since they have fewer stakes in

conformity, they would be much more likely to commit crime compared to the teacher.

Travis Hirschi is most associated with control theories. In 1969, he argued that all humans have the

propensity to commit crime, but those who have strong bonds and attachment to social groups like family

and school are less likely to commit crime. 2 Often known as social bond theory or social control theory,

Hirschi presented four elements of a social bond – attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief.

Attachment refers to affection we have towards others. If we have strong bonds, we are more likely to care

about their opinions, expectations, and support. Attachment involves an emotional connectedness to others,

especially parents, who provide indirect control.

1. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 48, 12-17.

2. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

183

Parenting Exericse

Parenting can be a challenging responsibility. Fare supposed suppose to teach children how to behave. Ideally,

parents have control over their children in many ways.

• What are ways parents have “direct” control over their children?

• What are ways parents have “indirect” control over their children?

Commitment refers to the rational component of the social bond. If we are committed to conformity, our

actions and decisions will mirror our commitment. People invest time, energy, and money into expected

behavior like school, sports, career development, or playing a musical instrument. These are examples

of Toby’s “stakes in conformity.” If people started committing a crime, they would risk losing these

investments. Involvement and commitment are related. Since our time and energy are limited, Hirschi

thought people who were involved in socially accepted activities would have little time to commit a crime.

The observational phrase “idle hands are the devil’s worship” fits this component. Belief was the final

component of the social bond. Hirschi claimed some juveniles are less likely to obey the law. Although

some control theorists believed juveniles are tied to the conventional moral order and “drift” in and out of

delinquency by neutralizing controls (Matza, 1964), Hirschi disagreed. 3

He believed people vary in their

beliefs about the rules of society. The essential element of the bond is an attachment. Eventually, Hirschi

moved away from his social bond theory into the general theory of crime.

Hirschi Exercise

Hirschi believed strong social bonds made people less likely to commit a crime. The components of a social bond

include attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. Please describe each of the components of the social

bond and explain how each applies to your educational journey. How can you be attached, committed, involved,

and believe in higher education?

Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) claimed their theory could explain all crime by all people. They argued the

lack of self-control was the primary cause of criminal behaviors. They claim most ordinary crimes require

few skills to commit and have an immediate payoff. 4

There is not any long-term planning or goal; crimes

are committed for immediate pleasure. Moreover, they claim, people who commit these ordinary crimes

tend to be impulsive, insensitive to the suffering of others, short-sighted, and adventuresome. If true, these

traits (low self-control) were established before the person started committing crimes and will continue to

manifest throughout a person’s life. The root cause of low self-control is ineffective parenting. If parents are

not attached to their child, supervise their child, recognize the child’s deviant behaviors, or discipline their

3. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York, NY: John Wiley. 4. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

ALISON S. BURKE, DAVID CARTER, BRIAN FEDOREK, TIFFANY MOREY, LORE RUTZ-BURRI, AND SHANELL SANCHEZ

184

child, the child will develop low self-control. Gottfredson and Hirschi claim self-control, or the lack thereof,

is established by eight years old.

Control theories are vastly different from other criminological theories. They assume people are selfish

and would commit crimes if left to their own devices. However, socialization and effective child-rearing can

establish direct, indirect, personal, and social controls on people. These are all types of informal controls.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

185

5.12. Other Criminological Theories

BRIAN FEDOREK

Social Reaction Theories Initially a response to popular theories at the time, social reaction theories change the focus. Instead of

focusing on the offender, social reaction theories concentrate on those people or institutions who label

offenders, react to offenders, and want to control offenders. Grounded in symbolic interaction, social

reaction theories emphasize how meanings are constructed. Words carry power and meaning. Thus, if

someone is labeled as a criminal, it carries a connotation by other people. How will others view him or her

with that label? How will society? People will act towards thing by the meanings attached. These meanings

can be culturally created through interactions with peers. Perhaps it is why some of us like to wear certain

name brand clothes or drive certain name brand vehicles. Those names have “meaning”; they can be cool,

reliable, etc. They have status and meaning.

Not everyone who commits a crime is caught. Additionally, not all those who are caught are labeled as

a criminal. Why? Labeling theories sought to explain this phenomenon. In general, labeling theorists point

to the social construction of crime, which varies over time and place. For instance, marijuana use is federally

prohibited, but more and more states are legalizing recreational use. The same behavior can be legal in

Oregon but illegal in New York.

Furthermore, labeling theorists emphasize the process of being labeled and treated as a criminal; it can have

deleterious effects. If a person is bombarded with a particular label, he or she may adopt that label. If a person

was told over and over again that he or she was funny, that person might try to be funnier. What if a person

were told over and over again he or she would amount to nothing? Perhaps, he or she would internalize that

label and become nothing since others expect that.

Braithwaite (1989) applied some of these ideas in his reintegrative shaming. Not all social reactions are

ruthless; in fact, some of them are beneficial. 1

Hence, it is the quality of social responses that is significant.

We shame individuals to show disapproval. According to Braithwaite, shaming can be reintegrative or

stigmatizing. Reintegrative shaming centers on forgiveness, love, and respect. Ideally, we want to reintegrate

the person back into the community by removing the label. However, in some societies, like the United

States, stigmatizing shaming reigns supreme. Stigmatizing shaming uses formal punishment, which degrades

a person’s bond to his or her community. It is counter-productive and tends to shun the offender. For

1. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

186

example, in some states, convicted offenders are required to self-identify as a felon on job applications. Do

you think this helps their cause to reintegrate successfully into society? Perhaps not. Even though they may

have “served their time,” they are still labeled as a criminal and punished further. Stigmatizing shaming

propels people towards crime whereas reintegrative shaming seeks to correct the behavior through respect

and empathy. Critical Theories

Critical Theories Critical theories originated during the 1960-1970s in the United States. Immediately following World

War II, Americans expected the United States to thrive economically, culturally, and politically. Massive

political turmoil inside and outside of the country created a generation of scholars who became “critical”

of society and more “traditional” theories of crime. According to Cullen, Agnew, and Wilcox (2018),

critical theories share some five central themes. First, to understand crime, one must appreciate the fusion

between power and inequality. People with power, political and economic, have an enormous advantage

in society. 2

Second, crime is a political concept. Not all those who commit crime are caught, nor are those

who are caught punished. The poor are injured the most by the enforcement of laws, while the affluent (i.e.,

powerful) are treated leniently. Third, the criminal justice system and its agents serve the ruling class, the

capitalists. As Jeffrey Reiman’s (2004) book titled it, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. 3

Fourth, the

root cause of crime is capitalism because capitalism ignores the poor and their atrocious living conditions.

Capitalism demands profits and growth over values and ethically considerations. Perhaps this is why crimes

of the streets are punished more severely than crimes of the suites. Finally, critical theories believe the

solution to crime is a more equitable society, both politically and economically.

It is beyond the scope of this book to delve into all of the possible explanations of crime. Some theories

try to explain the differences between male offending and female offending through feminist theories of

crime. Other theories have integrated or combined concepts from other theories to create a newer model of

explanation. Why do you think people commit crime?

Gender and Crime Exercise

Write about how you were raised and how sex/gender roles were reinforced through school, family, culture,

etc. Do you think men/boys/males are more criminal because of their biology or because of cultural expectations

of men/boys/males versus women/girls/females? You should support your claims with personal, vicarious, or well-

known examples.

2. Cullen, F.T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (Eds). (2018). Criminological theory: Past to present (6th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

3. Reiman, J. (2004). The rich get richer and the poor get prision: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. New York, NY: Pearson.

Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System

187