soc305: crime & society week 2 discussion

Lo ui

s La

nz an

o/ As

so ci

at ed

P re

ss

Learning Objectives

• Understand key concepts “inequality,” “stratification,” and “life chances.”

• Examine how stratification relates to crime.

• Critically examine the role of social class in the criminal justice system.

• Examine evidence concerning the disparity versus discrimination debate.

• Understand key elements of white-collar crime and its impact on society.

Social Class and Crime

3

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 65 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.1 Stratification in America CHAPTER 3

Bernard Madoff is one of the most notorious criminals in American history. Madoff was charged with violating the Securities Act of 1993, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 in 2009 after creating a large and elaborate Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme was originally named after Charles Ponzi in the 1920s who defrauded thousands of residents from the New England area. Ponzi schemes are a type of fraud that continually creates the illusion of a profitable invest- ment. They usually promise high returns with little risk. Investors who unknowingly buy into a Ponzi scheme are given a handsome return on their money. However, these returns are not based on profit. Rather, older investors are paid using money from newer investors. Ponzi schemes depend on the continual recruitment of new investors in order to continue to create this illusion of a profitable investment. Eventually, the Ponzi scheme collapses when new investors can no longer be recruited or when too many investors want to cash out.

Unlike most Ponzi schemers, Madoff did not promise big returns in a short time. He prom- ised moderate, stable returns over a long time. Investors were provided with quarterly reports that demonstrated moderate returns even when the market was turbulent and fluctuating. Madoff was a well-known and respected member of the securities industry for many years. He was vice president of the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers) and a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quo- tations (NASDAQ) stock markets board of governors. He served as executive chairman of its trading committee. Madoff defrauded thousands of consumers and organizations in one of the most intricate financial schemes of our time. On June 29, 2009, Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. His plot was believed to cost consumers $65 billion dol- lars. You can read more about the life and crime of Madoff by visiting the following site: http://www.biography.com/people/bernard-madoff-466366.

3.1 Stratification in America

The United States is a nation that makes profound promises about equality and free-dom. Many of America’s most important founding documents declare that equality and fair treatment under the law are cornerstones of our society. For example, the 1776 Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . . .” However, compared to other industrialized democracies America experiences very high levels of inequality and poverty, both of which contrib- ute to crime. Understanding the complex relationship between social class and crime necessitates an understanding of the various ways that social class and inequality can be measured and conceptualized.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 66 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.1 Stratification in America CHAPTER 3

Measures of Social Class and Inequality

Social class refers to a group with a similar level of economic and social status, espe- cially income, wealth, and power. It is important to understand that social class is in part about wealth and income but also about social status, social influence, and social networks. Classic sociological theorist Max Weber (1864–1920) argued that social class is a broad and encompassing concept that involves social prestige and influence; this social prestige and influence may or may not be directly related to economic status. Weber coined the term life chances, which is a more broad and inclusive measure of social class. Life chances refer to “access to basic opportunities and resources in the market- place . . . that defined an individual’s class position within the larger society” (Bryjak & Soroka, 1997, p. 152). Life chances refer to an individual’s current economic standing as well as an individual’s likelihood of becoming economically powerful in the future. Life chances reflect one’s position in informal and formal social networks as a predictor of future economic success.

Social scientists measure differences between social classes in several ways. Depending on the study, research question, and data available, social scientists may want to examine differences between social classes at a single point in time, or over a long period. Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of power, goods, and services between indi- viduals or groups at a given moment. In contrast, social stratification refers to “structured inequalities between groups” (Giddens, 2011, p. 181) that have become longstanding and relatively permanent. Understanding the differences between inequality and stratification is very important when examining different groups in society by race, class, geography, religion, age, sexual orientation, and gender. Moreover, inequality and stratification are important features of modern America.

Stratification in America: Empirical Overview

The United States is one of the most unequal industrial democracies. According to the United States Census, in 2010 the poverty rate in the United States reached 15.1%. This means that in 2010, 46.2 million people in America were living below the poverty line, determined by a benchmark of a family of four living on less than $22,491 per year. This 15.1% is the highest poverty rate in America since 1993 and a 2.6% increase since 2007 (see Figure 3.1). According to social scientists, America has the highest poverty rate com- pared to other major industrialized nations (Giddens, 2011; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011).

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 67 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.1 Stratification in America CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.1: Number in poverty and poverty rate: 1959–2010

Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/index.html

Between 1959 and 2010 both the total number of people in America living in poverty and the poverty rate

have varied significantly.

In America, the extent of inequality and stratification varies considerably by gender, race, and geography. Again, according to the 2010 United States Census, women and female- headed households are consistently more likely to be in poverty compared to men and male-headed households. In addition, among the racial groups measured, non-Hispanic Whites were least likely to be living in poverty at 9.9%. Asians were slightly more likely to be living in poverty at 12.1%. And Hispanics and African Americans suffer dispro- portionately from poverty at 26.6% and 27.4% respectively. Across the United States, the highest poverty rates existed in the Southern region (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011). Poverty, inequality, and stratification are critical to understanding the origins and consequences of criminal behavior.

Stratification, Crime, and Punishment

The relationship between crime and social class is complex. For centuries, criminologists have attempted to flush out the multiplicity of ways that poverty, social class, and social location contribute to crime perpetration and crime victimization. In addition, social class contributes to the likelihood of apprehension by police and punishment by the crimi- nal justice system. Social disorganization theory, a very influential perspective in modern

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

10

5

0

1959 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Note: The data points are placed at the midpoints of the respective years. For information on recessions, see Appendix A.

46.2 million

15.1 million

Numbers in Millions, rates in percent

Recession

Number in poverty

Poverty rate

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 68 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.1 Stratification in America CHAPTER 3

The contemporary American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts the poor and other marginalized groups. Randall Shelden, a professor of criminal justice at the Uni- versity of Nevada, Las Vegas, calls jails in contemporary America “temporary housing for the poor” (Shelden, 2010, p. 57). Moreover, before being incarcerated, prison inmates also suffer disproportionately from poverty (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). Our incarcerated population is much lower on the socioeconomic hierarchy compared to our general popu- lation. In part, this overrepresentation of the poor can be attributed to law enforcement

criminology (see Chapter 1), argues that neighborhood conditions of disadvantage cre- ate crime. According to this perspective, poverty, dilapidated housing, a lack of social services, high residential turnover, poor education and economic opportunities create an environment that breeds criminal behavior. It seems intuitive that certain types of crime, such as drug dealing or petty theft, may increase out of economic necessity. However, the relationship between poverty and crime is far from clear, as articulated by Jeffrey Reiman, a professor of philosophy and criminology and author of the influential book, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.

We know that poverty, slums, and unemployment are sources of streetcrime. We know that they breed alienation from social institutions, and that they reduce the likely rewards of going straight. But, we do not fully understand how they cause crime, because we know as well that many, if not most, poor, unemployed slum dwellers do not engage in street crime. (Reiman, 2007, p. 29)

Moreover, evidence abounds that a significant amount of crime is perpetrated by the mid- dle and upper classes of society. There is a legacy of studies of white-collar crime (Berger, 2011). Moreover, studies of affluent drug dealers (Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010) challenge the assumption that drug dealing is an acquisitive crime chosen only by the financially desperate. And influential perspectives in criminological theory argue that crime is caused by the innate thrill of breaking the rules (Katz, 1988) irrespective of social position and location. In addition, recall that self-report data and victimization surveys consistently show a higher rate of criminality by middle- and upper-middle-class populations com- pared to the Uniform Crime Report (see Chapter 1). While the relationship between social class and crime perpetration is not entirely clear, there is a clear relationship between social class and punishment by the criminal justice system.

Web Field Trip: Class-Based Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System Visit the webpage of Dr. Jeffrey Reiman focused on class-based inequalities in the criminal justice system: http://paulsjusticepage.com/reality-of-justice/ch2-class.htm. Read the section dedicated to

the 1980 United States Supreme Court case Rummel v. Estelle.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. In the case of Rummel v. Estelle, did the punishment fit the crime? 2. What, if anything, does this Supreme Court case contribute to our understanding of social class

and crime?

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 69 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.1 Stratification in America CHAPTER 3

Case Study: The Seductions of Crime The bulk of criminological theories about the origins of crime have focused on the possible material rewards for criminal behavior: the money, the drugs, the stolen goods. In 1988 Jack Katz, a professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, crafted a theory of crime centered on the nonmaterial benefits of doing crime. In his book Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil, Katz argues that human beings derive a psychological, physiological, and even sensual pleasure from breaking the rules. Simply put, crime feels good. According to Katz, crime is far less rational and far less goal-oriented than many assume. The thrill of committing criminal acts, taking risks and potentially getting away with it, is inherently attractive. Katz famously notes that “It is not the taste for the pizza that leads to the crime; the crime makes the pizza tasty” (Katz, 1988, p. 52). Initially, this “sneaky thrills” perspective on crime seems applicable to crimes such as drug use, drag racing, and spontaneous assault. However, Katz argues that the seductions of crime are applicable to a wide variety of crimes: violent and nonviolent, minor and severe. Katz writes,

The social science literature contains only scattered evidence of what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like to commit a particular crime. Readers of research on homi- cide and assault do not hear the slaps and curses, see the pushes and shoves, or feel the humiliation and rage that may build toward the attack, sometimes persisting after the victim’s death. How adolescents manage to make the shoplifting or vandalism of cheap and commonplace things a thrilling experience has not been intriguing to many students of delinquency. . . . Neither academic methods nor academic theories seem to be able to grasp why such killers . . . kill when only petty cash is at stake. (1998, p. 3)

This vivid narrative is part of Katz’s larger argument that the nitty-gritty aspects of criminal behav- ior often defy rationality. Crimes are often more spontaneous than the cost-benefit assumptions of deterrence theory suggest. According to Katz, crime often provides the criminal a sensual benefit that is typically more important than any material or tangible rewards.

Katz uses a series of empirical cases to support the core claims of the sneaky thrills perspective on crime. Katz points out that the typical profit from a burglary or robbery is about $80 per criminal event. Moreover, a relatively small number of frequent, repeat offenders commit the vast majority of burglaries and robberies. These repeat offenders are caught and punished relatively frequently by the criminal justice system. Thus, he argues, a simple cost-benefit analysis cannot be the entire motivation for these criminals. To support this claim, Katz quotes John Allen, a Washington, DC, man who makes his living committing armed robbery. Armed robbery is a particularly dangerous and risky type of crime that can result in severe criminal penalties. Allen explained,

For a man, pimping is a good way of making money, but the fastest way is narcotics, and the safest and best way of all is numbers. Even though my whores were making a lot of money, I just didn’t like pimping that much. It ain’t my style. . . . I missed stickup quite a bit. . . . What I really missed was the excitement of sticking up and the planning and the getting away with it. . . . (Frank, 1989, p. 1)

Allen seems seduced by the “moral and sensual attractions of doing evil” and offers a case that sup- ports Katz’s core conclusions empirically.

procedures that make disadvantaged groups more likely to be caught for criminal behav- ior and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 70 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class

The American criminal justice system disproportionately impacts traditionally mar-ginalized individuals and groups. Individuals lower on the social-class hierarchy are more likely to be under the control of the correctional system: in jails, in prisons, on probation, or on parole. The overrepresentation of the poor and people of color has been a longstanding and fairly consistent feature of the American criminal justice system (Shelden, 2010; Mohamed & Fritsvold, 2010). Thus, one of the most important questions in criminology is why (Currie, 1998)? Why are individuals with less wealth, less social capital, lower incomes, and lower life changes more likely to end up in the criminal justice system?

Criminologists can explore the relationship between social class and crime by critically examining two possible hypotheses: disparity and discrimination. There are two possible reasons why those of lower social class are overrepresented in the criminal justice sys- tem. One, it is possible that those of lower class commit more crime. Maybe higher rates of offending, or disparities in crime rates, account for the overrepresentation of lower- class groups in the correctional system. Two, it is possible that those in the lower class are overrepresented in the criminal justice system primarily because of discriminatory policies. Maybe there are intentional and unintentional dynamics built into the system that make those of lower social class more likely to be caught and punished for their law-violating behavior.

The disparity and discrimination hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. When evaluat- ing the complex evidence on this issue, neither hypothesis will explain the overrepresen- tation of the lower class in the criminal justice system in its entirety. Rather, a combination of both explanations is likely the most scientifically accurate explanation of the role of social class in the criminal justice process. Therefore, conceptualizing the constructs of disparity and discrimination as poles on a continuum is useful (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: Disparity vs. discrimination: A continuum

The overrepresentation of the poor in the criminal justice system is in part explained by disparities in offending rates and in part explained by discriminatory policy. These explanations are best represented as poles on a continuum, or endpoints between which lie a series of explanations that combine both disparity and discrimination in different proportions.

Disparity Discrimination

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 71 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

The following sections will critically examine evidence about the role of social class in the criminal justice process. This evidence will explore the respective influence of both dispar- ity and discrimination, and help determine where along the continuum the most powerful and scientifically valid explanations lie.

Disparities in Rates of Offending

Evidence suggests that in America, the lower social classes have higher rates of both crime perpetration and crime victimization compared to the middle and upper classes. Many cor- nerstone criminological theories place social class as one of the most important variables in the origin of criminal behavior. Robert Merton’s Strain Theory (see Chapter 1) argues that blockages of legitimate mechanisms for upward social mobility cause crime. For Merton, underperforming school systems and a lack of viable economic opportunities create ano- mie and cause crime. Similarly, the theory of social disorganization (see Chapter 1) argues that dilapidated housing, poverty, and generally poor living conditions consistently pro- duced crime. In a more critical lens, conflict criminology (see Chapter 1) posits that the economically dominant class creates laws that criminalize the behavior of the lower classes and vigorously enforce those laws to perpetuate their own power. While these theoretical perspectives outline very different dynamics and conclusions, they all place economics and social class as central to the understanding of crime. The evidence that low social class is a predictor of criminality is not only theoretical but empirical as well.

Stephen G. Tibbetts is a criminal justice professor at California State University at San Bernardino. He presents the following argument:

Crime also tends to cluster according to social class, with the lower classes experiencing far more violent offending and victimization. This is now undis- puted and consistently shown across all sources of data regarding criminal offending. . . . To clarify, young, poor, urban males tend to have the highest rates of criminal offending—and this group also has the highest rates of vic- timization as a result of violent offending. (Tibbetts, 2012, p. 24)

Social science has demonstrated that a series of variables related to social class contribute to crime: poverty, unemployment, poor nutrition, poor housing, exposure to toxins, lack of educational opportunities, and lack of medical care all correlate with crime. However, as noted by Jeffrey Reiman (2007), most poor individuals who suffer from combinations of these structural disadvantages do not commit crime. Thus, the structural disadvantages associated with poverty and low-class standing should be considered risk factors for crime but do not determine behavior.

In addition, some of the evidence about the relationship between social class and crime is not entirely clear. For example, Theodore Chirico, the William Julius Wilson Professor of Criminology at Florida State University, conducted a powerful meta-analysis in 1987 examining the relationship between unemployment and street crime. A meta-analysis is a review of the major studies done on a particular topic that attempts to unearth common themes and conclusions. According to Chirico, the literature on the impact of unemployment and criminal behavior was mixed at best: “Some studies had found a positive relationship, some a negative relationship, and some no relationship between unemployment and crime” (Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009, p. 282).

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 72 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Evidence suggests that lower-class individuals and groups have higher rates, or dispari- ties, in criminal offending and victimization. However, there is also considerable evidence that the criminal justice system actively discriminates by social class. Both intentional and unintentional discrimination makes the behavior of the lower classes more likely to come to the attention of law enforcement and more likely to be punished harshly by the criminal justice system.

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks In 1973, renowned criminologist William J. Chambliss published The Saints and the Roughnecks, a groundbreaking ethnography about social class, perception, and criminal justice policy. Chambliss conducted participant observation at a high school in a suburban area outside of Seattle, Washing- ton, that he dubbed “Hanibal High.” Within Hanibal High, Chambliss’s study focused on two groups of deviant high-school boys that he called the “Saints” and the “Roughnecks.” This study examined the deviant behavior of these groups and their respective interactions with power holders in the com- munity: school officials, parents, and law enforcement.

According to Chambliss, the Saints were “Eight promising young men—children of good, stable white upper-middle-class families . . . good pre-college students—were some of the most delinquent boys at Hanibal High School” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 24). The social location and life chances of the Saints were much different than the Roughnecks. Chambliss described the Roughnecks as “six lower-class white boys . . . constantly in trouble with police and community even though their rate of delin- quency was about equal with that of the Saints” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 24).

The Saints and the Roughnecks committed very similar types of crime and deviance at similar rates. It was common for the Saints to engage in vandalism, some petty theft, truancy, and alcohol and drug use. The criminal behavior of the Roughnecks centered on fighting, drinking, and theft. Despite these similar levels and types of criminality, power holders in the community perceived the two groups of boys quite differently. Moreover, the behavior of the Roughnecks was much more likely to result in official law enforcement consequences. Throughout the course of the 2-year study, the Saints were never officially arrested. In contrast, in the same period, each member of the Roughnecks was arrested at least one time. Multiple Roughnecks were arrested several times, and ultimately two Roughnecks spent 6 months in a school for boys as punishment for their criminal behavior.

Parents, school officials, and law enforcement perceived the two groups of boys very differently. The community largely determined that the Saints were young boys who were “sowing their wild oats”—engaging in nominal rule breaking and testing boundaries but otherwise destined for bright futures. In dramatic contrast, the criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was assumed to be indica- tive of more serious forms of criminality later in life. Chambliss determined that a combination of three variables could explain the differential treatment and perception of these two groups: visibility, demeanor, and bias.

According to Chambliss, “This differential visibility was a direct function of the economic standing of the families. The Saints had access to automobiles and were able to remove themselves from the sight of the community” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 29). The Saints had the privilege of committing their deviant and criminal behavior, vandalism and petty theft in particular, in nearby neighborhoods and communities. Similarly, the Saints were able to conceal a great deal of their drug and alcohol consumption inside their respective houses. These visibility advantages were crucial in allowing the Saints to maintain a relatively wholesome public image despite their overt criminality. (continued)

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 73 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Case Study: The Saints and the Roughnecks (continued) In contrast, the deviant and criminal behavior of the Roughnecks was very visible to power holders in the community. The Roughnecks did not have access to cars or expansive homes. Thus, they engaged in petty theft, alcohol consumption, and fighting outside, often in the middle of their community. This study suggests that visible crimes committed in public spaces are not only more likely to come to the attention of the community but also more likely to elicit concern and lead to social control efforts. While visibility was critically important to the differential perceptions of these two groups, other variables were important as well.

The respective demeanor of each group was also critical to their differing reputations. When law enforcement, school officials, and powerful members of the community confronted the Saints, they were notably “apologetic and penitent” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The Saints feigned subservience to adults and exuded middle-class values. In contrast, the Rougnecks were very confrontational when confronted by authority figures. They expressed “hostility and disdain” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30) in these interactions that further entrenched their negative perception among the community.

The third explanatory variable in the study was bias. According to Chambliss, visibility and demeanor contributed to unfair and prejudicial treatment of the Roughnecks by the community, school officials, and law enforcement. He argued that class-based bias led to a predisposition to favor the Saints and to consistently give them sympathetic treatment. In contrast, when a Roughneck was facing conse- quences for criminal or deviant behavior, even the boy’s own parents seemed to assume the worst; the bad behavior of the Roughneck was evidence that he was destined to commit more serious types of crime in the future.

Chambliss concluded that visibility, demeanor, and bias are “surface variables” that work in combina- tion to explain the differential treatment of the Saints and the Roughnecks (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). He argued that community and law enforcement discretion is influenced by “the class structure of American society and the control of legal institutions by those at the top of the class structure” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 30). The study suggests that social class differences can lead to very different perceptions and treatment of similar behavior. The powerful conclusion in The Saints and the Rough- necks reaffirms that class-based discrimination shapes perceptions of criminality and law enforce- ment behavior: “Selective perception and labeling—finding, processing and punishing some kinds of criminality and not others—means that visible, poor, non-mobile, outspoken, undiplomatic ‘tough’ kids will be noticed, whether their actions are seriously delinquent or not” (Chambliss, 1973, p. 31).

Discriminatory Policy: Visibility

As originally demonstrated by William Chambliss, visibility advantages and disadvan- tages are critically important in the contemporary investigation of social class and crime. Individuals that live in residentially crowded, lower-class communities have less privacy in all aspects. Therefore, in lower-class communities with high population density, resi- dents are much more visible to law enforcement. Criminologists have consistently found that neighborhood differences in police presence and residential crowding shape one’s vulnerability to apprehension and arrest by police.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 74 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

The job of law enforcement is to police public spaces. Due to the lack of sufficient private space in many lower-class neighborhoods, streets, parks, and common areas become active centers for social interaction and daily living (Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009). As a result, police are more likely to actively patrol these lower-class neighborhoods and communities, and thus citizens from these communities are more likely to be arrested (Sampson, 1986).

Whether or not these social-class dynamics represent active discrimination by law enforce- ment is debatable. Driven by population density, residential crowding, and lack of privacy, individuals from many lower-class communities are more likely to be arrested compared to more affluent individuals from other types of communities. Thus, much like the Saints and Roughnecks, lower-class and upper-class individuals may be engaged in similar types of criminal behavior, but lower-class individuals are much more likely to have their behavior come to the attention of law enforcement. However, a robust police presence in many suburban and rural communities with ample private space is likely not an effective resource allocation strategy by law enforcement. Police patrol of expansive communities with comparatively little social living and daily interaction taking place outside is likely not very effective in uncovering or deterring crime. Regardless whether or not these dynam- ics are considered discriminatory, residential crowding is likely one of the most important dynamics in understanding inequality in the contemporary criminal justice system.

Discriminatory Policy: Bail

The evidence suggests that the bail process unfairly disadvantages members of the lower classes in the criminal justice process. At an initial appearance in court, a defendant can be released on his or her own recognizance, held without bail, or given the option to post bail. Defendants released on their own recognizance (sometimes called ROR) are typi- cally facing relatively minor charges and not perceived as a threat to the community or a flight risk by the judge. The court grants these defendants some degree of trust that they will show up for future court dates as agreed. A defendant held without bail is perceived by the judge to pose a threat to community safety, is likely to not show up for court, and is more likely to be facing serious charges. Bail is a collateral program that is a middle- ground option between ROR and holding a defendant without bail.

Bail is collateral provided by the defendant to the state as assurance that he or she will appear for future scheduled court appearances. The defendant receives his or her money back by showing up in court as agreed (minus appearance fees and/or fines if applicable). Defendants can post bail in cash, use their home or other property as collateral, or use the services of a bail bondsperson.

The bail bonds industry is a private, for-profit enterprise that plays a significant role in the criminal justice process. If a defendant is granted the option to post bail but cannot afford the full bail amount, he or she may choose to employ the services of a bail bondsperson. Bail bondspeople usually have storefront offices adjacent to the courthouse, and billboards and other advertisements are common in nearby neighborhoods. Typically, the defendant must provide about 10% of the bail amount as a fee for the bondsperson’s services. The

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 75 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

bail bondsperson then pays the rest of the required bail money to the court. The vast majority of individuals facing criminal charges show up for court as agreed, thus the bail bonds industry is a very profitable one (Shelden, 2010) and also fairly controversial.

Criminologists and public policy officials often criticize the bail bonds industry. Some perceive the bail system itself as a process that essentially allows individuals to buy their freedom. The bail bonds industry, as a for-profit private industry, further exacerbates the ethical questions inherent in the “money for freedom” system. In part because of these ethical issues, the for-profit bail bonds industry has been prohibited by law in several states including Illinois, Oregon, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wisconsin (Shelden, Brown, Miller, & Fritzler, 2007).

Potentially the most controver- sial aspect of the bail system is that it impacts the results of the criminal justice process. Defen- dants who are denied bail or cannot afford the bail amount required are held in jail until their trial or until their case is resolved via a plea bargain. A defendant held in jail may lose his or her job and is separated from family and friends and thus may be more likely to take a plea bargain.

Similarly, research has shown that defendants unable to make bail are at an unfair disadvan- tage in the judicial process. A series of research studies over

time have demonstrated that pretrial detainees (defendants who were both denied bail and defendants who could not afford bail) are more likely to be convicted at trial com- pared to similar defendants who were not pretrial detainees. In addition, pretrial detainees are more likely to receive longer sentences if found guilty (Cohen & Reaves, 2006). Studies conducted in New York City, Detroit, and Connecticut have shown that even when con- trolling for other variables, pretrial detainees end up with worse outcomes compared to nonpretrial detainees (Single, 1972; Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2012; Donziger, 1996). That means that even when comparing individual defendants facing similar criminal charges with similar criminal records and with similar individual characteristics (family, employ- ment history, etc.), pretrial detainees were more likely to be found guilty and more likely to serve longer sentences compared to similar nonpretrial detainees.

In 1972, a cornerstone study demonstrated the unfair impact of being denied bail on judi- cial outcomes. Examining the criminal cases of 857 indigent defendants in New York City, the study concluded,

George Rose/Getty Images

Criminologists and public policy officials often criticize the bail bonds industry for contributing to the “money for freedom” system.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 76 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Those people who must wait in jail for the disposition of the criminal charges against them because they do not have enough money to purchase their free- dom are far more often convicted, far more often given a prison term, and far more often given a long prison term than those people who obtain their release during this time. . . . [This] is not accounted for by any factor related to the merits of the cases, such as the seriousness and nature of the charges, the weight of the evidence and the presence or absence of aggravated circum- stances, prior criminal record, family and community ties, or the amount of bail. (Single, 1972, p. 459)

Discriminatory Policy: Attorney Representation

The issue of attorney representation demonstrates another way that social class may contribute to discrimination in the criminal justice system. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the assistance of legal counsel to defendants facing criminal charges. Defendants are entitled to legal representation, and if they cannot afford a private attorney, a public defender—an attorney appointed by the court and paid by the state to provide legal representation to defendants—will be provided. Criminological research demonstrates that the ability to afford a private attorney significantly impacts the outcomes of criminal cases.

Public defenders are a major component of the contemporary criminal justice system. Approximately 80% of felony defendants at the state level and 67% of felony defendants at the federal level cannot afford to hire their own private attorney representation (Smith & DeFrances, 1996; Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009) and will be appointed a public defender. Public defenders are typically perceived as lower in status within the legal profession (Shelden, 2010). However, public defenders may or may not be more or less skilled than their private counterparts.

Public defenders face a series of structural disadvantages that puts their indigent clients at a disadvantage in the criminal justice process. Public defenders are more likely to be young and comparatively less experienced. More significantly, public defenders typically manage much bigger caseloads than private attorneys; therefore, they have less time to devote to each individual client. Similarly, public defenders are less likely to have the time and mon- etary resources to hire experts and investigators, visit crime scenes, and examine evidence. When combined, these factors limit a poor defendant’s ability to receive zealous represen- tation and contribute to social-class disadvantages built into the criminal justice system.

Evidence suggests that defendants are well aware of the advantages of having private legal representation. In 1998, Steven Bogira began a yearlong journalistic investigation of Chicago’s Cook County Courthouse. Bogira (2006) reported that the term used by crimi- nal defendants for private attorneys clearly reflects the structural disadvantages of having a public defender: In jails and courtrooms in Cook County, a private attorney is simply called “a real lawyer” (Bogira, 2006, p. 124).

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 77 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Case Study: Courtroom 302 Steven Bogira is a Chicago native, a graduate from the North- western University School of Journalism and an award-winning journalist. In Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in a Criminal Courthouse, Bogira (2006) paints a vivid account of the day-to-day challenges faced by defendants and legal sys- tem actors in America’s busiest and most impacted criminal courthouse. Bogira was able to observe the daily happenings in Courtroom 302 and the adjacent jail. He also interviewed criminal defendants, their families, public defenders, private attorneys, prosecutors, and bailiffs. Notably, Bogira was able to conduct more than 30 sit-down interviews with Judge Dan- iel Locallo who presided over Courtroom 302. Bogira weaves together the interview data with vivid first-hand observations of a series of cases—from mundane low-level drug possession cases to controversial racially motivated violent crimes. In all of these cases, the pressures of overcrowding and a daunting number of cases to be processed daily are evident.

Bogira connects the sheer volume of criminal cases with inequality in the criminal justice process in brilliant, narrative-based accounts. Often, a major critique of the criminal justice system is evident in the chapter title. In “Welcome to the County” Bogira describes the dehumanization that takes place in the processing of incoming defendants into the jail system, orchestrated by a correctional officer that he dubbed “Bullneck.” He broaches the unfair pressures of the plea bargaining process in “White Sales,” the dramatic increase in incarceration rates in “A Growth Industry,” the disadvantages of being represented by the public defender in “A Real Lawyer,” the jury selection process in “Prejudice,” and the history of police misconduct and abuse in Chicago and related false confessions from defendants in “Freely and Voluntarily,” “A Sensitive Area,” and “Blame the PO-lice.”

The culmination of the research is an insider’s account of the very controversial Bridgeport case. The case was referred to as a “heater,” or a high-profile case that was likely to attract considerable attention from the media and community. Two African American teenagers and a Hispanic friend were riding their bicycles in a predominantly White neighborhood in the Bridgeport area of Chicago. While in search of air to put in their bicycle tires, Frank Caruso Jr., a White 18-year-old, and several of his friends spotted the group. As the younger boys attempted to run away, the 13-year-old African American was chased down and badly beaten by Caruso, eventually ending up in a coma. The arrests and trial that followed drew attention from political leaders and power holders in the community. Notably, Frank Caruso’s dad was alleged to be part of a longstanding and powerful organized-crime syndicate in Chicago. The unfolding of the Bridgeport case, along with the other rich accounts, pro- vides valuable insight into the size, scope, and related challenges in contemporary criminal justice.

Courtroom 302 puts human faces on the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on those of lower socioeconomic status. While the Bridgeport case drew considerable media attention, it was an anomaly. The primary task of the legal system actors in Courtroom 302 was processing a daunting number of defendants—mostly poor, mostly repeat offenders, mostly without access to the stable legal economy, many with a drug habit—through the system on a daily basis. The poor largely constituted the human “cargo” (Bogira, 2006, p. 3) processed through the American legal system.

Comstock/Thinkstock

Steven Bogira’s Courtroom 302: A Year Behind the Scenes in a Criminal Courthouse, describes the challenges faced by defendants and legal system actors in a busy criminal courthouse.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 78 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Discriminatory Policy: Plea Bargains

The plea bargaining process also contributes to the disadvantage of lower-class individu- als in the criminal justice system. A plea bargain is a deal or arrangement between the accused and the state. The defendant waives his or her right to a trial and enters a plea of guilty, generally to a lesser crime with a more lenient sentence compared to the original criminal charge. The prosecutor and the state agree to the more lenient terms, in part because they do not have to invest the time and other resources in investigating the case, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and eventually going to trial. The plea bar- gain is thus a deal that theoretically can be mutually beneficial for both sides. In dramatic contrast to media portrayals of the criminal justice process on shows like Law & Order, The Good Wife, and other courtroom dramas, the vast majority of criminal cases result in plea bargains.

Plea bargains are commonplace in the modern judicial process. While there is no defini- tive count of the number of criminal cases that result in plea bargains each year, there is ample evidence showing that plea bargains constitute the overwhelming majority of criminal convictions in this country. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005a) reports that there were 75,573 criminal cases in federal courts in the year 2003. Of these cases, 95% were ultimately resolved via a plea bargain (Pastore & Maguire, 2002; Devers, 2011). A legacy of criminological research has demonstrated that plea bargains likely account for between 90 and 95% of all criminal cases at both the state and federal levels (Flanagan & Maguire, 1990; Newman, 1996; Kappeler & Potter, 2005; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). The context of plea bargaining does not impact all social classes equally and thus can be framed as discriminatory policy.

Plea bargains combine with bail dynamics to have an adverse and discriminatory impact on members of the lower classes. If defendants are offered bail but cannot afford it, they will be incarcerated in jail until their case is resolved, via a trial or a plea bargain. This is likely to encourage defendants who cannot afford bail to take plea bargains that they might be hesitant to take if they were free in the community awaiting trial. Similarly, a defendant who is free on bail can more actively participate in his or her own defense. Being unable to post bail likely makes the accused more likely to take a plea bargain.

Likewise, plea bargains combine with issues of attorney representation to also have an adverse and discriminatory impact on members of the lower classes. Much like a defen- dant who cannot afford to post bail, an indigent defendant represented by the public defender may be more likely to take a plea bargain compared to a defendant who can afford a private attorney. As discussed, defendants represented by the public defender are at a structural disadvantage compared to defendants represented by private counsel. Defendants, possibly realizing that they are likely to receive less than the most vigorous defense possible if their case would go to trial, are thus artificially pressured to take a plea bargain.

One could argue that the interconnected issues of plea bargaining, attorney representa- tion, and bail are not intentionally discriminatory. While in practice these issues result in a structural disadvantage for poor defendants, they may be the unintentional byproduct of an overcrowded and overburdened system.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 79 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.2 The Criminal Justice System and Social Class CHAPTER 3

Disparity Versus Discrimination

The examination of the overrepresentation of the lower classes in the criminal justice sys- tem is complex; there is no single variable, dynamic, or reason that explains this dramatic overrepresentation in its entirety. However, taking into account the many topics surveyed in this chapter, some preliminary conclusions can be made concerning the disparity ver- sus discrimination debate.

Some modest evidence exists to support the disparity arguments that the poor commit higher rates of crime and are thus overrepresented at all levels of the criminal justice sys- tem. Several cornerstone theories in criminology were constructed after studying poor, often urban communities with higher rates of crime. Moreover, when examining the Uni- form Crime Report and other law-enforcement based measures of crime, the lower social classes are much more likely to be perpetrators of crime and victims of crime (Tibbetts, 2012). Poverty, dilapidated housing, underfunded school systems, and a lack of access to the mainstream economy are all important issues correlating with and perhaps even caus- ing crime. However, significant evidence indicates that procedures built into the criminal justice system advantage those of higher social class at nearly every stage.

Ample evidence shows that both intentional and unintentional discrimination play signif- icant roles in the overrepresentation of the lower class and the underrepresentation of the upper class in the criminal justice system. The evidence suggests that visibility produced by residential crowding may be one of the most important dynamics within the disparity versus discrimination debate. Residentially crowded communities with less privacy and a more vibrant public life make residents of these communities much more likely to have their behavior come to the attention of law enforcement. In contrast, living in a commu- nity with sufficient private space likely makes the perpetrators of certain types of crimes, like domestic abuse, drug use, and drug dealing, much less likely to come to the attention of law enforcement.

Moreover, once arrested and in the criminal justice system, those of higher social class have a series of structural advantages. Those with financial means are more likely to be able to post bail and to hire a private attorney and thus have more leverage in the plea

Web Field Trip: Legal Representation and Social Class Visit the website of KPBS http://www.kpbs.org/audioclips/13308/ and listen to the interview with Stephen B. Bright on the topic “The Quality of a Legal Defense: Does it Matter If You’re Rich or Poor?” Stephen Bright is the president and senior counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights, a group dedicated to a series of human rights issues in the criminal justice system.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How does geographic location play a role in the quality of representation provided by the pub- lic defender?

2. How does the overburdened public defense system in many areas contribute to issues of wrongful conviction?

3. What do you think can be done to improve this issue?

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 80 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

3.3 White-Collar Crime

An understanding of white-collar and corporate crime is essential to the investiga-tion of social class and criminality. According to some definitions of white-collar crime, individuals who have achieved some degree of economic success commit it. Nearly a century of evidence suggests that the costs of white-collar crimes are significant and that the punishments are less vigorous compared to street crime.

White-Collar Crime Defined

In 1939, Edwin Sutherland stepped onto the podium to give the annual Presidential Address to the American Sociological Society. In this address, he argued that the discipline of sociology has historically focused too much scholarly attention on crimes committed by the poor and marginalized. He strongly advocated that the social-scientific community should strive to understand, theorize, and measure crimes committed by powerful and wealthy individuals in society. In short, science should focus on crimes in the suites not just crimes in the streets.

bargaining process. These dynamics are explicitly related to social class. The evidence sug- gests quite strongly that a defendant who cannot afford bail and who relies on the public defender is at a disadvantage in the plea bargaining process and is much more likely to be punished more harshly for his or her crimes. In combination, these dynamics suggest that the criminal justice system does systematically disadvantage members of lower classes. Thus, discriminatory policy is a significant contributor to the overrepresentation of the poor in the criminal justice system.

Web Field Trip: Broken Windows Theory Broken windows theory is a branch of social structure theory written about extensively by Skogan (1990) and Kelling, and Coles (1996). The theory links neighborhood disorder and crime. It suggests that if a broken window is not fixed, it signifies disorder, which will lead to another broken window, which will lead to graffiti, which will lead to community decay, and eventually larger-scale crimes. If disorderly behavior is ignored, it sends a message that the area is unsafe and that other crimes will go ignored. The theory works on the basis that people will be affected by their environment, and if it is deviant, then their behavior too will be deviant.

In the 1990s New York City put the broken windows theory into practice and discovered a significant drop in crime rates, which many researchers credit entirely to the implementation of the theory. Read about how New York City became a safer city through the use of broken windows theory here: http://www.city-journal.org/2009/nytom_ny-crime-decline.html.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you think New York City’s drop in crime was related to broken window theory or was based on other external factors?

2. Have you noticed more illegal incidents reported in your local area in neighborhoods with bro- ken windows and graffiti?

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 81 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

Sutherland originally defined white-collar crime as “crime committed by a person of high respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Sutherland, 1949). Sutherland defined this concept after studying 70 of America’s largest corporations including General Motors, Sears Roebuck, and Montgomery Ward. He determined that over their lifespan these 70 corporations were responsible for a total of 980 legal viola- tions. The vast majority of these crimes were violations of regulatory laws that seek to regulate the business practices and procedures of corporations, such as price fixing, false advertising, and violating patents and trademarks. However, 16% of these crimes were violations of criminal law. With his research and definition of white-collar crime, Suther- land encouraged scientific attention to a critically important artery in criminology and a critical challenge facing society (Sutherland, 1949; Berger, 2011).

Since Sutherland’s original definition of the term, subsequent scholars have expanded and refined the types and definitions of the concept. According to Ron Berger, a sociology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and author of White-Collar Crime: The Abuse of Corporate and Government Power (2011), Herbert Edelhertz likely created the most useful definition of white-collar crime for law enforcement and prosecutorial purposes in 1970. Edelhertz was the head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Fraud Section and offered the following definition of white-collar crime:

an illegal act or series of illegal acts committed by nonphysical means and by concealment or guile to obtain money or property, to avoid the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage. (quoted in Berger, 2011, pp. 9–10)

According to the FBI, white-collar crime is an expansive concept that includes many types of criminal behavior. Common white-collar crimes include various types of fraud, includ- ing identity theft, money laundering, bribery, embezzlement, many forms of political corruption, plus more.

The Costs of White-Collar Crime

Evidence suggests that the financial and human costs of white-collar crime are greater than all street crime combined. Jeffrey Reiman estimates that the annual costs of white-collar crime in the United States may be more than $400 billion (Reiman, 2007). His analysis also demonstrates that dangerous working environments, long-term dis- eases associated with working in certain industries, environmental hazards, pollution, and dangerous consumer goods cause significant harm to society. Reiman demonstrates that annually approximately 55,000 people die as a result of diseases associated with their occupation and unsafe working conditions. In comparison, there are approxi- mately 16,000 homicides each year in America. Similarly, approximately 2.3 million workers become seriously injured or ill as a result of working conditions. In contrast, according to law enforcement crime data, about 860,000 aggravated assaults take place each year (Reiman, 2007; Berger, Free, & Searles, 2009). Clearly, the harms of white- collar crime are significant and thus mandate attention from criminologists, policy mak- ers, and the public.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 82 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

White-Collar Crime and Intent

Intent is one of the most critical questions involving white-collar crime. Many white-collar crimes are intentional with clearly defined and identifiable victims. However, in cases of workplace accidents and unsafe products, the issue of intent is a murky one. Reiman (2007) describes this important tension:

What keeps a mine disaster from being a mass murder . . . is that it is not a one-on-one harm. . . . the desire of someone (or ones) to harm someone (or ones) else . . . A mine executive . . . does not want his employees to be harmed. He would truly prefer that there be no accident, no injured or dead miners. What he does want is something legitimate. It is what he has been hired to get: maximum profits at minimum costs. (Reiman, 2007, pp. 71–73; quoted in Berger, 2011, p. 38)

Case Study: The Ford Pinto The Ford Pinto is a central case study in the investigation of white-collar crime. The Ford Motor Company manufactured and sold the Ford Pinto beginning in the early 1970s. Like many cars of the era, the Pinto was designed to be lighter, more fuel efficient, and economical, to some extent to compete with cars built by Japanese and German auto manufacturers. In part because of these pressures to make the Pinto smaller and lighter, the gas task was placed in close proximity to the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the Pinto was very susceptible to gasoline leaks, fires, and explosions in accidents involving the rear portion of the vehicle. These fuel-tank dan- gers existed even in rear-end accidents at relatively moderate speeds of approximately 30 miles per hour (Rosoff, Pontell, & Tillman, 2009; Berger, 2011).

The evidence suggests that many high-ranking employees, engineers, managers, and executives at Ford Motor Company were aware of these dangers and chose to put the Pinto on the market anyway. Ford engineers had considered a series of safety enhancements to the Pinto’s gas tank, but the com- pany determined that the safety improvements were too expensive. More specifically, Ford projected that the monetary awards of civil suits associated with the Pinto would be less expensive than fixing the problem and making the cars less dangerous (Rosoff, Pontell, & Tillman, 2009; Berger, 2011).

The Ford Pinto was responsible for a series of burn-related deaths and injuries and eventually sub- ject to an official recall. The specific number of burn-related fatalities attributable to the fuel-tank design flaw varies widely, from a low of 27 burn-related fatalities to a high of 500 (Berger, 2011). As a result, Ford Motor Company paid out millions of dollars to victims in civil lawsuit damages. Ford even faced reckless homicide charges in an Indiana criminal court but was ultimately found not guilty by the jury. One of the key questions in the Ford Pinto case—and many criminal cases involving the deaths and injuries caused by unsafe products—is the issue of intent (Rosoff, Pontell, & Tillman, 2009; Berger, 2011).

Associated Press

Failure to enact safety measures for the Ford Pinto led to a series of burn-related injuries and deaths in the 1970s.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 83 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

Motivations of White-Collar Criminals

Criminology as a science strives to understand the motivations for crime and criminal behavior; this question is particularly acute for white-collar criminals. White-collar crime is often committed by individuals who have already achieved some degree of economic success. In fact, in many high-profile cases of white-collar crime—Enron Corporation, Tyco, Worldcom etc.—it was precisely the power, influence, and economic success of the perpetrators that facilitated the criminal behavior. In Why Do They Do It? The Motives, Mores, and Character of White Collar Criminals (2008), Pamela Bucy, the Bainbridge Professor of Law at the University of Alabama School of Law, Marc Raspanti, a former prosecutor with a specialization in white-collar crime, and Elizabeth Formby and Kathryn Rooney, J. D., candidates at the University of Alabama, conducted research in hopes of informing this question of motive:

Why do talented, bright, highly educated, successful people, who have “made it,” risk it all by lying, stealing, and cheating, especially when what they’re stealing is not much compared to what they have? The simple answer is, “because they can.” (Bucy, Formby, Raspanti, & Rooney, 2008, p. 401)

To address the research question, the researchers conducted 45 interviews with accused white-collar crime defendants, experienced white-collar prosecutors, and defense attor- neys. Based on this interview data, they concluded that there were two main types of white-collar criminals: leaders and followers. Leaders tended to have dominant, asser- tive personalities, and many had an enthusiasm for risk taking. In contrast, followers were subservient and often manipulated into participating in the criminal scheme by the leaders.

The researchers conceptualized the “leaders” category in part based on interview data from subjects asked to describe “common personality or demographic traits” (Bucy, Formby, Raspanti, & Rooney, 2008, p. 473) of white-collar criminals. Subject responses included “They tend to be risk-takers. They are just basically doing business that has an illegal feature about it, and they know that, but they do not view it as anything other than business,” and “They have very large egos, are very narcissistic, have an inflated sense of self, and are generally very charismatic and smart” (Bucy, Formby, Raspanti, & Rooney, 2008, p. 473).

When asked about the motivations of white-collar criminals, some major themes emerged from the interview data. While many subjects cited greed as a motivating factor, the larger context and pressures of capitalism and business culture were also prominent among the responses. As one subject described,

Very few companies really encourage criminal activity. Most of the time it is the absence of adequate controls to catch it that encourages criminal activity. Corporations want to make money, and they may not have the proper con- trols to catch the actions of dishonest people. Greed and the pressure to meet the expectations of Wall Street also encourage cutting corners. There may be managers who people are afraid to challenge. Convictions are often the result of a bad business plan, negligence, even gross negligence, but not criminal conduct. (Bucy, Formby, Raspanti, & Rooney, 2008, p. 517)

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 84 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

In sum, white-collar and corporate crime result in significant financial and human costs to American society and the world community. As criminologists, it is imperative to understand the origins of white-collar crime, cornerstone cases, and the motivations of the offenders. In addition, white-collar crime contributes to our understanding of the rela- tionship between social class and crime because many perpetrators of white-collar crime have achieved some degree of economic success.

Using the Sociological Lens: Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough

Forcibly sterilizing groups of people deemed unfit for reproduction has been legal in numerous coun- tries around the world, including the United States.

In 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the legality of forced steriliza- tions in the case Buck v. Bell. Declaring that the appellant, Carrie Buck, was “the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring” the court ruled that forcibly sterilizing poor, mentally unstable, illiter- ate, deaf, blind, deformed, disadvantaged, homeless, or otherwise vul- nerable people such as Buck (who had been raped and forced to give birth to a child out of wedlock) was in society’s best interest. “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives,” wrote Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the Court’s majority opinion. “It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence.”

Holmes predicted that the offspring of these groups were destined either to be unable to care for themselves, and thus drain scarce pub- lic resources, or were likely to become criminals that society would eventually have to execute. “It is better for all the world,” declared Holmes, “if society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Interestingly, the Court used as precedent the ruling in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which upheld states’ rights to forcibly vaccinate segments of the population to pre- vent disease. The court said in this case that the public’s duty to triumph over diseases like smallpox (which was epidemic at the time) trumped an individual’s right to refuse a vaccine. For Holmes and the other justices that voted in favor of Buck, preventing the birth of certain types of people consti- tuted the same public good as did eradicating disease. “The principle that sustains compulsory vac- cination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes,” declared Holmes. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Buck v. Bell encouraged dozens of states—including California, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia—to begin or expand sterilization programs. Though most such programs were out of use by the 1960s, several state laws allowing compulsory sterilization were not formally repealed until the 1970s (and Buck v. Bell has never been overturned). The following perspectives consider the his- tory and modern-day implementation of forced sterilizations, with one exploring the legacy of forced sterilizations in the United States and the other considering places where forced sterilizations remain legal and undertaken.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Nearly 7,600 North Carolinians were the victims of forced sterilization between 1929 and 1974.

(continued)

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 85 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Section 3.3 White-Collar Crime CHAPTER 3

Using the Sociological Lens: Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough (continued)

Making Amends for Compulsory Sterilizations

Many Americans are shocked to learn that they live in a state that likely participated in forced steril- izations in the early 20th century. Beginning in the 1920s, more than 30 states adopted compulsory sterilization laws that resulted in the sterilization of more than 60,000 people (Kaelber, 2009). This dark chapter in American history resurfaced in 2010, when North Carolina—which had one of the most aggressive forced sterilization programs in the country—formed the North Carolina Justice for Sterilization Victims foundation, which sought to pay reparations and other compensation for still- living victims of the program. Between 1929 and 1974, nearly 7,600 North Carolinians were steril- ized. The state estimates that between 1,500 and 2,000 survivors remain, and in 2012 proposed offering $50,000 to each victim to compensate them for their suffering.

In the following perspective, Los Angeles Times reporter David Zucchino discusses the plan to pay reparations from the perspective of one survivor, Elaine Riddick. Riddick recounts the circumstances that led to her being forcibly sterilized and argues that no amount of money can undo the trauma she endured at the hands of the state.

David Zucchino, “Sterilized in North Carolina, She Felt Raped Once More,” Los Angeles Times, Janu- ary 25, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/25/nation/la-na-forced- sterilization-20120126

Thousands Continue to Be Sterilized Against Their Will

Although the Nazis famously pursued forced sterilization and other eugenic policies in the 1940s, thousands of men, women, and children around the world continue to be sterilized against their will or without their knowledge. Modern compulsory sterilization programs target several different groups of people. In 2010, Poland began to sterilize child rapists and other sex offenders. In Swe- den, Finland, France, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and other European countries—17 in total —laws require people who register as transgender to undergo forced sterilization (Pasulka, 2012). In Czechoslovakia, Roma, or “gypsy,” people—a group that has faced discrimination and persecution in multiple countries for centuries—are subjected to forced or coerced sterilization procedures, as are HIV-positive women or women who seek abortions in Namibia, South Africa, and other Southern African nations. Although compulsory sterilization is technically illegal in China, human rights groups have reported the existence of campaigns to sterilize thousands of women as part of China’s efforts to control its population growth (Amnesty International, 2010).

In the following exposé, the Open Society Foundations reports on how women around the world —from Eastern Europe, to Africa, to South America, to India and China—continue to be sterilized against their will. Some are sterilized because they are HIV positive; others are sterilized because they are disabled. Some women are targeted for sterilization because they are part of racial or eth- nic minorities that suffer multiple types of discrimination and oppression. Still others are victimized because they are poor. Taken together, these cases paint a horrifying picture of how marginalized women around the globe are further victimized.

Against Her Will: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Women Worldwide, Open Society Foundations, October 2011. http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/law/articles_ publications/publications/against-her-will-20111004/against-her-will-20111003.pdf

(continued)

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 86 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3

Chapter Summary

The relationship between social class and crime is complex. This chapter marshaled empirical evidence to explore this relationship. Various conceptualizations and measures of social class and inequality were presented. Social scientists often conceptualize social class to include income and wealth but also incorporate the corre- sponding personal and social advantage. Data was presented that illustrated the extent of stratification in America and the dramatically disproportionate distribution of wealth in this country.

The bulk of the chapter focused on the disparity versus discrimination debate. Mem- bers of the lower classes are dramatically overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Is this best explained by disparities in rates of offending? Or are there intentional and unintentional policies built into the criminal justice system that disadvantage, and thus discriminate against, members of the lower classes? After investigating issues including visibility, bail, attorney representation, and plea bargains, the evidence suggested that both disparity and discrimination play a role. However, the bulk of the evidence suggests that at several stages of the criminal justice process, members of the higher classes ben- efit from a series of structural advantages. These structural advantages contribute to the behavior of the lower classes being more likely to come to the attention of law enforce- ment and more likely to result in severe consequences from the criminal justice system.

The final section of this chapter investigated white-collar crime. The origins, evolution, and definitions of white-collar crime were presented. Empirical evidence was examined concerning the scope and harm caused by white-collar crime in comparison to street crime. And the motivations of white-collar criminals were investigated. The goal of this chapter was to provide students a data-driven and scientific look into the relationship between social class and crime.

Using the Sociological Lens: Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough (continued)

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. One of the many implications of the Supreme Court’s 1927 ruling in Buck v. Bell is that less intelligent people are more prone to criminal activity. Evaluate this statement using contempo- rary theories (and examples) of class and criminality.

2. In what way, if any, do you think forced sterilizations contribute to social stratification? 3. What social groups or classes have been most prone to forced sterilization in the past? What

social groups or classes continue to be forcibly sterilized today? 4. Poland sterilizes certain prisoners as a form of punishment and to make sexual criminals less

aggressive (similar measures have been proposed in Jamaica and the state of Indiana, among other places). What is your opinion of using sterilization as a punitive measure? Should certain kinds of criminals be punitively sterilized? Why or why not?

5. In what ways does forced sterilization allow certain social classes or groups to hold power over other social classes?

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 87 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3

Key Terms

bail Collateral provided by the defen- dant that attempts to assure that he or she will appear for future scheduled court appearances.

life chances An individual’s current eco- nomic standing as well as an individual’s likelihood of becoming economically powerful in the future. Life chances reflect one’s position in informal and formal social networks as a predictor of future economic success.

meta-analysis A review of the major studies done on a particular topic that attempts to unearth common themes and conclusions.

plea bargain A deal or arrangement between the accused and the state in which the defendant waives the right to a trial and enters a plea of guilty, generally to a lesser crime with more lenient sentences compared to the original criminal charge.

public defender An attorney appointed by the court and paid by the state to provide legal representation to defen- dants who cannot afford their own private attorney.

social class A group that has a similar level of economic and social status includ- ing income, wealth, and power.

social inequality Refers to the unequal distribution of power, goods, and services between individuals or groups at a given moment in time.

social stratification Refers to “structured inequalities between groups” (Giddens, 2011, p. 181) that have become longstand- ing and relatively permanent.

white-collar crime (Department of Justice definition) “An illegal act or series of ille- gal acts committed by nonphysical means and by concealment or guile to obtain money or property, to avoid the payment or loss of money or property, or to obtain business or personal advantage” (quoted in Berger, 2011, pp. 9–10).

white-collar crime (Sutherland’s defini- tion) “Crime committed by a person of high respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Suther- land, 1949).

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. What is the difference between risk factors for crime and variables that determine criminal behavior? Cite examples of each.

2. People who live in lower-class, high-density communities have less privacy. In what way, if any, do you think having less privacy contributes to criminal behav- ior and activity?

3. What do you think best explains the overrepresentation of lower-class people in the criminal justice system?

4. Why are spousal abuse and illegal drug use in an upper-middle-class family less likely to come to the attention of local law enforcement?

5. Describe how white-collar crime negatively affects society.

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 88 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime and Class The definition of crime changes as society changes its norms and values. Such changes also impact social responses to crimes. Experts comment on the study of crime, how crime impacts groups they work with, and different crime response and intervention methods.

Erik Fritsvold

Can you please tell us more about your research for Dorm Room Dealers? How do the relationships between drugs, crime, and class in this group differ from the relationships between drugs, crime, and class in other drug networks? When we compared the group we were researching with the legacy of crime and drugs studies, we found three big areas of difference for the dorm room dealers: minimal intervention, haphazard approaches, and access to resources. Dorm room dealers existed in social circumstances where their lives were not actively policed and didn’t consider the threats or risks, such

as robbery or police intervention. One of our subjects did get caught. He came clean and then had the financial ability to get a good defense attorney. Resources matter. This was a crucial moment that reinforced what criminal justice studies have said.

Noah Fritz

When you consider crime patterns, what types of things might you notice? There is a body of literature around social disorganization theory. This addresses poverty levels of neighborhoods. The theory argues there is more crime in a neighborhood that is high poverty, has a high number of single- female head of households, and has heterogeneity, things such as cultural tensions. In such communities perhaps there are fewer strong, male role models, which might contribute to a child’s lack of supervision. If the father is in prison and the mother is working one or two jobs just to make ends meet, then the kids in these neighborhoods are unattended or unsupervised. Looking at these social vari- ables from a geographic standpoint helps us understand and address the situation better. What kinds of opportunities do we want to provide for those children: a lack of supervision or an environment where the kids have an opportunity for education and advancement and maybe make the choice not to make the mistakes? This is a long-term solution with larger issues that need to be considered.

Amy Gonyeau

What are some of the major hurdles homeless individuals and families encountered that contributed to their state of homelessness? Untreated mental illnesses, disabilities, lack of employment, loss of family support, criminal involvement, alcohol and/or drug abuse, lack of emergency care, and transitional or permanent and affordable housing in San Diego [California], including 15-year wait lists for section 8 housing.

What is the relationship between class and the homeless community in San Diego County? How would you characterize the interactions between the homeless and other mem- bers of the community? Interactions between the homeless and other members of the community vary. Walking down the street and passing a homeless individual, most seem to turn the other way and want to ignore the fact that this problem exists. Many want to blame the individuals on choosing

Courtesy of Erik Fritsvold

Courtesy of Noah Fritz

Courtesy of Amy Gonyeau

(continued)

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 89 7/5/13 4:17 PM

Chapter Summary CHAPTER 3

In the Field: Experts Weigh in on Crime and Class (continued) homelessness and look down upon it. Every year we operate the City’s emergency winter shelter program and have to go to dozens of City Council meetings to represent our population and the needs for shelter. The community always shows up to voice their opinions related to homelessness, and it’s not a pretty sight. You hear hours of ignorance and hatred towards the homeless population. Numerous complaints are brought up, from accusations of my kids won’t be safe, they will be raped or kidnapped, to fearing for overall safety to simply the “look” the homeless bring to a community.

Education is key in correcting these assumptions. Most look down upon this population and it’s unfortunate. On the other hand we get plenty of volunteers and donors that give their time and money to help our cause. Once they engage and actually meet our clients face to face, they get to actually get to know the person behind the persona. I personally feel this interaction is crucial to change the overall stereotype of being homeless.

David Cowan

The Prison University Project aims to challenge popular myths and stereotypes about people in prison. What are some of these myths and stereotypes? How does the program achieve the goal of addressing such myths and stereotypes? Some of the myths and stereotypes about people in prison are that they are not like you and me; that they are in some way a little less human. They also include the ideas that there is something innately wrong with them and they are thus incorrigible; that they are all continuously violent and manipula- tive; and that they are unintelligent, antisocial, and lack empathy for other human beings.

PUP addresses such myths and stereotypes by creating a venue for students to enhance and express their creativity, intelligence, and true self. This work is important because if such stereotypes are not addressed, they will continue to stigmatize incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people, which will result in further marginalization and demoralization of the formerly incarcerated and only contribute to more despair, crime, and incarceration.

Courtesy of David Cowan

coL82305_03_c03_065-090.indd 90 7/5/13 4:17 PM