Id, Ego, and Superego & Humanist and Interactionist Theories

crj_308_chapter_08.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Id, Ego, and Superego & Humanist and Interactionist Theories

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

• Summarize the humanist and interactionist approaches to explaining crime. • Define Braithwaite’s theory and its role in criminal justice policies. • Understand criminological theories that use humanistic constructs to explain crime. • Analyze social support and the ways that it can be used to rehabilitate offenders. • Identify the role of interactionist principles in multiple criminological theories.

Crime From the Humanist and Interactionist Perspectives

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 217 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Introduction

Introduction

Common to the theoretical perspectives explored in the other chapters of this text is that some central construct or process is highlighted for its causal role for explaining crime. For example, from the trait perspective, the temperamental and personality traits of an individual increase the likelihood of antisocial or prosocial behaviors depending on whether those traits are risk or protective factors. In the behaviorist perspective, the processes of learning and reinforcement produce behavioral outcomes. Many psycho- logical theories zero in on specific constructs within the individual’s neuropsychological functioning, personality, cognitive skills, interaction patterns, neural substrates within the brain, and even genes, and then articulate how variance in these factors is associated with conduct problems. At the heart of this approach is the notion that deficits, problems, inef- ficiencies, or dysfunctions are associated with crime. Conversely, the lack of these same deficits explains successful, adaptive, prosocial, or conventional behavior. In this way, psychological theories of crime point to some pathology as the causal force.

The humanist and interactionist perspectives differ from this approach in two important ways. First, no pathology-inducing construct is pointed to as the important causal force. Indeed, the idea of overt pathology and the negative connotation it presents is avoided in the theoretical and conceptual models presented in this chapter. Second, behavior is not viewed in mechanical theoretical terms, where the presence of a construct manifests in antisocial behavior while the absence of the construct does not. Humanist and interac- tionist theories point to the subjective processes that guide human behavior. All theories present a probabilistic rather than deterministic explanation of crime, but humanist and interactionist theories in particular focus on situational dynamics and how an individual feels about himself or herself at a given moment when attempting to explain how and why crime occurs.

Humanist theory is concerned with the spirituality and emotional health of individuals, and how conflicts and threats to that inner health contribute to maladaptive behavior. While humanist theory is a broad, almost philosophical approach to psychology, inter- actionist theory is more methodological in the sense that it emphasizes the importance of the self, identity, and people’s interpretation of events in their lives as the primary determinants of behavior. Although distinct, humanist and interactionist theories share a positive, redemptive, malleable view of human behavior that eschews the idea of strongly stable factors such as temperament, personality, or neuropsychological deficits as prime drivers of behavior.

The unique approaches of humanist and interactionist theory are particularly helpful when contrasting with other psychological approaches to crime. For example, Jack Katz, whose work has focused on the seduction or attractive aspects of crime, has articulated the limitations of mainstream criminological theories and the potential for humanist and interactionist approaches:

The statistical and correlational findings of positivist criminology provide the following irritations to inquiry: (1) whatever the validity of the heredi- tary, psychological, and social-ecological conditions of crime, many of those in the supposedly causal categories do not commit the crime at issue, (2) many who do commit the crime do not fit the causal categories, and

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 218 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

(3) what is most provocative, many who do fit the background categories and later commit the predicted crime go for long stretches without com- mitting the crimes to which theory directs them. Why are people who were not determined to commit a crime one moment determined to do so the next? (2010, p. 351)

Humanist and interactionist theories are also different from other psychological theories in that they explore the spiritual and phenomenological aspects of human behavior. Phe- nomenology is the idea that people’s subjective reality and perceptions are valid for the purposes of scientific study. Phenomenology includes subjective, qualitative data, which are sometimes referred to as “soft” forms of data because they are considered an alterna- tive to “hard” forms of data such as raw numbers or other statistical information. In a way, all theorists consider the ways that the individual self develops as it balances its own biological drives and the requirements imposed by society, but the humanist and interac- tionist approaches make this explicit.

8.1 Theoretical Foundations

The theories and policies presented in this chapter tend to have more “heart” than the theories presented in other chapters in the sense that they explore the feelings and subjective states of antisocial individuals to explain why they com- mit crime. In terms of connotation, the work in this chapter has a more compassionate tone and provides insights about how other theoretical pro- cesses, such as the social cognitive dynamic dis- cussed in Chapter 7, are internalized by antisocial people. Humanist and interactionist writings are concerned with the overall well-being—the state of overall happiness, health, and contentedness— of an individual and how antisocial conduct reduces the likelihood of achieving well-being. In addition, some criminological approaches also provide insights into the subjective reasons why individuals engage in antisocial conduct to increase their self-esteem and achieve well-being.

Well-being is the state of overall happiness, health, and contentedness. There is ample evidence that criminal offenders often lack well-being and their behaviors are futile attempts to achieve it.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 219 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

The Humanist Approach

The patriarch of humanist psychology and one of the most influential social scientists to advance a humanist perspective is Abraham Maslow (1908–1970). In addition to found- ing the humanist psychology approach, Maslow is perhaps best known for a conceptual model that emphasized the importance of self-actualization and the hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy of needs consists of five levels of physiological, social, and spiritual needs that culminate in a state of self-actualization. Maslow (1943) visually conceptualized the hierarchy of needs as a pyramid (recall the Maslow pyramid from Chapter 1) in which the fundamental needs formed the base of the pyramid and self-actualization formed the pinnacle. Physiological needs, which comprise the lowest level of the pyramid, include such basic needs as breathing, food, water, sleep, excretion, sex, and homeostasis. Just as basic sustenance, such as food, water, and sleep, are required for the health of the individual, there are also essential needs required for the mental health of the individual. The next level includes safety needs, such as security, family, health, resources, morality, employ- ment, and property. Love and belonging needs make up the next level and include friend- ship, family, and sexual intimacy. Esteem is the fourth level and consists of self-esteem, confidence, achievement, and respect of self and others. Self-actualization lies at the very top of the pyramid and encompasses such concepts as morality, creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice, and acceptance of facts. It represents a state of harmony and under- standing in Maslow’s model (Rogers’s view of self-actualization is broader and discussed below).

Unlike Freud, who harbored a dark, negative view of human nature, Maslow viewed humanity as positive and focused on the benevolent characteristics of individuals. Of course, Maslow also recognized that deprivation at any level of the hierarchy of needs was likely to result in psychopathology and behavioral disturbance. According to Maslow:

Any thwarting or possibility of thwarting of these basic human goals, or danger to the defenses which protect them, or to the conditions upon which they rest, is considered to be a psychological threat. With a few exceptions, all psychopathology may be partially traced to such threats. A basically thwarted man may actually be defined as a “sick” man, if we wish. (1943, p. 395)

Interestingly, Maslow also made reference to psychopathy (see Chapter 9). For example, Maslow (1943, p. 386) suggested that psychopathic personality was an example of an indi- vidual who had suffered a permanent loss of the love needs because he or she was starved of love during his or her infant years; in essence, he had “simply lost forever the desire and the ability to give and to receive affection.” Again, Maslow was not a criminologist, but his theoretical ideas are directly related to understanding crime and also understand- ing ways for policy to reduce crime. A popular concept in criminology, for instance, is social support theory, which is the general idea that family relationships, friendship net- works, and social institutional supports such as church groups, community activities, and employment opportunities are needed to not only prevent crime but also assist offenders in the desistance process (this work is explored later in this chapter).

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 220 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

Throughout his career, Maslow (1954, 1968, 1971) advanced his unique brand of the posi- tive, humanist approach to human behavior. For instance, he developed a set of values called “being cognitions” that were in many respects the forerunner of the current idea of well-being. An important conclusion to draw from this work is that all people are consid- ered good and worthy of positive change even if they previously displayed negative or criminal behaviors. Although this approach was somewhat unique to Maslow’s work, the same logic and philosophy has always been the mission of the juvenile justice system, which was founded on the idea that children and adolescent delinquents might engage in wayward behavior, but that they are fundamentally good and seeking a higher, self-actu- alizing existence.

Another major theorist in humanist psychology was phenomenologist Carl Rogers (1947, 1980) and his person-centered approach. According to Rogers (1902–1987), the spiritual growth of a per- son in which he or she realizes his or her potential is known as self-actualization. Rogers believed that one’s experiences and perceptions of the self should ideally be in a state of balance, which he called congruence. When people had an accurate self-assessment of who they were and what they had done, congruence was achieved. When there were threats to the self-concept, defense mecha- nisms were set into place that prevented congru- ence. This process was known as self-experience discrepancy. Rogers also noted that congruence and self-actualization were likely to occur under conditions of positivity or unconditional positive regard. To put a criminological spin on this, the pervasive negativity and impoverishment that typifies the life of the average criminal offender would make self-actualization impossible.

Although not developed for criminological pur- poses, another concept from Rogers’s work is also directly relevant to the psychological study of crime. Empathic understanding is the ability to perceive experiences, feelings, and the mean- ings of those experiences and feelings from the standpoint of another person. In short, empathic understanding is the ability to walk in another person’s shoes and have an understanding of his or her perspective. At an extreme level, the inabil- ity to empathize with others is characteristic of psychopathic personality.

Rogers summarized his view of human nature and human behavior in a classic exchange with operant conditioning theorist B. F. Skinner that was published in Science (Rogers & Skinner, 1956). According to Rogers:

Charles Cullen is a former nurse who murdered dozens of patients at hospitals. Cullen’s life was characterized by family strife, multiple deaths in the family, acute depression, and suicidal behavior. How does Cullen’s life, and the average background of violent criminals, generally align with constructs from humanist theories? Does humanist theory attempt to undo the negativity of criminal’s lives?

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 221 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

• Humanity is a self-actualizing process of becoming. • Through experience, the acquisition of knowledge becomes self-transcending. • The purpose of science is to discover the conditions that allow these processes to

occur. • Understanding others [during psychotherapy] can occur simply between the

relationship between therapist and patient. • Man is continually changing in the process of becoming.

Although Rogers’s work and the phenomenological perspective were not criminologi- cal, they nonetheless have direct application to understanding crime. For instance, Ronel (2011) recently advanced a phenomenological account of serious crime called a “criminal spin.” According to this model, serious criminal offenders display a set of antisocial traits, cognitions, and behaviors that dominate their lives and set into motion frequent crimi- nal activity and immersion in criminal settings. This lifestyle creates an extraordinarily self-centered mindset in which the pursuit of instant gratification, such as drugs, alcohol, indiscriminant sexual activity, and violence, became one’s sole focus. To support this idea, Ronel relies on qualitative insights from active offenders who often described themselves as being in a virtual “spin” of self-absorbed hedonism and crime.

Implicit in humanist psychology is the reliance on others to fulfill individual needs and the nesting of individual cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and indeed the self in social networks. The perspective that defines behavior by the interplay between the self, others, and their interactions is examined next.

The Interactionist Approach

Interactionist theories take a similarly “soft” view of behavior because they emphasize the importance of the self, identity, and people’s interpretation of events in their lives as the primary determinants of behavior. Interactionist theories (which are commonly known as “symbolic interactionist” theories in sociology and social psychology) can be thought of as the opposite of trait approaches to crime because they challenge or at least de-emphasize the characteristics of individuals, focusing instead on the dynamic nature of social interaction. In addition, interactionist theories stress the importance of larger, sociological structures, such as social class, culture, the economy, and other institutional factors and the roles that these structures present as processes that constrain the types of behaviors that people engage in and commit.

There are three fundamental principles to interactionist theory. The first is that behavior is driven by the symbolic meanings that other people, interactions, and objects have for the individual. The second point is that symbolic meanings are created by social interac- tions that an individual has with other people, groups, and organizations. Third, behavior is habituated and changed based on how individuals adjust the meaning of the behavior

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 222 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

in reaction to the responses they receive from ongoing interactions. It is sometimes suggested that the motto of symbolic interactionist theory is that there is no objective reality—everything is made up from its symbolic meaning.

The interactionist approach was pioneered by sociologists George Herbert Mead and Charles Horton Cooley. Both Mead and Cooley believed that the self, which is the reflexive awareness of one’s exis- tence, is created by the interaction between individuals and their social world. The self cannot exist unless a person interacts with oth- ers, receives and perceives feed- back from others, and modifies his or her own self-awareness. Cooley (1902) developed the con- cept of the looking glass self to account for the ways that social interaction influences the self. The looking glass self comprises an individual’s perceptions about how one appears to others, an individual’s perceptions about how one is judged or assessed by oth- ers, and the self that develops through the judgments of others. In Mead’s (1913) approach, the self is composed of two actors, the “I” and the “me.” The “I” is the self as subject or knower, and the “me” is the self as object, or the self that is known. The “I” is theorized to be the part of the self that is more energetic and impulsive, and the “me” is theorized to be the part of the self that is socialized and reflexive. Essentially, the “me” component of the self is what assesses the “I” component of the self through constant self-evaluation and internal dialogue (e.g., the non-verbalized talking to oneself that occurs throughout most of our existence). Similar to Freud’s approach to the self, sym- bolic interactionist theory points to the interplay between individuals and others to create the self. While Freud rooted the self in early childhood experiences that lasted through- out life, interactionist theorists conceptualize the self as a constantly developing process.

As discussed in the beginning of this chapter, many psychological theories of crime can be criticized for being overly mechanical in the sense that the presence or absence of a particular construct is conceptualized to increase the likelihood of crime. But people are not automatons. Interactionist theory showcases human agency and articulates how the subjective meanings that people attach to behavior are largely responsible for that behav- ior. Criminological theory and research that utilizes interactionist and humanist themes are examined next.

The interactionist perspective asserts that the self is in constant development and is heavily influenced by the assessment and input of others. If others view one as antisocial, it is likely that an individual will also see himself or herself in antisocial ways.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 223 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.1 Theoretical Foundations

Highlight: Interactionist Theory and Criminal Careers

One of the advantages of criminological theories that utilize a person-specific propensity construct, such as self-control, personality, neuropsychological deficits, or psychopathy, is that the singular con- struct can be used to explain diverse forms of antisocial behavior that occur in an offender’s life. The primary reason for the continuity in antisocial behavior in the criminal careers of the most serious offenders is that the latent trait or propensity manifests across life much in the same way that high intelligence often manifests in strong school performance across life. Interactionist theories reject the idea of innate propensity in favor of processes and interactions that give symbolic meaning to behav- ior; thus, it would seem more challenging for interactionist theory to explain behavioral consistency.

Actually, interactionist theory is helpful for understanding criminal careers because there is so much starting and stopping (known in the criminal careers literature as “intermittency”) in offending. Even the most active offenders have periods in their life where they are less criminally active and at times even abstain from antisocial behavior (DeLisi & Piquero, 2011). Often, these periods of desistance coincide with healthy, prosocial attachments to work, family, and sobriety. Ulmer provided an over- view of how interactionist theory explains the course of criminal careers:

[I]nteractionism does not view the individual as being passively buffeted about through- out his or her life by external forces. Rather, individuals actively adapt and adjust to the situations they find themselves in. People make choices between criminal and conform- ing actions, albeit within social and physical constraints. Over the course of life, people pursue or aspire to some identities, and reject others, with varying degrees of success. People also attempt to exercise at least some choice as to the others with whom they associate and the groups with whom they affiliate, though they are not always successful. (2011, p. 214)

According to Ulmer, interactionist theory is useful for understanding persistence and desistance in criminal careers in multiple respects. Given the importance of immediately proximal situations, such as a heated, intoxicated provocation, to the commission of crime, interactionist theory sheds light on the individual’s “definition of the situation” to understand how and why a person acts in criminal or non-criminal ways. Also, criminal careers are difficult to predict because offending does not unfold in a perfectly linear way from less serious to the most serious offenses. Instead, criminal careers involve mostly less-serious drug and public-order offending that is punctuated by more serious, vio- lent crimes. And these blips of serious offending are usually understood from symbolically meaningful interactions.

Case studies and qualitative research on the lives of serious offenders generally support Ulmer’s con- tentions about the importance of social interaction, the symbolic meaning that is attached to behav- ior, and the evolution of the self for understanding stability and change in antisocial behavior. Indeed, the approach is helpful for understanding why serious offenders go through periods when they are prosocial, and why otherwise prosocial individuals suddenly choose to commit crime.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 224 11/14/12 2:19 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Generally speaking, humanist and interactionist theories have not been the main area of emphasis among criminologists and psychologists focusing on externalizing symp- toms and conduct problems. Other theoretical areas, such as social learning theory and social cognitive theory, have received much more attention. However, there have been occasional forays into humanist or interactionist approaches. For example, Lemert (1951) developed the concepts of primary deviance and secondary deviance to illustrate the interactional process of delinquent development. According to Lemert, primary deviance is the original act of antisocial behavior, one that draws attention and negative responses from others, such as peers, parents, teachers, or police. This leads to additional primary deviance and, as a result, continued social penalties and rejection. Over time, the social rejection creates feelings of resentment, indignation, and hostility among the deviant, and these negative feelings are increasingly directed against the persons who are penal-

izing them. As the antisocial behavior and social penalties continue, the individual accepts the role of deviant—this process is known as secondary deviance. In short, Lemert’s (1951) work made explicit the interactionist connections between delinquency, the social responses to it, how those responses affect the mindset of the delinquent, and continued problem behavior.

The concepts of primary and secondary deviance can be seen in the infamous cases of O. J. Simp- son and Casey Anthony. Both defendants were acquitted of heinous murders—in Simpson’s case his ex-wife and her boyfriend, and in Antho- ny’s case her young daughter. These crimes were the act of primary deviance. Despite their acquit- tals, both individuals received universal scorn and essentially had to live in hiding. Ultimately, Simpson engaged in other serious crimes, such as armed robbery, crimes for which he was con- victed and sentenced to prison. As of mid-2012, Anthony has not yet continued her offending career. Nevertheless, the social rejection that Simpson and Anthony endure is consistent with Lemert’s notion of secondary deviance.

Decades later, Sherman (1993) developed defiance theory, which suggests that criminal punishment increases recidivism among offenders who are poorly bonded to society, who respond to getting caught by police with anger instead of shame, and who view criminal penalties as unfair and stigmatizing. From this perspective, recidivism is an act of self- destruction of sorts, in which the offender behaves in an immature and fatalistic way. For instance, Piquero and Bouffard (2003) analyzed more than 10,000 interactions between law enforcement and the public to see if situational, interactional dynamics were associated with citizens becoming defiant toward police. Consistent with the theory, they found that

The Casey Anthony case is an example of both primary and secondary deviance.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 225 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

respectful, verbal interactions between police and the public, even if the police lectured citizens, were not likely to produce defiant reactions. Moreover, physical coercion from police, such as handcuffing a suspect, particularly when the suspect interpreted the police action as stigmatizing, was likely to produce defiant responses, such as resisting arrest. In a separate study using data from the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort, Bouffard and Piquero (2010) found that individuals who viewed criminal justice responses as fair and/or were well bonded to society had relatively low offending rates. On the other hand, those who viewed criminal sanctions as unfair and were poorly bonded had significantly higher offending, and the most recidivistic group of offenders were those who viewed sanctions as unfair, were poorly bonded, and denied shame in response to their delinquency.

In addition to these perspectives, several other criminological theories have been devel- oped that advance humanist and/or interactionist principles. Some of the major works from these perspectives and evidence of their empirical value are examined next.

Braithwaite’s Reintegration Theory

One of the most influential criminological theories in the humanist tradition is the rein- tegration approach of John Braithwaite. In his widely cited book Crime, Shame, and Rein- tegration (1989), Braithwaite suggested that shaming was a powerful force for modifying behavior. Shaming is the expression of disapproval of specific conduct for the purpose of creating remorse in a wrongdoer and sending a message of condemnation to others. Shaming is done all the time in informal social groups, such as families and peer groups. For example, a stern stare from a parent to a child sends an imme- diate message that the parent is not happy with the child’s con- duct, and the stern stare is inter- nalized by the child as a severely negative reaction that is paired with specific behavior. Usually, children will feel emotionally upset for causing the negative reaction in their parents and will relatively easily modify their behavior. When a stern lecture accompanies the stern stare, a similar message is sent. Similar shaming rituals occur among friendship groups and work groups, where shaming serves an important function of iden- tifying unwanted behavior and informally sanctioning it so that it is not repeated.

Throughout the history of criminal justice systems, various forms of shaming have been used. Shaming is the expression of disapproval of specific conduct for the purpose of creating remorse in a wrongdoer and sending a message of condemnation to others, commonly performed in informal social groups.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 226 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Shaming also occurs in a more formalized way, namely by the criminal justice system. Formally punishing behavior and imposing a sentence of a community service, paying a fine, paying restitution, serving a probation sentence, or going to jail serves multiple ratio- nales, but one of the main ones is shaming. The logic of deterrence, for example, is that the shame inherent in criminal punishment will prevent criminal behavior from occurring in the future. Braithwaite conceptualized two types of shaming (see Figure 8.1). Reinte- grative shaming is the process whereby criminal behavior is punished but the criminal offender is reintegrated into the community after serving his or her penalty. Reintegrative shaming, in other words, is based on the logic that conventional society condemns a per- son’s wrongful conduct but still embraces the person. In this way, reintegrative shaming is based on forgiveness and redemption—very humanistic ideals.

Figure 8.1: Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory

Reintegrative shaming strives toward responsibility, forgiveness, and redemption of the offenders, whereas disintegrative shaming seeks to condemn offenders. Should a balance of these approaches be used by criminal penalties?

Disintegrative shaming, on the other hand, is a process whereby the criminal offender is stigmatized for his or her criminal conduct, with no subsequent effort to reintegrate the person into the community. When disintegrative shaming occurs, the wrongdoer is viewed as an outcast because his or her behavior is viewed as such a transgression that conventional society no longer wants the person to be a member. Disintegrative sham- ing is the basic logic utilized in policies that target persons convicted of sexually based offenses, such as sex offender registries, residency restrictions (where sex offenders must maintain a specified distance from locations where children are found, such as schools, daycare centers, and playgrounds), and related policies. Unlike other violent offenders, such as those convicted of assault, robbery, or at times even murder, sex offenders create feelings of revulsion among the citizenry.

· Responsibility · Forgiveness · Redemption Reintegrative Shaming

· Stigmatizing · Outcasting · Condemning Disintegrative Shaming

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 227 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

According to Braithwaite, the degree to which an individual can experience shame is related to interdependency. Interdependency is the extent to which individuals partici- pate in social networks, depend on others, and have others dependent on them. Interde- pendency, in other words, is a condition that represents an individual’s commitment and involvement in society, or what social control theories would call a “social bond” (Hirschi, 1969). Certain statuses lend themselves to different levels of interdependency. Those who are younger (ages 15 to 25), males, unmarried people, unemployed people, those with low educational attainment, those living in dense cities, and those who move residences frequently are theorized to have low interdependency and, as such, are more difficult to shame by criminal punishment. Conversely, older adults, females, those who are married, employed people, those with higher educational attainment, those living in less urban settings, and those with residential stability have greater interdependency and are more easily shamed. The main reason people with high interdependency are easier to shame is that they have more to lose, given their tremendous attachments to society. As Braithwaite observed:

Because shaming is a participatory form of social control, compared with formal sanctioning which is more professionalized than participatory, shaming builds consciences through citizens being instruments as well as targets of social control. Participation in expressions of abhorrence toward the criminal acts of others is part of what makes crime an abhorrent choice for ourselves to make. (2011, p. 256)

Of all the works examined in this chapter, Braith- waite’s reintegration theory is likely the one that has had the greatest and most comprehen- sive impact, not only on theory and research in criminology, but also in terms of criminal justice practice. Reintegration is the conceptual frame- work that gives life to restorative justice, a new paradigm of juvenile justice and criminal justice that is explored at length in the policy section of this chapter. Empirical tests drawing on diverse sources of data selected from samples in the United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Russia, and Iceland have supported the basic ideas of reinte- gration theory (DeLisi & Conis, 2012). The rein- tegration approach is particularly useful when considering criminal offenders who are arguably the greatest concern for the general public: sex offenders. For example, the disintegrative sham- ing that is inherent in many sex offender policies has been shown to destabilize offenders’ psycho- logical functioning and contribute to depression and hopelessness (Jeglic, Mercado, & Levenson, 2011). In addition, stigmatizing policies contrib- ute to social isolation, fear, shame, and reduced well-being among family members of registered sex offenders (Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009).

Sex offenders are in many respects considered to be the most villainous of criminal offenders. A variety of policies to control sex offenders are consistent with Braithwaite’s idea of disintegrative shaming.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 228 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Taken together, these studies suggest that despite the moral concerns about sex offenders’ conduct, greater strides at reintegrating them will likely reduce their odds of recidivating (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010). The criminal justice application of reintegration theory is examined in depth later in this chapter.

Kaplan’s Self-Derogation Theory

Over several decades of research, Howard Kaplan developed a theory of self-derogation to understand antisocial development (Kaplan, 1970; Kaplan & Pokorny, 1969). Consistent with the basic logic of humanist theory, Kaplan noted that individuals have a fundamental desire to feel good about themselves and are distressed by negative self-evaluations. Self- derogation pertains to the set of negative feelings and low self-esteem regarding one’s abilities, personal qualities, and behavior. Self-derogation can be theorized as the negative emotions resulting from peer rejection that were described in the social cognitive models in Chapter 7. Individuals who have high self-derogation (in other words, those who feel very derogatory about themselves) link these negative feelings to conventional peers and behaviors—peers and behaviors from which they feel excluded. As a result, adolescents with high self-derogation seek delinquent associations and delinquent behavior as a way to thwart the conventionality of their peers and improve their self-esteem and self-worth (see Figure 8.2).

Kaplan’s self-derogation theory captures the negativity and destructive aspects of anti- social behavior. Children and adolescents who do not feel good about themselves (and thus have self-derogation) tend to associate with peers who are similar to them in person- ality and behavior. Over time, as these youths engage in delinquency, their self-esteem and overall self-worth increases as they become more and more embedded in a negative, antisocial pattern and thus further removed from conventional, prosocial behaviors. Thus, the negative features of delinquency improve their self-esteem in part because delinquent youth with negative self-esteem and self-worth embrace the negative behavior. Overall, this leads to a cycle of self-derogation, association with delinquents, rejection by conven- tional peers, and problem behaviors.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 229 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Figure 8.2: Self-derogation theory

Self-derogation captures the negativity that characterizes antisocial behavior and the lifestyle that many criminals lead. Contrarily, the theory also sheds light on how delinquent behavior makes offenders feel better about themselves.

According to Kaplan, Martin, and Robbins,

Attitudes of self-rejection are the end-result of a history of membership- group experiences in which the person was unable to defend against, adapt to, or cope with circumstances having self-devaluing implications (that is, disvalued attributes and behaviors or negative evaluations of the person by valued others). (1982, p. 274)

In this way, Kaplan’s self-derogation theory provides insights into the subjective states of youth who are developing along an antisocial pathway and the reasons that they might reject conventional modes of conduct. Additionally, self-derogation theory provides an interactional basis for understanding why rejected children and adolescents gravitate toward other antisocial youths. Like all interactionist concepts, self-derogation is mallea- ble and dependent on situational dynamics; however, there is also evidence that persons

Aggression and Delinquency

Delinquent Conduct

to Improve Self-Esteem

Peer Rejection

Delinquent Peers

Self-Derogation

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 230 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

with high levels of self-derogation display problem behaviors across life. Indeed, there is evidence that an individual’s childhood family structure and living arrangements are associated with self-derogation in adulthood (Kaplan & Pokorny, 1971).

Across a range of studies, there is considerable support for self-derogation theory and its relation to maladaptive, externalizing, and antisocial conduct. In a longitudinal study of more than 3,100 middle-school students, Kaplan et al. (1982) found that self- derogation was associated with decreased involvement with the conventional school structure, increased views about the prevalence and appropriateness of drug use, increased associations with substance-abusing peers, and drug delinquency. Using data derived from the same middle-school sample, self-derogation or self-rejection was prospectively linked to a deviant disposition and deviant behavior (Kaplan, Johnson, & Bailey, 1986). Youths who reject themselves are prone to a troubled disposition that in turn relates to maladaptive conduct.

Support for self-derogation theory has also emerged from research conducted by other schol- ars with other data sources. Using data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, Jang and Thornberry (1998) did not find evidence that self- esteem was associated with delinquency and thus challenged the heart of self-derogation theory. However, they did find that once youths started associating with antisocial peers, their self-esteem (described in the study as “self-enhancement”) did improve. Interestingly, self-enhancement did not improve from delinquent behavior. Mason (2001) analyzed data from the Youth in Transition Study, which is a national probability sample of 2,213 ado- lescent boys selected from 87 public high schools in the United States, and found that adolescent males who had low self-regard/high self-derogation were significantly likely to commit delinquency. In addition, their self-esteem improved as a result of engaging in antisocial behavior.

In a 9-year longitudinal study, Taylor, Lloyd, and Warheit (2005) found that self-derogation beliefs predicted drug dependence in early adulthood even when considering the effects of peers, peer approval of substance use, and prior drug his- tory. Finally, analyses of data on more than 11,000 adolescents from the National Educational Lon- gitudinal Study indicated that self-perceptions about one’s school reputation were nega- tively related to school delinquency. Youths with more positive perceptions about their reputation were less likely to engage in delinquency, whereas those with negative self- perceptions about their reputation were more antisocial (Smith-Adcock, Lee, Kerpelman, Majuta, & Young, 2011). Overall, there is consistent evidence that self-derogation facili- tates antisocial development, deviant self-enhancement, and delinquent conduct.

Charles Dutton is a familiar and successful character actor. During his late adolescence and early adulthood, Dutton was a criminal offender who was once convicted of a homicide offense. How does Dutton’s transformation from violent offender to contributing member of society align with humanist theories of crime?

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 231 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Matsueda’s Reflected Appraisals Theory

Ross Matsueda’s reflected appraisals theory puts an interactionist spin on self-derogation theory. As described earlier in this chapter, symbolic interactionist theory suggests that the self is constantly undergoing reflexive evaluation and ongoing interaction with others. Because of this, the sense of self depends on with whom an individual is engaging and how the individual perceives that other people view him or her. According to Matsueda,

With regard to delinquency, the important element of the self-concept formed as an object is the specific meaning or content of the self with respect to delinquency. Those who see themselves (from the standpoint of others) as persons who engage in delinquent behavior in certain situations are more likely to engage in delinquency. Thus, if the self as a delinquent is an important dimension of the self for individuals, such that it endures across situations, it should predict individuals’ delinquent behavior. (1992, p. 1582)

Matsueda used the term “appraisals” and identified the following three types:

• Actual appraisals: How other people actually see one. • Reflected appraisals: How one perceives that others see one. • Self-appraisals: How one sees oneself.

These appraisals mutually influence the self-concept based on input from others during social interactions (see Figure 8.3).

Figure 8.3: Matsueda’s reflected appraisals theory of delinquency

Labeling juveniles as criminals can have lasting negative consequences because one’s self is importantly influenced by the assessments of others.

Actual Appraisal as

Antisocial

Reflected Appraisal as

Antisocial

Self- Appraisal as

Antisocial Delinquency

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 232 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Reflected appraisals are particularly important for the relationship between adolescents and their parents. When parents view their children in prosocial terms and when their children have little to no involvement in delinquency, self-appraisals are positive and pro- social. However, when parents view their children as somewhat delinquent, or at least when youths perceive that their parents see them as rule-breakers, antisocial conduct is more likely. Using data from the National Youth Survey, Matsueda (1982) empirically demonstrated that reflected appraisals of the self as a rule violator were associated with future delinquency. Moreover, much of the relationship between prior delinquent conduct and future delinquency was mediated by reflected appraisals. In later work, Bartusch and Matsueda (1996) found that parental appraisals of their children as delinquent contin- ued to affect youths’ reflected appraisals and contribute to delinquency. In addition, they found that these effects were more pronounced among boys in the National Youth Survey, and that parents were more likely to label or appraise their sons as delinquent.

Similar effects also exist when considering peers. For instance, Brownfield and Thompson (2005) used a sample of more than 500 students selected from high schools in Canada to test reflected appraisals theory. Like Matsueda, they found that parent appraisals were associ- ated with reflected appraisals at the correlation level of analysis. Once multiple variables were considered, this relationship was no longer significant. However, peer appraisals of the youths as delinquent were associated with greater levels of self-reported delinquency. Additionally, self-appraisals as delinquent also were associated with delinquency (these effects are consistent with the self-concept approach of Reckless’s containment theory). Other research using the same data confirmed the importance of both parent and peer appraisals as contributing factors for delinquency (Liu, 2000).

Reflected appraisal theory demonstrates the importance of the opinions and evaluations of other people in defining an individual’s self-concept—and the behavior that flows from it. When actual appraisals of an individual are antisocial, that person’s self-appraisal is likely to be similarly negative, which lays a foundation for delinquency. Along the same interactional logic, when actual appraisals of an individual are positive and prosocial, conventional self-appraisals and conforming conduct are more likely.

Cullen’s Social Support Theory

One of the most popular criminological concepts to emerge in recent years is social sup- port. Social support is the real and perceived assistance that individuals receive from friends, family, and community. In his presentation of social support theory, Cullen (1994) suggested that social support meets expressive needs, which are the emotional connec- tions to others that serve to bolster an individual’s self-worth, and instrumental needs, which are the material support, guidance, and advice from other individuals. Social sup- port occurs at multiple levels—societal, community, and individual—and serves as the infrastructure on which social bonds and social connections are built (see Figure 8.4).

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 233 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Figure 8.4: Cullen’s social support framework

Healthy individuals have their material and emotional needs met through their relationships with family, friends, coworkers, and other community members. These forms of social support are often lacking in the lives of serious criminal offenders.

In subsequent work, Colvin, Cullen, and Vander Ven (2002) theorized that when social support is high and consistently provided, there are multiple benefits that insulate an indi- vidual from antisocial behavior. Persons who receive high social support are less angry, have more positive emotions, and have an internalized sense of self-control. Due to their meaningful connections to others, persons with social support have stronger moral bonds to others. These conditions contribute to more prosocial behavior, less antisocial behavior, and better mental health. In the conclusion of their work, Colvin et al. (2002) provided a sentiment that is clearly compatible with the humanist tradition of Maslow and Rogers:

[T]o live up to our value of freedom while reducing crime, it is imperative that we offer social support to individuals and families that free them from coercive forces. Social support offers an avenue to freedom that fosters responsibility, mutual help, and trust. It is in this context of social support that freedom can coexist with low levels of crime. (2002, p. 37)

There is clear evidence that social support not only guards against crime in the first place but also helps to reduce criminal behavior among those desisting from crime. Drawing on

Social Support

and Reduced Conduct Problems

Expressive Needs (Emotional

Connections and Self-Worth)

Instrumental Needs (Material

Support, Guidance,

and Advice)

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 234 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

data from the National Youth Survey, Wright, Cullen, and Miller (2001) found that fam- ily social support was positively related to moral beliefs, time studying, and grades and negatively related to having delinquent friends. In addition, adolescents with strong fam- ily support were also significantly likely to exercise, maintain a healthy lifestyle, and be committed to their jobs and less likely to have deviant friends or use drugs. In a study of participants from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, social support was also significantly associated with mental health status, as youth with reduced social support were more likely to experience depression (Cornwell, 2003). Among a national sample of prisoners, Jiang and Winfree (2006) found that inmates with more social sup- port, which included visits from spouses and children, mail, and phone calls, committed fewer incidents of misconduct than inmates with less social support. There is also evidence that prisoners with greater social support are less hostile, less prone to misconduct while confined, and less prone to recidivate after release (Hochstetler, DeLisi, & Pratt, 2010).

More recent scholarship indicates that the effects of social support might vary by the type of crime under consideration. For instance, Orrick et al. (2011) examined a cohort of nearly 50,000 male offenders released from Florida prisons and released to 67 counties and per- formed a multilevel analysis to see how individual-level and community-level factors affected recidivism. They found that private and public forms of social support were unre- lated to violent and property recidivism, but that social support did reduce the likelihood of drug recidivism. A potential reason for these varied findings is that social support gets to the heart of the issues that often lead individuals to have mental health and substance abuse problems. It is possible that the greater amounts of emotional and material supports provided to offenders reduces their perceived need to abuse drugs. Despite the equivocal findings of their large-scale study, it is likely that social support will remain a popular the- ory given the humanistic, helping approach it brings to understanding antisocial behavior and devising ways to reduce it.

Colvin’s Differential Coercion Theory

A somewhat similar concept to social support is coercion. In Crime and Coercion: An Inte- grated Approach to Chronic Criminality, Colvin (2000) theorized that coercion in people’s lives contributes to anger and other negative emotions that affect their social psychologi- cal functioning. To Colvin, coercion is a general sense of negativity and oppression and is implicit in most theories of crime in that it embodies the negativity in causal factors (e.g., strain, peer rejection, negative parenting) that push individuals along an antisocial path- way. The idea of coercion is apparent in offender accounts of the negative features of their neighborhoods. Places that are characterized by high levels of poverty, drug sales and drug use, loitering and prostitution, and other social disorder are not pleasant and generally wear on the individuals living there. Over time, all of these negative features break down people’s ability to regulate their behavior and thus contribute to crime. A related construct is the consistency with which coercion is applied, ranging from consistent to erratic. Thus, Colvin’s differential coercion theory suggests that the blend of coercion and consistency of that coercion manifest in psychological and behavioral outcomes (see Figure 8.5).

Colvin advanced four ideal types in terms of their psychosocial functioning and behav- ioral styles. The first is a person exposed to consistent non-coercion, which is the most conventional, prosocial type of social control. Such a person is characterized by high

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 235 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

self-efficacy, high self-control, internal locus of control, low anger, and no coercive mod- eling. Given these protection factors, individuals exposed to consistent non-coercion have a strong disposition for prosocial behavior and are very unlikely to engage in antisocial behavior. The second type is an individual exposed to erratic non-coercion. An example of erratic non-coercion is permissive parenting in which a parent is lax and does not fully invest in his or her children and perhaps uses financial overtures to “buy” good behavior. Children exposed to this form of control also have high self- efficacy and low anger, but their social bond to parents is less strong and their self- control is lower. As a result, such youth are theorized to be susceptible to experimenting with deviant activities such as drug use and engaging in minor forms of delinquency.

Figure 8.5: Colvin’s differential coercion theory

Mark Colvin theorized that coercion in people’s lives contributes to anger and other negative emotions that affect their social psychological functioning. One important outcome of coercion is crime and violence.

The other two ideal types include individuals who are exposed to coercive interactions. Individuals exposed to consistent coercion are characterized as having low self-efficacy, high self-directed anger, weak social bonds, rigid self-control, and an external locus of control. They are theorized to be susceptible to serious mental illness, especially depres- sion, and overall have a low probability of prosocial behavior. Given their psychosocial profile, individuals who have been consistently exposed to coercion are also at risk for committing severe forms of explosive crime, such as homicide. Despite this, there is also low probability of general delinquency; instead, the psychopathology of this type relates

Non-Coercion

Consistent (Prosocial Conduct)

Erratic (Minor

Delinquency)

Coercion

Consistent (Mental Health

Problems)

Erratic (Severe, Habitual

Criminal Conduct)

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 236 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

more to mental illness. The final type in Colvin’s (2000) typology—those exposed to erratic coercion—is the most severe. Their psychosocial profile is characterized by low self-effi- cacy, high other-directed anger, weak social bonding, coercive modeling, low self-control, and external locus of control. Persons exposed to erratic coercion are theorized to be most at risk for lifelong conduct problems and have a predisposition for serious and predatory forms of criminal behavior.

Colvin’s differential coercion theory has not been extensively tested empirically, but there is sup- port for the general notion that social control, whether it is coercive or non-coercive or consis- tent or erratic, produces consistent behavioral outcomes. For instance, Unnever, Colvin, and Cullen (2004) tested the theory using a sample of nearly 2,500 middle school students selected from Virginia and found considerable support for differential coercion theory. Specifically, parental coercion, school coercion, neighborhood coercion, and coercive ideation were significantly predic- tive of delinquent involvement despite controls for several sociodemographic and social bond measures. In fact, peer coercion was the only type of coercion that was not significantly associated with delinquency. Similarly, Baron (2009) found that various measures of coercion were associated with violent antisocial behavior among a sample of 300 homeless youths.

In addition, coercion is also a central feature of other theoretical perspectives, including Regoli and Hewitt’s (1991) differential oppression theory, Patterson’s (1982, 1995) coercive family process model, and elements of Moffitt’s (1993) develop- mental taxonomy, which was discussed exten- sively in Chapter 7. To Regoli, Hewitt, Patterson,

and their colleagues, the normal, everyday interactions between adults and children are loaded with examples of coercion and erratic/inconsistent treatment that over time con- tribute to problem behaviors. For instance, persons exposed to consistent non-coercion are comparable to the abstainers group in Moffitt’s theory. Those exposed to erratic non- coercion are comparable to the adolescence-limited offender in Moffitt’s taxonomy, and those exposed to erratic coercion are similar to the life-course-persistent offender group in Moffitt’s taxonomy. Indeed, coercion is a versatile construct that has been used in a variety of criminological perspectives that highlight humanistic processes and the dysfunctions in those processes that contribute to antisocial behavior.

Mark Colvin theorizes that individuals exposed to consistent coercion are characterized as having low self- efficacy, high self-directed anger, weak social bonds, and an external locus of control. All of these conditions are correlated with behavioral problems.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 237 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.2 Criminology Theory in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Maruna’s Making Good Approach

A direct way to understand how subjective, interactionist processes guard against antiso- cial cognitive patterns and delinquent conduct is to examine individuals who have suc- cessfully transitioned from offender to former offender status. In his book Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives, Shadd Maruna (2001) interviewed for- mer prisoners from the Liverpool Desistance Study to assess what set those who success- fully desisted from crime apart from their peers who persisted in a criminal lifestyle. The groups were similar in terms of their demographics, criminal histories, and even person- ality characteristics, yet there were many differences regarding their subsequent conduct. Those who desisted from crime or “made good” viewed their life histories of failure and antisocial behavior as a cautionary tale that could be used to instruct younger people and potentially serve as a deterrent for those who are considering a life of crime. Some of those who “made good” underwent a spiritual conversion involving religion, while oth- ers underwent a spiritual and behavioral change that did not explicitly involve religion. In other words, their focus was not on the self, but on others and ways that they could help others. Successfully desisting offenders held optimistic views about themselves and their futures. They also had strong self-worth and believed that they were in control of their destiny, and that their destiny was pointed in a positive direction.

In contrast, ex-convicts who continued along an antisocial trajectory viewed their lives of crime as complete failures, and this failure was believed to be so pronounced and insur- mountable that there was no point in trying to reform. Indeed, those who persisted in crime considered themselves as doomed or damaged goods whose futures were already tainted by their pasts. Persisting criminals interpret negative features in their lives as caused by their own internal deficits, and they consider positive features in their lives to be caused by external and almost random forces (Maruna, 2004; Maruna & Mann, 2006). Those who choose to continue along a criminal path are pessimistic and gloomy about their likelihood of change, and they view themselves in pathological terms that are not amenable to change.

Maruna’s approach has numerous implications for criminal justice practice. For instance, the purpose of parole is to provide former prisoners the opportunity to desist from crime and re-enter society as a conventional, law-abiding citizen. Unfortunately, there are many real and perceived barriers (e.g., perceived stigma of a life of crime, criminal tattoos, lack of education, felony conviction status, and civic disenfranchisement) that make the re-entry process difficult for many offenders. Maruna and LeBel (2003) have offered some bold policy recommendations to help those who are making good to get even better. For instance, they suggest that offenders should be permitted to “shed” their criminal history through earned redemption while on parole:

Most importantly, the reward would also involve the “expiration” of the individual’s criminal history—allowing the person freedom from having to declare previous convictions to potential employers, licensing bodies, or other authorities and to resume full citizenship rights and responsibilities. The ultimate prize, then, for (proactive) “good behavior” would be per- mission to legally move on from the past and wipe the slate clean. This, it seems, may better represent the definition of “reintegration.” (2003, p. 101)

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 238 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Maruna’s work has clear policy implications, and criminal justice programs that have uti- lized humanist and interactionist theories are explored in the next section.

8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Criminal justice policies historically have been retributive in the sense that the pur-pose of the correctional system was to punish the offender for his or her wrong- doing. There are many benefits to retributive justice, including the incapacitation of serious offenders in prison, which precludes the possibility that he or she can victimize someone in society; the achievement of retribution against the most violent and heinous offenders; and the application of specific and general deterrence against the possibility of crime for the offender specifically, and society generally. However, there are limits to this approach. Traditionally, criminal justice practice has largely marginalized the victim of the crime, who is left out of the justice process. For example, the victim usually does not have input about the nature of the arrest charges (that is decided by police); the nature of the charges that are filed in court (that is decided by the prosecutor); whether the accused will be offered a plea agreement that significantly reduces the severity of the charges, sentence, or both (that is agreed upon by the prosecutor, defense, and defen- dant); and what the punish- ment will be (that is decided by the prosecutor and judge). The normal operations of the crimi- nal justice system by and large do not integrate the perspec- tive and wants of the victim. Because of this, offenders rarely truly understand the effect that their criminal behavior has on the specific victims and on soci- ety at large.

Due to these limitations, a new justice paradigm has emerged over the past 30 years or so that brings a humanist, interaction- ist approach: restorative justice. Restorative justice is a criminal justice philosophy and prac- tice that brings offenders, vic- tims, and community members together as clients who together participate in the justice process. Victims, offenders, and community members serve a variety of roles and purposes in a restorative justice system (Bazemore, 1998; Bazemore & Umbriet, 2001; Braithwaite, 1999). For instance, crime victims receive restitution or mon- etary compensation for their victimization, receive information about the justice process

Unlike the retributive approach of traditional criminal justice, restorative justice is a criminal justice philosophy and practice that brings offenders, victims, and community members together as clients who together participate in the justice process. Often, offenders have the opportunity to repay the debt of their crime through victim-offender mediation or community service.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 239 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Highlight: Restorative Justice-Based Practices

Restorative justice is a new paradigm of justice that is importantly rooted in humanist and interaction- ist ideals to improve the well-being of offenders, victims, and communities by repairing the harm and damage imposed by crime and violence. A variety of interesting programs and policy initiatives exist in the juvenile and criminal justice systems toward restorative justice ends. These include:

• Direct service to victims that offenders are required to perform at the victim’s request • Service to surrogate victims in which offenders are part of work crews that repair homes and

businesses damaged by vandalism, property damage, graffiti, and related crimes • Victim-offender mediation, a mediation meeting between the offender, victim, and a third

party to discuss the emotional consequences of the crime and develop a reparative agree- ment that specifies how the harm will be repaired

• Family group conferencing, similar to victim-offender mediation, though law enforcement and human services providers also often participate to develop a reparative agreement

• Victim impact statements, testimonials from victims that describe in personal detail the negative consequences of their victimization, provided to offenders so they can understand the damage done by their behavior

• Reparative probation, generally used for low-level probationers convicted of relatively non- serious crimes

There are many other restorative justice policies in place, and some traditional criminal justice prac- tices are themselves restorative justice-oriented. For instance, diversion is the diverting of juvenile delinquents to social service providers and other community services to address their underlying problems instead of sending them to juvenile court. The logic of diversion is that most adolescents with conduct problems are redeemable, and their antisocial behavior can be mitigated with more informal, less punitive ways than the justice system. In this way, although restorative justice is a rela- tively new justice paradigm, there have also always been humanist traditions in the administration of justice.

and support from practitioners, provide input as to how the offenders will repair the harm done, have the opportunity to face their victimizers and explain how the crimes negatively affected them, and overall have greater efficacy and empowerment because they are part of the process to help offenders redeem themselves. For offenders, there are opportunities to repay the debt of their crimes to their victims and to the community. They must face the personal harm caused by their crimes during victim-offender mediation, pay restitution, complete work or community service, and engage the community for the larger purpose of helping others. In kind, citizens and community groups are involved with holding offenders accountable, working with them toward rehabilitative ends, help- ing victims and their families recover from their victimization, and overall repairing the harm caused by crime on all parties involved.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 240 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Restorative justice policies that have the most restorative impact have several character- istics. For instance, programs in which the primary focus is allowing victims and offend- ers to talk face-to-face permit the opportunity for all parties to appreciate the human impact of crime and contribute to the restorative process. Programs in which victims are given extensive involvement in the process and are allowed to take a leadership role are also empowering and are a far cry from traditional retributive justice practices. In short, true dialogue between victims, offenders, and community stakeholders produces the best outcomes.

The humanist ideals of restorative justice have diffused throughout the entire criminal justice process. Specialized courts such as mental health courts have been found to focus on respect for the offender, disapproval of his or her crimes, and forgiveness to aid in rehabilitation (Ray, Dollar, & Thames, 2011). Evaluations of other judicial and correctional programs found that offenders processed in restorative justice ways generally have better behavioral outcomes and lower recidivism than their peers who were processed using traditional criminal justice approaches (Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007; de Beus & Rodriguez, 2007; Kuo, Longmire, & Cuvelier, 2010). In Canada, Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) have been used to increase social support among high-risk offenders who have been convicted of sexually based offenses. A recent evaluation of COSA found that sex offenders who participated in the program had an 83% reduction in sexual recidivism, a 73% reduction in other violent recidivism, and a 71% reduction in overall recidivism com- pared to a matched control group of sex offenders that did not participate in the program (Wilson, Cortoni, & McWhinnie, 2009).

Restorative justice principles can also be seen in broader social policies. The No Child Left Behind Act mandates that adolescents living in juvenile justice detention centers and confinement facilities receive the same standard of education as children and ado- lescents in community schools. Mandatory education among serious juvenile offenders is important because higher levels of educational attainment and school participation dur-

ing confinement are associated with reduced recidivism. For instance, Blomberg et al. (2011) recently examined a cohort of more than 4,100 juvenile delin- quents selected from 115 Florida juvenile justice institutions and followed for two years after release. They found that youths with more school achievement and better school attendance were significantly less likely to be rearrested at 12-month and 24-month follow-ups. More- over, when they were arrested, it was for less serious forms of delinquency than their peers with less school achievement and school commitment.

A section of the No Child Left Behind Act mandates that juveniles living in detention centers can receive the same standard of education as those in traditional public schools.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 241 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Support Matters is a substance abuse treatment program that explicitly focuses on an offender’s own social support networks to aid in his or her recovery. The curriculum includes five program elements that are designed to help transition the individual’s social support network from an antisocial, drug-abusing one to a prosocial, sober one. The Involvement component focuses on transitional stressors, free-time activities, struc- tured routines, and resources. The Knowledge component includes information on chal- lenges and myths about recovery, triggers, risk attitudes and behaviors, and goals and problem-solving. The Skills component targets self-efficacy in social interactions, refusal skills, healthy relationships, and managing disappointments. The Opportunity component provides instruction about support versus enabling, reciprocity, social network charting, and expanding support networks (from antisocial to prosocial). The Reward component includes natural rewards and supports, readiness for support, sustaining involvement, and a graduation celebration (Pettus-Davis, Howard, Roberts-Lewis, & Scheyett, 2011). Although Support Matters has not been formally evaluated yet, it is a promising approach that focuses on using offenders’ and substance abusers’ family, friends, and community supports to aid in their transition to conventionality and sobriety.

Finally, notwithstanding the efforts of the programs discussed in this section, it is also the case that many communities already respond to criminal offenders in a humanistic, redemption-oriented way. For example, a recent survey of more than 1,000 men who had participated in a Texas boot camp program found that there was considerable support for them upon reentry to the community, at least based on their perceptions. Specifically, nearly 93% of offenders perceived that their families would still be supportive of them despite their criminal pasts, more than 93% felt that their friends would still like them, more than 79% perceived that their friends would help them find employment, and nearly 94% believed that readjusting to society would not be a problem if they straightened out their lives and desisted from crime and drug use (Benson, Alarid, Burton, & Cullen, 2011). There was also evidence for stigmatizing responses, but it was much lower. For instance, just 12% of former offenders felt that their family had turned its back on them because of their criminal past, and only 10% of boot camp releases indicated that their only friends upon re-entry would be criminals.

Restorative justice is an important paradigm whose uniqueness is consistent with the theoretical, conceptual, and ideological approach of humanist and interactionist theory. Fundamentally, restorative justice provides opportunities for engagement and meaning- ful social interaction between offenders, victims, and other interested parties. The hope is that through talking, listening, and investing, offenders’ motivations to commit crime will be reduced. And that is precisely the spirit of the humanist perspective.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 242 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Section 8.3 Criminal Justice Practice in the Humanist and Interactionist Traditions

Case Study: The Nurse-Family Partnership Program

The economic and social backgrounds of persons at risk for serious conduct problems share many common features. These include family dissolution, young birth mothers, low social support, poverty, non-supportive parenting, and a stock of person-specific deficits. In the late 1970s, Professor David Olds developed an intervention in which nurses visited the homes of young at-risk mothers both pre- natally and during the first years of their children’s lives and provided educational training in parent- ing strategies, appropriate home care, nutrition, and other factors to improve the life chances of the mothers and their children. This program, which came to be known as the Nurse-Family Partnership, has been shown to significantly improve the social and behavioral functioning of at-risk women and their children. The original intervention was applied to a group of mostly white women in Elmira, New York, and the Nurse-Family Partnership has been replicated among groups of mostly African American women in Memphis, Tennessee and mostly Hispanic women in Denver, Colorado with impressive results (for an overview, see Olds, 2002). Olds and his colleagues (2010) recently conducted a follow- up among children through age 12 in the Memphis trial and found that mothers who received nurse visits had lower alcohol use, lower drug use, longer partner relationships with the child’s biological father, greater sense of mastery of maternal skills, and reduced use of public welfare, such as Medic- aid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The original Nurse-Family Partnership model compared the outcomes of those who received various services from nurses and control groups who received standard prenatal care. The Olds team has also experimented with using paraprofessionals who matched program respondents in terms of social and demographic characteristics but lacked the educational background of nurses. In the Denver trial, Olds and colleagues (2004) found that compared to controls, mothers who received visits from para- professionals had better mental health, more maternal mastery, greater employment, more sensitiv- ity and responsiveness to their children, and reduced subsequent pregnancy-related health problems. However, mothers who received nurse visits had even better outcomes, including better home envi- ronments that support children’s early learning and better cognitive functioning among children. In fact, families visited by nurses had enduring positive effects. Humanistic investment in the early years of life does much to place women and their families on prosocial, instead of antisocial, pathways.

For his extraordinarily humanistic research and applied efforts, Professor Olds has won many awards, including the Stockholm Prize in Criminology in 2008, which is the criminological equivalent of the Nobel Prize. Perhaps more than any other policy in the criminological sciences, the Nurse-Family Part- nership embodies the ideals of humanist theory and demonstrates the interactionist roles between parents and children. It might seem strange to showcase a program for a case study. But it is impor- tant to note that the real case studies are all of those children and young mothers whose lives were essentially saved by this intervention. The conventional, prosocial development that they enjoyed, as opposed to the antisocial development that would have been more likely without the intervention, is incalculably important.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 243 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Answers to Review Questions

Chapter Summary

• Humanist theory assumes that people are basically good and that the purpose of life is to reach one’s fullest potential.

• Interactionist theory asserts that the self, one’s identity, and social interaction form the bases of behavior.

• Together, humanist and interaction theories explore the subjective states of offenders and the ways that social processes bear on their decision to commit antisocial behavior.

• Reintegration theory suggests that reintegrative shaming leads to reduced recidivism, whereas disintegrative shaming leads to continued recidivism.

• A variety of negative social processes, such as social coercion, lack of social support, and feelings of self-derogation, contribute to criminal behavior.

• Restorative justice is a relatively new justice paradigm that brings offenders, victims, and community members together to repair the harm caused by crime.

Review Questions

1. How does humanist theory fundamentally differ from most theories of crime? 2. Many theories in sociology point to social processes to explain crime, but what is

unique about the processes in interactionist theory? 3. Most psychological research on crime and antisocial behavior is quantitative and

heavily statistical. How does the phenomenological approach differ? 4. Social class is inversely related to crime, meaning that street crimes like murder,

rape, robbery, and burglary are much more common among the poor than the affluent. How does humanist theory possibly explain this trend?

5. In what ways is humanist theory seen in criminal justice practice?

Answers to Review Questions

1. How does humanist theory fundamentally differ from most theories of crime?

While most psychological theories point to some construct that is a deficit or risk factor that increases the likelihood of crime, humanist theories assume that people are fundamentally good and that by reaching one’s potential, negative behavior is avoided.

2. Many theories in sociology point to social processes to explain crime, but what is unique about the processes in interactionist theory?

Interactionist theory points to an individual’s sense of self and identity, and the ways that people interpret their lives through the lenses of their selves and identities. In this way, interactionist theory stresses the process of internal feelings and the constantly evolving self.

3. Most psychological research on crime and antisocial behavior is quantitative and heavily statistical. How does the phenomenological approach differ?

Phenomenology is the idea that people’s subjective reality and perceptions are valid for the purposes of scientific study, which are a different form of data than sheer numbers. Both sources of data are important for understanding crime.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 244 11/14/12 2:20 PM

CHAPTER 8Making Connections

4. Social class is inversely related to crime, meaning that street crimes like murder, rape, robbery, and burglary are much more common among the poor than the affluent. How does humanist theory possibly explain this trend?

The humanist approach focuses on individuals reaching their full potential, and poverty imposes wants and needs that are difficult to fulfill. In this way, offenders are disproportionately poor perhaps because they are (illegally) striving to achieve self- actualization.

5. In what ways is humanist theory seen in criminal justice practice?

Social support theory is clearly in the humanist theoretical tradition and suggests that emotional and material supports buffer individuals from crime. In addition, these friendship and social networks are important areas to enhance for offenders who are attempting to desist from crime.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Theorists such as Maslow and Rogers chose to focus on the positive aspects of humanity. How does a positive approach apply to the study of criminal offenders? Are there gradations of “goodness” that translate into prosocial or antisocial behavior?

2. How can the relationship between victimization and offending be understood from a humanist perspective? Does the general public have much compassion for criminals who themselves have endured extensive victimization? What factors influence public compassion for offenders?

3. Much social policy in prior decades has been designed to reduce social inequality and provide social support to those at risk for maladaptive behavior. Has this approach been successful? If not, does it suggest that expressive social support might be more important than instrumental social support?

4. What are similarities and differences between prevention and correctional treatment? How do the processes of successful crime interventions showcase the importance of interactionist theory?

5. How might liberals and conservatives differ in their evaluation of the humanist approach to understanding and controlling crime? What evidence can be used to support your answer?

6. In what ways can interactionist theory be challenged by research in the temperament and personality literature? Does evidence of stability and change in criminal careers suggest that both perspectives have merit?

Making Connections

1. Restorative Justice Online (http://www.restorativejustice.org/)

This site is a destination for news, resources, and research that uses the restorative justice framework.

2. Restorative Justice Community Action (http://www.rjca-inc.org/)

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 245 11/14/12 2:20 PM

http://www.restorativejustice.org/

http://www.rjca-inc.org/

CHAPTER 8Key Terms

actual appraisals How other people see one.

congruence The state of balance between one’s experiences and one’s perceptions of the self.

defiance theory Theory that suggests criminal punishment increases recidivism among offenders who are poorly bonded to society, who respond to getting caught by police with anger instead of shame, and who view criminal penalties as unfair and stigmatizing.

differential coercion theory Theory that suggests the blend of coercion and consis- tency of that coercion manifest in psycho- logical and behavioral outcomes.

disintegrative shaming The process by which the criminal offender is stigmatized for his or her criminal conduct without an effort to reintegrate the person into the community.

diversion The diverting of juvenile delin- quents to social service providers and other community services to address their underlying problems instead of sending them to juvenile court.

expressive needs The emotional con- nections to others that serve to bolster an individual’s self-worth in providing social support.

family group conferencing A procedure that is similar to victim-offender media- tion, but law enforcement and human services providers also often participate to develop a reparative agreement.

hierarchy of needs Maslow’s pyramid model consisting of five levels of physi- ological, social, and spiritual needs that culminate in a state of self-actualization.

instrumental needs The material support, guidance, and advice of an individual in providing social support.

This site showcases ways that offenders, victims, and community residents benefit from restorative justice practices. The website is practical and has a practitioner feel.

3. Restorative Justice for Victims (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic .aspx?Topicid=186)

This site within the National Criminal Justice Reference Service that is administered by the United States Department of Justice focuses on the victim role in restorative justice processes.

4. Restorative Justice for the Criminal Justice System (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/ Topics/Topic.aspx?Topicid=48)

This site within the National Criminal Justice Reference Service that is administered by the United States Department of Justice focuses on the criminal justice system’s role in restorative justice practices.

5. Nurse Family Partnership (http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/)

This is the homepage of the program that was examined in the case study for this chapter.

Key Terms

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 246 11/14/12 2:20 PM

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic.aspx?Topicid=186

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Topics/Topic.aspx?Topicid=48

http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/

CHAPTER 8Key Terms

interactionist theory Perspective that emphasizes the importance of the self, identity, and people’s interpretation of events in their lives as the primary deter- minants of behavior.

interdependency The extent to which individuals participate in social networks, depend on others, and have others depen- dent on them.

looking glass self Cooley’s idea that social interaction influences the self.

primary deviance In Lemert’s work, the original act of antisocial behavior, one that draws attention and negative responses from others, such as peers, parents, teach- ers, or police.

reflected appraisals How one perceives that others see one.

reintegrative shaming The process by which criminal behavior is punished but the criminal offender is reintegrated into the community after serving a penalty.

reparative agreement A restorative justice procedure that specifies how the harm will be repaired.

restorative justice A criminal justice phi- losophy and practice that brings offenders, victims, and community members together as clients who participate in the justice process.

secondary deviance The process of mutu- ally reinforcing deviance, social reaction, and acceptance of a deviant identity.

self The reflexive awareness of one’s exis- tence, created by the interaction between individuals and their social world.

self-appraisals How one sees oneself.

self-derogation The set of negative feel- ings and low self-esteem regarding one’s abilities, personal qualities, and behavior.

self-experience discrepancy Threats to the self-concept that prevent congruence.

shaming The expression of disapproval of specific conduct for the purpose of creat- ing remorse in a wrongdoer and sending a message of condemnation to others.

social support theory The general idea that family relationships, friendship net- works, and social institutional supports such as church groups, community activi- ties, and employment opportunities are needed to not only prevent crime but also assist offenders in the desistance process.

Support Matters A substance abuse treat- ment program that explicitly focuses on an offender’s own social support networks to aid in his or her recovery.

victim impact statement Testimonials from victims that describe in personal detail the negative consequences of their victimization.

victim-offender mediation A mediation meeting between the offender, victim, and a third party to discuss the emotional con- sequences of the crime.

well-being The state of overall happiness, health, and contentedness of an individual.

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 247 11/14/12 2:20 PM

deL80458_08_c08_217-248.indd 248 11/14/12 2:20 PM