Rolttwes

a
i yon
CLAUDE WiITHERLY
MODERN
McGraw-Hill Series in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Binder and Geis: Methods of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Bonn: Criminology
Callison: Introduction to Community-Based Corrections
De Forest, Gaensslen, and Lee: Forensic Science: An Introduction to
Criminalistics
Hagan: Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and Its Control
Klockars: Thinking about Police: Contemporary Readings
Nettler: Explaining Crime
Walker: The Police In America: An Introduction
MODERN
CRIMINOLOGY
CRIME,
CRIMINAL
BEHAVIOR,
AND
ITS
CONTROL
JOHN HAGAN
University of Toronto

McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY

New York St. Louis San Francisco Auckland Bogota Hamburg
Johannesburg London Madrid Mexico Montreal New Delhi
Panama Paris Sao Paulo Singapore Sydney Tokyo Toronto
MODERN CRIMINOLOGY
Crime, Criminal Behavior, and Its Control

Copyright © 1985 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the
United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a
data base or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of
the publisher.
23456 73910'D'0O1E
D O'C’8 98-7 Gi5

PEN OSbr-0eS4 S054

This book was set in Times Roman by Black Dot, Inc. (ECU).
The editors were David V. Serbun and Barry Benjamin;
the designer was Janice Noto;
the production supervisor was Diane Renda.
The drawings were supplied by the author.
R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company was printer and binder.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Hagan, John, date
Modern criminology.
(McGraw-Hill series in criminology and criminal
justice)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Crime and criminals. 2. Criminal justice,
Administration of. |. Title. Il. Series.
HV6025.H27 1985 364 84-10049
ISBN 0-07-025450-8
CONTENTS

PREFACE xi

1) STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? =

The Issue: Why Criminology?

Anxiety, Anger, and the Fear of Crime
The Attempt to Control Crime through Prediction
The Desire to Prevent Crime through Reform
Explaining Crime and Reactions to It
What Crime Can Tell Us about Society
Criminology Defined
The Emergence of Crime
Crime and Culture
Crime in Time
The Emergence of European Criminology
The Classical School —_
=oO
=
PRP
BWH
OP
Br

Cesare Beccaria 12
Jeremy Bentham
From Crime to Science
Adolphe Jacques Quételet
Henry Mayhew
The Positivist School
Cesare Lombroso
Raffaele Garofalo
Enrico Ferri
Looking Back
The Emergence of North American Criminology
A Beginning
The Chicago School
Old and New Criminologists
From Consensus to Conflict in the Study of Crime
The Battles of Berkeley and Britain
Greatly Exaggerated Rumors about the Death of
That Old-Time Criminology
vi CONTENTS

2 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY

The Issue: What Should Be Called ‘Criminal’?
The Link between Law and Morality
The Origins of Laws
Law as a Product of Consensus
Law as a Product of Conflict
Private Morality and the Public Interest
The (In)effectiveness of Law as an Instrument of Morality
Law, Morality, and the Creation of Crime
Victimless Crime and the Limits of Law
Seven Approaches to the Definition of Crime
and Deviance
The Legal-Consensus Approach
The Socio-Legal Approach
A Cross-Cultural Approach
A Statistical Approach
The Labeling Approach
A Human Rights Approach
A Utopian-Anarchist Approach
Defining Crime and Deviance as a Continuous Variable
Criminal Forms of Deviance
The Consensus Crimes
The Conflict Crimes
Noncriminal Forms of Deviance
The Social Deviations
The Social Diversions
The Comings and Goings of Crirne

3 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY:

THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY
The Issue: Who Makes the Law?
Law for the Masses or Law for the Classes?
The Consensus View of Lawmaking
The Conflict View of Lawmaking
The Origins of Theft and Vagrancy Laws
Alcohol and Drug Laws
Delinquency and Probation Laws
Sexual Psychopath and Prostitution Laws
Conclusions
 CONTENTS vii

4 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES

OF CRIMINALITY 92

The Issue: Who, What, When... 92

Accountable Counts 92
Official Crime Data 94
Nonofficial Crime Data 96
First-Person Accounts 97
Victimization Surveys 99
Observational Data 100
Making the Many Measures Meaningful 102
Are Crime Rates Increasing? 106
Are There Class Differences in Criminal Behavior? 113
Are Men More Criminal Than Women? 122
How Criminal Are the Corporations? 134
Conclusions 146

5 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES

OF UNDERCONTROL 148
The Issue: Why Do People Violate Laws That Most
of Us Accept? 148
Durkheim’s Concept of Anomie 149
Social Disorganization Theory 150
W. 1. Thomas and The Unadjusted Girl 151
Thrasher and The Gang 152
Shaw, McKay, and Delinquency Areas 152
Some Critical Comments on Social
Disorganization Theory 153
Neutralization Theory 154
Sutherland and Differential Association 157
Cressey and Other People’s Money 158
Sykes, Matza, and the Techniques of Neutralization 159
Some Critical Comments on Neutralization Theory 160
Control Theory 163
Hirschi and the Elements of the Social Bond 164
Nye and Family Relationships 166
Toby and the Stake in Conformity 167
Akers’s Social Learning Theory 168
Some Critical Comments on Control Theory 170
Summary and Discussion 173
viii CONTENTS

6 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE,

STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 176

The Issue: Why Do Some People Challenge the Standards

of the Society in Which They Live? 176
The Several Meanings of Subculture 176
The Theories of Class Culture 177
Miller’s Theory of Lower-Class Culture 177
Banfield and The Unheavenly City 179
Wolfgang, Ferracuti, and the Subcu/ture of Violence 181
Some Critical Comments on Theories of Class Culture 182
The Theories of Status Frustration 183
Kobrin and the Conflict of Values 183
Cohen's Theory of Status Deprivation 188
Criticism of Status Frustration Theories 189
The Theories of Opportunity 192
Merton, Social Structure, and Anomie 192
Cloward, Ohlin, and Differential Opportunity 194
Some Critical Comments on Anomie and Opportunity 196
Summary and Discussion 199

UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES

OF OVERCONTROL
The Issue: Why Do We React to Crime the Way We Do?
Labeling Theory
Tannenbaum and the Dramatization of Evil
Lemert and Primary and Secondary Deviance
Becker’s Outsiders
Cicourel and the Ethnomethodology of Juvenile Justice
Some Critical Comments on Labeling Theory
Group Conflict Theory
Vold’'s Group Conflict Theory of Crime
Turk’s Theory of Crime and the Legal Order
Chambliss and Seidman’s Perspective on Differential
Criminalization
Quinney’s Social Reality of Crime
Some Critical Comments on Group Conflict Theory
Marxist Theories
The New Criminology
Spitzer’s Marxian Theory of Crime and Deviance
Scull’s Theory of Decarceration
 CONTENTS ix

Some Critical Comments on the Marxist Theories 225

Summary and Discussion 226

8 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES

OF ERIMINAL JUSTICE 229

The Issue: Race, Class, and Criminal Injustice 229

Understanding the Criminal-Justice System 231
The Police 233
From Idea to Reality 233
The Police of Two Cities 234
Police Work 236
The Encounters of Police with Citizens 237
The Use and Abuse of Force 238
The Role of Suspect Demeanor 239
The Role of Police Bias 240
The Social Organization of Police Work 243
The Courts 246
The Historical Roots of Plea Bargaining 247
Decisions to Prosecute 251
The Role of Defense Counsel 252
Are the Bargains Biased? 254
The Social Organization of Plea Bargaining 255
Plea Bargaining Experiments 257
The Causes and Consequences of Plea Bargaining 259
The Role of the Probation Officer 259
The Role of the Judiciary 262
Conclusions 264

UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”:

THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS
AND GENDER 266

The Issue: Can Old Theories Explain New Crimes? 266

Gender, Work, and Crime 267
Class, Crime, and Corporations 274
Conclusions 287

10 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES

OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, AND PREVENTION 288

The Issue: How to Respond to Crime 288

The Purposes of Criminal Sanctions 288
X CONTENTS

The Decline of Corporal and Capital Punishment 290

The Shift to Imprisonment 292
The Social Organization of Prisons 298
The Rise of Probation and Parole 300
The Deterrent Effects of Criminal Sanctions 302
Treatment and Prevention of Crime 306
Individual Treatment 306
Prevention through Social Reform 309
Conclusions 315

BIBLIOGRAPHY 317

INDEXES 357
Name Index
Subject Index
 PREFACE

There are important questions modern criminology must address:

¢ Who and what should be called criminal?
* Who makes criminal law?
e Are crime rates increasing?
¢ Are there class differences in criminal behavior?
e Are men more criminal than women?
¢ How criminal are the corporations?
¢ Why do some people commit crimes that nearly all of us condemn?
¢ Why do some people challenge the criminal law?
¢ Why do we react to crime the way we do?
* Do the poor and minorities receive discriminatory treatment from the
criminal-justice system?
* Can the old theories explain the new crimes of class and gender?
¢* How could we and should we best respond to crime?
This book answers such questions. The answers are not final: they are open
to debate. You are invited to join this debate, a debate that is fascinating
for more than what it can tell us about crime. Think about what follows. It
could change the way you think about the society in which you live.
xi
xii |PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although I alone assume responsibility for this book, others have contrib-
uted to it. Ron Akers, John Clark, Michael Gottfredson, David Green-
berg, Martha Myers, Ruth Peterson, and James Short commented at
various stages on the development of the book. Writing such a book is an
expression of the excitement others have generated for me in the study of
crime. These others include collaborators and teachers, such as Celesta
Albonetti, David Bordua, Ron Gillis, Jeff Leon, Ilene Nagel, Gwynn
Nettler, Alberto Palloni, John Simpson, Austin Turk, Marjorie Zatz,
and Patricia Parker. All have made my work more interesting. I wrote
this book while teaching at the University of Toronto and the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin—Madison. I thank both institutions for the support they
provided.

JOHN HAGAN
SR SE SE TS

STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY:
SSP SS

WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 7

THE ISSUE: WHY CRIMINOLOGY?

“A criminologist,” writes one of the most prominent practitioners of the
craft, “is one whose professional training, occupational role, and fiduciary
reward are concentrated toward a scientific approach, study and analysis of
the phenomena of crime and criminal behavior” (Wolfgang, 1963, p. 160). °
Crime may or may not pay, then, but studying it does! You understandably
may ask why: why do people get paid to study crime and criminal behavior,
and why, beyond reasons of remuneration, do people engage in this area of
study?
There are a variety of answers to these questions, built around the
following kinds of concerns: the anxiety, anger, and fear that are common
responses to crime; the desire to predict and control crime; the hope of
preventing crime through individual and social reform; the wish to
understand and explain crime and societal reactions to it; and the simple
desire to learn more about crime and what it can tell us about our society.
Criminologists disagree, sometimes violently, about which of these kinds
of concerns are most legitimate and important. For example, I am most
impressed with the last two concerns. However, let us consider the others
first.

ANXIETY, ANGER, AND THE FEAR OF CRIME

Anxiety and anger are probably the most easily understood, if not the most
widely accepted, motivations to study crime. Many people fear crime and
react with apprehension to it. In recent years pollsters and criminologists
have taken to measuring this fear. One reason for studying crime, then, is
because people wish to know more about what they fear, the conditions
under which this fear rises and falls, and the types of persons who fear
crime more and less. This research has established that it is not the
experience of crime alone that determines the fear of it. In fact, there is a
tendency for those who fear crime (e.g., the elderly and women) to restrict
their exposure to the risk of crime and therefore to reduce their likelihood
of being victimized (Balkin, 1979). However, the fear of crime is undenia-
bly real. It is a perennial concern of voters in English-speaking democra-
1
2 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

cies (see Erskine, 1974; Courtis, 1970; McDonald, 1976, chap. 7), who
rank crime among their nation’s most serious problems, and who vote with
their money and lives as well, buying arms for their own protection
(Seidman, 1975. Lizotte and Bordua, 1980). With such concerns in mind,
one important North American textbook on crime (Nettler, 1978) concen-
trates its attention nearly exclusively on those crimes that people fear most,
the “predatory crimes,” and this concentration is seconded by at least one
other important “thinker about crime” (Wilson, 1975).

THE ATTEMPT TO CONTROL CRIME THROUGH PREDICTION

Criminologists have also sought to predict and thereby make possible the
control of criminal behavior. The assumption is that characteristics of
individuals (e.g., age, sex, work history, seriousness and frequency of
earlier infractions) can be used to make predictions about their future
involvement in crime. Research based on this assumption has been used to
develop prediction tables, which in turn have been used to make predic-
tions about the likelihood of future criminal behavior by specific individu-
als (e.g., Mannheim and Wilkins, 1955; Glueck and Glueck, 1950), and to
make decisions about the treatment they will therefore receive. A goal of
this type of criminological work, then, is to improve the capacity for the
prediction and control of criminal behavior. Indeed, it has been argued
that “research into prediction . . . has produced what is probably criminol-
ogy’s most distinctive contribution to knowledge in the social sciences”
(Morris and Hawkins, 1969, p. 242). The case made for this conclusion
includes the observation that prediction tables have been used with some
success in making parole decisions aiid in reducing prison costs by releasing
those with high probability of success earlier than originally intended.
However, it is also acknowledged that the predictive capacity of existing
prediction tables is low, and that methodological and ethical issues
complicate their evaluation and use. Methodologically, an issue that
confronts the use of these tables is the means of determining the rate at
which they can be expected to generate false positive predictions (i.e.,
future noncriminals identified as criminals) and false negative predictions
(i.e., future criminals identified as noncriminals) (Hirschi and Selvin, 1967,
pp. 244-252; Reiss, 1951). Ethically, an issue presented by the use of
prediction tables is the prospect of making legal decisions less on the basis
of what persons are legally convicted of having done, and more on the basis
of what they are expected to do (cf. Banfield, 1968). Notwithstanding these
concerns, and for better or worse, “‘control through prediction” has been a
recurring theme in modern criminology.
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 3

THE DESIRE TO PREVENT CRIME THROUGH REFORM

Related to prediction and control is the prospect of prevention. Criminolo-
gists have gone about crime prevention in decidedly different ways. Their
chosen methods have varied from attempts to rehabilitate individual
offenders to efforts to restructure society. It cannot be said that either
approach has demonstrated great success. This is true in spite of the fact
that efforts to reform offenders and the societies in which they live are as
old as the field of criminology itself. In fact, one of the most persistent and
important debates in criminology has involved a dispute about the proper
role, if any, of reform work in this field of study. To understand why the
issue of reform has loomed so large in criminology, it may be helpful to
note that much that is current in American, Canadian, and British
criminology has its roots in the first part of this century among sociologists
in the United States (see Gibbons, 1979; Downes, 1978), and that many of
the persons involved at this stage had religious and later social work
backgrounds (Mills, 1943). Thus many, possibly most, of the early
criminologists believed that the primary purpose of criminology was to
reform criminals. In this sense, the early criminologists were meliorists,
seeking to improve society by rehabilitating criminals. A latter-day expres-
sion of this view is that “criminology is basic preparation (or should be) for
persons entering various types of social work as well as for the probation
and parole officer who is engaged actively in helping the offender become
readjusted (or stay adjusted) to his community life” (Elliott, 1952, p. 3).
Yet, from the beginning, there was disagreement among criminologists
about the wisdom and appropriateness of becoming professionally identi-
fied with attempts to solve social problems, including the crime problem.
Indeed, Maurice Parmelee (1918), the author of the first American
textbook on crime, “‘spearheaded the campaign against contamination of
‘the scientific character and objectivity of sociology’ by social welfare
considerations” (Geis, 1960; cited in Gibbons, 1974, p. 407). Parmelee
took the position that if criminology was to be an objective, scientific part
of the field of sociology, it must forgo an active commitment to a social
welfare, melioristic approach. Thus even the early American criminolo-
gists quarreled about the purposes of criminology.
This quarrel has become more pronounced in recent years with the
emergence of a much more militant attitude toward issues of prevention
and reform. This attitude is reflected in a school of thought known as the
“new” or “critical’’ criminology (Taylor, 1975). This school of thought
seeks to redefine what is called ‘‘criminal’’ and to “actively participate in
militant movements for social justice” (Schauffler, 1974, p. 58). The
proposed method for doing this is to define social problems like racism and
sexism as crimes (Schwendiger and Schwendiger, 1970), and to encourage
4 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

militant action, aimed at restructuring the very bases of our society, to deal
with them. We will have more to say in Chapter 2 about changing
definitions of crime, and in the last part of this chapter we will discuss some
of the consequences of this militancy. Here we simply note that militant
forms of social action have been encouraged by this school of thought.

EXPLAINING CRIME AND REACTIONS TO IT

We come now to the concerns that I see as most important to modern
criminology. The first of these involves efforts to understand and explain
crime and societal reactions to it. These efforts begin with the definition
and measurement of crime, proceeding from this base to attempts to
account theoretically for criminal behavior, its recognition as such, and the
reactions of society to it. In this book we will consider a variety of theories
that address these issues. Very generally, we categorize these explanations
as theories of undercontrol; culture, opportunity, and status; and over-
control. The sequencing of these theory groups is intentional, for today the
greatest interest is generated by the last group of theories, which see
official attempts to control crime as an important topic for study in modern
criminology. This is not at all to say that other types of theories are untrue
or unimportant. Indeed, we will see that the evidence supporting some of
them is impressive. Nonetheless, we submit that the most prominent
explanations of crime today are what we will call the theories of ‘“‘over-
control.”

WHAT CRIME CAN TELL US ABOUT SOCIETY

The final concern that characterizes modern criminology is the one I think
deserves greatest emphasis. This concern is for what the study of crime can
tell us about the society in which we live. Thus the way in which a society
responds to crime can tell us much about what that society values and
disvalues and about where that society sets its priorities; for example,
between the achievement of social order and the pursuit of personal
freedom. As well, the rise and decline of particular kinds of crime can tell
us much about the way a society is changing, and with what consequences.
Similarly, the social location and distribution of different types of crime,
and the strategies used in their control, can reveal a great deal about how a
society is organized, and about whose interests its mode of organization
serves. Thus the purpose of criminology is not simply to solve the problems
of crime but to learn from them. Indeed, one of the things we may have
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 5

learned from the study of crime is that many crime problems have no
simple solutions. Certainly the record of successful problem-solving so far
is unimpressive. Nonetheless, this is one of the features of criminclogy that
makes it a fascinating and valuable field of study, for it is in this field that
some of the most important theoretical ideas we have about our society
and its workings are put to very concrete and important tests. Further-
more, we will demonstrate in this book that notwithstanding the failure to
solve the problems of crime, much has been learned about crime and about
societal attempts to control it. It will be the results of the scientific study of
crime and criminals that will be of greatest concern to us. As you will soon
learn, the result of this work is a wide and varied body of knowledge.

CRIMINOLOGY DEFINED
Thus far, we have indicated what a criminologist is, in large part, by
discussing what criminologists do. We have also speculated as to why
criminologists do what they do. Now we should add to this discussion a
formal definition of criminology. Following Webster (1959, p. 197), we
take criminology to be “‘the scientific study of crime and criminals.”
However, we must also acknowledge that this definition is as inadequate as
it is succinct. This is so because many criminologists disagree about what
constitutes science, about what methods and investigative techniques
should be used in the study of crime, and indeed about what a crime is and
who is a criminal. Each of these issues will be addressed in considerable
detail in later chapters. In other words, for the moment, we will leave these
issues aside! The more pressing need here is to give some comparative and
historical sense of how societal conceptions of crime and its control have
emerged. Thus in following parts of this chapter we will talk first about
historical and comparative aspects of the emergence of crime. The
importance of this discussion is to make and emphasize the point that crime
is a social as well as a legal conception—something to be studied rather
than assumed. We will then talk briefly about the emergence of criminolo-
gy in Europe, and finally about the development of North American and
British criminology.

THE EMERGENCE OF CRIME

Crime and Culture
What is called a ‘“‘crime” depends in large part on the culture considered.
Therefore, what is called a ‘“‘crime”’ in your culture and mine, may not be in
 6 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

another (see, for example, Black, 1983). Many examples could be chosen
to make this point. The example we choose is that of the Inuit—or
Eskimo—people of Alaska and the Northwest Territories of Canada. What
makes this group a pew uscllen interesting example is that “we” are a part
of their ‘crime problem.”
It will be useful to begin consideration of this cultural group by noting
that crime is a type of social deviance, or in other words variation from a
social norm, that is singled out for public punishment. Many noncriminal
forms of deviance—for example, many forms of mental illness and some of
the sexual pleasures of consenting adults—are neither a matter of public
scrutiny nor the subject of punishment. Thus the public scrutiny and
punishment of criminal deviance is a part of what makes it uniquely
_ interesting and important—not only in our culture, but in others as well.
The question to be asked here is, What is it about particular types of
deviance that results in public scrutiny and punishment of those who are
involved? In other words, why do some cultural groups designate particu-
lar kinds of deviance as criminal?
An important part of the answer to this question involves the central
themes of the culture considered.-Cavan (1968), Vallee (1962), and
Clairmont (1963) offer vivid descriptions of Inuit culture. The very basic
problem of physical survival in an intemperate climate is the dominant
theme of this culture. Cavan goes on to note that there are two types of
deviance in Inuit communities, “‘private wrongs” and “‘public crimes,” with
the distinction based on the perceived threat to community survival. Both
categories reflect striking differences from European and American con-
ceptions of crime and deviance.
For example, one of the best-known aspects of Inuit culture involved the
acceptability of extramarital sexual relations. However, these encounters
only remained accepted, and in this sense normal, so long as they were
authorized by the wife-lending husband. When not so arranged, these
liaisons could be considered instances of deviant behavior, and therefore
subjects of dispute. Nonetheless, such disputes were thought to be a
private matter to be resolved between the parties invOlved. It is also
interesting to note that in these unauthorized encounters, it was the “‘other
man,” rather than the “‘seduced”’ wife, who was considered accountable.
Furthermore, the adulterous husband was not considered to have wronged
his own wife. Revenge, to the point of death, remained the sole preroga-
tive of the offended husband. A significant restraint on the use of this
privilege, however, was that the man who avenged himself by killing the
offender was held responsible for the care of the widow and her children.
Thus far we have considered an example of ‘“‘noncriminal’’ deviance in
Inuit culture. “Private wrongs” only became “public crimes” in Inuit
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 7

culture when the behaviors involved were conceived of as a threat to the

welfare or survival of the group itself. Thus a person considered to have
caused conditions of starvation was regarded much as we would a
murderer. Pursuing this theme, Cavan (1968) summarizes several differ-
ences between Inuit and Anglo-American conceptions of criminality.
Killing another person was not necessarily a crime. The destruc-
tion of an old parent or a newborn baby .. . was not acrime. Nor
was it a crime to kill the seducer of .. . [one’s] wife. But unpro-
voked killing or a chain of murders that threatened the supply of
men in a community and therefore endangered the food supply
was a serious crime and called for community action (p. 25).
Thus many acts we hold criminal were not so regarded by the Inuit.
More interesting still, however, is a partial reversal in the conceptualiza-
tion of theft. Hoarding food and possessions beyond one’s needs was
considered a form of stealing by the Inuit, and, during periods of scarcity,
this form of theft was regarded as quite serious. On the other hand, Vallee
(1962) points out that what we would be more likely to regard as theft
rarely occurred or was rarely regarded as such in Inuit communities. As a
result, there were no public or formal sanctions available when it did occur.
Instead, “If someone took something which did not belong to him, it was
assumed that he must be in dire need and that he would replace it quietly
whenever he could do so” (p. 190).
A final word should be said about responses to crime and deviance in
Inuit culture. Sanctions in Inuit communities were predominantly infor-
mal. Typical measures included ridicule, gossip, and ostracism (Birket-
Smith, 1959). However, in extreme cases threatening the survival of the
group, a redefinition of “‘private wrongs” as “public crimes” took place,
and exile or execution was invoked. Such measures often followed from a
process in which heads of families in the community reached agreement on
the threat posed to the group by the offending member. Obviously, the
judgments reached by such a process in Inuit communities could be quite
different from those reached in American or Canadian courts of law. To
note only one source of disagreement, where the Inuit were, and perhaps
still are, much more concerned with survival, Americans and Canadians
are more concerned with property and its protection. As the Inuit and the
American and Canadian cultures have come into contact, and sometimes
collision, these differences in cultural conceptions have come into conflict.
Some of the results of this conflict are reflected in the writing of the
previous paragraphs in the past tense.
In this conflict, American and Canadian courts have played a sometimes
confusing, and often coercive, role in imposing foreign conceptions of
8 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

crime and punishment on the members of Inuit communities. An example

may help to make this point.
Matthew Koonungnak...of Baker Lake, Northwest Territories,
was charged with hunting musk-ox contrary to the Game Ordi-
nance. Koonungnak had never before seen a musk-ox, and the
animal was approaching his camp. In order to protect the camp,
and on the advice of another Eskimo, Koonungnak shot it. He
subsequently came to the police department ...to advise the
police what had happened, took the police to his camp, and was
then charged with the offense. When he appeared before the
Justice of the Peace, he readily admitted shooting the animal, and
further stated that if he ever saw another musk-ox and it came
towards him he would shoot it. The Justice of the Peace interpret-
ed these statements as a plea of guilty, and imposed a fine of
$200.00 or four months in jai! in default of the payment (4).
This decision was reversed on appeal. One reason for the reversal was
that the guilty plea was judged invalid. The problem, it seems, is that the
Inuit people have no corresponding word in their culture for the term
“suilty.”’ Beyond this, the appellate judge found that the defendant acted
in self-defense, noting that “it is notorious in the north . . . that-an outcast
bull musk-ox driven from the herd and wandering in the barrens alone and
homeless is a dangerous animal” (Schmeiser, 1972, p. 4).
The lesson of this episode is that conceptions of crime and deviance are
relative to culture and circumstance. These divergent conceptions can
become particularly problematic when cultures come into close and
continued contact. The results of such contacts include compromise,
conflict, and coercion, and inevitably change. Furthermore, we should not
be lulled into thinking that it is always other cultures that are subject to
change. Our own culture, with its corresponding conceptions of crime,
changes as well. One way of making this apparent is to consider next the
emergence of crime, and particularly the changing character of its control,
in Anglo-American societies.

Crime in Time
Much that will have seemed foreign in the Inuit conception of crime may
seem less so when we look back over time for the roots of our own ways of
dealing with what we have called “‘crime.” We will begin this discussion by
considering the early societies that preceded what we recognize now as the
emergence of English society. These early societies were organized around
kinship groups and tribes. No centralized system of criminal justice
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 9

existed. Instead, a prominent role in resolving disputes was assigned to the

victims of “crime” themselves. Victims and their kin were expected to put
things right by avenging what they perceived as crimes against them: “All
crime was against the family; it was the family that was regarded as having
committed the crimes of its members; it was the family that had to atone,
or carry out the blood-feud”’ (Traill, 1899, p. 5). We should make clear that
the reference to “blood” in these feuds refers to the base of the conflicts in
family units, rather than to their common consequences. Nonetheless,
Schafer (1977, p. 6) writes that “‘in that primitive period the criminal-victim
relationship . . . was hardly anything more than a mutually opposed effort
to secure power.” The image is of a social condition in which, as the
famous English philosopher Thomas Hobbes put it, ‘‘Life is nasty, brutish
and short.”
Several features made this period unique. First, there were no effective
laws, or for that matter a centralized state, to protect the rights of the
accused or the victim. In this situation, the assignment of moral guilt was
largely irrelevant; what was relevant was the initiative taken by victims and
their kin in the form of retaliation. Thus Ziegenhagan (1977, p. 36) notes
that ‘contrary to modern conceptions of punishment, the injury inflicted
upon the perpetrator reflected the damage sustained by the victim as well
as the context in which the offender was apprehended; and, contrary to
contemporary Western conceptions, the moral guilt of the perpetrator was
not of concern.”
The rise of feudalism and Christianity were accompanied by a gradual
elimination of blood-feuding and an emerging system of financial compen-
sations involving the wer, wite, and bot (Jeffrey, 1957). The wer or wergild
was a payment made to the victim’s family following a killing or injury; the
bot was a payment for injuries less than death; and the wite was a fine
payable to a lord or king. By the seventh century, and the reign of King
Ethelbert, the amounts of compensation involved were indicated in written
laws and were related very explicitly to the statuses of the victims and
accused involved. A variety of crimes and their literal costs were spelled
out. For example,
A man who “‘lays with a maiden belonging to the king,” . . . had to
pay fifty shillings compensation, but if she was ‘’a grinding slave”
“the compensation was halved. Compensation for lying with a
nobleman’s serving maid was assessed still lower at twelve
shillings and with a commoner’s serving maid at six shillings. If a
freeman raped the slave of a commoner he had to pay more than
five shillings’ compensation, but if a slave raped this same gir! he
was castrated (Hibbert, 1963, p. 4).
10 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

The crimes covered in this elaborate system ranged from murder to

fornication, with the compensation for each carefully stipulated and
graded.
The church played a prominent role in some aspects of this system.
Harding (1966, p. 13) notes that ‘‘the foreign clergy, venturing into a rough
and pagan society, had to be given an appropriate status and protection for
the property they would acquire from noble patrons.”’ During this period
the church was entitled to receive as compensation twelve times the value
of goods stolen from a consecrated place; a bishop’s compensation was
sometimes greater than the king’s; and large shares of some payments
made by the accused were passed on to the clergy (Hibbert, 1963, p. 4).
What is significant in this is that as feudalism developed in England,
between 700 and 1066, lords and bishops gradually replaced kinship groups
as recipients of compensatory payments (Jeffrey, 1957). This was a very
significant beginning of the movement of victims out of a position of
prominence in an emerging system of criminal justice that was developing
its own increasingly independent ways of dealing with crime; independent,
that is, at least from the demands of individual victims.
Two other important developments during this period involved what
ultimately became the king’s peace (i.e., areas under royal jurisdiction)
and the king’s courts. While both institutions took many centuries to
develop, the seeds of each were present in the written laws of King
Ethelbert. In this period, England was not a land of a single peace, but of
many, one belonging to each great lord and one to the church. As well,
proceedings began to emerge in which the king received a part of the
compensation to be paid. This reflects the fact that ‘‘the king’s court was
already acquiring special authority” (Harding, 1966, p. 15). Schafer (1977,
p. 14) notes that ‘“‘before long the injured person’s right to restitution
began to shrink, and . . . the fine that went to the state gradually replaced
it entirely.” Significantly, it was now not only the church, but also the state,
that was replacing the victim as a central actor in the criminal-justice
process.
Whitelock (1952, pp. 139-142) provides a useful description of court
proceedings in the feudal period, and of the role of defendants and victims
in them.

The procedure in law-suits was strictly formal. ... The plaintiff

summoned the defendant to appear to answer his charge, and if
the defendant failed to appear, after a due number of lawfully
given summonses, adequately witnessed, he lost his suit by
default....
If the defendant appeared in court to answer the charge, it was
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 11

normal for the plaintiff to make a preliminary oath. ... In most

cases the defendant was then allowed to bring forward an oath to
prove his innocence. .. . He could do this with the aid of compur-
gators, or oath-helpers, whose number was conditioned by the
nature and severity of the charge involved... .
If On the appointed day the defendant came to court and
performed the oath in full, the suit was ended and he was clear.
But there could be circumstances that cut the defendant off from
the right to produce an oath. If he were a man of suspicious
character who had been frequently accused, or if he had ever been
convicted of perjury, he was no longer ‘‘oath worthy.” .. . In such
cases, the court awarded the right of bringing an oath to the
plaintiff, who then brought forward his compurgators to swear to
the defendant’s guilt. Similarly, the plaintiff, instead of the defen-
dant, was awarded the oath if he had witnesses of the crime... .
When the plaintiff had in this way produced his oath, or when the
oath had been granted to the defendant and he had proved unable
to give it, the defendant might then go to the ordeal, the judgment
of God, the church then took control of the proceedings.
The court proceedings described represent a tradition of private prosecu-
tion in the sense that the responsibility for initiating a trial still resided with
the injured party.
The transition in England to a more modern form of criminal justice
occurred during the reign of Henry II (1154-1189). During this period the
feudal system of law, with its monetary sanctions, disappeared. In its
place, a system of common law emerged. The common law is a set of
traditions formed out of judicial decisions rather than legislative statutes.
Its importance is reflected in part by the fact that it remains to this day a
basis for interpreting contemporary criminal statutes, which are often quite
vague in their content. Included among what are still called ““common law
crimes” are murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, larceny, and arson
(see Blackstone, 1965; Clark and Marshall, 1967). With the end of the
feudal system, the punishments imposed for these crimes and others
moved from the financial to the physical, including such practices as
branding, mutilation, and the removal of limbs, not to mention execution.
For a variety of reasons, then, this period of transition is of great
importance. Jeffrey (1957, p. 660) observes that ‘“‘a comparison of the laws
of Henry I and Henry II reveals that a revolution occurred in the legal
field. The former described a system of wer, bot, and wite; the latter
described a system of writs, procedures, and common law.
Two significant aspects of the legal revolution that Jeffrey describes were
the growing separation of the church and state in criminal matters, and the
12 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

exclusive jurisdiction of the state in the imposition of public punishments.

Thus by 1226 Jeffrey notes that an agreement between the criminal and the
relatives of a slain person could no longer save the murderer from
indictment and a death sentence: the state no longer allowed private
settlements of criminal cases. As well, although the church continued to
punish offenders of canon law through excommunication and a system of
penances, the church finally lost its right to punish crime through the use of
force. In other words, both the victim of crime and the church continued to
be supplanted by the state.
Nonetheless, a system of private prosecutions based on the initiative
taken by victims of crime remained in effect in England well into the
nineteenth century. In fact, the final decline of the victim’s role in the
criminal-justice system did not begin until the Enlightenment, with the
work of some of the first recognized criminologists, particularly Cesare
Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. A primary contribution made by these
early criminologists was to draw the link between crime and society, and to
insist on the role of the state in monitoring this link. We therefore will now
turn to a discussion of the emergence of criminology in Europe, and to a
consideration of the impact of the early criminologists on our cultural
conceptions of crime and punishment.

THE EMERGENCE OF EUROPEAN CRIMINOLOGY

The Classical School
Modern criminology has its roots in what is known as the classical school of
criminology. The classical criminologists were distinguished by the fact that
they rebelled strongly against the methods used to control crime in their
time, urging a new kind of criminal law in its place; and by the fact that
they anticipated many of the most important reforms in criminal law that
have occurred since that time, including the general understanding that
crimes represent injuries to society as much or more than to the individuals
who experience them. We will discuss these ideas as they were expressed by
two classical thinkers, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham.

Cesare Beccaria
It is doubtful that Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) expected, or even aspired
to, the position he has achieved in the history of criminology. He is known
to have been an undistinguished student, and his interest in issues of crime
was transient (Sylvester, 1972, p. 9). Nonetheless, he was a man who
expressed his ideas clearly, and they were ideas whose time clearly had
come.
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 13

Beccaria wrote in a time when the criminal law and its enforcement
were, in a word, barbarous. Secret accusations, brutal executions, torture,
arbitrary and inconsistent punishments, and class-linked disparities in
punishments were the order of the day. Beccaria was not alone in his
objections to these practices, and it is doubtful that he ever would have
rallied fellow thinkers against them were it not for the fact that he came
into the company of a group called the ‘Academy of Fists.’’ This group was
concerned with a variety of social problems of the day, and Beccaria took it
as his contribution to learn and write about the problems of crime and its
punishment. The resulting book, Dei Delitti e delle Pene (On Crimes and
Punishments), was originally published (in 1764) anonymously, when
Beccaria was only 26 years of age. Although he wrote little else of
significance, this work was an immediate success, with profound conse-
quences (Monachesi, 1960, chap. 2).
In terms of our cultural conception of crime, Beccaria’s most important
contribution was to consider crime as an injury to society. It was the injury
to society, rather than to the immediate individual(s) who experienced it,
that was to direct and determine the degree of punishment. Behind this
thinking was the utilitarian assumption that all social action should be
guided by the goal of achieving “‘the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.” From this viewpoint, the punishment of an individual for a crime
was justified, and justifiable only, for its contribution to the prevention of
future infringements on the happiness and well-being of others. While in
today’s world these ideas may seem common enough, their implications for
the world of Beccaria were dramatic.
For one thing, Beccaria reasoned that certain and quick, rather than
severe, punishments would best accomplish the above goals. Indeed, he
argued (p. 99) that “in order for punishment not to be... an act of
violence of one or many against a private citizen, it must be. . . public,
prompt, . . . the least possible in the given circumstances, proportionate to
the crimes, [and] dictated by the laws.”’ This meant that torture, execution,
and other barbarities must be abolished; in their place, there were to be
quick and certain trials and, in the case of convictions, carefully calculated
punishments. Beccaria went beyond this to propose that accused persons
be treated humanely before trial, with every right and facility extended to
enable them to bring evidence in their own behalf. The significance of this
is that in Beccaria’s day accused and convicted persons were detained in
the same institutions, and subjected to the same inhumane punishments. In
place of this, Beccaria argued for swift and sure punishments, to be
imposed on only those found guilty, with the punishments determined
strictly in accordance with the damage to society caused by the crime.
In many other respects, Beccaria was a modern thinker. McDonald
(1976, p. 41) notes that Beccaria focused on two primary causes of
14 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

crime—economic conditions and bad laws. On the one hand, he suggested

that property crimes were committed mainly by the poor, and mainly out
of necessity. On the other hand, he argued that too severe a punishment
for a particular crime could deter someone from committing it, but at the
same time make another crime attractive by comparison. As well, he
argued that cruel laws could promote crime by diminishing the human
spirit. What was needed, argued Beccaria, was a careful matching of the
crime and its punishment, in keeping with the general interests of society.
The classical thinker we consider next, Jeremy Bentham, went beyond this
in attempting to create a “‘calculus” for realizing these interests.

Jeremy Bentham
If Beccaria was a reluctant writer, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) clearly
was not. He wrote with abandon. However, a sense of the oddness of this
second major figure in the classical school of criminology is found in the
facts that he suffered from retarded physical growth during his early years,
that he had ‘“‘the colossal temerity to attempt to catalogue and to label all
varieties of human behavior and the motivations giving rise to them,” and
that he is said to have formed a close relationship with only one woman in
his life, to whom he proposed marriage at the age of 57 (Geis, 1960, p. 52).
Bentham was an eccentric. However, it is also said, with somewhat greater
significance, that Bentham was to the field of law reform what Adam Smith
was to the world of economics (see Radzinowicz, 1948, p. 361n; Halevy,
1955).
Bentham began with Beccaria’s concern for achieving “‘the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.”’ His interest was in giving precision to
this idea, in part, through a pseudomathematical concept he called “felicity
calculus.” This “‘calculus” was intended as a means of estimating the
goodness or badness of acts. Although not taken seriously today, these
efforts were important in that they encouraged Bentham and other
reformers to make explicit the intended logic of the criminal law and its
enforcement. At this time, the law remained not only barbarous but also
highly disorganized and contradictory. Against this, Bentham meant to
make the law an efficient, indeed economical, means of preventing crime.
Like Beccaria, Bentham insisted that prevention was the only justifiable
purpose of punishment, and furthermore that punishment was too “‘expen-
sive’ when it produced more evil than good, or when the same good could
be obtained at the “‘price’’ of less suffering. His recommendation was that
penalties be fixed so as to impose an amount of pain in excess of the
pleasure that might be derived from the criminal act. It was this calculation
of pain compared to pleasure that Bentham believed would deter crime.
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 15

These ideas were formulated most clearly in his Introduction to the

Principles of Morals and Legislation, first published in 1789.
It was part of the contradictions of Bentham’s character that he was at
least as calculating as he was humane. For example, Bentham argued that
capital punishment should be restricted to offenses ‘“‘which in the highest
degree shock the public feeling.” He went on to argue that if the hanging of
a man’s effigy could produce the same preventive effect as the hanging of
the man himself, it would be a folly and a cruelty not to do so
(Radzinowicz, 1948, pp. 381-382). However, he also suggested, with his
penchant for calculation, that capital punishments might nonetheless be
used to maximum effect as follows:
A scaffold painted black, the livery of grief—the officers of justice
dressed in crepe—the executioner covered with a mask, which
would serve at once to augment the terror of his appearance, and
to shield him from ill-founded indignation—emblems of his crime
placed above the head of the criminal, to the end that the
witnesses of his sufferings may know for what crimes he under-
goes them: these might form a part of the principal decorations of
these legal tragedies. .. . Whilst all the actors in this terrible drama
might move in solemn procession—serious and religious music
preparing the hearts of the spectators for the important lesson
they were about to receive. ... The judges need not consider it
beneath their dignity to preside over this public scene (Bentham,
quoted in Radzinowicz, 1948, pp. 383-384).
Bentham also had unusual ideas about imprisonment, an idea that was
then in its infancy. He spent much of his life trying to convince authorities
that an institution of his design, called the ‘‘Panopticon prison,” would
solve the problems of correction.
Architecturally, the Panopticon was to be a circular building with a
glass roof and containing cells on every story of the circumfer-
ence. It was to be so arranged that every cell could be visible from
a central point. The omniscient prison inspector would be kept
from the sight of the prisoners by a system of “‘blinds unless...
he thinks fit to show himself” (Geis, 1960, p. 64).

The suggested administration of this utopian prison is a further illustration

of Bentham’s utilitarian style of thought. The central figure in the prison
was to be a manager who would employ the inmates in contract labor. The
manager was to receive a share of the money earned by the inmates, but he
was to be financially liable if inmates who were later released reoffended,
or if an excessive number of inmates died during imprisonment. For
Bentham, calculation was always the key to successful control. Two prisons
16 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

of the Panopticon design were actually built in the United States: the
Western State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania and the Statesville Prison in
Illinois. However, the first was rebuilt seven years after construction, and
the second was redesigned before it was finished.
Other of Bentham’s ideas have fared better. He argued strongly for the
establishment of the office of public prosecutor, and he furthered the
notion that crimes are committed against society rather than against
individuals. Beyond .this, he argued that many victimless crimes were
imaginary rather than real offenses, suggesting, for example, that “‘offenses
which originate in the sexual appetite, when there is neither violence,
fraud, nor interference with the rights of others, and also offenses aginst
one’s self, may be arranged under this head’ (Bentham, quoted in Geis,
1960, p. 61). And, for better or worse, he anticipated the role that official
crime statistics were later to play in advanced societies, noting that “they
may be compared to the bills of mortality published annually in London;
indicating the moral health of the country... as these latter do the
physical’”’ (Bowring, 1843, vol. 4, p. 29).
Karl Marx later said of all this that “in no time and in no country has the
most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a
way” (Geis, 1960, p. 51), while Sir Henry Maine concluded that “I do not
know of a single law reform effected since Bentham’s time which cannot be
traced to his influence.’’ Even with this brief introduction to Bentham, it
probably is not difficult to understand this division of views. Nonetheless,
Bentham’s writings, and those of other classical criminologists, had a
profound effect on the way we think about and respond to crime today.

From Crime to Science

Observation, description, and measurement are among the building blocks
of science. In these respects, the roots of modern criminology are
European as well, building, for example, on the pioneering works of the
Belgian Adolphe Jacques Quételet and the Englishman Henry Mayhew.
These two very different personalities developed methods for the study of
crime that continue to have important analogues today. Quételet intro-
duced the use of quantitative techniques in criminological research, while
Mayhew provides an early example of a long tradition built on the use of
observational research strategies. Both represent early contributions to the
study of crime as a science.

Adolphe Jacques Quételet

The study of crime was only a part-time avocation of Adolphe Jacques
Quételet (1796-1874). His early training was in mathematics, and by the
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 17

age of 23 he had discovered a curve that earned him a professorial chair

and established his reputation for life. This enabled Quételet to turn to
applied areas of interest, including astronomy, meteorology, and sociology
(McDonald, 1976, p. 63). What Quételet brought to these fields was a
belief that scientific laws could be observed only within certain degrees of
probability, resulting from, and reflected in, large numbers of observations
rather than in individual occurrences (Sylvester, 1972, p. 25). In the realm
of sociology, and more specifically in the study of crime, Quételet used
what he called “‘moral statistics” to try to establish these scientific laws, or
regularities.
In doing this, Quételet called attention to a basic problem with crime
statistics that criminologists ever since have sought to resolve: the gap that
exists between “known and judged offenses”? and what the statistics are
intended to measure, “committed offenses.’ The problem, he noted, was
that ‘‘our observations can only refer to a certain number of known and
tried offenses, out of the unknown sum total of crimes committed”’
(Quételet, 1842, p. 82). Quételet saw the problem as one of establishing
the ratio that exists between the two kinds of offenses. However, he also
noted that this ratio is susceptible to a variety of influences.
Thus the greatness of this ratio, which will generally be different
for different crimes and offenses, will chiefly depend on the
activity of justice in reaching the guilty, on the care with which the
latter conceal themselves, on the repugnance which the individu-
als injured may have to complain, or perhaps on their not knowing
that any injury has been committed against them.
Nonetheless, Quételet observed that this ratio, at least in well-organized
societies, should be closer to unity for serious crimes, and further from
unity for less serious crimes. On the basis of this premise and others,
Quételet undertook his study of the ‘‘moral statistics of crime.’ Some of
his early findings have stood the test of time.
For example, Quételet observed that men have what he called a greater
“propensity” for crime than women, and that the young have a greater
propensity than the old. The persistence of these kinds of findings, over a
large number of observations and in a variety of times and places, led
Quételet to the conclusion that ‘“‘we can enumerate in advance how many
individuals will soil their hands in the blood of their fellows, how many will
be frauds, how many prisoners; almost as one can enumerate in advance
the births and deaths that will take place’ (ibid., p. 97). However,
Quételet also concluded that while these patterns were resistant to change,
sustained efforts could nonetheless bring their gradual improvement, and
that the failure to make such efforts would have its own cost. Thus there
was a moral to the moral statistics:
18 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

| cannot repeat too often, to all men who sincerely desire the
well-being and honour of their kind, and who would blush to
consider a few francs more or less paid to the treasury as
equivalent to a few heads more or less submitted to the axe of the
executioner, that there is a budget which we pay with a frightful
regularity—it is that of prisons, chains, and the scaffold: it is that
which, above all, we ought to endeavor to abate (p. 96).

Henry Mayhew
While Quételet relied on enumeration and estimation as the means of
answering questions about crime, Henry Mayhew (1812-1887) relied on
observation and description. The result was a four-volume classic, London
Labour and the London Poor, that provided a detailed account of the
growing masses who made up the backwash of Victorian capitalism.
Passages like the following made the problems of this period difficult to
ignore.
There are thousands of neglected children loitering about the low
neighborhoods of the metropolis, and prowling about the streets,
begging and stealing for their daily bread. They are to be found in
Westminster, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, St. Gile’s, New Cut, Lam-
beth, the Borough and other localities. Hundreds of them may be
seen leaving their parents’ homes and low lodging-houses every
morning sallying forth in search of food and plunder (Mayhew,
1862, py 273):
Yet there was also an ambivalence in Mayhew’s work. As he described in
detail the varieties of crime and degradation that characterized this period,
he tended to focus as much on the weaknesses of his subjects as on the
circumstances to which they were subjected. Still, Mayhew brought the
problems of crime forcibly into the consciousness of his readers. And, in
doing so, he called his readers to action, arguing,
It is far easier to train the young in virtuous and industrious habits,
than to reform the grown-up felon who has become callous in
crime, and it is besides far more profitable to the state. To neglect
them or inadequately to attend to their welfare gives encourage-
ment to the growth of this dangerous class (ibid., p. 275).
Although this was clearly a plea for reform based on fear and self-interest,
it nonetheless was a call for action, and, for its time, it was based on a
systematic and literate survey of the problems of crime.
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 19

The Positivist School

The positivist school of criminology takes its name from the positive
philosophy of the nineteenth century, which applied the scientific method
to the study of social problems. The group of thinkers we consider from
this school—Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo, and Enrico Ferri—
made the study of criminals self-consciously scientific. They did this by
emphasizing the importance of the controlled investigation of criminals and
noncriminals. This is not the same as saying that their investigations were
well-controlled or, in this and other ways, scientific. Indeed, it seems that
they often were not. However, the positivist school of criminology had
provocative things to say about the causes of criminal behavior, and by
saying them with at least a claim to scientific standards, this group of
thinkers initiated a whole new tradition of criminological work that today
prides itself on its scientific standing. In this sense, the positivist school of
criminology may have been more significantly an aspiration than an
achievement. Nonetheless, the aspiration proved to be important.

Cesare Lombroso
“In the history of criminology,’’ writes Marvin Wolfgang (1960, p. 168),
“probably no name has been eulogized or attacked so much as that of
Cesare Lombroso.”’ Thus while Lombroso (1835-1909) frequently is called
“the father of modern criminology,” it is also the case that most modern
criminologists regard his ideas about the causes of crime as almost entirely
erroneous. To understand how Lombroso could be both so revered and so
wrong, it is necessary to appreciate his ideas as well as his methods of
research.
The most significant aspect of Lombroso’s work involved his application
of the concept of atavism, and the principles of evolution, to the study of
crime. Lombroso’s thesis was that criminals could be distinguished from
noncriminals by the presence of physical anomalies that represented a
reversion to a primitive or subhuman type of person. In other words,
Lombroso saw criminals as biological ‘“‘throwbacks” to a primitive, or
“‘atavistic,” stage of evolution.
Lombroso developed these ideas during the course of his work as a
prison physician. One particular offender, a famous inmate by the name of
Vilella, attracted Lombroso’s special interest. Lombroso conducted a
postmortem examination of Vilella and discovered a depression in the
interior back part of his skull that he called the “median occipital fossa.”
Lombroso (ibid., p. 184) recognized this feature as a characteristic found in
inferior animals and excitedly concluded the following:
20 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

This was not merely an idea, but a revelation. At the sight of that
skull, | seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a vast plain
under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal—an
atavistic being who reproduces in his person the ferocious in-
stincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals. Thus were
explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheek-bones,
prominent superciliary arches, solitary lines in the palms, extreme
size of the orbits, handle-shaped or sessile ears found in criminals,
savages, and apes, insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight,
tattooing, excessive idleness, love of orgies, and the irresistable
craving for evil for its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish
life in the victim, but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh, and drink
its blood.
Lombroso himself conducted thousands of postmortem examinations and
anthropometric studies of criminals and noncriminals, leading him to the
conclusion that the criminal was, in effect, a human subspecies, with very
distinct physical and mental characteristics. In the beginning this led to a
simple dichotomous scheme including two types of criminals, the true or
born criminal, who was thought to make up about one-third of the criminal
population, and occasional criminals, who presumably made up the rest.
Lombroso later added additional categories that involved a greater atten-
tion to the influence of social factors. In these categories of criminals,
Lombroso increasingly speculated about the interaction of genetic and
environmental influences. Still, he maintained to the end his conviction
that the true or born criminal was responsible for a large amount of
criminal behavior. These ideas were expressed most fully in the several
editions of L’Uomo delinquente, the first of which was published in 1876
(see also Lombroso, 1918). It is some testimony to his faith in these ideas
and research methods that Lombroso made it a part of his will that on his
death his own body was to be taken to his laboratory of legal medicine,
where an autopsy was to be performed. His brain was preserved in the
Institute of Anatomy (Wolfgang, 1960, p. 177n).
In 1913, only four years following Lombroso’s death, Charles Goring
published The English Convict, the most important refutation of Lombro-
so’s theory. In this and other critiques it is convincingly demonstrated that
Lombroso’s work suffered from poor research design and measurement.
His hypotheses simply were not well-supported by his own or others’ data
(see, for example, Lindesmith and Levin, 1937). Even Wolfgang (1960), a
sympathetic assessor of Lombroso’s contributions, notes that his ‘‘rash and
easy generalizations about atavism and degeneracy deduced from biologi-
cal anomalies left a vulnerable hiatus between theory and fact.” The
question that remains, then, is why Lombroso has been considered a
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 21

founder of modern criminology. The answer lies in the fact that Lombro-
so’s provocative assertions reoriented modern thinking about crime from a
focus on the offense to a focus on the offender. Sellin (1937, pp. 898-899)
made this point long ago by noting that ‘whether Lombroso was right or
wrong is perhaps in the last analysis not so important as the unquestionable
fact that his ideas proved so challenging that they gave an unprecedented
impetus to the study of the offender.” Similarly, Wolfgang (1960, p. 224)
concludes that ‘‘Lombroso served to redirect emphasis from the crime to
the criminal, not from social to individual factors.” In doing so, Lombroso
initiated a whole new era of criminological research.

Raffaele Garofalo
One indirect legacy of Lombroso’s work is seen in the thinking of a second
member of the positivist school of criminology, Raffaele Garofalo (1852-
1934). Garofalo was born a member of the Italian nobility and went on to
become a magistrate, a professor of criminal law, and a prominent member
of government. It therefore is not surprising that Garofalo took a great
interest in the criminal law and its reform. Drawing indirectly on the work
of Lombroso, Garofalo came to a set of conclusions that provide a
fascinating contrast with the ideas of the classical thinkers considered
earlier.
Garofalo began with the assumption that to understand the criminal it is
necessary to have a meaningful definition of crime. This definition is based
on a distinction between “‘natural crime,” to which Garofalo attaches great
importance, and “‘police crime,” a residual category to which Garofalo
attaches less importance (see Allen, 1960, p. 275). ‘Natural crimes” are
those which violate two basic “altruistic sentiments,” pity (revulsion
against the voluntary infliction of suffering on others) and probity (respect
for the property rights of others). ‘‘Police offenses” are behaviors which do
not offend these altruistic sentiments but are nonetheless called “criminal”
by law. Garofalo was more concerned with the former category because he
regarded the crimes in it as more serious, because he believed the category
itself to be based on a unifying principle, and because he regarded this as
the area in which criminal law played its most important role. It is to the
latter ideas about criminal law that we turn next.
Although Garofalo found Lombroso’s theories inadequate as an expla-
nation for the ‘‘natural crimes” of “true criminals,” he still wound up
concluding that criminals have ‘“‘regressive characteristics” indicating a
“lower degree of advancement,” and this premise was essential to Garofa-
lo’s ideas about criminal law. These ideas are most clearly presented in
22 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Garofalo’s Criminology, originally published in 1885 and translated into

English in 1914. The key to the arguments presented in this volume is the
assumption that true criminals, lacking in the basic altruistic sentiments,
are unfit for the society in which they live. The solution to this evolutionary
problem, Garofalo (1914, pp. 219-220) argued, was elimination of the
unfit.
In this way, the social power will effect an artificial selection similar
to that which nature effects by the death of individuals inassimi-
lable to the particular conditions of the environment in which they
are born or to which they have been removed. Herein the state will
be simply following the example of nature.
Thus where the classical theorists focused on the symbolic value of
punishments as a means of deterring crime in the general population,
Garofalo and the positivists were constrained by their belief in evolution-
ary principles to focus more specifically on the incapacitory function of
punishments—including life imprisonment and the death penalty. In other
words, the positivists were led to conceive of the relationship between
crime and law in a quite different way from the classical criminologists. As
we will see, both sets of ideas have analogues in modern criminology.

Enrico Ferri
It is appropriate that the last of the European founders of modern
criminology we will discuss is Enrico Ferri (1856-1929), for Ferri was
possibly the most interesting, and certainly the most eclectic, of the
criminologists of his time. Ferri developed his ideas in the course of his
work as a university professor, trial lawyer, member of parliament,
newspaper editor, public lecturer, and author. Along the way, Ferri spent a
year studying with Lombroso and became his lifelong friend.
Ferri’s first contact with Lombroso occurred when he sent the latter a
copy of his dissertation. It is said that although Lombroso’s response was
generally favorable, he also remarked that “‘Ferri isn’t positivist enough.”
Indignantly, Ferri responded to a mutual friend, ““‘What! Does Lombroso
suggest that I, a lawyer, should go and measure the heads of criminals in
order to be positivist enough?!” (cited in Sellin, 1960, pp. 280-281). Ferri
eventually did just that, but not before he developed his ideas in a variety
of other ways, including a study of crime in France patterned after the
earlier work of Quételet.
In organizing his work, Ferri departed from Lombroso’s example by
giving social factors prominence. In doing this, Ferri insisted that crime “‘is
the effect of multiple causes” that include a large number of anthropologi-
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 23

cal, physical, and social factors. These factors were productive of criminals
who were classified as: (1) born or instinctive, (2) insane, (3) passional, (4)
occasional, (5) habitual. These ideas were expressed most significantly in
Ferri’s Criminal Sociology, with the title demarcating what Ferri called
“the science of criminality and of social defense against it.”’ Ferri (1917, p.
36) was not modest in distinguishing this positivistic approach from the
classical tradition.
The science of crimes and punishments was formerly a doctrinal
exposition of the syllogisms brought forth by the sole force of
logical phantasy. Our School has made it a science of positive
observation, which, based on anthropology, psychology, and
Criminal statistics as well as on criminal law and studies relative to
imprisonment, becomes the synthetic science to which | myself
gave the name “criminal sociology.”

However, what is most fascinating, and equally disturbing, is the

unexpected political twist that Ferri’s thought gave to his career. He was a
tireless orator who was received enthusiastically by lay and academic
audiences alike. Through much of his life, Ferri was a committed Marxist,
and he attempted the difficult (impossible?) task in his work of bringing
together Marxian and Darwinian principles. At one point, Ferri lost a
professorship because of his Marxist leanings. However, the results of his
thinking also included conclusions that today seem ludicrous, including
arguments like the following (1917, p. 118):
The Marxian doctrine of historical materialism ... according to
which the economic conditions ... determine... both the moral
sentiments and the political and legal institutions of the same
group, is profoundly true. It is the fundamental law of positivist
sociology. Yet | think that this theory should be supplemented by
admitting in the first place that the economic conditions of each
people are in turn the natural resultant of its racial energies.

Views like the above eventually allowed Ferri to turn from socialism to
fascism as the system most likely to implement the type of reforms he
thought necessary. Thus in the fifth edition of Criminal Sociology (1929,
pp. 11-12) he noted in a footnote that,

While in the fourth edition (1900) | alluded hopefully to socialist

trends—to which | have given my fervid enthusiasm, especially by
the propaganda | have carried on for the moral and social educa-
tion of the Italian masses—now in the fifth edition (1929) | have to
note with regard to Italy that since the influence of the Socialist
24 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Party disappeared after the war, because it neither knew how to

make a revolution nor wanted to assume the responsibility of
power, the task of the social prevention of criminality was as-
sumed and has begun to be realized by the Fascist Government.
It was a sad conclusion to a productive career that is perhaps most
important for the encouragement it gave to the scientific study of the social
causes of criminal behavior.

Looking Back
Looking back over this discussion of the emergence of European criminol-
ogy, we can see good evidence for the contention that conceptions of crime
are changeable, and that the way in which we conceive of crime influences
the way we respond to it. In particular, the classical and positivist schools
of European criminology represent very different approaches to the topic
of crime, and these alternative approaches have had a continuing impact
on the development of American criminology. We will see in the following
pages that the positivist perspective prevailed in the early phases of
American criminology, while the classical approach has reemerged as an
influential viewpoint in more recent years. The American sociologist David
Matza has played the roles of participant and observer in the renewed
awareness of the contributions of the classical school, and it is therefore of
interest to note the distinctions he draws between the two approaches.
Matza (1964, pp. 3-12) notes first and foremost that positivist criminolo-
gy gives primacy to the criminal actor rather than to the criminal /aw as the
focus for study. Second, Matza observes that while the classical school
adopted the assumption that people exercise free will in the choice among
alternative actions (i.e., through the process of human reasoning), the
positivist school follows the assumption that human actions are determined
in a scientifically ascertainable way (i.e., by physical and/or social causes).
Third, Matza suggests that positivists see the criminal as fundamentally
different from the noncriminal, and that the search for such differences is
the positivist’s preoccupation.
It is important to keep in mind that the differences between these
schools of thought are in large part a product of the very different times
and conditions in which they emerged (Jeffrey, 1957). The classical school
developed in the eighteenth century as part of an attempt to reform a
barbarous legal system, and as an effort to protect accused persons against
harsh and arbitrary actions on the part of the state. Thus the classical
school was anxious to make “the punishment fit the crime”’ by providing a
definite and calculated penalty for each and every crime, regardless of the
person committing it. In contrast, the positivist school developed in the
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 25.

nineteenth century as an attempt to apply scientific methods to the study of

the criminal. In doing this, the positivists encouraged individual treatment
tailored to the particular kind of criminal involved, with an emphasis as
well on protecting society from the criminal. As we will now see, it was the
positivist perspective that exercised the greater influence in the early stages
of American criminology.

THE EMERGENCE OF NORTH AMERICAN CRIMINOLOGY

A Beginning
The positivist roots of American criminology are reflected in the fact that
some of the earliest work done in the United States was centered around
“child-guidance”’ clinics (Reckless, 1973, appendix B). The first of these
clinics was established in 1909 in Chicago by Dr. William Healy. The work
of the clinics was organized on a case-study approach, using a team of
clinicians (a psychiatrist, physician, psychologist, and social worker) to
collect information on the ‘“‘multiple causes” of individual cases of juvenile
delinquency. Healy published an account of his methods and findings in
1914, under the appropriately positivist title, The Individual Delinquent.
Healy’s work became a model for the establishment of such clinics in a
number of major cities.
The organization of American criminology as a profession also began
during this period. A National Conference of Criminal Law and Criminol-
ogy was held in 1909 at the Law School of Northwestern University.
Leaders from the fields of medicine, psychiatry, sociology, penology, and
the criminal courts attended, and the American Institute of Criminal Law
and Criminology was established. Beginning in 1910, the institute assumed
responsibility for the publication of a journal, now called the Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, which has maintained consecutive publi-
cation over seventy years. As well, a committee was formed that eventually
took responsibility for translating and publishing the work of European
criminologists, including Lombroso and Ferri (Elliott, 1952).
From the beginning, the fields of sociology and criminology were closely
linked in North America (Clinard, 1951), and both were products of what
is called the ‘‘progressive era” in American history (Gibbons, 1979, chap.
2). The progressive era was characterized by a growing awareness of the
harsh social consequences of America’s rapid industrialization and urbani-
zation. This awareness was particularly pronounced among midwestern
sociologists and was reflected in the concentration of attention on the
“defective, dependent and delinquent classes.” For example, Charles
Henderson, a founding member of the sociology department at the
26 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

University of Chicago, authored an influential book titled Introduction to

the Study of the Dependent, Neglected and Delinquent Classes. The
assumption of the progressives (including middle-class farm-owners, store-
keepers, clergymen, lawyers, doctors, as well as academics) was that hard
work and the right laws could remedy these problems. In‘Chapter 3 of this
volume we will consider the social background of some of these laws.
The first American textbook on crime written for academic use was
authored by Maurice Parmelee in 1918. Although Richard Quinney (1975,
p. 4) credits Parmelee’s Criminology with focusing attention more clearly
on sociological aspects of crime, Gibbons (1979, p. 29) notes that “‘it is
difficult to know quite how to evaluate Parmelee’s Criminology 60 years
after it originally appeared in print.” Indeed, the most interesting thing
Gibbons (1974) can find to say about Parmelee is that he was a practicing
nudist! This does distinguish Parmelee from what was otherwise a rather
austere and somber group of colleagues in the field.
The midwestern roots of American criminology are reflected in two
important texts that followed: Edwin Sutherland’s Criminology, first
published in 1924, and John Gillin’s Criminology and Penology, published
in 1926. Gillin spent most of his career in the sociology department at the
University of Wisconsin, and the introduction to his text was written by
another famous Wisconsin sociologist, E. A. Ross, the second president of
the American Sociological Association. Sutherland received his doctorate
from the University of Chicago and spent most of his career at Indiana
University. Of the two volumes, Sutherland’s had, and continues to have,
through its many editions, a much greater impact. It was this text that
made criminology distinctively sociological, beginning with a major cri-
tique of the work of Lombroso, and leading eventually to a social theory of
crime—differential association theory—that we will consider later in this
volume.

The Chicago School

American criminology found its first real coherence and sustained develop-
ment in research done in Chicago in the 1920s. Much of the background for
this work is found in the writings of the University of Chicago sociologists
Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and later W. I. Thomas. Park and Burgess
stimulated an early interest in the development of cities, and Thomas
established the use of life histories as an important research tool. Burgess
(1928) went on to do important work on the prediction of parole outcomes,
which was followed by similar kinds of research by the Gluecks (1930).
These studies in particular carried on the positivist interest in the differen-
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 27

tiation of criminals from noncriminals.

However, it was in the 1930s that criminological research came into full
flourish in Chicago. Two giants of this period were Clifford Shaw and
Henry McKay, who did their work at a state-funded child-guidance clinic,
the Institute for Juvenile Research. Shaw and McKay’s research consisted
primarily of ecological area studies and the collection of life histories. Both
approaches placed a great emphasis on the social disorganization that
characterized particular areas of rapidly growing cities. Thus Shaw and
McKay began with a premise found in the work of Park and Burgess: that
cities grow outward from the center, in a series of concentric zones, each
with specialized activities and distinctive populations.
Broadly, the first zone at the city center is a business and industrial
zone. Around the perimeter of these establishments is a zone in
transition, where deteriorated housing is held for speculation in
anticipation of commercial and industrial expansion. Regardless of
the probability of expansion, housing in this area is undesirable,
and therefore cheap, because of its proximity to industry and
business. Its slums harbor the first immigrant settlement, the poor
and dispossessed of all types, and vice industries. Zone three is an
area of second immigrant settlement and workingmen’s homes;
zone four is a better residential area; the fifth and last is the
commuter zone (Kornhauser, 1978, p. 62).
Shaw and McKay (1931, 1942) found that juvenile-court referral rates
followed a gradient through the zones; that is, the rates were highest in
the inner-city or core areas and declined with distance outward from the
city center. A principal cause, it seemed, was the social disorganization of
these areas. These points and others were made by Shaw and his colleagues
(Shaw, 1930; in collaboration with Moore, 1931; Shaw et al., 1938) in a
series of life history studies as well. Here it will be enough to say that the
research of Shaw and McKay influenced, and eventually was influenced by,
the theories of undercontrol and the theories of opportunity and status that
we will discuss in greater detail in later chapters.
No discussion of early Chicago criminology is complete without at least
some mention of Frederic Thrasher’s The Gang (1937). This study recounts
in detail the daily activities of 1,313 boys’ gangs located and studied in
Chicago by Thrasher. This research established the importance of in-depth
fieldwork and clearly established the point, frequently forgotten but
underlined by Bordua (1961), that crime and delinquency can be fun and
rewarding to those involved. Thrasher’s work provided (provides?) an
important antidote to an increasingly grim portrayal of the urban criminal
and delinquent.
28 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

OLD AND NEW CRIMINOLOGISTS

From Consensus to Conflict in the Study of Crime
We have spent a great deal of time in this chapter discussing the roots of
modern criminology. One cannot examine these roots, even in the rather
superficial way that we have had to do here, without being struck by how
much the study of crime, criminals, and criminal law has changed over
time. In turn, our conceptions and responses to crime, both as individuals
and as members of a society, have changed as well. We will see much more
evidence of these changes in the chapters that follow. We will see, for
example, that while the beginnings of North American criminology were
positivist in character—focusing on criminal behavior more than criminal
law, on the determining causes of such behavior, and on the differentiation
of criminals from noncriminals—more recent events have seen a return of
criminological interest to its classical roots, with a particular focus on the
role of criminal law in generating legal labels that may constitute the
clearest distinctions that exist between criminals and noncriminals. Our
consideration of the theories of overcontrol will make this transition and its
importance a subject of extended discussion in a later chapter. Here we
will start with the more basic point, central to the theme of this book, that
criminology is a field of study that is continually changing. An important
source of contemporary change in criminological work has been a disagree-
ment about the role that processes of consensus and conflict play in our
society, particularly in the definition of crime, and in the role that
criminologists should play in influencing these events.
Many of the early criminological theories were premised on the implicit
assumption that there is a consensus of values and interests in the definition
of crime. Recall, for example, that Garofalo spoke of ‘“‘natural crimes”’ that
violated two basic “‘altruistic sentiments.’ The assumption was that these
sentiments were widely shared and reflective of mutual interests in all parts
of society. In recent years this assumption has been questioned in a variety
of ways, and often replaced by the assumption that values and interests,
particularly between social and economic classes, are in conflict (e.g.,
Turk, 1969; Quinney, 1975b; Chambliss and Seidman, 1971). This has led to
a renewed interest in the criminal law, and to a questioning of the social
and economic purposes to which the criminal law is put. As indicated at the
outset of the chapter, this questioning, in one of its more extreme forms,
has led to the demand that social problems like racism and sexism be
considered crimes, and dealt with as such (Schwendiger and Schwendiger,
1975). This approach to the definition and study of crime, often called the
“new,” “critical,” or “conflict” criminology, will be considered more
extensively in the next chapter. Meanwhile, however, we can note that this
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 29

type of demand has led to some very serious conflicts among academic
criminologists themselves, particularly involving the roles they should play
in modern society. One way of understanding these conflicts is to note how
they developed in the United States, particularly in the School of Criminol-
ogy at Berkeley, and more generally in Britain.

The Battles of Berkeley and Britain

The School of Criminology at Berkeley opened in 1949, with no anticipa-
tion of the turbulence that would eventually follow. During the first decade
of its existence it offered a strong vocational emphasis, with most of its
program directed to the training of persons to work, particularly at the
administrative levels, in law-enforcement and correction agencies. Crimi-
nology was expected here to influence government policy by influencing
the very people who would carry it out. However, by 1961 the school came
under attack from the university for being too vocational. The eventual
outcome was a reorganization of the school on an interdisciplinary basis
that was to be more theoretical and academic in character.
The new orientation that persisted for much of the second decade of the
school’s existence focused on social, scientific, and legal approaches to the
study of crime. As well, the emphasis of the school’s program now shifted
from undergraduate to graduate instruction. The products of this new
phase of the school’s history tended to be trained researchers, college and
university teachers, and professional policy-makers. In this period, the
contribution of the school to government policy seems to have been more
in the generation and dissemination of ideas than in the actual implementa-
tion of them.
The final phase of the school’s history brought a radicalization of its
program content and activity. During this period, a faction of the Berkeley
school adopted as its primary purposes to initiate, organize, and partici-
pate in militant movements dealing with issues like racism and sexism in
the United States (Schauffler, 1974, p. 58). The very meaning of the study
of criminology changed, as did the everyday activities criminologists were
expected to be involved in. The call was for direct involvement and militant
action. In the spring of 1972, with at least tacit support from other factions
within the school, the administration of the university responded to these
developments by announcing its intention to close the school and to release
untenured members of its faculty. Two participants (Schauffler and Hann-
igan, 1974, p. 42) offer this description of the events that followed:
The final weeks of the spring quarter at the University of California,
Berkeley, saw a student struggle, the scale and intensity of which
had not been matched since the demonstrations against the
30 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

invasion of Cambodia in 1970. At the height of the struggle... as

many as 4000 people participated in marches, rallies, and building
occupations. The first occupation resulted in the banning from
campus of 159 students who refused to leave when ordered. In the
final occupation, nearly 300 were removed by campus police who
were backed up by more than 150 riot equipped police who had
been called in from three other departments.
The principal demand in this confrontation was the continuation of the
School of Criminology. Nonetheless, the school eventually was closed, and
a new program was begun in the Law School.
A not-so-different chain of events unfolded in Britain (Cohen, 1974). A
rather applied type of criminology characterized work in the late 1950s at
the Cambridge Institute of Criminology and the government-based Home
Office Research Unit. As more academically inclined criminologists,
mainly trained in sociology, grew dissatisfied with this applied and voca-
tional orientation, a new national organization, the National Deviance
Conference, was formed. As in the early 1960s at Berkeley, the focus of
this annual conference was on the development of new, sociologically
based ideas about crime and its control. And, in the 1970s, Britain like
Berkeley was faced with a new call for militant action: three British
criminologists—Ian Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young—authored a
book titled The New Criminology (1973) which again called upon criminol-
ogists to assume a more activist role, this time in ending the part played by
the state in defining “human diversity” as crime. In its place, the new
criminologists called for a “‘crime-free society” based on “socialist diversi-
ty.” Although we can point to no specific events associated with the new
criminology as dramatic as the Berkeley riots, the advocates of the new
criminology did encourage (see Taylor et al., 1973, p. 281) alliances with
militant prison groups and other activist movements. Thus both in Britain
and Berkeley, the expected role of criminologists in influencing social
policy varied, from an applied vocational emphasis, to a more detached
focus on sociological observation, training, and commentary, to the call for
militant action. Criminologists today work in the aftermath of these events.

Greatly Exaggerated Rumors about the Death of “That

Old-Time Criminology”
One can be justifiably suspicious of any scholarly movement that claims to
be entirely “new.” Ironically, even the appellation taken by Britain’s ‘new
criminology” has a rather startling precursor. In 1928, the Americans Max
Schlapp and E. H. Smith published a volume titled The New Criminology
which sought to show that children born malformed thorugh chemical
 STUDYING CRIMINOLOGY: WHY CRIMINOLOGY? 31

imbalances exhibited gross defects making them the “typical criminals of

Lombroso”’ (see Wolfgang, 1960, p. 220). Obviously, the British new
criminologists had something quite different in mind.
Some of what the new criminologists had in mind has actually also been
with us for some time. Gibbons (1979, pp. 75-76) points out that by 1927,
Sutherland was suggesting that “‘[crime] is a part of a process of conflict of
which law and punishment are other parts,” and by 1938, Sellin was
arguing that “the social values which receive the protection of the criminal
law are ultimately those which are treasured by the dominant interest
groups.” What the new criminologies have done, then, is to insist on a shift
in emphasis, providing, in part, a focus that resurrects some of the older
concerns with the criminal law that, in a somewhat different way, charac-
terized the classical school of criminology. The new approaches do other
important things as well, and, as we will see in later chapters, there are
crucial insights that go with these approaches. Nonetheless, there is much
that is crucial and important about the “‘older criminologies”’ as well. Both
contribute to the understanding and explanation of crime and our societial
reactions to it; both, through their focus on criminality, can tell us much
about the society in which we live. In other words, both the old and the
new criminologies will be important to the purposes of this book.
DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE 2
OF MORALITY

THE ISSUE: WHAT SHOULD BE CALLED “CRIMINAL”?

The act of defining crime is often, but not always, a step toward controlling
it. That is, the ostensible purpose of defining some behaviors as criminal is
to make them liable to public prosecution and punishment. However,
being liable to prosecution and punishment is clearly not the same as
actually being prosecuted and punished. During the twilight of the
prohibition era in America there was little attempt to enforce temperance
legislation and, when arrests and convictions did occur, the sentences
imposed were light. Eventually, the production and distribution of alcohol
was decriminalized. Attempts to prosecute and punish Selective Service
violators produced similar problems during the last stages of the Vietnam-
ese war. This law was never repealed, and it undoubtedly will be used
again in the future. Meanwhile, there are many statutes that define
white-collar crimes, but they are only infrequently enforced. This is not to
say that such laws have no use; their mere existence at least serves the
purpose of condemning certain unethical business practices. Thus each of °
the above laws serves (or served) the purpose of making a morale
statement; a statement about how citizens should behave. Yet each of these
laws has proved problematic, making explicit the issue of how the criminal
law can and should be used to legislate morality. In one sense, this issue is
moot because the criminal law is always and everywhere used to legislate
morality. However, in another sense, the issue is very much alive, because
the way in which the criminal law is used to legislate morality is constantly
changing. And, in the process of changing, the criminal law expands and
contracts, forcing us regularly and concretely to answer the question: what
should be called a crime? Should the criminal law contract and make
homosexuality and some kinds of drug use legal? Should the criminal law
expand and make acts of racism and sexism crimes? These are the kinds of
questions this chapter is about.

THE LINK BETWEEN LAW AND MORALITY

The lengths to which the law should go in officially defining and enforcing
morality has been the subject of philosophical debate for centuries. In the
32
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 33

nineteenth century, the noted participants in this debate were John Stuart
Mill and Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. In the twentieth century, the
principals have been H.L.A. Hart and Lord Patrick Devlin. It is impor-
tant that we begin by grounding ourselves in the opposing premises of
this debate.
On one side, Mill argued (1859, p. 263) in his famous essay On Liberty
that the primary function of criminal law was to prevent individuals from ¢
doing harm to others.
. . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized community against his will, is to
prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical, or moral, is
not sufficient warrant, he cannot rightfully be compelled to do or
forbear because it would be better for him to do so, because it will
make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so
would be wise or even right.
In other words, Mill regarded the criminal law as an improper instrument
for regulating the private moral conduct of individuals that caused no
direct harm to others. In contrast, Stephen (1883, vol. II, p. 183) saw the
criminal law as serving a much broader function in the cultivation of
personal responsibility, arguing that “‘the meaning of responsibility is
liability to punishment.”’ Thus Stephen regarded the criminal law as a
fundamental means for developing a sense of individual responsibility, and
he considered the use of criminal law as essential for this purpose.
The debate has been focused most clearly in this century in Britain
around the work of the British Governmental Committee on Homosexual
Offences and Prostitution. This body, known for its chairman as the
Wolfenden Committee, issued a report in 1957 that renewed the classic
debate by recommending that private and consensual homosexual behav-
ior on the part of adults no longer be considered a criminal offense. Behind
this recommendation lay a broader assumption, explicitly acknowledged by
the committee, that the criminal law should not intrude on the private lives
of individual citizens beyond what is absolutely necessary to maintain
public order and decency, to protect individuals from offensive and
injurious behavior, and to prevent exploitation and corruption—
particularly of those unable to protect themselves. The committee (1957,
pp. 9-10) put the matter succinctly when it concluded that “there must
remain a realm of private morality and immorality which is, in brief and
crude terms, not the law’s business.”” The committee was quick to
emphasize that it did not condone these forms of behavior, but neither did
it see it as the proper role of the law to condemn them. These were simply
not matters for legal control.
34 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Lord Devlin (1965, p. 7), a prominent British jurist, objected to the

committee’s position. Devlin argued that “‘the criminal law as we know it is
based upon moral principle,” and furthermore that ‘‘in a number of crimes
its function is simply to enforce a moral principle and nothing else.”’ Thus
Devlin’s position (ibid., pp. 13-14) was that “the suppression of vice is as
much the law’s business as the suppression of subversive activities.” In
other words Devlin, like Stephen, believed that it was a proper and
necessary function of the law to regulate private morality.
Another prominent British philosopher of law, H. L. A. Hart, defended
the committee’s work against Devlin’s critique. Like Mill before him, Hart
(1963, pp. 46-47) based his defense on principles of individual liberty,
arguing that
a right to be protected from the distress which is inseparable from
the bare knowledge that others are acting in ways you think
wrong, cannot be acknowledged by anyone who recognizes indi-
vidual liberty as a value. For the extension of the utilitarian
principle that coercion may be used to protect men from harm, so
as to include their protection from this form of distress, cannot
stop here. If distress incident to the belief that others are doing
wrong is harm, so also is the distress incident to the belief that
others are doing what you do not want them to do. To punish
people for causing this form of distress would be tantamount to
punishing them simply because others object to what they do; and
the only liberty that could coexist with this extension of the
utilitarian principle is liberty to do those things to which no one
seriously objects.

To read the debate as it has been presented thus far, one might think the
issue involved is one of simple and absolute principle: whether the criminal
law should be used to control private morality. However, things are seldom
so simple in law, and this debate is no exception. First, each side of the
debate we have presented involves rather different assumptions about the
sources and purposes of law. That is, rather different assumptions are
made about where law comes from, about how law evolves and develops in
primitive and modern societies, and about the purposes to which law is put.
Second, the line between private morality and the concerns of the
surrounding society is not a clear one. For example, it can be argued that
while drug use imposes its most direct consequences on drug-taking
individuals, there are consequences (e.g., lost productivity) for society as
well. Third, part of what is at issue is not only the propriety of using the
criminal law to control individual morality, but also the efficacy of trying to
do so. In other words, can the criminal law be used effectively to control
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 35

individual morality? Fourth, there is a concern with the costs and harms
involved for those who are subject to control. One concern here is that
such laws may have the effect of creating a permanent class of criminals;
that is, a class of persons whose options for leaving a lifestyle defined as
criminal are few. To fully understand the Hart-Devlin debate and the link
between law and morality, it is necessary to address these several
dimensions of the problem. We turn next, then, to a discussion of the
sources of law, followed by a discussion of each of the additional concerns
raised above.

THE ORIGINS OF LAWS

Anthropologists, philosophers, political scientists, as well as sociologists,
have pondered the question of where laws come from. Although this
question is raised and addressed in a variety of ways, and will be discussed
in greater detail in the following chapter, two discernible kinds of answers
can be considered briefly here. The first kind of answer sees the law largely
as a source of social order that resolves and prevents disputes, thereby
allowing individuals to live more harmoniously together. The law is seen
here as a product of consensus, evolving as a means of maintaining this
consensus. The second kind of answer sees the law primarily as an
instrument of social conflict that is used to maintain the power and
privileges of one group over another. The law is seen here as having
evolved out of a conflict between interest groups. These two different kinds
of answers can be understood best as they have been offered by their
various proponents.

Law as a Product of Consensus

According to the consensus point of view, law is a natural product of the
informal rules of interaction of a society. For example, William Seagle
(1941, p. 33), a lawyer, argues that the law is simply a product of custom.
Indeed, for Seagle ‘custom is king,” and “while there is no automatic
submission to custom, there is an automatic sway of custom.” Similarly,
Frederick von Savigny (cited in Friedmann, 1967, p. 160) asserts “that all
law .. . is first developed by custom and popular faith,” and Julius Stone
(1950, p. 337) concludes that laws “are generalized statements of the
tendencies actually operating, of the presuppositions on which a particular
civilization is based.”’ From this viewpoint, then, there is no easy division «
between morality and law: customary morality is the very source of law.
36 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

With Devlin, it is assumed that to deny this would be to deny the very
foundations of law. ‘‘The folkways are the ‘right’ ways,” wrote William
Sumner (1959, p. 28), and these customs or folkways are seen as giving law
both its force and its purpose. From this perspective, any separation of the
law from this foundation would be both artificial and perilous.

Law as a Product of Conflict

In contrast, there is another point of view that sees the emergence of law as
a very selective process. This view argues that there are many moralities
representing a variety of group interests in a society. The issue, then, is
whose morality will get expressed in law, and with what consequences?
The answer given from this perspective is that the lawis a ‘“‘weapon”’ (Turk,
1976a), and that itwill beused as such by any group that can do so to its.
advantage. Chambliss and Seidman (1971) argue that this is particularly
the case in complex, highly stratified societies like our own. They note that
as societies become more complex in their economic division of labor, it
becomes necessary to have rules, and ultimately laws, that regulate the
encounters of individuals who occupy different roles. At the same time, as
societies become more stratified, it is argued that it becomes necessary for
those who are economically advantaged to use the law as a means of
maintaining and protecting their position. In Chambliss and Seidman’s
terms, ““The more economically stratified a society becomes, the more it
becomes necessary for the dominant groups in the society to enforce
through coercion the norms of conduct which guarantee their supremacy.”
From this viewpoint, the connection between law and morality is partial,
both in the sense that the enforcement of morality is selective, and in the
sense that the morality enforced will be to the advantage of one group over
another. In particular, this viewpoint notes that it is the alleged immorality
of the poor that is much more likely to be called “‘criminal’’ than the
presumed immorality of the rich. ““‘What this means in modern times,”
writes Richard Quinney (1974, p. 141), ‘‘is that there is a moral basis to
_capitalism, a morality that supports the interests of the ruling class and, at
the same time, underlies the legal system that maintains the prevailing
social and economic order.” Like Mill, then, those who see law as a
product of conflict are usually wary of the attempt to link conventional
morality closely to the law. When the closeness of this tie is preserved, they
note, it is usually to the disadvantage of the less advantaged. We will have
much more to say about this perspective in later parts of this chapter and in
following chapters. Our purpose here is simply to present these viewpoints,
not to arbitrate between them.
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 37

PRIVATE MORALITY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

A second dimension of the debated link between law and morality involves
the thin line that may divide considerations of private morality and the
societal interest. The problem is that while many matters that could be
considered only issues of private morality, including some kinds of drug
use, prostitution, and pornography, may have their most direct and
immediate effects on the individuals who pursue them, there may nonethe-
less be less direct but no less significant effects on surrounding communities
and their members. A particularly poignant illustration of this point is
provided by Donald Clairmont (1974) in his description of the develop-
ment of a ‘“‘deviance service center’—a whole community adjacent to
Halifax, Nova Scotia, that was given the ‘functional autonomy” to provide
a whole range of illicit services to the adjoining city.
Clairmont notes that this community, called “Africville” by its resi-
dents, was founded around 1850 by the descendants of refugee blacks who
fled slavery in the United States during the War of 1812. Initially, Africville
was a viable community with a few fine houses, some small-scale business-
es, plenty of space, and a strong community spirit based on a stable kinship
system. However, Africville soon began to experience the problems of a
sluggish surrounding economy, and this, combined with two other factors,
led to its development as a deviance service center. The first of these
factors was that Africville was located close to the adjoining city’s
dockyards and port activity. The second factor was that the city’s ruling
circles gave the community the ‘functional autonomy” to develop an
alternative economy: “that is, not sharing fairly in society’s wealth,
they . . . [were] allowed by the authorities a range of behavior, that would
not be countenanced elsewhere” (Clairmont, 1974, p. 36). These two
factors came together during the First World War when visiting seamen
added to the clientele of an expanding bootlegging trade. Fearing growing
crime problems and the ultimate demise of their community, residents of
Africville petitioned the city council of Halifax in 1919 requesting police
surveillance and protection. However, no police assistance was provided,
and in the period that followed the First World War, Africville continued
to grow as a deviance service center. Gradually bootlegging gave way to
more hazardous forms of deviance, and, as the younger and better-
educated members of the community began to leave, the fears of the
petitioners of 1919 eventually were confirmed. The entire community was
finally designated for harbor development and urban renewal nearly a
half-century later. This meant that the problems of the community finally
were “solved,” literally, through demolition, while the few remaining
residents were “‘relocated.”’
 38 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

It can be argued that the problems residents of Africville experienced

would not have existed if the deviant services provided were not illegal
elsewhere and therefore concentrated in that particular community. There
is no clear way of evaluating how valid this argument may be. Nonetheless,
this example makes clear that the pursuit of “disreputable pleasures” can
have consequences beyond the individuals who are immediately involved.

THE (IN)EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW AS AN INSTRUMENT

OF MORALITY
Aside from the issue of whether the law should try to control private
morality, there is additionally the question of whether the law can do so.
Social scientists and students of the law have long been skeptical about
what the law itself can do. Sumner (1960, p. 89) asserts that the mores of a
society always take precedence over the law, and that it is impossible to
change the mores “‘by any artifice or device, to a great extent, or suddenly,
or in any essential element.” Similarly, Sutherland and Cressey (1966, p.
11) argue that “when the mores are adequate, laws are unnecessary; when
the mores are inadequate the laws are ineffective.” In other words, laws_
2 that are unsupported by widely shared moral beliefs are unlikely to
-accomplish what their legal architects would wish. This is particularly true
of crimes of private morality. In addition, it is difficult to get the
information and evidence necessary to contro! such behaviors, not only
because the behaviors are not widely and/or harshly enough condemned to
generate public cooperation, but also because they customarily take place
with some measure of privacy, and because they are often only known to
the persons whose behavior is involved. These problems are most notable
at the level of police enforcement.
Skolnick (1975) makes this point in his study of a police department on
the west coast of the United States. Skolnick notes that the narcotics
officers of a police force often play a very central, although often
corrupting, role in departmental operations. This is because the character
of their work makes narcotics officers an important source of information
and influence. To begin, narcotics offenses, like other crimes of private
morality, rarely involve victim-complainants. As a result, information and
evidence must be obtained in other ways, including the use of informers,
entrapment techniques, and undercover work. Each of these techniques is
potentially corrupting: the use of informers involves questionable use of
cash and drugs as inducements; entrapment techniques can encourage
crimes that might otherwise never occur; and undercover work provokes
tempting possibilities for bribery and collusion. Nonetheless, in the course
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 39

of these types of activities, narcotics officers develop sources of informa-

tion that are important not only to the prosecution of narcotics cases but
for other kinds of cases as well. Thus narcotics officers become central
actors in police departments, valuable not only to prosecutors but also to
other officers. Among the results of this type of law enforcement are
ineffective efforts to control drug use and the corruption of narcotics and
related areas of policing. In sum, crimes without complainants are difficult,
if not impossible,to control. Worse still, however, efforts to control such
crimes often corrupt the controllers.

LAW, MORALITY, AND THE CREATION OF CRIME

A final concern about using the law to control private morality involves the
implications for persons whose behaviors are controlled. There are some
alarming indications that attempts to legally control private morality have
the unfortunate tendency of creating permanent classes of deviants (Mead,
1918), who must organize their lives around criminal roles (Lemert, 1967).
The best example of this involves the problems of drug addicts. Well into
the second decade of this century, addicts in America were able to buy
most opiates across the drug counter. One result was that “‘our grandmoth-
ers used many home remedies and patent medicines whose ingredients
would shock us today”’ (Cuskey et al., 1979, p. 226). Coincidentally, early
surveys of opiate drug addicts in America reveal that the majority of
addicts were white women. The watershed event that changed this pattern
was the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914. We will discuss this law in
greater detail in the following chapter. Here it is enough to note that
although it was originally only a tax measure, the effect of this law and its
enforcement by the federal Bureau of Narcotics was gradually to make
opiate addiction a crime. The result was the emergence of a black market
in drugs and the development of a whole new sector of the criminal
underworld. Opiate addiction, therefore, shifted from being acceptable '
and respectable to being criminal and disreputable in a rather brief period a

of time, and the involvement of individuals in this world shifted as well.

Cuskey et al. (ibid., p. 225) note that “in many ways the period from
pre-Civil War to immediate post-World War I was like a film negative of
the present.” White American women substituted the use of various legal
pain-killers, barbiturates, and amphetamines for the newly illegal opium.
At the same time, black American men, gradually, and in increasing
numbers, were pulled into this criminal underworld, a world that proved
extremely difficult to leave. Access to the drug required increasing
amounts of money, which usually could only be obtained through crime,
 40 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

and access to medical treatment became very difficult to obtain. Drug

addiction became stereotyped as a black American problem that was to be
the subject of policing more than treatment. The persistence of this crime
problem and the scale of the other kinds of criminal activities associated
with it are ominous indications that making a form of behavior criminal can
create as many, and sometimes more, problems than it can solve.

VICTIMLESS CRIME AND THE LIMITS OF LAW

Because of the above kinds of concerns, social scientists and students of
law have spent considerable time and effort trying to draw an effective line
between the aspects of private morality that should and should not be
made a part of the criminal law. One of the best-known of these efforts
involves Edwin Schur’s discussion of “‘victimless crimes.” “‘Crimes without
victims,” Schur (1965, p. 170) writes, ‘“‘may be limited to those situations in
which one person obtains from another in a fairly direct exchange, a
commodity or personal service which is socially disapproved and legally
GX proscribed.” After considering several victimless crimes (e.g., abortion,
homosexuality, and drug addiction) in detail, and after weighing a number
of the dimensions of the link between law and morality, Schur argues that
public education about the problems of enforcing these laws, and the
possibility of reforming them, is needed. Schur does not argue that all
criminal laws relating to these crimes should immediately be abolished. In
fact, he concludes (ibid., p. 177) that “legalization is not automatically or
invariably to be preferred to criminalization.”’
A more provocative position is taken by Morris and Hawkins in their
book, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control. Morris and
Hawkins (1969, pp. 5-6; see also Allen, 1964; Packer, 1968) argue that
there is an ‘“‘overreach of the criminal law” that contributes to the larger
“crime problem” in the following ways that echo and extend our earlier
discussion:
1 Where the supply of goods or services is concerned, such as narcotics,
gambling, and prostitution, the criminal law operates as a “crime tariff’
which makes the supply of such goods and services profitable for the
criminal by driving up prices and at the same time discourages competition
by those who might enter the market were it legal.
2 This leads to the development of large-scale organized criminal
groups which, as in the field of legitimate business, tend to extend and
diversify their operations, thus financing and promoting other criminal
activities.
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 41

3 The high prices which criminal prohibition and law enforcement help
to maintain have a secondary criminogenic effect in cases where demand is
inelastic, as for narcotics, by causing persons to resort to crime in order to
obtain the money to pay the prices.
4 The proscription of a particular form of behavior (e.g., homosexuali- s

ty, prostitution, drug addiction) by the criminal law drives those who
engage or participate in it into association with those engaged in other
criminal activities and leads to the growth of an extensive criminal
subculture which is subversive of social order generally. It also leads, in the
case of drug addiction, to endowing a pathological condition with the
romantic glamour of a rebellion against authority or some sort of elitist
enterprise.
5 The expenditure of police and criminal-justice resources involved in
attempting to enforce statutes in relation to sexual behavior, drug taking,
gambling, and other matters of private morality seriously depletes the
time, energy, and number of personnel available for dealing with the types
of crime involving violence and stealing which are the primary concern of
the criminal-justice system. This diversion and overextension of resources
results both in failure to deal adequately with current serious crime and,
because of the increased chances of impunity, in encouraging further
crime.
6 These crimes lack victims, in the sense of complainants asking for the
protection of the criminal law. Where such complainants are absent it is
particularly difficult for the police to enforce the law. Bribery tends to
flourish; political corruption of the police is invited. It is peculiarly with
reference to the victimless crimes that the police are led to employ illegal
means of law enforcement.
Based on these arguments, Morris and Hawkins conclude that a range of
behaviors should be decriminalized. They suggest that public drunkenness
should cease to be a crime; that neither the acquisition, purchase,
possession, nor use of any drug should be a criminal offense; that no form
of gambling should be prohibited by criminal law; that vaguely stated
disorderly conduct and vagrancy laws should be replaced; that private
sexual activities between consenting adults should not be subject to
criminal law; and that juvenile courts should only retain jurisdiction over
adolescents for conduct that would be criminal if committed by adults. This
is obviously a sweeping set of changes. We offer these proposals here not
because we believe they should all necessarily be adopted, but because
they illustrate the point that what is to be called “criminal” is open to
review and reform.
Thus the significance of the debates and proposals we have been
considering is the possibility they represent for contraction and expansion
42 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

in conceptions of the proper content of criminal law. It is precisely this

potential for variable content that poses problems for social scientists who
wish to define crime for the purposes of identifying the subject matter of
their work. On the one hand, it might seem desirable to simply confine our
attention, and therefore our definition of crime, to what is called “‘crimi-
nal” in any particular jurisdiction. On the other hand, and as we argue
below, it is desirable that we remain sensitive within and between
jurisdictions to the shifting divisions between what is called “criminal” and
what is not, and why. This may be more apparent when it is noted that thus
far in this chapter we have only considered this problem as it relates to our
own culture, conveniently even ignoring the fact that each American state
has its own criminal! code, with significant variation between states in what
is called ‘‘criminal.”’ Our view is that the only effective way of responding
to the problem of variability is to conceptualize crime as a specific instance
of a broader range of deviant behavior. Before developing our particular
version of this approach, however, we need to consider the ways in which
others have addressed these issues.

SEVEN APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION OF CRIME

AND DEVIANCE
The responses of social scientists to the problems of variation in what is
called “‘criminal’’ are seen in seven approaches to the definition of our
subject matter. The seven approaches include: (1) a legal-consensus
definition; (2) a socio-legal definition; (3) a cross-cultural definition; (4) a
Statistical definition; (5) a labeling definition; (6) a utopian-anarchist
definition; and (7) a human rights definition. A critical review of the seven
viewpoints follows. Then, elements of the seven viewpoints are combined
in a new definition. We will argue that this last approach is best suited to
the task of explaining crime, criminal behavior, and its control.

The Legal-Consensus Approach

The most articulate advocate of a legalistic definition of crime was the
lawyer-sociologist Paul Tappan. Tappan (1947, p. 100) insisted that we
should limit our study to criminality as it is legally construed: “‘Crime is an
intentional action in violation of the criminal law . . . committed without
defence or excuse, and penalized by the state.” He insisted further that
persons studied as criminals must be adjudicated (i.e., convicted) as such.
Acknowledging that there is variation over time and across cultures in what
is called “criminal,” Tappan argued that governing statutes provide the
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 43

jnbenterenesecommnetinn ne
| 4 tte tenet
i

“It so happens, Gregory, that your Grandfather Sloan was detained by an agency of
Our government over an honest misunderstanding concerning certain anti-trust
matters! He was not ‘busted by the Feds’!”’
Drawing by W. Miller; © 1971
The New Yorker Magazine, Inc.

only clear and definitive indication as to what any specific cultural group
holds so seriously deviant as to be called “criminal”: ““Here we find norms
of conduct, comparable to mores, but considerably more distinct, precise
and detailed” (ibid.). In short, Tappan is suggesting that the criminal law
provides a reliable guide to what is consensually defined as “criminal” in
any given society.
A salient difficulty with Tappan’s approach is that it systematically
ignores much of what many criminologists today wish to study: behaviors
that are on the margins of the criminal law and rarely prosecuted, including
such things as unethical business practices and pollution of the environ-
ment. At the same time, the legal-consensus approach neglects the basic
issue of why some acts are legislated as criminal, while others remain only
 44 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

informally the subject of disrepute. Further, this approach misinforms us

in suggesting that legal definitions clearly reflect societal consensus about
what is criminal. This is conspicuously the case when we note that the
federal criminal code in the United States is widely regarded as being
remarkably outdated but nonetheless is stubbornly resistant to change. As
of this writing, Congress is on record as seeing the need for a new code, but
unable to agree on what exactly that code should contain. Finally, being
legally called a “‘criminal’’ depends on getting caught and convicted. This
approach requires a sampling process for research that results in a
collection of subjects (more correctly called ‘‘captives”’) that is not only
narrowly defined but also nonrepresentative.

The Socio-Legal Approach

Edwin Sutherland (1945) suggested a relaxation of legal criteria so as to
allow an expansion of attention to various “‘antisocial behaviors.” Re-
tained, however, was an emphasis on legally defined criminality, as
e
designated by two explicit criteria (ibid., p. 132): ‘‘legal description of acts
° as socially injurious and legal provision of a penalty for the act.”
Sutherland demonstrated with the use of these criteria that it is possible to
consider “‘criminal”’ many unethical business practices handled in the civil
courts. The demonstration consisted of a comparative analysis of the
procedures and punishments used in the prosecution of corporate interests
in the civil and criminal courts. The conclusion (ibid., p. 135) is that “the
criteria which have been used in defining white-collar crimes are not
categorically different from the criteria used in defining other crimes.”
Sutherland’s redefinition of the field of study facilitated a new and
important emphasis in criminological research on the economic crimes of
“upperworld offenders.” However, his reluctance to widen the scope of
attention beyond statutory matters leaves this definition open to two
earlier criticisms of the legalistic approach: first, little attention is yet given
to the process by which behaviors come to be defined as criminal or civil
wrongs; second, like the criminal courts, the civil courts undoubtedly yield
a biased sample of actors and activities for study. Significantly. it should
also be noted that Sutherland’s emphasis on white-collar crime neglects
undetected occupational indiscretions among workers of lesser social status
(Horning, 1970).

A Cross-Cultural Approach
Thorsten Sellin (1938) proposed a definition of our subject matter that
extends attention beyond the realm of law. His argument is that every
group has its own standards of behavior, called “conduct norms,” and that
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 45

these standards are not necessarily embodied in law. “For every person,
then, there is from the point of view of a given group of which he is a
member, a normal (right) and an abnormal (wrong) way of reacting, the ¢
norm depending upon the social values of the group which formulated it”
(ibid., p. 30). Beyond this, however, Sellin argued that there are some
conduct norms that are invariant across all cultural groups. Further, he ?
insisted (ibid.) that these norms were the appropriate focus for research:
“Such study would involve the isolation and classification of norms into
universal categories transcending political and other boundaries, a necessi-
ty imposed by the logic of science.”
Unfortunately, Sellin did not specify what the universal conduct norms
might be. The weakness of his strategy is the dubious proposition that such
norms can be found either inside or outside of the law. The lesson of a
Jarge body of anthropological research is that norms of conduct are
remarkably varied, with the universals of human behavior, if any, limited
primarily to the trivial necessities of everyday life. Conduct norms that are
universal and nontrivial probably cannot be found.

A Statistical Approach
Wilkins suggests a very different approach to our subject matter that is
nonetheless attentive to the problem of cultural variation. He begins with
the assumption (1964, p. 46) that “at some time or another, some form of *
society ... has defined almost all forms of behavior that we now call
‘criminal’ as desirable for the functioning of that form of society.”” Wilkins
then focuses on the frequency with which various forms of behavior occur ¢
in any particular society. The result is a continuum of behaviors, with
high-frequency behaviors considered normal, and low-frequency behaviors
deviant. Wilkins represents this approach in the form of a normal
bell-shaped curve (see Fig. 2-1). “It may be supposed that the model given
by the normal frequency distribution shown in this chart represents the
distribution of ethical content of human action” (ibid., p. 47). Serious
crimes and saintly acts form the two extremes in this definition. One of the
most interesting features of Wilkins’s approach is its accommodation of the
variable character of crime and deviance. For example, the range of
deviant behaviors included within legal definitions or considered worthy of
police notification is recognized as indefinite, and as well the range of
additional acts to be considered deviant remains at the discretion of
researchers.
Nevertheless, one weakness of this approach lies in its simplicity. While
infrequency of behavior is one way of identifying deviant behavior, a
purely statistical approach underestimates the role of societal groups in
selecting from infrequent acts those that are considered criminal. Obvious-
46 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Crimes defined |
by public as worth
notifying police

Normal acts

Certain legal
definitions

___ Sinful Saintly

Serious crimes
acts acts

FIGURE 2-1 A statistical approach to the definition of crime and deviance. (Source:
Wilkins, 1964:47)

ly, not all infrequent occurrences are designated “criminal” or even

‘“deviant.”’ What is required, then, is the addition of analytical content to
the quantitative framework.

The Labeling Approach

If the statistical approach underestimates the importance of the societal
response, the labeling approach clearly does not. Howard Becker (1963, p.
9) provides a concise statement of this viewpoint: “The deviant is one to
whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behav-
ior that people so label.” Becker’s point is that behaviors are not
recognized as deviant, or criminal, unless others, as members of cultural
groups, react to them as such. This approach is important in making us
aware of the significance of the ways in which we respond to crime and
deviance. However, as a way of defining our field of study, the labeling
approach also creates problems.
Bordua (1969) observes that the labeling definition tends to make crime
and deviance “‘all societal response, and no deviant stimulus.” His point is
that the labeling approach characteristically assumes a passive subject who
plays little or no part in eliciting a response (Hagan, 1973), In some cases
this will be true, but often it will not. Thus, a more useful definition of
crime and deviance will incorporate both possibilities.

A Human Rights Approach

We spent much time in the early part of this chapter talking about the
efforts of social scientists and lawyers to justify the deletion of crimes of
private morality from the criminal law. At the same time, there have been
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 47

efforts by others to add to our conception and definition of crime a set of

concerns having to do with violations of human rights. The most notable of
these efforts involves the work of Herman and Julia Schwendinger. They
begin with the assumption (1975, p. 145) that “‘all persons must be
guaranteed the fundamental prerequisites for well-being, including food,
shelter, clothing, medical services, challenging work and recreational
experiences, as well as security from predatory individuals or repressive
and imperialistic social elites.”” The Schwendingers regard these as rights
(rather than rewards or privileges) that the criminal law should guarantee
and protect.
The Schwendingers (ibid., p. 147) then go on to argue that it is the
conditions that result in the denial of these rights that should be called
criminal: ‘‘the social conditions themselves must become the object of
social policy: . . . it is not an individual or a loose collection of atomistic
individuals which is to be controlled, but rather the social relationships
between individuals which give rise to criminal behavior” (emphasis in
original). The importance of this shift in focus is that it allows the
Schwendingers (ibid., p. 148) to recommend a radical change in what
should be called ‘‘criminal,”’ for ‘‘if the terms imperialism, racism, sexism,
and poverty are abbreviated signs for theories of social relationships or
social systems which cause the systematic abrogation of basic rights, then
imperialism, racism, sexism, and poverty can be called crimes according to
the logic of our argument.” The final piece of this argument is essentially a
plea that the resulting definition would be more just than existing
definitions, in the sense that it would address some obvious inequities in
the way our society works. The Schwendingers ultimately put their case in
the form of a question:

Isn't it time to raise serious questions about the assumptions

underlying the definition of the field of criminology while agents of
the state can, with impunity, legally reward men who destroy food
so that price levels can be maintained while a sizable portion of the
population suffers from malnutrition?

While many, if not most, criminologists might agree with the moral
position taken in asking this question, it may nonetheless be the case that
this approach to the definition of crime confuses more than it clarifies. A
basic problem is that in its anxiousness to condemn imperialism, racism,
sexism, and poverty, this approach confuses presumed causes of criminal
behavior with the behavior we wish to study. It is not that we wish to ignore
or neglect these conditions, but rather that we wish to study their presumed
role in the causation of behaviors the state calls “criminal,” explicitly or
implicitly, in practice and in theory. This does not require that we morally
48 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

endorse what the state defines as criminal (Turk, 1975). Indeed, one of the
things our definition must make problematic is decisions about what the
state does and does not consider criminal.

A Utopian-Anarchist Approach
A final and equally provocative approach to the definition of crime and
deviance is found in the work of the ‘“‘new criminologists” Ian Taylor, Paul
Walton, and Jock Young (1973). The new criminologists ask that we
redefine crime and deviance as ‘“‘human diversity.” Their argument is that
deviance represents a normal and purposeful attempt to correct or protest
social injustice. In response, society seeks to repress this challenge by
criminalizing (i.e., arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating) the actors
involved. In short, crime is born of the conflict between the oppressed and
the oppressors. The solution proposed (ibid.,p. 282) demands a reversal of
this situation: “For us . . . deviance is normal. . . . The task is to create a
society in which the facts of human diversity . . . are not subject to the
power to criminalize.”’ More recently, Tifft (1979, p. 400; see also Black,
1976) has argued that this state of preferred anarchy is actually coming to
pass: ““We have been moving to preserve diversity of language, belief and
life style, recognizing that diversity is critical to earth’s survival and to
human survival. As these continue, appropriation, crime, and prospective
legality will diminish, and in their place will be a continuous process of
anarchy and justice.”
This approach is both useful and utopian. On the one hand, it alerts us
to the possibility that some behaviors (e.g., disorder offenses, political
crimes, and some property offenses) may be called “‘deviant”’ or ‘‘criminal”’
because they are offensive or threatening to privileged segments of society.
On the other hand, to assume that all acts of crime and deviance,
particularly the most serious (e.g., murder, rape, and child abuse), are
justifiable consequences of a politically meaningful lifestyle is to invite a
utopian form of anarchy. As students and potential victims of crime, the
issue is one of how far we can go, while still wishing to live in the society of
our design. In sum, there is a crucial difference between ranting and
raping, and it is essential that our definition of crime and deviance,
however imperfectly, make this type of distinction.
What, then, is the appropriate definition of crime and deviance to be
used in our work? Our approach follows.

DEFINING CRIME AND DEVIANCE AS A CONTINUOUS VARIABLE

A basic assumption that we will make in developing the approach to be
used in this book is that it is necessary to have a definition that takes into
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 49

account not only what is formally considered criminal by law, but also a
range of behaviors that for all practical purposes are treated as crimes
(e.g., Sutherland’s white-collar crimes), as well as those behaviors that
across time and place vary in their location in and outside the boundaries
of criminal law. In other words, we need a definition that considers
behaviors that are both actually and potentially liable to criminal law. In
this sense we will follow Sellin’s (1937) dictum that as social scientists,
criminologists cannot afford to permit nonscientists—in this case legislators
and other agents of the law who make and enforce the criminal law—to fix
the terms and boundaries of the scientific study of crime. Rather, our
approach must recognize that the separation of crime from other kinds of
deviance is a social and political phenomenon.
Our basic definition is simple: crime is a kind of deviance, which in turn 2

consists of variation from a social norm, that is proscribed by criminal law.

More generally, our argument is that there are many varieties of crime and
deviance which can be divided and subdivided into several categories, and
that these categories in turn can be conceived theoretically as ranging from
those considered least to most serious in any given society. This can be said
more concretely. There is an obvious difference in our society between
multiple murder and adolescent marijuana use. We are saying further that
most deviant acts can be located empirically on a continuum of seriousness
between these two extremes. It is true that not all persons or groups, in any
given societal context, will agree or have strong feelings about the
wrongfulness of each act. For example, most persons will have no strong
feelings about whether it is ‘decent’ or “indecent” to dress in “erotic
clothing,” or, even more to the point, about what “public indecency” or
“erotic clothing’ is. However, this in itself is our first measure of
seriousness: the degree of agreement about the wrongfulness of an act. ®

This assessment can vary from confusion and apathy, through levels of
disagreement, to conditions of general agreement. We will regard this as an
index of agreement about the norm.
Our second measure of seriousness is the severity of the social response
elicited by the act. Social penalties vary from public execution to polite
avoidance, with a range of responses in between. The more severe the
penalty prescribed, and the more extensive the support for this sanction,
the more serious is the societal evaluation of the act.
Our third measure of seriousness involves a societal evaluation of the
harm inflicted by the act. As we noted earlier, some possibly harmful acts,
for example drug abuse, seem largely personal in their consequences, and
therefore are increasingly regarded as ‘“‘victimless.”’ Other acts, like
gambling, are “‘victimless” in the sense that the persons involved are
frequently willing and anxious participants. Finally, some acts, for example
50 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

most crimes of violence, are more clearly interpersonal, or social, in their

consequences. Here there is also a more definite sense of victimization,
although the issue is sometimes resolved by nothing more than who first
had access to the most effective weapon. Thus, much of the debate that
goes into an evaluation of harmfulness is concerned with the degree of
victimization and the personal or social harm that a set of acts may involve.
Our argument is that in most modern societies, including our own, the
three measures of seriousness are closely associated. In other words, the
more serious acts of deviance, which are most likely to be called “‘crimi-
nal,” are likely to involve (1) broad agreement about the wrongfulness of
such acts, (2) a severe social response, and (3) an evaluation as being very
harmful. However, the correlation between these three dimensions cer-
tainly is not perfect, and furthermore, as we will see, in regard to many acts
that are defined as crimes, there is disagreement as to their wrongfulness,
an equivocal social response, and uncertainty in perceptions of their
harmfulness. It is precisely this kind of ambivalence that our approach
attempts to capture. Thus the form of our approach can be visualized as a
pyramid (see Fig. 2-2), with the less serious forms of deviance rarely called
“criminal” at the base, the more serious forms of deviance usually called
“criminal” at the peak, and a range of uncertain behaviors in between.
Each vertical axis of this pyramid represents one of our measures of
seriousness. The form of the pyramid purposefully suggests that the most

FIGURE 2-2 Kinds of crime and deviance. (Source: Hagan, 1977:14)

Very High
harmful agreement

High
disagreement
Somewhat
harmful

Confusion
or apathy

Agreement
about the
i nor
Relatively 2
harmless

Evaluation of
social harm

Severity of societal response

 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 51

serious acts of crime and deviance in a society tend also to be less frequent,
while less serious acts may be considerably more common. Acts included in
the pyramid include two general categories (criminal and noncriminal
forms of deviance) and four subdivisions (consensual crimes and conflict
crimes; social deviations and social diversions). The divisions between
these categories are represented with broken lines in Figure 2-2. Our
purpose is to indicate that across time and place, the particular location of
behaviors on the pyramid will vary. In other words, the divisions between
the categories are intentionally imprecise. Nonetheless, each of the
categories can be discussed individually.

KINDS OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE

Our discussion proceeds generally from the most to the least serious forms
of crime and deviance. It needs to be emphasized, however, that the
designation of seriousness is empirically, rather than ethically, determined.
Some students of crime and deviance point out that unethical but noncrimi-
nal business practices are often morally more serious than rapes, robber-
ies, or even murders of individuals. They argue, for example, that
unethical multinational business arrangements can create conditions of
poverty, inhumanity, degradation, and famine (see our earlier discussion
of the human rights approach). The role of the Nestlé Corporation in
exporting milk formulas for babies to third world countries where they
increased the nutritional problems of already endangered children is a
graphic illustration. From an ethical viewpoint, these arguments are
extremely important. However, our purpose here is not to create a
universal scale of immorality. Our goal is to describe and explain the
institutionalization and the violations of the norms of an existing social
order. The results of this approach will likely be relevant to, although not
sufficient for, the formation of moral judgments.

CRIMINAL FORMS OF DEVIANCE

The forms of deviance regarded as most serious are defined by law as
criminal. However, this should not be taken to mean that there is
permanence to such designations. We have made the point repeatedly in
this chapter and the preceding one that conceptions of crime change. Berk
et al. (1977) have made this point in a unique way by actually classifying
and counting changes made in the California penal code between 1955 and
1971. In doing this, all laws affecting the kinds of behavior labeled “illegal”
52 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

were taken into account, with particular attention given to whether the net
effect was to bring more or less behavior under control. Among the results
is a graphing of the cumulative changes for all behaviors included or
excluded from the California code over this period (see Fig. 2-3). Perhaps

FIGURE 2-3 Cumulative net change in criminalization, California Penal Code, 1955-
1971. (Source: Berk et al., 1977:178)
280 269.4
©1955 - 1971 - 17.8
260

©1955 - 1967 - 14.4 ©1967

- 1971 - 23.1
of
Units
Change
100

1955 1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 USEAL

Session

the most important finding apparent from this exercise is that for no part of
this period was the overall net effect of the state legislature’s actions to
decriminalize behavior. That is, while specific kinds of behavior were taken
out of the code during this period, the overall effect was to increase the
range of behavior included. As we will see, a variety of different kinds of
behaviors are liable to this fate.

The Consensus Crimes

Our attention is directed first to the crimes that concern most of us, the
more visible, predatory crimes. Legal philosophers at one time character-
ized such acts of deviance as mala en se—‘‘wrong in themselves.’’ Howev-
er, modern sociologists emphasize that few, if any, human behaviors are
universal or timeless in their criminal character. Nonetheless, for several
centuries most western societies have shown considerable consensus in
designating as criminal a select group of behaviors. Among the most easily
listed of these offenses are premeditated murder, forcible rape, and
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 53

kidnapping for ransom. A number of researchers have attempted to extend

this list and to see just how widespread agreement is currently in our
society and others about the seriousness of a number of different acts that
are usually designated as crimes.
The pioneering work of this kind was done by Sellin and Wolfgang
(1964). Using samples of judges, police, and college students in Philadel-
phia, they obtained ratings of the seriousness of 141 offenses. A subgroup
of fifteen offenses was then selected from the larger list and supplemented
with descriptions of the consequences to victims of the criminal acts (e.g.,
amounts of property stolen or personal injury). A set of fifteen descrip-
tions of these criminal acts and scale scores for each resulted, along with
two major conclusions. The first conclusion was that respondents were able
to complete the rating tasks rather easily, suggesting that people make
judgments of this kind in their everyday lives. The second conclusion was
that there was considerable agreement among subgroups about both the
relative ordering of criminal acts and the scale scores given. Several
replications of this work suggest that American, English-Canadian,
French-Canadian (Normandeau, 1966; Akman, Normandeau, and Turner,
1967), and Puerto Rican respondents rank the relative seriousness of these
offenses similarly (Velez-Diaz and Megargee, 1970). Further support is
found in related work in a number of other cultural settings (Newman,
1976).
Another major piece of research of this kind is reported by Rossi et al.
(1974) from a survey of an adult population drawn from Baltimore,
Maryland. This survey finds that in a sample of 200 adults there is very
substantial agreement on the relative seriousness of 140 offenses, including
various kinds of white-collar as well as more conventional crimes. The
seriousness rankings are reproduced in Table 2-1 (see also Thomas et
al., 1976; Blumstein and Cohen, 1980). However, despite the very high
levels of agreement reported in this work, there also are two additional
findings worthy of note. The first is that education and youth are correlated
with the overall sample means. That is, the more highly educated and the
younger the respondents, the more likely they are to agree with average
ratings computed over the entire sample. The second finding of note is that
less-educated blacks are the subgroup most deviant from the overall
consensus—especially in regard to their lower seriousness rankings of
interpersonal violence between people who know one another. These
findings begin to suggest the bases for a key distinction we will draw
between what we will call ‘“‘consensus crimes” and “‘conflict crimes.”
Social scientists have two different empirical conditions in mind when
they speak of consensus and conflict. They refer first to sentiments of the
general population on a particular issue, as measured, for example, by a
frequency distribution of attitudinal expressions indicating what propor-
 54 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

tion of a group as a whole approves or disapproves of a particular

behavior. They refer second to the attitudes of specific status groups, as
related to a particular issue, and indicated by some measure of association;
for example, the difference in the percentage of black as contrasted with
white Americans who approve of assault. Using both of these criteria,
consensus can be said to exist where a population generally is agreed in its
attitudes and where these attitudes are related weakly, if at all, to few, if
any, status-group memberships. In contrast, conflict can be said to exist
2
e where attitudes are related more widely and more strongly to status-group
memberships (regardless of whether members of the society at large are
generally agreed or disagreed). Using these criteria, criminal behaviors can
be located relative to one another and with reference to an overall
continuum of attitudes toward criminal behaviors. Our position is that
‘consensus crimes’”’ are located toward one end of this continuum, while
“conflict crimes’’ are located toward the other (see Hagan et al., 1977). We
talk further about the conflict crimes below.
Meanwhile, it is essential to note that the group of behaviors we have
called “‘consensus crimes” is neither immutably nor permanently criminal.
Nonetheless, the fact that sorne behaviors have been consensually defined
as crimes for successive generations makes them of primary interest to
some criminologists. These criminologists ask the same question posed by
an outraged and scared public: Why do some people dare to defy social
norms that so many of us feel so strongly about? In following chapters, we
will note that the theories of undercontrol are well-suited to address this
question. Meanwhile, we turn our attention next to a second variety of
criminal deviance.

TABLE 2-1
AVERAGE SERIOUSNESS RATINGS GIVEN TO 140 OFFENSES IN BALTIMORE
SURVEY (N IS AT LEAST 100)

Rank Crime Mean Variance

1 Planned killing of a police officer 8.474 2.002

2 Planned killing of a person for a fee 8.406 2.749
3 Selling heroin 8.293 2.658
4 Forcible rape after breaking into a home 8.241* 2.266
5 Impulsive killing of a police officer 8.214 3.077
6 Planned killing of a spouse Suiew 3.276
7 Planned killing of an acquaintance 8.093 S273
8 Hijacking an airplane 8.072 2.776
9 Armed robbery of a bank 8.021 8.020
10 Selling LSD 7.949 3.048
11 Assault with a gun on a police officer 7.938 3.225
12 Kidnapping for ransom 7.930 3.844
13 Forcible rape of a stranger in a park 7.909 3.737
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 55

Rank Crime Mean Variance

14 Killing someone after an argument over a business

transaction 7.898 3.536
15 Assassination of a public official 7.888 5.400
16 Killing someone during a serious argument 7.867 3.663
17 Making sexual advances to young children 7.861 3.741
18 Assault with a gun on a stranger 7.847* Zaz
19 Impulsive killing of a spouse 7.835 3.952
20 Impulsive killing of a stranger 7.821* 3.429
21 Forcible rape of a neighbor 7.778 3.726
22 Impulsive killing of an acquaintance 7.717 4.205
23 Deliberately starting a fire which results in a death 7.707 4.189
24 Assault with a gun on a stranger 7.6627 297/62
25 Manufacturing and selling drugs known to be
harmful to users 7.653 3.280
26 Knowingly selling contaminated food which results
in a death 7.596 5.202
27 Armed robbery of a company payroll Wsyiil 3.080
28 Using heroin 7.520 4.871
29 Assault with a gun on an acquaintance 72505 3.482
30 Armed holdup of a taxi driver 7.505 3.336
31 Beating up a child 7.490 3.840
32 Armed robbery of a neighborhood druggist 7.487* 3.221
33 Causing auto accident death while driving when
drunk 7.455 3.904
34 Selling secret documents to a foreign government 7.423* 522
35 Armed street holdup stealing $200 cash 7.414 3.633
36 Killing someone in a bar room free-for-all UZ 4.637
37 Deliberately starting a fire in an occupied building 7.347 SetlZ/7/
38 Assault with a gun on a spouse WES2S 4.650
39 Armed robbery of a supermarket 7.313 3.911
40 Assault with a gun in the course of a riot 7.245 3.218
41 Armed hijacking of a truck 7.198 3.866
42 Deserting to the enemy in time of war 7.194 4.673
43 Armed street holdup stealing $25 in cash 7.165 4.431
44 Armed robbery of an armored truck 7.163 5.210
45 Spying for a foreign government TANSS, 7.024
46 Killing a pedestrian while exceeding the speed limit UNA 3.964
47 Seduction of a minor 7.021 5.729
48 Beating up a police officer 7.020 5.734
49 Selling marijuana 6.969* 7.216
50 Father-daughter incest 6.959 Tai
51 Causing the death of an employee by neglecting to
repair machinery 6.918 4.556
52 Breaking and entering a bank 6.908 4.641
53 Mugging and stealing $25 in cash 6.873* 5.305
54 Selling pep pills 6.867 5.683
55 Cashing stolen payroll checks 6.827 4.784
56 Mugging and stealing $200 cash 6.796 5.051
57 Causing the death of a tenant by neglecting to
repair heating plant 6.704 6.314
56 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Rank Crime Mean Variance

58 Killing spouse’s lover after catching them together 6.691 72695

59 Blackmail 6.667 By Ae
60 Advocating overthrow of the government 6.663 WANS
61 Neglecting to care for own children 6.660 6.977
62 Forcible rape of a former spouse 6.653 6.394
63 Manufacturing and selling autos known to be
dangerously defective 6.604 5.968
64 Beating up a stranger 6.604 5.379
65 Using LSD 6.557 7.479
66 Driving while drunk 6.545 6.006
67 Practicing medicine without a license 6.500* 6.908
68 Burglary of a home stealing a color TV set 6.440* 5.048
69 Knowingly passing counterfeit money 6.302 5.220
70 Beating up someone in a riot 6.368 5.788
71 Performing illegal abortions 6.330 5723
72 Passing worthless checks for more than $500 6.309 Se KS)
73 A public official accepting bribes in return for favors 6.246 6.467
74 Employee embezzling company funds 6.207* 6.030
75 Knowingly selling stolen stocks and bonds 6.138* 4.960
76 Refusing to obey lawful order of a police officer 6.118% 5.806
77 Burglary of a home stealing a portable transistor
radio Gst5= 5.871
78 Theft of a car for the purpose of resale 6.093* 5.085
79 Knowingly selling defective used cars as completely
safe 6.093 5.023
80 Burglary of an appliance store stealing several TV
sets 6.062 5.371
81 Looting goods in a riot 6.043 5.052
82 Knowingly selling stolen goods 6.021 4.463
83 Leaving the scene of an accident 5.949 6.620
84 Printing counterfeit $10 bills 5.948 6.820
85 Shoplifting a diamond ring from a jewelry store 5.939 5.466
86 Mother-son incest 5.907 9.189
87 Theft of a car for joy-riding 5.876 6.047
88 Intimidating a witness in a court case 5.853 4.850
89 Brother-sister incest 5.825 8.709
90 Knowingly selling worthless stocks as valuable
investments 5.821 5.021
91 Beating up a spouse 5.796 7.05;
92 Selling liquor to minors 5.789 VoW/2
93 Burglary of a factory stealing machine tools 5.789 SySh 7)
94 Using stolen credit cards 5.750 5.832
95 Using pep pills 5.656 9.512
96 Joining a riot 5.656 6.750
97 Lending money at illegal interest rates 5.653 5.775
98 Knowingly buying stolen goods 5.596 5.794
99 Refusal to serve when drafted in peace time 52535 8.863
100 Resisting arrest 5.449 6.271
101 Impersonating a police officer 5.449 7.405
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 57

Rank Crime Mean Variance

102 Using false identification to obtain goods from a

store 5.438 6.628
103 Bribing a public official to obtain favors 5.394 6.198
104 Passing worthless checks involving less than $100 Syctehs)” DL Zi
105 Desertion from military service in peace time 5.323 7.526
106 Under-reporting income on income tax return 5.305 6.321
107 Willfully neglecting to file income tax returns eli 6.470
108 Soliciting for prostitution 5.144 7.687
109 Proposing homosexual practices to an adult 5.140 9.361
110 Overcharging on repairs to automobiles Sa35 6.455
111 Shoplifting a dress from a department store 5.070 6.308
WZ Beating up an acquaintance 5.032 5.644
113 Driving while license is suspended 5.031 7.988
114 Pouring paint over someone’s car 4.938 7.449
115 Shoplifting a pair of shoes from a shoe store 4.990 6.781
116 Overcharging for credit in selling goods 4.970 6.213
17 Shoplifting a carton of cigarettes from a
supermarket 4.969 6.793
118 Smuggling goods to avoid paying import duties 4.918 5.618
119 Killing a suspected burglar in home 4.868* 8.930
120 False claims of dependents on income tax return 4.832 6.801
121 Knowingly using inaccurate scales in weighing meat
for sale 4.786 5.902
122 Refusal to make essential repairs to rental property 4.781 6.678
123 Engaging in male homosexual acts with consenting
adults 4.736 95398
124 Engaging in female homosexual acts with
consenting adults 4.720 9.042
125 Breaking a plate glass window in a shop 4.653 6.697
126 Fixing prices of a consumer product like gasoline 4.629 6.069
()227/ Fixing prices of machines sold to businesses 4.619 6.218
128 Selling pornographic magazines 4.526 7.826
129 Shoplifting a book in a bookstore 4.424* 6.551
130 Repeated refusal to obey parents 4.411 9.074
131 Joining a prohibited demonstration 4.323 6.486
132 False advertising of headache remedy 4.083 7.972
133 Refusal to pay alimony 4.063 6.670
134 Refusal to pay parking fines 3.583* 6.475
135 Disturbing the peace 3.779 7.174
136 Repeated truancy 3.573 7.658
137 Repeated running away from home SMoy/il~ 6.342
138 Loitering in public places i375 8.111
139 Refusal to answer census taker 3.105 W329
140 Being drunk in public places 2.849 6.021

Note: Scores have a range of 9 (most serious) to 1 (least serious).

*Crimes rated by all members (200) of the Baltimore sample.
+This offense was inadvertently repeated (see crime rank no. 18), indicating that
differences in scores as much as .185 can be obtained through response
unreliability.
 58 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

The Conflict Crimes

Continuing controversy surrounds the presence of many offenses in our
criminal codes. These crimes are sometimes referred to as mala prohibita,
® or “wrong by prohibition,” for example, as proscribed and punished by
' statute. As one moves away from the statutes, however, it becomes clear
that public opinion is divided about the appropriate status of such offenses.
Most importantly, social class and interest groups are the frequently cited
roots of such conflict. The sociological concern is that the criminal law may
be used by one class or interest group to the disadvantage of another.
Included in a nonexhaustive list of the conflict crimes are the public-
disorder offenses (malicious mischief, vagrancy, and creating a public
disturbance), chemical offenses (alcohol and narcotics offenses), political
crimes (treason, sedition, sabotage, espionage, subversion,and conspira-
cy), minor property offenses (petty theft, shoplifting, and vandalism), and
the “right-to-life’ offenses (abortion and euthanasia). The feature that
unites these offenses is the public debate that surrounds them. This is a
different way of saying that we lack societal consensus on the dimensions of
public disorder, the use of comforting chemicals, permissible politics, the
protection of private property, and the limits of life. Lacking a consensus,
many of us, given the opportunity or need, may feel free to deviate.
It is not surprising, then, that criminologists usually are less interested in
asking why individuals are involved in conflict crimes, and are more
concerned with the reasons why such persons are considered criminals by
law. We will argue in following chapters that the theories of overcontrol
are well-suited to address this question. These theories can be helpful in
explaining the status of the noncriminal forms of deviance we consider
briefly next.

NONCRIMINAL FORMS OF DEVIANCE

Not all forms of deviance are designated as criminal, yet many noncriminal
forms of deviance are treated in ways analogous to those required by
criminal law, while other forms of noncriminal deviance are not. In
B
general, the more serious a noncriminal form of deviance is considered, the
more likely it is to be treated in a criminal fashion. Because our scientific
interest is as much in behavior and its treatment as in its stated definition,
and because these forms of noncriminal deviance constitute a pool of
behaviors that in the past may have been, or in the future may become,
criminal, the noncriminal forms of deviance also are an important source
of concern for criminologists. Two types of noncriminal deviance concern
us: what we call the “‘social deviations” and the ‘‘social diversions.”
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 59

The Social Deviations

Although social deviations are sometimes treated as if they were criminal,
there are clearly some very important differences. The most frequent of
these deviations are of three types: adolescent (juvenile delinquency),
vocational (noncriminal violations of public and financial trust), and
interpersonal (psychosocial disturbances). The feature that unites these
experiences is that although they are not considered criminal, they are
nonetheless considered disreputable. Of particular interest is the stigma
that may follow contact with noncriminal agencies of social control, and
how this stigma may compare to that consequent to processing by agencies
of crime control. Noncriminal agencies typically attempt to minimize their
stigmatizing effects. Juvenile courts “‘treat” rather than convict ‘“‘delin-
quents’’; professional bodies ‘“‘suspend”’ and “‘expel”’ occupational ‘‘viola-
tors’; civil courts ‘“‘process technical violators’; and psychiatric agencies
protect the identities of their ‘“‘patients.”” These efforts vary in their
effectiveness, and sociologists and criminologists have been particularly
interested in determining how access to personal resources and profession-
al protection affect the outcomes. For example, in an innovative piece of
research, Schwartz and Skolnick (1964) have demonstrated that while
doctors can be found in malpractice without experiencing a loss of income,
“common criminals” encounter a stigma that makes earning their future
livelihoods difficult. This study illustrates how significant the distinction
between criminal and noncriminal forms of deviance can be, and the
relevance to criminology of their comparative study.

The Social Diversions

The social diversions are regarded as less serious forms of deviance, and
consequently are less likely to be criminalized. Included among the social
diversions are varied expressions of preferences with regard to sex,
clothing, language, and leisure. We include them in our discussion partly
for the sake of completeness, but also because they too are occasionally
liable to criminalization, and because they display some significant parallels
to things called “‘criminal.”’ The latter point has been made in a number of
interesting ways. Sykes and Matza (1961), for example, note that in our
society there is a set of “‘subterranean values,” including the search for
adventure, excitement, and thrills, that exists alongside such conformity-
producing values as security, routinization, and stability (see also Davis,
1944; Veblin, 1967). A result is that the lines drawn between crime,
deviance, and diversion in our society are uncertain and subject to change.
It is to the prospect of change that we turn last.
 60 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

THE COMINGS AND GOINGS OF CRIME

In this chapter we have considered a wide range of criminal and deviant
acts, from the less frequent consensual crimes to the much more common
social diversions. We have argued that among the varieties of deviance, the
criminal forms are the more serious, and the noncriminal forms less so.
This conclusion is not based on our own moral evaluation of the acts
involved, but rather it is based on an index measuring the perception of
harm, agreement about the norm, and the severity of societal response to
infractions. Most significantly, however, we have emphasized that the
location of persons and acts within subcategories of this scale necessarily
will vary by time, place, and circumstance. In other words, behaviors will
be variably located on this scale according to the context considered.
Further discussion of an example introduced at the beginning of the
chapter may help to confirm this point.
During the early 1960s, as the Vietnamese war gradually became an
American war, enforcement of the Selective Service Act became an
increasingly important responsibility of the federal district courts. During
this early period, there was widespread acceptance of the Selective Service
Act as a necessary part of American life, providing enforcement of the
statute with the type of support we have associated with consensus crimes
(Cook, 1977). It was generally agreed that violation of the act was wrong,
that such violations were harmful to the nation and its defense, and that
severe penalties, such as imprisonment, were required for effective en-
forcement. However, by 1969, the mood of the nation had changed, and
support of the act had so diminished that violation of the statute now took
ec
on the character of a conflict crime. There was no longer public agreement #
that such violations were wrong; instead they were increasingly thought to
be consistent with, rather than harmful to, the national interest, and
imprisonment was increasingly thought to be an inappropriate sentence for
violators. Nonetheless, the Selective Service Act was never repealed.
Instead, federal court judges whose responsibility it was to enforce this
now unpopular law turned to the use of probation. Thus in a prominent
American city where much of the draft-resistance effort was focused,
Hagan and Bernstein (1979) report that from 1963 through 1968 the use of
imprisonment to punish convicted violators was pervasive, with an overall
imprisonment rate of 76.8 percent. However, between 1968 and 1969, the
imprisonment rate decreased from 72.7 percent to 42.9 percent, and from
1969 through 1976, the overall imprisonment rate was 33.7 percent. During
the latter period, the most common disposition was probation. By the end
of the Vietnamese war, almost all draft offenders were receiving proba-
tion.
 DEFINING CRIME: AN ISSUE OF MORALITY 61

The point of the above discussion is not that draft resistance is a good or
bad thing, moral or immoral. The point is that over time the public
evaluation of the seriousness of Selective Service violations changed in a
measurable way, and doubtless it will change again as time and circum-
stances demand. The approach to the definition of crime and deviance
presented in this chapter allows us to take changes of this kind into
account. Recognition and study of such changes are an important part of
modern criminology, and therefore of our approach to the definition of its
subject matter.
We have considered in some detail, then, the various kinds of crime and
deviance and the more general link between law and morality. In doing so
we noted briefly a fundamental division of views as to whether law is the
product of consensual morality or of a conflict between moralities. Our
approach to the definition of crime and deviance, with its enumeration of
consensus crimes and conflict crimes, implies that both processes are at
work. In the following chapter we examine this issue in greater detail by
focusing on the way in which specific kinds of criminal laws have come into
being.
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND 3
DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING
OF STATE MORALITY

THE ISSUE: WHO MAKES THE LAW?

We have addressed in a general way the issue of what should be called a
“crime.” In this chapter we address the more concrete issue of how, and
more importantly by whom, such laws are made. The issue of who makes
the law has two kinds of answers, both of which we have considered briefly
in earlier chapters: the first derives from the older consensual perspective,
the second from the newer conflict perspective. However, we argue in this
chapter that neither answer is adequate. The making of law is a more
complicated process than either perspective separately suggests. We will
make this point by considering several kinds of crime and delinquency
legislation. First, we restate the consensus and conflict Jey as they
relate to the issue of lawmaking.

LAW FOR THE MASSES OR LAW FOR THE CLASSES?

The Consensus View of Lawmaking
* Consensus theorists, including Durkheim (1949), Pound (1943), Parsons
(1951, 1966), Hall (1960, 1963), Bohannan (1965), and Friedman (1959),
-contend that Anglo-American laws are an expression of the state of values
«and customs that are shared widely in society and reflect common interests.
| For example, Paul Bohannan (1965, p. 36) refers to the law as a form of
“double institutionalization” in which ‘“‘some of the customs of some of the
| institutions of society are restated in such a way that they can be ‘applied’
by institutions designed . . . specifically for that purpose.’’ From this
perspective, the law is seen as a means of resolving disputes, as a set of
mechanisms ‘“‘by which rights and wrongs can be decided without recourse
to violence, and by which parties deemed in the wrong can be constrained
from acting upon interpretations, interests or sentiments at the expense of
| others” (Parsons, 1966, p. 14). In other words, the consensus perspective
{

JSD the law as serving a protective function. Furthermore, this service is

/ seen as the consequence of a mediation among competing interests:
| looked at functionally, the law is an attempt to satisfy, to reconcile, to

62
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 63

harmonize, to adjust . . . overlapping and often conflicting demands . . .

to give effect to the greatest totality of interests that weigh most in our
civilization, with the least sacrifice of the . . . whole” (Pound, 1943, p. 39).
The latter position has been called a ‘“‘consensus theory of interests”
(Quinney, 1970). In any event, what unifies this school of thought is the
assumption that law functions to reconcile differing individual or group
interests in favor of “the common good.” As we will see, the common good
can be difficult to evaluate or measure.

The Conflict View of Lawmaking

While the perspective we considered above emphasizes the virtues of our
legal system in protecting the common good, the conflict perspective on
lawmaking, particularly the more radical versions of this perspective,
offers a less sanguine view. There are some striking examples. Some
Marxian conflict theorists, including Quinney (1975a, 19755), Platt (1975),
Chambliss (1973, 1974), and Taylor, Walton, and Young (1973, 1975),
contend that our laws are an expression of a fusion of economic and |
political interests to the exclusion of other concerns (e.g., the common
good). For these conflict theorists, there is only one prevailing interest: a |
“ruling-class’”” or “‘governing-class” interest formed in an “alliance of '
capital and the state” (Taylor et al., 1973, p. 264). Quinney (1975b, p. 291)
summarizes this viewpoint as it relates to criminal law:
¢ The state is organized to serve the interests of the dominant economic
class, the capitalist ruling class.
¢ Criminal law is an instrument the state and dominant ruling class use
to maintain and perpetuate the social and economic order.
¢ The contradictions of advanced capitalism . . . require that the subor-
dinate classes remain oppressed by whatever means necessary, especially
by the legal system’s coercion and violence.
¢ Only with the collapse of capitalist society, based on socialist princi-
ples, will there be a solution to the crime problem.
With specific reference to the origins of laws, then, many Marxian
conflict theorists see the legal system as “‘an apparatus that is created to
secure the interests of the dominant class’? (Quinney, 1975), p. 192), or,
said differently, “The criminal law is . . . first and foremost a reflection of
the interests and ideologies of the governing class’ (Chambliss, 1974, p.
37):
Clearly, the consensus and conflict theorists discussed above have
arrived at quite different judgments about the origins of our criminal and
penal laws. We should not leave the impression that these are the only
64 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

perspectives on law; for example, an emerging division between “instru-

mental” and ‘structural’? Marxian theory is noted in Chapter 7. The
version of Marxian conflict theory we have discussed here is instrumental
in its emphasis on the direct control the “ruling class” is presumed to
exercise over lawmaking. We have selected the versions of consensus and
conflict theory outlined above because they highlight very different factors
involved in lawmaking. As we will see, some of the claims of each of these
perspectives can be tested; others cannot. Many of the claims that cannot
be tested suggest a tendency on the part of both perspectives to strive to
support moral prejudgments; that is, advocates of each perspective tend to
see any particular legal development as a ‘“‘good” or “‘bad”’ solution to a set
of social and/or economic problems regarded as endemic to the system
itself. This point can be illustrated through a discussion of work on the
origins of theft and vagrancy laws, and through a consideration of the
different inferences that have been drawn from this work.

THE ORIGINS OF THEFT AND VAGRANCY LAWS

Jerome Hall (1952) examined the origins of contemporary theft law in
England in the Carrier’s Case of 1473, the facts of which were as follows. A
defendant hired to transport several bales broke them open and took the
contents instead of delivering them. At this time, such an act was not
clearly criminal, since the defendant was lawfully in possession of property
that had been assigned to him for the purpose of transportation. This
contradiction was resolved by treating the rupture of the bales as the
termination of the defendant’s legal possession. Although there was no
precedent for this interpretation, ‘‘the door was opened to admit into the
law of larceny a whole series of acts which had up to that time been purely
civil wrongs” (ibid., p. 10).
Hall goes on to identify the political and economic conditions that
influenced this reinterpretation. The Carrier’s Case arose during a period
when feudal relationships were giving way to a new and rising middle class
associated with rapidly expanding trade. The accompanying changes in the
social organization of everyday life were dramatic: the use of large
amounts of capital and of credit facilities, the appearance of numerous
intermediate agents and dealers, a division of labor, and the employment
of hundreds of persons by single firms.
Previously it had been possible for those who wished to transport
property to protect themselves by selecting trustworthy persons. With the
expansion of trade this became more difficult, and merchants therefore
sought the protection and control of the state. Indeed, Hall observes that
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 65

the king of England was himself a merchant, ‘carrying on many private

ventures” (ibid., p. 28); the fact that the Carrier’s Case was heard first in
the Star Chamber “made the likelihood of royal control extremely proba-
ble” (ibid., p. 18). “The conclusion that the merchandise taken in the
Carrier’s Case was very probably wool or cloth means no less than that the
interests of the most important industry in England were involved in the
case” (ibid., p. 31, emphasis in the original). In short, the most powerful
political and economic groups in England seemed able to determine the
content of a significant legal decision.
Although the historical facts of this case study are clear, the theoretical
inferences drawn from them differ dramatically. Hall himself interprets the
facts from what we have called the “‘consensual” view of lawmaking. He
suggests (1963, pp. 108-09) that “‘it makes sense to say that there are better
and worse ways of solving problems and to speak of the ‘function’ of laws
in relation to the values they reflect and serve.’’ Thus, Hall looks for the
“needs served” or “‘problems solved” by laws and evaluates the resolutions
as “‘good” or “‘bad,”’ though he concedes that “‘it is not easy to determine
the criteria of ‘best solution’”’ (ibid.). His response (1952, p. 28) to the
emergence of theft laws was one of resignation and acceptance verging on
admiration.

It was to be expected that a King who was so definitely and so

greatly indebted to mercantile interests, both native and foreign,
would be sympathetic to these interests; but that he should bring
considerable ability to his participation in the economic life of the
country and that he should persistently foster its development
were rare qualities in an English monarch.

Furthermore, Hall (1963, p. 613) regarded laws of theft as part of the

‘natural’ core of penal law: “‘The laws on homicide, theft, treason and
incest, e.g., have not been arbitrarily imposed. .. . Not only are they
among the norms which appear to be practically universal, they also have
rational, normal interrelations with economic and political institutions and
changes.” In other words, Hall saw theft as one among a group of
behaviors that in the preceding chapter we called the ‘‘consensus crimes.”’ |
Although Hall’s findings have gone unchallenged, they are now regular-
ly given a different theoretical interpretation by conflict theorists. In doing
this, some of the same functional language used by consensus theory is
incorporated into the conflict account. However, the difference is that the
“functions fulfilled,” the ‘“‘problems solved,” or the “needs served” are
now for a specific class rather than for the common good. For example, !
Chambliss (1974, p. 25) reinterprets Hall’s findings as follows:
66 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

There was no possibility that the new law could be justified

logically but it was possible for the judges to create legal fictions
that justified the decision. In this way the interests of the new
upper class were protected ... through the “perceived need” of
the judges sitting on the highest courts of the time. The “perceived
need,” of course, represented the mobilization of a bias which
favored the interests of the dominant economic class.

The new conflict interpretation offered by Chambliss again sees theft

laws as serving a function, but now for one class in conflict with another,
and he therefore evaluates them as a “bad” solution to the emerging
problems of a capitalist society. Others have gone further in developing
these conclusions (Quinney, 1975b, p. 49). What is significant from a
theoretical and methodological viewpoint, however, is that neither value
judgment is grounded in the facts of the case study. No evidence is offered
to show that different classes experience economic advantage or disadvan-
tage because this particular solution was chosen in contrast to another. Nor
is there any evidence for the contention that classes differed in their
support of theft laws. Rather, each school of thought seems to base its
theoretical inferences on implicit comparisons with alternative economic
arrangements, one of which, feudalism, was vanishing, and the other of
which, modern socialism, had not yet arrived. In any case, no comparative
exercises are conducted before the moral judgments are rendered.
A similar problem is apparent in an analysis of the origins of vagrancy
laws by Chambliss (1974). The original vagrancy statute was passed in
England in 1349. Prior to this, religious houses provided assistance to the
poor, sick, and feeble. Passage of the statute made offering and receiving
such aid illegal. The temper and purpose of the statute is suggested in its
original wording: ‘Because . . . many beggars . . . refuse to labor, giving
themselves to idleness and vice, ... it is ordained, that none. . . shall
. . . give anything to such which may labor . . . so that thereby they may
be compelled to labor for their necessary living” (cited in Chambliss, 1964,
p. 68).
Several factors contributed to this legislative turn of events. First, the
church was no longer anxious to assume the financial costs of supporting
the growing number of poor people. Second, a desperate labor situation
was facing the feudal landowners. The Black Plague had ravaged England,
taking in its death toll nearly 50 percent of the labor force. The problem
was aggravated by the landowners selling many of their serfs into freedom
to raise money in support of the crusades. Thus, religious and feudal
interests were combined in support of vagrancy legislation that forced
laborers to accept employment at low wages.
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 67

In time, feudalism died and the vagrancy statutes lapsed into a period of
dormancy. However, in 1530, the laws were reactivated to serve a new
purpose. England was now experiencing rapid growth in trade and
commerce. As patterns of trade developed, business interests perceived a
need, beyond that satisfied by the use of the theft laws, to protect their
goods during the period of their transportation between sellers and buyers.
In this context, the vagrancy statutes found new purpose as a flexible
means of controlling persons in the countryside who seemed to threaten
the safe transportation of goods and materials. Thus, the vagrancy laws
were revived and refocused to include “any ruffians .. . [who] shall
wander, loiter, or idle use themselves and play the vagabonds” (cited in
Chambliss, 1964, p. 72).
There is little doubt that the vagrancy laws were used in the manner that
Chambliss describes, particularly in the period following the Black Plague.
It is also clear that the vague character of vagrancy laws, with their
tendency to refer to a condition or subjective state rather than an objective
set of behaviors, makes them liable to indiscriminate use. What remains
uncertain, however, is whether the original use of these laws was only in
the service of a dominant or ruling class, and therefore a bad solution to
the social and economic problems involved. Again, there are no compara-
tive data on alternative means used to remedy similar problems in like or
unlike circumstances. How good or bad a solution the vagrancy laws
represented to the problems caused by the Black Plague is difficult, if not
impossible, to judge. In any case, such problems are not unique to
capitalist societies. Greenberg (1976:619) makes this point when he notes
that “in view of the persistence of crime in state and market socialist
economies, it is plausible to assume that all societies contain contradictions
that will generate disputes involving behavior that will be perceived as
sufficiently reprehensible to warrant punitive intervention, and that in
modern societies this intervention will at least some of the time take the
form of criminalization.” Therefore instead of attempting to judge in
moral terms whether various forms of crime and delinquency legislation
are “good” or “bad” solutions to the problems they attempt to solve, it
may be more productive for our purposes to examine the following more
specific set of issues that the consensus and conflict perspectives raise
without resolving.
First, the Marxian conflict perspective we have considered is premised
on the assumption that particular interests—specifically business interests
—regularly prevail in the legislation of crime and delinquency. This
perspective assumes that there is an implicit or explicit alliance benrecad
business interests that want particular kinds of criminal laws passed and the |
state that imposes them. In the remainder of this chapter, we will be
 68 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

attentive to any identifiable part business interests may play in forming

alliances that influence the state’s role in the legislative process. Second,
the contrasting assumptions of the two perspectives about the role the
public plays in the legislative process encourage consideration of whether
the interest groups involved exercise their influence with or without
opposition from other groups and/or the community at large. The absence
of a visible opposition makes a conflict view of lawmaking more complicat-
ed to sustain. Third, it is important to know whether those seeking to
change the law appeal to dominant social values and whether their ability
to do so affects their chances of success. Interest groups may regularly and
—_

effectively use dominant social values to accomplish their lawmaking goals.

If they are able to do so, they may be particularly effective in avoiding the
overt kinds of opposition noted above (Hopkins, 1975).
The following discussion of three kinds of crime and delinquency
legislation speaks to the above issues, while offering some illustrative
descriptions of the law-creation process. Because the following laws are
more recent in origin than the theft and vagrancy statutes already
discussed, our review of them can address the issues in a more direct and
concrete fashion than has been possible thus far.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG LAWS

America has experimented with prohibiting two kinds of ‘chemical
crimes”: the use of alcohol and the use of narcotic drugs. Fifteen case
studies of alcohol and drug legislation are listed in Table 3-1. These studies
collectively make the point that some of the most important North
American alcohol and drug statutes developed alongside one another
during the progressive era as part of a cross-national effort to protect
middle-class values against the alleged threat posed by users of habit-
forming chemicals. These studies raise some fascinating questions: Why
did the prohibition of narcotics outlast the prohibition of alcohol? What
roles did interest groups, elites, moral entrepreneurs, and the media play
in the generation of these laws?
Bonnie and Whitebread (1974) offer a convincing explanation of why
narcotics laws outlasted alcohol prohibition. Narcotics legislation had its
/roots in a wave of ethnic and racial prejudices directed against isolated
minority groups, particularly Chinese, black, and Mexican Americans.
| These prejudices led to what Bonnie and Whitebread call a ‘moral
consensus”’ focused on a presumed link between these groups and the use
of narcotic drugs. We talk more about the formation of this consensus
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 69

TABLE 3-1
ALCOHOL AND DRUG LAWS

Author(s) Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s)

cited

Sinclair Alcohol United States 1784-1933 Progressive

(1962) prohibition politicians,
medical
researchers,
WCTU,
Anti-Saloon
League, ‘’Old
Order of the
Country”
Gusfield Alcohol United States 1826-1933 Rural, populist,
(1963) prohibition Protestant native
Americans;
WCTU;
Anti-Saloon
League
Musto Opiates and United States 1832 Southerners’ and
(1973) marijuana westerners’
hostility toward
blacks and
Chinese, State
Department
Duster Opiates United States 1856- Medical
(1970) practitioners
Reasons Opiates United States 1870- Charles Brent,
(1974) (state and Hamilton Wright,
federal) hostility toward
Chinese and
blacks, Treasury
Department
Odegard Alcohol United States 1874-1928 Anti-Saloon
(1928) prohibition League
Timberlake Alcohol United States 1900-20 Old stock,
(1963) prohibition middle-class
Protestants;
WCTU;
Anti-Saloon
League
Cook Opiates Canada 1908-23 Hostility toward
(1963, 1970) Chinese
Bonnie & Marijuana United States 1Sid— Prejudice against
Whitebread Mexican-
(1974) Americans,
Federal Bureau of
Narcotics
70 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 3-1 cont'd

ALCOHOL AND DRUG LAWS

Author(s) Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s)

cited

Dickson Marijuana United States 1913-44 ' Bureau of

(1968) Narcotics
Lindesmith Opiate United States 1914-59 Treasury
(1959) legislation Department,
as interpreted Federal Bureau of
by the courts Narcotics
Lindesmith Opiate United States 1914— Treasury
(1967) legislation Department,
Federal Bureau of
Narcotics
Becker Marijuana United States 1925-51 Values regarding
(1963) self-control,
ecstasy, and
humanitarianism;
Federal Bureau of
Narcotics
Galliher & Marijuana United States 1930s Symbolic
Walker reassurance
(1977) :
Galliher, Marijuana Nebraska 1968-— Spread of
McCartney, revision marijuana use to
& Baum middle class
(1974)

below. In contrast, the prohibition of alcohol never fully achieved this level
of consensual support, largely because it was aimed at urban immigrants
| who, although poor, had the potential for forming an active and organized
opposition to prohibition through urban machine and union politics. In the
terms of the previous chapter, alcohol prohibition remained a conflict
crime. Before elaborating the latter point, we will review the development
of narcotic drug policy in America.
There is little doubt that narcotics legislation was partly an expression of
hostile attitudes toward minority groups associated with drug use. Musto
(1973, p. 5) observes that ‘“‘in the nineteenth century addicts were
identified with foreign groups and internal minorities who were already
actively feared and the objects of elaborate and massive social and legal
constraints.” For example, the Chinese were associated with opium
(Musto, 1973; Cook, 1969, 1970; Reasons, 1974), southern blacks with
cocaine (Musto, 1973), and Mexicans with marijuana (Bonnie and White-
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 71

Reaching Over

(Source: Atlanta Georgian, 17 March 1934. Media image of the drug problem, circa
1934.)

bread, 1974). Mackenzie King, later prime minister of Canada, acquired

much of his early reputation by lobbying for passage of Canada’s first
narcotics legislation in terms of the “threat” posed by Asian immigration
(Cook, 1969).
It made little difference in Canada or the United States that the
“evidence clearly indicates that the upper and middle classes predominated
among narcotic addicts in the period up to 1914” (Duster, 1970, p. 9). As
we noted in the previous chapter, until the turn of the century in America
many patent medicines that could be bought in stores or by mail order
contained morphine, cocaine, and heroin. There was no requirement that
patent medicines containing opiates be labeled as such in interstate
commerce until the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed in 1906. Among
other things, hay fever remedies commonly contained cocaine as their
active ingredient, Coca-Cola contained cocaine until 1903, and even
advertised “cures” for the opium habit frequently contained large amounts
of opiates. Manufacturers of such products were remarkably effective
during the nineteenth century in preventing any legislative action to
 72. MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

require even the disclosure of dangerous drugs in these commercial

preparations. The middle classes consumed these products with consider-
able frequency.
Only after the passage of the Harrison Act in the United States in 1914
did the picture seem to change, so that ‘“‘by 1920, medical journals could
speak of the ‘overwhelming majority [of drug addicts]’ from the ‘unre-
spectable parts’ of society” (Duster, 1970, p. 11). Originally the Harrison
Act was simply a tax measure that made no direct mention of addicts or
addiction (Lindesmith, 1959). However, by gradually persuading the
public to associate narcotics use with disenfranchised minorities, lobbyists
laid a foundation for a broader legislative prohibition. This campaign also
was advanced by the facts that regardless of the class distribution of users,
use was still a minority phenomenon (Musto cites estimates that 2 to 4
percent of the population was addicted in 1895), and that opiate use was
known to produce pronounced physiological consequences within a fairly
short period of time (i.e., the withdrawal effects were pronounced). We do
not know what the relative significance of these different factors was in
getting the legislative prohibition on narcotics passed.
We do know, however, that every legislative movement has a leader-
ship. The leaders of campaigns striving for official control of crime and
| deviance are called “moral entrepreneurs,” a term coined by Becker
(1963). They are the people whose initiative and enterprise are essential in
getting the legal rules passed that are necessary to ““do something” about a
particular type of deviant behavior. Often such individuals seem to be
undertaking a ‘moral crusade”’ in that they perceive some activity as an
evil in need of legal reform, and they pursue this task with missionary zeal
(Gusfield, 1963). Moral entrepreneurs and crusaders assume that enforce-
ment of desired legal rules will improve the lives of those who are ruled.
That this is often a very dubious assumption will become clear as we
consider the moral crusades that brought legal control to marijuana and
alcohol use in America. As we will see, there are interesting parallels
between the two areas of legal development.
® In 1930 an important event occurred: the federal government estab-
lished a Bureau of Narcotics to be housed in the Treasury Department,
separate from the Bureau of Prohibition, where federal narcotics work
previously had been done. Selected out of the Bureau of Prohibition to be
director of the new agency was a moral entrepreneur by the name of Harry
Anslinger. Although Anslinger was convinced early on that legal control of
marijuana was necessary, in the beginning he was doubtful of the role the
federal government should take. His concern was that expansion of the
federal role in the control of marijuana might lead to a questioning of what
the federal authority to deal with narcotics was in the first place. The
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 73

federal government had entered the field under the pretense of generating
tax revenues. To avoid attracting attention to this issue, Anslinger limited
his early efforts to the active support of new and extended state marijuana
laws.
Anslinger’s early activities took the form of attracting public attention
to what he called the “marijuana menace.’ Representative of these
activities was the article “Marijuana: Assassin of Youth,” which appeared
in the widely circulated American Magazine. By 1932, Anslinger was
joined in these efforts by the Hearst newspaper chain. This chain of
newspapers editorialized in favor of the enactment of state marijuana laws.
It is plausible that the use of marijuana actually increased as a result of this
publicity. However, Anslinger expressed the issue quite the other way
round when he argued, for example, that ‘‘fifty percent of the violent
crimes committed in districts occupied by Mexicans, Greeks, Turks,
Filipinos, Spaniards, Latin Americans, and Negroes may be traced to the
abuse of Marijuana” (cited by Bonnie and Whitebread, 1974, p. 146).
Anslinger ultimately was convinced that there was sufficient public
support to try a federal bill: another tax measure, separate from the
Harrison Act. Testifying before a congressional committee, Anslinger used
three unsubstantiated arguments to get a federal marijuana law passed.
1 Acknowledging first that medical properties of the drug were in
doubt, Anslinger argued that it nonetheless presumably was known that
violent crime was linked to its use: ‘““Despite the fact that medical men and
scientists have disagreed upon the properties of marijuana, and some are
inclined to minimize the harmfulness of this drug, the records offer ample
evidence that it has a disastrous effect upon many of its users. Recently we
have received many reports showing crimes of violence committed by
persons while under the influence of marijuana” (cited in Bonnie and
Whitebread, 1974, p. 155).
2 Anslinger also argued that marijuana use had spread alarmingly in
recent years, provoking a public demand for action. The newspaper |
campaigns noted above were cited to document the alleged public hysteria,
despite the fact that there is no convincing evidence of public hysteria
independent of Anslinger’s efforts to create it, and that more media
attention followed than preceded the passage of marijuana legislation
(Galliher and Walker, 1977).
3 Finally, Anslinger argued that even though every state now had
marijuana legislation, local authorities could not cope with the growing of
“marijuana menace.” Anslinger testified that states were requesting
federal help, although it was not entirely clear why, in constitutionally
acceptable terms, this help was needed.
74 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Such arguments were persuasive, albeit dubious, and a federal marijuana

statute was soon passed.
One of the most interesting consequences of the passage of this act was a
sudden change in bureau policy. Before the act, Anslinger had urged in the
press the idea that marijuana use was spreading among the young and that
this was leading to violent crime. After passage of the act, Anslinger
argued that ‘‘our present policy is to discourage undue emphasis on
marijuana for the reason that in some sections of the country recently press
reports have been so exaggerated that interest in the subject has become
almost hysterical and we are therefore trying to mold public opinion along
more conservative and saner lines” (cited in Bonnie and Whitebread, 1974,
p. 178). Anslinger had encountered the paradoxical problem that many
successful moral entrepreneurs eventually face: how to stop the hysterical
belief that a problem is growing, once given the presumed means to control
it.
Alcohol prohibition involved a somewhat different combination of
factors. Most conspicuously, prohibition followed from the well-organized
lobbying activities of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the
Anti-Saloon League. However, this lobby did not work in a vacuum. For a
century, as Gusfield (1963) notes, the American temperance movement
drew its support from a number of groups in American society that were
declining in social and economic status. These groups ranged from the New
England Federalists down through the lower middle strata. Then, in 1896,
the temperance movement took a new turn and began a symbolic struggle
against the forces of industrialization. This “‘symbolic crusade”’ was waged
in defense of traditional Protestant and rural values, which were regarded
as declining and thought to be under attack by the forces of American
industrialization: particularly non-Protestant immigrants, and more gener-
ally the rise of the city itself. The face of America was changing, and rural,
American-born Protestants saw the changes as a symbolic threat to an
established, but apparently declining, way of life. Note that this picture of
symbolic status-group conflict contrasts sharply with the finding of Bonnie
and Whitebread (1974, p. 13) that “narcotics policy . . . was supported by
a latent popular consensus.” Undoubtedly, a major portion of the differ-
ence derives from the widespread use of alcohol in America, which had
developed over a considerable period of time. Therefore, although a
concerted attempt was made to link alcohol with poverty, crime, and
insanity, it was possible for an organized opposition to these efforts to
form.
Thus Timberlake (1963, p. 99) observes that although wage earners
were unable to thwart the enactment of temperance legislation, they were
strong enough to ensure its ultimate failure. “Many working men... .
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 75

The Devil’s Roost —mc2thzz2

a

Oa:
f \

yet
i" iY
}| i

; Se

(Source: Washington Herald, 26 February 1937, Copyright, 1937, by American

Newspapers, Inc. Media image of the drug problem, circa 1937.)

opposed prohibition because it smacked of paternalism and class exploita-

tion. To them it was a hypocritical and insulting attempt to control their
personal habits in order to exact greater profits for their employers, who
themselves had no intention of giving up liquor”’ (ibid., p. 93). As much as
81 percent of the membership of the American Federation of Labor was
 76 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

“wet” (ibid., p. 95), i.e., opposed to restrictions on alcohol use, which is

consistent with the claim of Samuel Gompers that the great majority of the
members opposed prohibition.
Economic considerations may also have affected the rise and fall of
prohibition, but these considerations were often in conflict. Some business
executives believed that temperance would increase industrial efficiency,
redistribute money spent on liquor, decrease welfare expenditures on
crime and poverty, and reduce threats of disorder during strikes. Others
argued that prohibition would diminish public revenues, increase unem-
ployment in liquor and related industries, shift political power balances,
and increase government regulation of business. World War I seemed to
strengthen the former set of arguments, but the balance was to shift again
during the depths of the depression (Timberlake, 1963). The contradictory
|nature of these arguments seems to support Gusfield’s contention that the
\
} prohibition of alcohol was more a result of symbolic than economic
i conflict. The passage of prohibition appears to be explained by the
| perception that urban, immigrant alcohol use threatened the status of rural
American-born Protestants rather than the economic foundations of
capitalism.
Finally, something should be said about the role of the media in molding
public and political opinion about alcohol prohibition. Two progressive era
journals, the Outlook and the Independent, and two popular muckraking
periodicals, Collier’s Weekly and McClure’s Magazine, cultivated popular
support for alcohol prohibition. Timberlake (1963, p. 156) writes,
... because they enjoyed a nation-wide circulation, these large
middle-class journals were more powerful molders of public
opinion than the newspapers. But the latter also continued to exert
an important influence and, like the periodicals, soon began to
devote increasing attention to the liquor question. Superintendent
Baker remarked upon this at the Anti-Saloon League’s national
convention in 1907 and noted with approval that more than
one-half of the nation’s press was friendly.
Thus there is little doubt that the media contributed significantly to the
passage of temperance legislation.
A number of points emerge from the research on alcohol and drug
legislation that we have reviewed. First, the concern of the middle class for
the supremacy of its values is seen by most researchers as the primary
explanation for the passage of alcohol and narcotics legislation. This class
base of support was mobilized by powerful organizations, the WCTU and
the Anti-Saloon League in the case of alcohol prohibition, and the
Treasury Department and its Bureau of Narcotics in the case of narcotics.
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 17

Although the latter organization clearly had its own bureaucratic interests,
the former, private organizations might appear to have been dominated by
elite philanthropists. But Timberlake (1963, p. 136) reports that “the
[Anti-Saloon] league always received the bulk of its funds from people of
modest means who customarily pledged from 25 cents to $2.00 a month.”
Yet if the proponents of this legislation were not all upper class, its objects
were uniformly poor. However, differences emerge even here: when
alcohol prohibition attempted to criminalize the mass of the poor, it ran —
into the opposition of unions and urban political machines. In contrast,
narcotics legislation focused mere narrowly, and more successfully, on )
minorities of the poor who could be defined as disreputable. “Increasingly |
associated with the slothful and immoral ‘criminal classes’ who degraded
the nation’s cities, narcotics use threatened to retard national growth with
pauperism, moral degeneracy, and crime. A consensus had emerged: the
nonmedical use of ‘narcotics’ was a cancer which had to be removed
entirely from the social organism” (Bonnie and Whitebread, 1974, p. 17).
We have seen evidence that the media played a significant role in the
creation of this consensus.

DELINQUENCY AND PROBATION LAWS

The origins of juvenile delinquency and adult probation laws have been
analyzed frequently. Fifteen such studies are summarized in Table 3-2.
Studies of delinquency and probation laws are grouped together in this
section for three reasons: (1) most juvenile court laws contained provisions
for probation, (2) many of the same reformers fought for both juvenile
court and adult probation statutes, and (3) themes of the progressive era in
American politics were prominent in the successful passage and implemen-
tation of both types of laws.
Conventional wisdom has it that juvenile delinquency legislation |
emerged as a means of getting adolescents out of adult jails and the slum |
neighborhoods from which they came. However, few analysts of juvenile
delinquency laws have accepted this simple assessment. Parker (1976a,
p. 168) offers the following antidote to the conventional view.
To a great extent, the history of child-saving in the twentieth
century is not the history of improving the general conditions of
child-life (because most of the battles had been won), or the
history of juvenile institutions (which changed very little after the
initial efforts of the Founders of the House of Refuge and their
imitators). It is not even the history of the juvenile court itself
because it provided, as legal institutions tend to do, a purely
78 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 3-2
JUVENILE COURT AND ADULT PROBATION LAWS

Author(s) Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s) cited

Schlossman Juvenile Milwaukee 1825-1920 Benjamin Lindsey,

(1977) court progressive
reformers, and
advocates of
probation
Lemert Juvenile California 1850- Humanitarian
(1970) court concern; Puritan,
Calvinist values;
women and
women’s
organizations
McFarlane Adult Ontario 1857- J. J. Kelso, W. L.
(1966) probation Scott, and other
urban reformers
Boyd Probation Canada 1857-1921 Middle-class
(1978) reformers
Hagan & Juvenile Toronto 1857-1952 J.J. Kelso, W. L.
Leon (1977) court Scott, and advocates
of probation
Young Probation England 1860- Middle-class
(1976) reformers
responsible for social
work innovation
generally
Lou Juvenile United States 1869-1927 Industrial revolution
(1927) court and religious and
moral revival;
factory legislation
and women’s
movement
Platt Juvenile Chicago Native, feminist,
(1969) court middle-class
reformers
Platt Juvenile United States 1870- Upper-class interests
(1974) court Operating through
and with
middle-class
reformers
Parker Juvenile Illinois 1880s-— Moral reformers,
(19766) court women’s groups
Fox Juvenile Illinois 1899- Urban reformers;
(1970) court private sectarian
interests running
institutions
Schultz Juvenile Illinois 1899- Advocates of
(1973) court
probation
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 79

TABLE 3-2 cont'd

JUVENILE COURT AND ADULT PROBATION LAWS

Author(s) Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s) cited

Mennel Juvenile United States 1899-1940 Progressive

(1973) court reformers, Protestant
children’s aid
societies, urban
women’s clubs
Bryant Juvenile Oklahoma 1904-15 Nationa! reform
(1968) court figures (Benjamin
Lindsey, Kate
Barnard); social
workers, particularly
women
Hagan Federal United States 1915- Urban status groups,
(1979) probation Charles Chute, and
National Probation
Association

symbolic quality to child work. The real history of the period is a

history of probation.
Not all students of juvenile court legislation agree with Parker’s
conclusion, and as we will see, it is a quarrel over the role of probation in
the juvenile court movement that focuses much of the debate in this area.
Anthony Platt, (1974, p. 369) for example, adopts a conflict perspective in
arguing that the impetus for delinquency legislation flowed from close and
compromising links between members of the middle and upper classes, and
(ibid., p. 377) that “the juvenile court system was part of a general
movement directed towards developing a specialized labor market and
industrial discipline under corporate capitalism by creating new programs
of adjudication and control.” Essential to this argument is Platt’s emphasis
(1969, chap. 3) on the emergence of a “‘new penology” and his disregard
for the expansion of probation.
Platt (1969) argues that the ‘“‘child-saving movement,” like the temper-
ance movement, was a symbolic crusade mobilized by feminist reformers.
The affluent women who worked in this movement at the turn of the
century were living in a changing world: organized religion was in decline,
public education was taking children out of the home, leisure time and
boredom were increasing, and the nuclear family seemed to be breaking
down in the impersonal, crowded city. Against this background, the
child-saving movement offered an opportunity for women to fulfill new
80 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

roles that included elements of the old, both in terms of the movement’s
concern with children and in the new occupational roles (e.g., Juvenile
court workers, house parents, etc.) it encouraged. However, in all of this,
Platt (ibid., 1969, p. 99) suggests, “the child-savers were more concerned
with restriction than liberation. . . . The austerity of the criminal law and
criminal institutions were not their major target of concern.” Instead, Platt
argues that the chiid-savers merely wanted to replace one set of institutions
(penitentiaries) with another (reformatories).
Another student of juvenile court legislation, Sanford Fox, also focuses
on the connection between this legislation and institutionalization, but in
ways different from Platt. Fox (1970, p. 1224) argues that the effort to
enact a delinquency law in Illinois was mainly an attempt to change existing
institutional conditions and the role of private interests in operating these
institutions. He regards the failure of this effort as a “triumph of private
enterprise and sectarianism.” Significantly, though, he attributes the
outcome not to the influence of elite economic interests but to private
sectarian interests that ran institutions in the state, and he acknowledges
(ibid., p. 1229) that the “Illinois law spoke of probation for the first time.”
Still, it is the lack of attention to probation that distinguishes Platt and
Fox from other students of delinquency legislation. Schultz (1973, pp.
463-465) notes that the Illinois legislation discussed above had dramatic
national implications for adults as well as adolescents.
Although probation was never limited to juveniles before or after
1899, that date is almost as important to the growth of probation
nationally as it is to the growth of juvenile courts. The use of
probation had been sporadic and desultory until it became tied
with the juvenile reform movement. It then spread to every state
that enacted juvenile court legislation. By 1927, all but two states—
Maine and Wyoming—had juvenile court laws, and every state
except Wyoming had a juvenile probation system.

A more recent investigation of the origin of delinquency legislation in

Canada corroborates the findings of Schultz and Parker (Hagan and Leon,
1977). Drawing on the lengthy correspondence between two key partici-
pants in the passage of the Canadian Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908, this
study reports an ongoing struggle between two professional groups, the
police and the advocates of probation. The police argued for the continua-
tion of an explicitly punitive approach based on institutionalizing juveniles,
whereas supporters of probation advocated a less formal set of arrange-
ments directed toward the “treatment” rather than the “punishment” of
juveniles. No evidence is found that the use of institutions increased as a
result of this legislation (although probation work clearly was growing) or
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 81

that elite economic groups took any active interest in the legislation.
Rather, the professional groups seemed to be the significant contestants in
the struggle.
A study of the emergence of the juvenile courts in Milwaukee by
Schlossman (1977, p. 60) suggests that the emphasis on probation within
the juvenile court movement reflected a concern for the family that
pervaded the progressive era: ‘“‘Rehabilitation of delinquents in their own
homes, as contrasted with the nineteenth-century preference for quick
removal of problem youth to reformatories, was the primary goal of
Progressive juvenile justice.” The result was the emergence of a system of
social control that was less formal and less coercive, but nonetheless more
extensive, exerted over the families of urban poor, often outside of court.
Thus in Milwaukee (Schlossman, 1977), as in Toronto (Hagan and Leon,
1977), probation officers soon expanded their influence not only within the
structure of the court but also outside it by handling cases that they
themselves had generated. However, Schlossman (1977, p. 53) also notes
that the officers did little beyond making an initial inquiry and concludes
that this new framework of social control was probably “‘more threatening
in its potential than [in] its actual use.”’ Finally, Schlossman (ibid., p. 156)
acknowledges that though few adolescents were institutionalized for
lengthy periods during the early years of the Milwaukee court (indeed, the
number of such dispositions actually declined), and though the court relied
heavily on probation during this era, it did impose an increasing number of
short-term sentences in a newly built detention center: “short-term
detention served as a mechanism of deterrence in a way that long-term
reformatory commitals could not, and it also served as an alternative—
symbolically, perhaps, even as a rebuke—to the institutional approaches
that had been so ineffective in curtailing delinquency during the previous
century.”
A diminished reliance on institutions combined with increased control,
particularly through the use of probation personnel, is apparent in other
fragmentary data. The prominent reformer Frederick Almy (1902, p. 281)
wrote from Buffalo that “the . . . Juvenile Court has not quite completed
its first year, and no definite records have been compiled, but two results
already are notable—the decrease in the number of commitments to the
truant school and to reformatories, and the increase in the number of
children arrested.”’ Haller (1970, p. 629) observes that in Chicago “‘be-
tween 1913 and 1914 the number of delinquents referred to court rose from
1,956 to 2,916, an increase of nearly 50 percent in the delinquency rate for
Cook County. The reason for the increase was that twenty-three additional
probation officers were hired in 1914.” Finally, Parker (1976a, p. 169)
argues that ‘Massachusetts had the most advanced system of probation.
 82 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

The number of children under the direct care of the State Board of Lunacy
and Charity as ‘minor wards of the state’ had increased from 2065 in 1866
to 3004 in 1897. . . . The numbers in institutions had been reduced from
fourteen hundred in 1866 to about four hundred in 1897.”
A general picture begins to emerge out of these studies of juvenile court
and adult probation legislation. The progressive era was characterized by a
|widely shared view that rehabilitation should be family-centered. Advo-
cates of such legislation therefore focused on the offender’s home as the
locus of treatment and on the probation officer as the key remedial agent.
Among the most vigorous proponents were members of women’s groups
and persons who eventually became the “professionals” charged with
responsibility for probation (see Table 3-2). Juvenile courts and probation
officers exerted new forms of social control that were disproportionately
targeted at the urban poor. What remains unclear, however, is what
inferences we can fairly draw from the increased attention to this group.
Although there is evidence that wealthy individuals contributed money
and volunteered their time to the early juvenile courts, there is little
concrete information about the motives for this “‘philanthropy” or the
unique benefits they thereby obtained. Furthermore, there is much to
suggest that the families who received judicial attention were not reluctant
to obtain it. Schlossman (1977, p. 188) comments on “‘the willingness of
many poor parents to use the courts to unburden themselves of child-
_ rearing responsibilities,’ and Schultz (1973, p. 472) similarly suggests that
“the greatest obstacle to interpreting juvenile court acts as instruments of
class oppression is the evidence that parents liberally availed themselves of
the court’s broad jurisdiction and easy access by turning in their own
children” (emphasis in original). An alternative hypothesis that accommo-
dates these several studies is that families of the urban poor, particularly
those who were most desperate, presented an inviting object for the “help
and treatment”’ that middle-class women’s and professional groups were
anxious to extend. This does not deny the ominous potential of such laws
for class control, but it may explain why these efforts were so successful in
building juvenile court bureaucracies and so superficial in responding to
problems of the poor.

SEXUAL PSYCHOPATH AND PROSTITUTION LAWS

Laws governing sexuality are subject to radical change, providing a good
example of the frequently thin line between crime and deviance, discussed
in the preceding chapter. Thus only a small part of the sexual behavior
punished by criminal law in North America today was similarly punished in
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 83

Tudor England. For example, Ploscowe (1960, p. 218) notes that although
forcible rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 10, the sexual
corruption of children, lewd and indecent acts in public, bestiality, and
buggery were punishable under old English criminal law, large areas of
sexual behavior, such as fornication, adultery, incest, fellatio, cunnilingus,
and mutual masturbation, were treated as sins or ecclesiastical offenses by
the Church of England. That much of the latter behavior has since come
under the criminal law is a reminder of the important point that the law is
an expandable entity. Two types of sex laws, those concerning sexual
psychopaths and those concerning prostitution, have received sustained
and detailed historical consideration (see Table 3-3).
Sutherland (1950, p. 553) observes that ‘‘although . . . sexual psycho-
path laws are dangerous in principle, they are of little importance in
practice” because they have seldom been used. Why, then, were these laws
passed in the first place? Three of the four studies summarized in Table 3-3
(Swanson, 1960; Sutherland, 1950, 1951) emphasize the activities of the
news media and community groups. And Tappan’s conclusions (1950, p.
34) are at least consistent: “it is the public anxiety about serious sex crimes
that has motivated new legislation on the sex problem.”
Michigan enacted the first sexual psychopath law in 1937, and other
states quickly followed suit. Sutherland (1951) saw in the diffusion of these
laws a recurring pattern: a community is thrown into panic by a few serious
sex crimes that are given widespread publicity; the community responds in
an agitated fashion, and a variety of proposals are made; a committee is
appointed to study the situation and make recommendations; finally, the
committee recommends a sexual psychopath law as a “‘scientific’ crime-
control procedure that is presumably consistent with a preference for
treatment over punishment. Sutherland did not deny that serious sex
crimes occur, but he questioned the ideology (promulgated by people like
the then director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover) that surrounded these
crimes. This ideology maintained that (1) serious sex crimes are prevalent
and increasing; (2) nearly all are committed by “sexual psychopaths”; (3)
the latter continue to commit serious crimes throughout their lives; (4)
sexual psychopaths can be identified accurately before the crimes occur;
(5) society fails in its responsibilities when it allows the early release of such
persons; (6) long confinement is the solution to the problem; and (7)
psychiatrists should be the source of professional advice on the diagnosis,
treatment, and release of these “patients.” Sutherland criticized this
ideology as inconsistent with known facts about serious sex offenders. Yet
neither he nor others who have studied the passage and administration of
these laws conclude they reflect political, economic, or even professional
interests. Rather, they are seen mainly as a response to panic, albeit a
84 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 3-3
SEX LAWS

Author Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s) cited

Davis Sex laws Cross-cultural Broadly Maintenance of the

(1966) generally historical family
Pivar Prostitution United States 1868-1900 Purity reformers, the
(1973) women’s movement,
urban progressivism
Holmes Prostitution United States 1892- Society of Sanitary
(1972) & Moral Prophylaxis,
Bureau of Social
Hygiene, American
Social Hygiene
Association, Illinois
Vigilance
Association, New
York Society for the
Prevention of Crime,
women’s groups
Lubove Prostitution United States 1894-1921 Vice commissions,
(1962) progressive
reformers
Anderson Prostitution Chicago 1910-15 Chicago vice
(1974) commission, the
muckrakers, the
social hygiene
movement,
prominent Chicago
philanthropists,
concern about the
family
Feldman Prostitution United States 1910-15 Nativists and
(1967) antinativists,
feminists
Waterman Prostitution New York City 1910-31 Health interests of
(1932) the community
Sutherland Sexual United States 1937-50 Community panic
(1951) psychopath following serious
sex crime(s) given
media publicity and
followed by
community activity
Tappan Sexual United States 1939-50 Public anxiety about
(1950) psychopath serious sex crimes
Sutherland Sexual United States to 1950 ideological myths
(1950) psychopath about ‘’sexual
psychopaths” spread
through the media
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 85

TABLE 3-3 cont'd

SEX LAWS

Author Legislation Place Period Causal agent(s) cited

Swanson Sexual United States to 1957 News media, desire

(1960) psychopath to protect society
and rehabilitate
offenders
Roby Prostitution New York 1962-65 A variety of interest
(1969) State groups including
Judge Murtagh and
his supporters,
lawyers, American
Social Health
Association, hotels
and business
interests, civil
liberties groups,
police
Roby Prostitution New York 1961-69 As above, with
(1972) State particular emphasis
on lawyers with
expertise seeking
clarification of the
law

panic aggravated and focused by the news media. An unresolved question

concerns the media’s motivation in giving so much attention to sexual
crimes. One obvious motive, however, is the desire to increase circulation.
The media also were involved prominently in the development of
prostitution laws. Prostitution became an issue of public debate during the
first decade of this century, assisted in large part by the revelations of the
muckrakers. In a famous McClure’s Magazine article (1907), George
Kobbe Turner captured a ready audience with provocative descriptions of
prostitution in Chicago. Louis Filler (1950, p. 288) wrote in his history of
the muckrakers that ‘‘the effect of this single article was indescribable.”
This and later articles stressed the prevalence of prostitution and the
accompanying dangers of disease. But the call for action met with an
ambivalent response, which we cannot understand without first considering
the circumstances surrounding prostitution at the turn of the century.
Prostitution is first talked about in the United States during the colonial
period, where it seems to have been most common in the major seaports.
However, ‘‘commercialized vice” did not become a prominent feature of
86 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

American life until the onset of industrialization and urbanization, Mean-

while, Waterman (1932) points out that prostitution was not an offense in
either English or American common law, It was only when activities
associated with prostitution annoyed others that legal action was justified,
For example, an early New York statute defined as a disorderly person
“every common prostitute or night-walker loitering or being in any
thoroughfare or public place for the purpose of prostitution or solicitation
to the annoyance of inhabitants or passersby” (quoted in Waterman, 1932,
p. 12). Such provisions reflected the American (and European) preference
at the turn of the century for regulating rather than repressing prostitution,
A result was well-known areas of prostitution (“deviance service centers,”
as we called them in the preceding chapter) in most large American cities:
New Orleans’s Basin Street, San Francisco’s Barbary Coast, Denver's
Market Street Line, and New York’s Bowery and Five Points (Holmes,
1972, p. 85). The muckrakers, purity reformers, and urban progressives
were determined to change all this.
They eventually achieved considerable success. The regulationists and
the reformers clashed repeatedly in the 1860s and 1870s, During this period
many states and cities considered legalizing prostitution as a means of
regulating it, but they increasingly were defeated by the reformers. For
example, St. Louis initiated a registration system to regulate prostitution,
but this policy lasted only four years before it was repealed, During the
debate on this law, a petition “praying” for the repeal of the law and signed
by more than 100,000 citizens was wheeled into the legislature accompa-
nied by a group of young women attired in spotless white gowns. This was a
kind of symbolism that was difficult to fight.
With this kind of symbolism and attendant publicity the reformers
formed a “social hygiene movement” that fought militantly for the
“abolition” of prostitution. The publicity that accompanied this movement
spoke provocatively of such practices as the frequent kidnapping of young
and innocent girls by “slave traders” who forced them into lives of sin and
disease. By 1910, few Americans doubted that a commercialized network
of “white slavery” existed in the United States. The result was the
establishment over a five-year period of “vice commissions” in forty major
cities and states. It is said that while in 1910 nearly every large city in the
United States had a red-light district, only eight vears later these districts
had been closed in 200 of America’s largest cities (Holmes, 1972).
The sizable number of interest groups enumerated in the last column of
Table 3-3 and cited by analysts of prostitution law suggests diversified
Support for the movement to criminalize prostitution. It included groups as
far apart as those who had advocated the abolition of slavery (Pivar, 1973)
and those who fought against immigration and for the integration of the
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 87

foreign-born into American society (Feldman, 1967). It is not surprising,

then, that a basic ambivalence characterized this social movement.
This is clearly recognized in the work of Feldman (1967), Anderson
(1974), and Pivar (1973). Holmes (1972, p. 84) distinguishes two forces: -
the “humanitarians” and the “control group.” ‘““The purpose of the one
was the rescue of misguided girls; the purpose of the latter was the ©
preservation and protection of the ‘moral upper classes’ from a potentially
expandable and ‘dangerous class.’”’ The latter, the control group, was the
more heavy-handed in its views, arguing that prostitutes were an ethnic,
economic, and intellectual group of the lowest level. The vehemence of
these views is reflected in the following excerpt from a speech given at a
meeting of the American Society of Sanitary and Moral Prophylaxis: ‘“We
must sterilize all [these] lilly livered loons who would prey on an individual
to perpetuate defectiveness and spread horrible diseases which bring pain,
. sorrow, agony and torture to the tender and innocent and which may
destroy the race!” (cited in Holmes, 1972, p. 91). In contrast, the
humanitarians offered the more liberal view that prostitutes were forced
into the profession either by white-slave traders or by bad economic
conditions.
Both of the above groups agreed, however, that prostitution threatened
the physical health of individuals and, even more significantly, the social
health of the family. ‘““A deep concern for the family, in some cases a
conviction that family discipline could not ‘cope with existing social
conditions,’ inspired much of the agitation against prostitution” (Ander-
son, 1974, p. 223; cf. Davis, 1966). In this sense, antiprostitution efforts
were built on consensually shared values. Antiprostitution efforts mani-
fested themselves in the formation of vice commissions in many American
cities and in the generation of considerable publicity.
Laws were also passed: the Injunction and Abatement Act (often called
the “Red Light Abatement Act”) was first enacted in Iowa in 1909. It
provided that any private citizen could maintain an equitable action to
close a house of prostitution without having to show any particular damage
or injury. Between 1911 and 1915, twenty-one states and the District of
Columbia passed similar laws, and in 1910 the federal Mann Act made it
illegal to import aliens for immoral purposes and permitted the deporta-
tion of aliens engaged in prostitution. In the end, repression replaced
regulation in North America, and its weight fell most heavily on prostitutes
who practiced openly: those who could not afford, or did not wish, to be
less visible or more discrete in their activities.
Nineteen states promulgated antipandering statutes during the same
period (Anderson, 1974). Many new laws controlled the prostitute and
in
dealt with her health, but during this period more laws were directed,
 88 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

theory at least, against the procurer and brothel-keeper than against the
prostitute (Holmes, 1972). This may reflect the activity and influence of
humanitarian reformers like Jane Addams (1912). However, laws against
‘“panderers and procurers’”—not to mention their clients—have rarely
been enforced (Roby, 1969, 1972). An interesting example of how this
occurs involves a revision of the New York State Penal Code in 1965.
Under this revision prostitution was reclassified as a “violation” rather
than an offense, and the penalty was reduced from one year to fifteen days
in jail. The revision also included a “‘patron clause”’ that stipulated the
same penalty for the prostitute’s customer. However, between September
1967 and August 1969, less than 1 percent of the prostitution and
patronizing convictions in New York State were for patronizing. Ultimate-
ly, business interests and state legislators also complained about the lenient
sentences and were able to get more rigid measures passed.
Beyond this, patron clauses have sometimes been employed as weapons
against prostitutes instead of the patrons. For example, in 1961 Hlinois
passed a law making the customer subject to a fine of up to $200 and six
_ months in jail. A number of patrons were arrested, but none were
_ convicted. Apparently the clause was used to turn the accused persons into
informers who later were released.
Finally, we should note that there is considerable evidence about the
characteristics of this century’s purity reformers. They were, in large part,
the same kind of people, and in some cases the very same individuals, who
were involved in temperance work. Most were drawn from the middle and
upper classes, including a substantial number of doctors, lawyers, social
workers, probation workers, and wives of professional men (see Holmes,
1972; Pivar, 1973; Anderson, 1974). Women predominated among the
humanitarian group, whereas the control group contained more adminis-
trators of training schools, mental hospitals, and clinics (Holmes, 1972);
the participation of the latter suggests that professional interests may also
have played an important role in the development of prostitution laws.

CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has offered a selective review of research on the legislation of
crime and delinquency. We have focused on the laws that have been most
frequently examined by social and legal researchers and on the studies that
are most widely cited. Still, there are a variety of crimes that have not been
considered (e.g., homicide, kidnapping, and rape), and the subjects and
time periods of the studies that have been considered are themselves of
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 89

interest: they focus disproportionately on laws against victimless crimes

enacted during the progressive era and were published since the mid-1960s.
One reason research may have focused heavily on these laws is that our
attitudes toward victimless crimes have changed considerably since the
progressive era, adding interest to the question of how and why these laws
were passed in the first place. In any case, the resulting body of research
provides a unique and important opportunity to expand our theoretical
understanding of how laws that define and penalize crime and delinquency
are made.
In the beginning of this chapter, we noted that consensus and conflict ;
perspectives on lawmaking tend to characterize crime and delinquency
laws as good or bad solutions to social problems. However, we also noted
that a difficulty these approaches confront is that of finding objective
measures of “good” or “‘bad”’ solutions; a consequent tendency of these
approaches is to engage in subjective moral judgments. Nonetheless, the |
interface of the competing perspectives is useful in leading us to consider
the influence that business or capitalist interests may have on the passage
of these laws, the opposition or support these laws receive, and the role of
dominant societal values in the passage of these laws. Some conclusions
related to these points now can be offered.
First, although there is evidence that business or capital took an active
interest in the passage of some of this legislation, we cannot conclude that
this influence predominated. In fact, the clearest finding to emerge from
the summary tables we have presented in this chapter is the large number
of interest groups that took part in these legislative activities. The picture is
complicated further by the fact that these groups and their members often
differed on the issues that confronted them. Gusfield (1963) observes a
fundamental ambivalence among temperance forces; Hagan and Leon
(1977; see also Hagan, 1980) identify a basic division of views on the
character of delinquency legislation; and Holmes (1972) outlines an
important disparity in legislative approaches to prostitution.
Furthermore, we lack a clear understanding of the connections among
such groups, particularly during the progressive era. Knowledge of the
connections would help us to understand similarities and differences
among the groups and the degree of influence or indifference that
characterized their relationships.
However, the problems of identifying relationships between active
interest groups pale in comparison with the difficulties of discovering the
opposition or support these legislative efforts elicited in the general
population. There is simply very little evidence on this issue. Of the laws
we considered, only prohibition is known to have encountered concerted
90 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

opposition, and of course it ultimately was repealed. This renders ambigu-

ous the theoretical meaning of the otherwise significant fact that almost all
the legislation we have examined appears to have been directed against
portions of the urban poor. The problem is that it may be just as plausible
to assume that legislation (other than prohibition) received passive accept-
ance, or even support, from the urban poor as it is to assume that a
substantial number of citizens offered active resistance to passage of these
laws. This raises the interesting question of why so few resisted the
intrusion of criminal law into what were previously noncriminal domains.
A part of the answer to this question may involve the role in the
legislative process of dominant societal values. Delinquency, probation,
and prostitution laws all were justified as essential to the preservation of
the family, and alcohol and drug laws also were associated with general
middle-class values. The progressive era was a period in which these values
were perceived to be challenged by urbanization and rapid social change.
The real issue, then, is how these values were connected to various
legislative reform efforts in the public mind.
The key to this issue may be the media. Delinquency, alcohol, drug,
sexual psychopath, and prostitution laws all received considerable media
attention. Our review has noted this publicity repeatedly; indeed, much of
the research itself is based on contemporary publicity in newspapers and
magazines. The recent study by Berk, Brackman, and Lesser (1977) of
changes in the California Penal Code from 1955 to 1971 adds to this
picture. Berk et al. find that editorials published in the Los Angeles Times
had a persistent, nonspurious, and substantial correlation with legislative
outcomes. Specifically, the number of column inches in Times editorials
devoted to crime-related issues anticipated by one year each of the
following: greater increases in criminalization, greater increases in the
severity of penalties, greater increases in the rights and resources provided
for prosecutors, and smaller increases in the rights and resources provided
for defendants. These researchers then note that the Times is an influential
paper published by a prominent family closely linked to elite circles of
policy discussion, if not policy decision. Yet Berk and his colleagues (ibid.,
p. 294) acknowledge that problems remain in spelling out the causal
implications of this situation: “it was often not at all clear to us which
specific criminal justice proposals automatically favored business interests,
and we suspect that economic elites frequently confront similar complexi-
ties” (emphasis in original). Thus elites clearly have a role to play in the
legislation of crime and delinquency, but so also do interest groups more
generally, dominant social values, and the media. In the end, the most
important point to be made in this chapter is that the social and economic
 LEGISLATING CRIME AND DELINQUENCY: THE MAKING OF STATE MORALITY 91

origins of our criminal laws cannot be taken for granted; the origins of the
laws often are as worthy of study as the behaviors they seek to control.
The last point is particularly important to keep in mind as we move to
the topic of the next chapter, the measurement of crime. Measurements
can do no better than the definitions on which they are based. As we will
see, shifting definitions of crime often have produced dubious understand-
ings of the distribution and correlates of crime.
COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY
MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY

THE ISSUE: WHO, WHAT, WHEN...

Who does what? When? How often? To whom? These are the perennial
questions about crime. There is no scarcity of answers. Indeed there is a
surplus. The problem is that the answers seldom satisfy. Dissatisfaction
follows from the fact that our measures of crime are of doubtful accuracy.
This is, of course, true of all social and economic indicators (e.g., rates of
inflation and unemployment). All known measures are assumed liable to
error. And therefore the counts continue. These efforts are encouraged by
the assumptions that some inadequacies of our measures can be corrected,
and that even inadequate measures can tell us things that we otherwise
would not know. In this chapter we adopt these assumptions and try to
answer questions like the following: Are rates of crime increasing? Are
men more criminal than women? Are there class differences in criminal
behavior? How criminal are the corporations? But before we offer answers
to such questions, it is necessary that we ask several questions about the
counting of crime itself.

ACCOUNTABLE COUNTS
Who is counting what, whom, and why? The purpose of posing the
preceding questions is to encourage some healthy skepticism. The counting
of crime is a socially organized activity, with its own intrinsic causes and
consequences. Numerous governmental agencies, for example, the police,
courts, and correctional institutions, are involved in the official counting of
crime—and all of these agencies have budgets and are managed by
individuals whose careers may be influenced by the counts of crime they
produce. Apart from the criminal behavior to be counted, then, there are
factors at work that can influence the tallies rendered. For example,
Seidman and Couzens (1974) report on the period in 1969 when Jerry V.
Wilson was appointed chief of police in Washington, D.C. Wilson an-
nounced that police officers who could not reduce crime in their jurisdic-
tions would be replaced. It will perhaps come as little surprise that the
92
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 93

official figures “improved.” Seidman and Couzens surmise that “the

political importance of crime apparently caused pressures, subtle or
otherwise, to be felt by those who record crime.’’ Similarly, New York City
was once excluded briefly from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports for
suspect reporting, and Graham and Gurr (1969, p. 380) reports that
Philadelphia was once found to have 5,000 more crime reports on file than
recorded officially. Another city was found to have a secret “‘file 13”
containing a catalog of complaints that were not officially reported. Counts
of crime from such cities, then, may say as much or more about the sources
and circumstances of their collection as about the persons and events
counted (Kitsuse and Cicourel, 1963; McCleary et al., 1982). A reasonable
question is whether some sense can be made of such statistics.
The response we propose to this question begins with the assumption |
that all such statistics consist of several components. The first component
derives from the persons and their behaviors that we presumably wish to ,
count. We will call this the ““behavioral component.” A second component
derives from the errors that lead to persons and their behaviors being
overreported or underreported in the counts we consider. We will call this
the “error component.” All counts of crime of any magnitude will at least
contain some random errors of measurement. Most, for reasons like those
indicated above, also contain systematic sources of error. To the extent
that we can identify systematic errors, we will be able to isolate a third
component of crime statistics. We will call this the “response component,”
since it consists of errors that derive from the individuals and organizations
that respond to crime. Criminologists are increasingly interested in the
response component of crime counts (Black, 1970). This interest derives
from the knowledge that systematic sources of error can serve significant
social purposes, including the political motivations we have noted, and
other kinds of interests discussed below.
Fortunately, the several components of crime statistics we have dis-
cussed can be explored and even estimated through the use of alternative
(or multiple) measures (cf. Campbell and Fiske, 1959). For example,
imagine that we are interested in knowing the extent of heroin addiction in
a jurisdiction. Arrests for possession or sale of heroin represent one source
of information. However, because drug use is often a private pursuit
without persons to complain about it, most heroin use will escape official
detection. The heroin addiction that comes to official attention will be the
product of various kinds of systematic as well as random sources of error.
An alternative measure of heroin addiction can be derived from hospital
records of deaths due to heroin overdoses. These records will also contain
errors. However, to the extent that the different measures agree, we will be
encouraged as to the accuracy of the results; to the extent that the various
94 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

measures disagree, we may be directed to possible sources of error. It is to

this kind of comparative assessment that this chapter is devoted.
Data useful in the kind of comparative assessment we are encouraging
come from five sources: (1) official agencies of crime control; (2) nonoffi-
cial agencies of crime control; (3) first-person accounts; (4) victimization
surveys; and (5) observational reports. We will use such sources to answer
the kinds of questions posed at the outset of this chapter. Before doing so,
however, we first will introduce in some additional detail the different
sources of our data and the ways that we will comparatively use them.

OFFICIAL CRIME DATA

Official crime counts are readily available from the various government
agencies assigned responsibility for controlling crime. The best-known of
the counts in the United States is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR).
These reports are organized and reported by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on the basis of datait receives from most, but not all, U.S.
police departments. The reports deal primarily with “‘crimes known to the ——..

police” (CKP). These are crimes that in one way or another come to police
attention and are ‘‘found’’—or in other words confirmed, at least to the
extent that the police believe the behavior occurred and was a crime. Most
discussions of UCR statistics focus on what are called ‘“‘index crimes,”’ eight
crimes that the FBI argues are most likely to be reported to the police and
that occur with enough frequency to allow comparisons across times and
places. The index crimes include murder and nonnegligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor
vehicle theft, and arson.
Index crime rates are presented at length in the Uniform Crime Reports,
along with percentage changes in the rates. The statistics frequently are
subject to discussion in the media. It therefore is important to note briefly
how they are calculated. To calculate a rate we need to know the number of
events (e.g., crimes) that have occurred during a specified period of time
(e.g., a year) and the population (e.g., persons, cars) at risk. The point is
to draw a comparison between events and the risk of them. Note that the
population at risk may appropriately be cars, men, women, children or any
other relevant base we wish to choose, depending on whether the event
considered is car theft, rape, child molesting, or some other crime (see also
Gibbs and Erickson, 1976). The idea is to make the comparison of the event
and the population at risk meaningful. Unfortunately, the event and
population measures seldom come from the same source—crime statistics
usually come from the police, population statistics from the census—and
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 95

this may lead to further problems of comparison. With all of this in mind, a
crime rate will take the form of (A/B)C, where A is the event counted, B is
the population, and C is a constant, usually the number of 100,000 persons
in the population.
Official crime statistics like those provided by the UCR serve one very
important purpose: they indicate the extent to which, and the methods
whereby, government agencies of crime control are dealing with the
behavior they officially define as criminal. Notwithstanding this important
purpose, some common deficiencies of official crime data should be noted:
1 An indeterminable amount of criminal behavior goes undetected, is
handled by private means, or otherwise remains beyond public knowledge
(e.g. crimes against bureaucracies [Smigel and Ross, 1970]), including
much white-collar crime.
2 Some criminal behavior that is reported to the police is not recorded
(see Hood and Sparks, 1970, p. 35).
3 Categories of criminal behavior are defined vaguely and variously
recorded (see discussion below).
4 Bases used in computing crime rates vary, and are frequently
inappropriate (e.g., using the number of females and males as the base for
computing rape rates).
A challenge of working with official crime data is to identify the sources
of the deficiencies, and to correct or compensate for them. Hindelang
(1974, p. 2) makes this point well when he observes that ‘“‘researchers who
refuse to examine even a blurred reflection of the phenomenon may be
discarding an opportunity to reduce ignorance about the phenomenon in
question; further, by refusing to explore ways in which prior indicators of a
phenomenon may be improved, lack of progress toward more satisfactory
measurement is more likely to be ensured.” The problem is that official
crime statistics are both errorful and essential, leaving us little choice but to
seek better understanding of, and reductions in, the errors.
A creative example of this kind of effort is found in McCleary et al.’s
(1982) study of Uniform Crime Reports in three cities. Uniform Crime
Report burglaries are charted in Figure 4-1 from 1975 to 1981 for one of the
cities. Prior to July 1979, the trend is downward, but from then on the
trend is up. While one explanation of this change is obviously that the
actual incidence of burglary increased, McCleary et al. also note that the
UCR “crime wave’’ coincided with the retirement of an incumbent police
chief. The UCR coding bureau of the department was altered substantially
by an ensuing administrative shake-up. As the bureau’s chain of command
changed, UCR coding clerks gradually began to make coding decisions that
had been made previously by “‘higher-ups.”. McCleary et al. note that
96 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

250.00 Burglaries

225.00}

200.00

175.60

150.00
10!
*Number
Offenses
of

125.00

100.00 = a a
1976 1977 1978 1979 1986 1981
Figure 4-7 Monthly UCR burglaries from January 1975 to May 1981 Note: Vertical
dotted line indicates the month in which an incumbent chief resigned. (Source:
McCleary et al., 1982:23)

crimes that appear to fit the UCR burglary definition on the basis of field
reports are often better categorized as “‘no crime,” theft, vandalism, or
trespass. They further note that the increase shown in Figure 4-1 represents
a change in only two or three UCR burglaries per day, and this is well
within the range one could expect from a slight change in the decision-
making process. The implication is that while previously the authority
hierarchy of the department was suppressing these crimes and, rightly or
wrongly depending on your point of view, deflating the burglary rate, after
the change in administration this policy dissipated. McCleary et al. observe
that the resulting “crime wave” was not unlike others reported in Chicago
(Campbell, 1969; Glass et al., 1975), Kansas City (Guyot, 1976), and
Washington, D.C. (Seidman and Couzens, 1974). The challenge is to
obtain a better understanding of organizationally induced fluctuations of
this kind.

NONOFFICIAL CRIME DATA

Nonofficial sources of data offer an intriguing and increasingly important
alternative source of information on crime. One nonofficial measure of
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 97

variations in property crimes is provided in the premium rates charged by

insurance companies offering coverage against criminal property losses,
including losses by arson and theft (e.g., Price, 1966). Calculated on the
basis of past losses, these rates are profit-inspired. Thus insurance compa-
nies have a financial interest in achieving accuracy. Insurance statistics
have not been used to any great extent, but they have an interesting
potential.
The mortality records of public and private hospitals and public health
agencies are a second source of nonofficial data. These records are used |
most effectively in estimating the prevalence of alcohol- and drug-related ~
crimes (e.g., Ross, 1982; Brenner, 1967), through deaths designated as
resulting from alcoholism, liver cirrhosis, drug abuse and overdoses, and
the incidence of homicide. Of course, a limitation of such estimates is
the accuracy of the health and hospital records themselves (see Leon,
1975):
Private policing organizations (Shallo, 1933; Becker, 1974) and the
security forces of large department stores (Cameron, 1964; Hindelang,
1974a; Feuerverger and Shearing, 1982) provide some of the most interest-
ing nonofficial crime data. Private policing is a growth industry (Spitzer
and Scull, 1977; Shearing and Stenning, 1983), with most large commercial
enterprises having either an internal security division or contracted cover-
age from an outside policing agency. Much of the criminal activity these
organizations and departments monitor, particularly shoplifting and em-
ployee theft, is never reported to the police. This makes these sources of
data that much more important. Business accountant and consultant firms
often uncover similarly important information on patterns of internal theft
(Jaspan and Black, 1960). Concerns about the confidentiality of such
records have limited the use made to date of the kind of information they
provide.
In more general terms, while nonofficial sources of data will seldom
constitute a sufficient basis for the calculation of actual crime rates, they
nonetheless constitute an important resource for confirming and expanding
our knowledge of various kinds of criminality.

FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNTS
The measures we have considered to this point have in common the
liability that they usually are removed several steps from the phenomenon
we wish to study. In effect, they are third-person records of the criminal
events to be examined. As we have noted, there are serious possibilities of
bias involved in the transmission of data from source to record. The
 98 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

error-producing distance from the source is reduced by some relatively

recently developed strategies for collecting first-person accounts. These
strategies include (1) self-report surveys, and (2) field interviews.
Self-report surveys typically involve paper-and-pencil instruments that
ask (usually anonymous) respondents to confess, in Kinsey-like fashion,
the quality and quantity of their indiscretions. Such surveys have been used
for some time now with students in the classroom (e.g., Porterfield, 1946;
Nye and Short, 1957), as well as with adults (e.g., Wallerstein and Wyle,
| 1947). The weaknesses of the self-report approach include memory lapses
'and deceit among subjects, as well as vaguely stated test items and
indefinite periods of coverage. Noting such weaknesses, prominent crimi-
nologists have suggested that ‘“‘the methodological and technical founda-
tions of those [self-report] studies do not invite confidence in the conclu-
sions” (Reiss, 1975, p. 214), and that ‘“‘confessional data are at least as
weak as the official statistics they are supposed to improve upon” (Netter,
1974, p. 86).
Nonetheless, self-report data are suggestive of the volume and social
location of various forms of crime and delinquency, and if appropriate
questions and sampling procedures are used, the findings can be genera-
lized and usefully compared with official data sources. Self-report mea-
sures have also proved useful in studying the causes of crime and
delinquency, as illustrated by much of the research on what we call in
Chapter 5 the theories of ‘‘undercontrol.”’ Hindelang et al. (1981, p. 212)
make the point well when they note that,
The self-report method easily demonstrates that people will report
crimes, that they will report crimes not known to officials, that they
are highly likely to report those crimes known to Officials, and that
their reports of crimes are internally consistent. These facts are
rightly taken as evidence that the procedure is potentially useful as
an alternative to traditional procedures, particularly for studying
the etiology of delinquency. These facts, of course, do not guaran-
tee that the method will produce equally reliable and valid results
in all demographic subgroups and under all research conditions.
Once it has been determined, however, that the method works at
all... , the next step is to deal with the traditional reliability and
validity criteria in some more direct way.
\The same attitude is adopted in this book.
i Field interviews offer the opportunity of moving one step closer to the
source by meeting the subject population in its own setting. This first-hand
strategy for the collection of crime data is not commonly used by
criminologists. An obvious reason such a strategy is uncommon involves
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 99

the problem of getting subjects to talk to. However, Ned Polsky (1969, p.
124), a forceful advocate of this approach, asserts that “from students,
faculty, and others I have had more offers of introductions to career
criminals—in and out of organized crime—than I could begin to follow
up.”’ From there, Polsky suggests the task is simply one of accumulation:
“get an introduction to one criminal who will vouch for you with others,
who in turn will vouch for you with still others.” Polsky does not propose
that researchers participate in, or even witness, their subjects’ acts.
Instead, the emphasis is placed on in-depth interviews and group discus-
sions. One example of this kind of field research is found in Peter
Letkeman’s (1973) intriguing study of bank robbers and safecrackers.
Perhaps in part because he was able to study these offenders in their
natural settings, Letkeman found his subjects rather conventionally un-
conventional in their careerist aspirations; and thus the title of his book,
Crime as Work.

VICTIMIZATION SURVEYS
Criminal acts of deviance often involve a victim as well as an offender.
Victims too, then, are a source of information about criminal deviance.
Victimization surveys are the modern means of tapping this resource. The
first of these surveys was conducted in the United States in the mid-1960s
(Biderman et al., 1967; Ennis, 1967). The significance of this new approach
to the measurement of crime is now well-recognized, as is reflected by the
federal government’s funding of a National Crime Survey, as well as
several local and state-level investigations (e.g., Crime in Eight American
Cities, 1974).
Victimization surveys initially were conducted on a house-to-house
basis. It is significant to note that the focus of victimization surveys is
somewhat different from that of official crime statistics: “Unlike the official
system, whose interest is not ordinarily in the victim qua victim, but rather _
as complainant or witness, the victim is the survey’s unit and focus”
(Biderman, 1981, p. 810). Respondents in the early surveys were asked:
(1) whether they personally had been victims of specific crimes in the past
year; (2) whether any member of the household had been victimized; (3)
the “very worst crime”’ that had ever happened to the respondents; and (4)
the ‘‘very worst crime” that had ever happened to anyone currently living
in the household. More recent innovations have included the use of
telephone interviews based on random-digit dialing, and more intensive
attention to the personal experiences of victims. Regardless of method,
victimization surveys have consistently informed us that the volume of
100 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

crime unreported to official agencies is large. The first national victim-

ization survey, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center
(NORC) and reported by Ennis, found that over a one-year period twice as
many major crimes were reported to survey interviewers as were reported
nationally in the UCR.
It should be emphasized that victimization surveys do not deal with all
kinds of crime. They usually are concerned with crimes committed by
‘individuals against other persons and/or their property. They are obviously
“not concerned with the ‘“‘victimless crimes’’: gambling, prostitution, public-
disorder offenses, and alcohol and drug abuse. With some noteworthy
exceptions discussed below, they also ignore crimes by, and against,
corporations. Inevitably, there are problems of method. For example,
' « Respondents who are unwilling or unavailable to participate (e.g.,
,commuters less frequently are available than homemakers and old people).
'« Problems of memory, deception, and the reluctance to recall some
types of events (e.g., family quarrels or sexual attacks).
| ¢ Varying interpretations of survey categories and the events included
within them.
¢ “Forward and backward telescoping,” or the process of remembering
events as more recent or distant than they are, thus invalidating the
intended time coverage of the survey (Skogan, 1975).
The existence of these deficiencies should be balanced against the
unique kinds of findings victimization surveys provide, and the promise the
method offers. A balanced viewpoint is urged by one of the method’s
pioneers, Albert Biderman (1981, p. 812), who suggests that “‘while it [the
victim survey] undoubtedly is the single most important recent develop-
ment in criminological methodology, and while it already has had profound
results in reorienting the conceptual structure and problem agendas of the
pertinent disciplines, the revolutionary potential of the victim survey will
not be realized for a considerable period of time.”’
Finally, it is interesting and potentially important to note that while
victimization research has tended to be “person-centered” (Reiss, 1981),
organizations—particularly commercial corporate organizations, and espe-
cially large retail stores—also are victims of crime (Hagan, 1983). Some
victimization data have been collected on these victims as well, and are
considered later in this chapter.

OBSERVATIONAL DATA
Direct observation takes us a final step beyond first-hand accounts and
victim reports. Observational studies are not frequent in criminology, but
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 101

the methods involved are receiving increased attention (e.g., McCall and
Simmons, 1969; Reiss, 1971a, 1971b). Work of this kind usually takes one
of two forms: where the observers are overt or covert participants in the
situations observed, typically called “participant observation studies”; and
where the participants are less aware of the observers’ presence, often
called ‘‘field observation studies.”
A provocative example of a participant observation study is Laud
Humphreys’s (1970) research on homosexual encounters in public wash-
rooms. The initial problem to be faced in this research was predictable:
how “‘to take a ‘natural part’ in the action without actual involvement of a
sexual nature” (ibid., pp. 26-27). Humphreys’s “‘solution” (ibid., p. 27)
was premised on an organizational role that derives from the threat of
criminalization involved in the behaviors to be explained.
The very fear and suspicion encountered in the restrooms pro-
duces a participant role, the sexuality of which is optional. This is
the role of the lookout (“watchqueen” in the argot), a man who is
situated at the door or windows from which he may observe the
means of access to the restroom.
The use of these and other research strategies resulted in a set of
findings that are relevant to the issue of criminalization. For example,
Humphreys reports that adult homosexuals seeking sex in public wash-
rooms avoid, rather than approach, persons under the age of consent.
More recently, Weinberg and Williams (1975) have offered a detailed
account of the social organization of homosexual contacts in gay baths.
This kind of research has not always earned the praise of professional
peers. Krisberg (1972), for example, suggests that some of the more
explicit passages of Humpreys’s account constitute “‘sociological pornogra-
phy” (to be more explicit, a “‘blow-by-blow account”’!). However, it does
seem appropriate that as a society we know something about the persons
we harass and the behaviors we condemn. We address this point further
below.
Systematic field observation with a reduced participatory role is well
illustrated by Albert Reiss’s research (19715) on police behavior and the
processing of criminal and delinquent behavior. In this study, thirty-six
trained observers recorded observations in three of North America’s
largest cities. For seven consecutive weeks observers rode in patrol cars
and walked with police officers on their beats on all shifts in each of the
three cities. A major concern in this research was that the presence of the
observer not alter or disturb the encounters between officers and citizens
who were the subject of the study. To minimize the influence the observers
might have on police behavior, officers were told that the primary purpose
of the study was to observe the behaviors of suspects. The observers were
102 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

also instructed to avoid any direct participation in the encounters. Of

course, this was not always possible, as the following incident report
(Reiss, 1971a, p. 20) makes clear:
Both officers were very grateful to have this observer along in an
on-view incident. A fight ensued in No. 3 incident where both
officers lost control of the offender and this observer had to
restrain him. . . . |might add that in the process ofthe fight either |
was bitten by the offender or my hand scraped against his mouth,
because | have two lovely abrasions on my hand.
There are also ethical and legal problems that accompany observational
studies. Informed consent cannot usually be obtained from the persons
observed in this kind of research. The situation was further complicated in
Humphreys’s research by the use of a disguised follow-up interview.
Humphreys had noted the license numbers of his subjects’ cars as they
departed from the public washrooms. The license numbers were then used
to track down respondents for the follow-up interviews. The interviews
were conducted under the pretext of being social health surveys. This
strategy later attracted considerable attention and debate (see, for exam-
ple, Horowitz and Rainwater, 1970; Von Hoffman, 1970). To some, the
strategy was a deceit and an intolerable invasion of privacy (Sagarin, 1973).
Others argued that if you do not “exploit,” reveal, or otherwise demean
subjects, little or no harm is done. To assure this, some observers offer to
guarantee the confidentiality of their findings. However, such guarantees
ignore the fact that court subpoenas and other legal devices can be used to
force disclosure. Thus Reiss (1971a, p. 16) observes that “‘one cannot be
certain that one’s observers will fulfili the guarantees given, and lacking
the professional privileges of confidentiality of information, one cannot
protect one’s employees against legal sanction.’’ On the other hand, Reiss
(ibid.) concludes that ‘‘this is not to say that one must simply inform
organizations that no such guarantees can be given.’’ Furthermore, none of
the legal and ethical questions we have considered diminishes the ‘‘quality
of closeness” provided by observational methods we have described.

MAKING THE MANY MEASURES MEANINGFUL

We have introduced various ways of counting crime, but the task remains
of showing how these different counts can be compared and thereby used
to improve our knowledge of crime. Criminologists, like other scientists,
want two things from their measures: reliability and validity. Measures
usually are considered reliable to the extent that they attain consistency or
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 103

stability in the measurement of a phenomenon. Measures typically are

considered valid to the extent that they are judged to measure faithfully
what we want them to measure, in this case criminal or delinquent
behavior. Thus reliable measures count the same thing with the same
results over and over again, while valid measures count what it is we think
we want counted in the first place. Criminologists more easily have been
convinced of the reliability than of the validity of their measures (Clark and
Tift, 1966; Farington, 1973; Bachmann et al., 1978). We will give greater
attention, then, to issues of validation.
Measures of crime and delinquency can be tested for their convergent
and discriminant validity (Campbell and Fiske, 1959). Convergent validity
is tested by the degree to which measures thought to have similar meanings
are related strongly to one another. Discriminant validity is tested by the
degree to which measures thought to have different meanings are related
weakly. Our interest is in how the notions of convergent and discriminant
validity can be used to make the many measures of crime and delinquency
more meaningful.
An example of how this can be done is found in an effort by Hindelang,
Hirschi, and Weis (1981) to assess the validity of self-report measures of
delinquency. Incorporating most of the measures introduced above,
Hindelang et al. use several validation strategies, outlined in Figure 4-2.
The figure identifies links between different measures of delinquency, all of
which are relevant to issues of validity. Note that in the figure delinquent

Figure 4-2 Validation strategies. (Source: Hindeland et al., 1981:98)

104 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

behavior is represented within a broken circle. This is meant to symbolize

the fact that the actual behavior is known only indirectly, on the basis of
our imperfect and incomplete measures. The idea is to use the interrela-
tions among the measures to tell us something about each of the measures
and its validity as an indicator of the indirectly known behavior.
Link 1 in the figure reflects the extent to which self-reports of delinquent
acts correspond to self-reported contacts with the law. Since many
delinquents’ acts are undiscovered, unreported (both by the delinquents
and by the police), and unrecorded, we should not expect the relationship
between these measures to be extremely high. Nonetheless, there should
be some correspondence. Furthermore, the relationship should probably
be stronger than that represented by line 3, the connection between
self-reported delinquent acts and official records, since official actions
(e.g., warnings) do not necessarily lead to official records. Meanwhile, line
2, between self-reported official actions and official records, should be
fairly strong. That is, to the extent that self-report questions ask about the
kinds of official actions that lead to official records (e.g., arrests), there
should be a high degree of correspondence. Link 4 represents the
connection between self-reported delinquent acts and nonofficial mea-
sures, including victimization surveys, teachers’ and friends’ reports, and
direct observations. To the extent that these different measures are
directed at a common set of events, a correspondence should be found.
Finally, link 5 considers the extent to which nonofficial and official
measures correspond. This is the only linkage that does not involve any
reliance on self-report data. However, the existence of such a link can still
be important to the consideration of self-report measures. For example, if
self-report measures were found uncorrelated with the official measures
(link 3), then a positive correlation between unofficial and official sources
of information (link 5) would suggest that the self-report measures were of
questionable validity.
Fortunately, recent studies using combinations of the above measures
provide enough evidence of the above links to give us some confidence in
using their results to answer questions like those posed at the outset of this
chapter. For example, the efforts of Hindelang et al. to estimate links in
Figure 4-2 using self-report and official data regarding adolescents in
Seattle yields the pattern of results, broken down by sex and race,
indicated in Figure 4-3. Without belaboring the details of this study,
several points should be noted. First, the link 2 relationships between
self-reported official contacts and official measures of delinquency are, as
expected, the strongest overall. Second, the link 1 and 3 relationships
between self-reported behavior and, respectively, self-reported official
contacts and official records are, again as expected, smaller but still
substantial. Finally, the link 4 and 5 measures are slightly smaller still, but
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 105

Link #1

WM = .63 .70 Link #2

51 BM =.47 53
.40 WF = 60 .64 WM = .83
42 Bie SAN Si BM =
‘ 58 ——— Ever variety Wino.
Ever variety only BF =
only
Link #5

WM
BM
WF rsje) = om a rep) ron)x)
BF ound
32 BEe=hw
ti 50858
Ever variety
only

Figure 4-3 Mean gamma’s for the relationships among various indicators of delinquen-
cy, by race and sex. Seattle study. Weighted data. (Source: Hindelang et al., 1981:13)

nonetheless clearly indicate that there is some correspondence between the

unofficial sources and self-reports of delinquency, and between the former
and official records. Hindelang et al. (1981, p. 114) conclude from all this
that “the self-report method appears to behave reasonably well when
judged by standard criteria available to social scientists.”’
None of this is to say that self-report and other measures are without
problems. There is, for example, considerable difficulty involved in
developing self-report items and samples that tap delinquent behaviors of
equal seriousness to those found in official data. We address this issue
further below. There are also problems of racial differences in the
self-reporting of offenses apparent in Hindelang et al.’s results. Note that
in Figure 4-3 smaller relationships are generally reported for black males
(see link 3 in particular) than for other groups. Black delinquents appear to
report less fully than white delinquents. Hindelang et al. speculate that this
follows from the low saliency of such behavior for those who are more
likely to be involved. However, data from this study (ibid., p. 123) also
indicate that racial differences in reporting are smallest when the reports
are received in nonanonymous interviews. The implication may be that a
greater sensitivity in methodology—for example, involving the use of more
personalized and natural settings (see discussion of Polsky’s field interview
techniques above)—could further improve the results.
We have now laid the groundwork for our comparative use of the
various measures of crime and delinquency to answer the questions posed
at the outset of this chapter.
106 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

ARE CRIME RATES INCREASING?

There is widespread agreement that crime rates, most significantly rates of
violent crimes, increased in the United States, Canada, and most western
European societies during the 1960s and 1970s. However, to say only this,
and leave it at that, would be misleading and would miss much that is most
intriguing about the rise and fall of crime rates in western societies like the
United States. For one thing, we may be entering a period of decline or
stabilization in crime rates. For another, it may be misguided to believe
that crime is at some sort of all-time high. In any case, to think more
broadly about crime rates is to entertain the possibility that things are
somewhat different from what they may otherwise currently seem to be.
Criminologists have long been skeptical of ever-increasing crime rates,
and with good reason. We have already encouraged a healthy skepticism
with regard to official crime data, the data that must be relied on for any
long-term view of variations in crime. Unfortunately, it is when we start to
look at the official data on crime over time in America that the sources of
this skepticism become most apparent. We begin with the fact that most
available studies indicate that the crime rate in America rose rapidly after
World War I and the economic boom of the twenties, and then nose-dived
within a year or so after the crash of 1929 (Graham and Gurr, 1969, p.
375). However, when the FBI publishes its own crime charts in the
Uniform Crime Reports, it cuts off the downward years. A result is to
dramatize the upward swing that begins in the 1960s. (You can get a sense
of what difference this makes by covering up the period to 1960 in Figure
4-4.) One consequence of this practice is that even before crime rates
quickly began to move upwards in the mid-1960s, the FBI was already
“crying wolf.’’ Equally disturbing was the FBI’s annual publication of
“crime clocks.”” As Graham and Gurr (1969, p. 382) notes:

This baffling presentation, year after, of the shrinking average

interval between the commission of various offenses across the
country, seems to have no purpose other than sheer terror.
Because the population is growing, the interval between crimes
would necessarily narrow each year, even if the crime rate was not
increasing. Thus the hands of the F.B.I.’s “crime clocks” invariably
show fewer minutes between crimes than for the previous year.

Still, all official data are not equally bad, and some of the data actually
show encouraging signs of validity. Homicide statistics are a case in point.
The national victimization survey reported by Ennis (1967) reveals only
slightly fewer reports of murder than the official data (the disparity is
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 107

9.0

6.0

Rates
100,000
population
per oH fo)

ie UCR murder and

4.0 :
non-negligent
manslaughter

aeons meen 8) Ne albu" ST ee

"4935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970
Years

Figure 4-4 Rates of homicide in the United States as reported by the Uniform Crime
Reports and The Center for Health Statistics, 1935-1971. (Source: Hindelang, 1974:4)

presumably a comment on “how soon we forget” and the inability of

victims to provide a reminder!), while a comparison of data from the
Center for Health Statistics (CHS) and the Uniform Crime Reports over a
thirty-six-year period in the United States (see Fig. 4-4) yields nearly an
identical picture of annual homicide rates (Hindelang, 1974). This at least
confirms our suspicion that bodies are difficult to hide and that this official
measure deserves some credibility. Meanwhile, as other kinds of official
data are collected over long periods of time, across many places, and with
some consistency, and as contrasting assumptions are brought into play to
make sense of their results, it may be possible to discern broad and
meaningful trends. The remainder of this section is devoted to identifying
such trends.
One trend-setting study in its own right was Ferdinand’s (1967; see also
1972) research on criminal patterns in Boston since 1849. This study
 108 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

examines approximately a century of annual arrest reports from Boston for

the period from 1849 to 1951 for seven major crimes. What is interesting
about this study is that it shows a general pattern of decline from the 1870s
to the 1950s. As indicated in Figure 4-5, the period immediately before the
Civil War saw a high rate of major crime, but during and shortly after the
Civil War, crime declined, only to rise to an all-time peak in 1875-1878.
From that time until the middle of the twentieth century, the crime rate
declined steadily in Boston to a level about one-third that in 1875-1878.
When Ferdinand turned his attention to specific crimes he found that most
offenses, including probably the most accurately measured crime of
murder, showed a pattern of decline. Only forcible rape showed a clear
tendency to increase over the 100-year period.

Figure 4-5 Rate of major crimes in Boston per 100,000 population, 1849-1951. (Source:
Ferdinand, 1967-87)
2,000.0

1,900.0

1,800.0

1,700.0

1,600.0 }—

1,500.0 L|

1,400.0 |—

1,300.0

1,200.0

1,100.0

1,000.0 |

900.0

800.0 |

700.0

600.0 :
1849- 00s pode ‘72- |'80-| '86-| '92- |’98- | '04-| 10- |'16- | ‘22- |’28-] *34- | ’40-| "46
53 62 | 68 |'74 |’82 | ’88 | '94 |1900] 06 |12 118 |’24 |’30 |’36 | ’42 ‘48
me 6S. iG9- ie ESS “EE EES ilo Wye ke “eS wee Bla Bye Ze UR
G5 71 878 184° O41" 1197" 909" "09" “5 91 7) os Gon AG nd
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 109

Similarly, Lane (1968) used crime statistics from nineteenth-century

Massachusetts to make the point that the metropolis at the end of the
nineteenth century was a less violent and disorderly place than the small
commercial city of the 1840s. This study indicates that while ‘“public-
disorder” offenses, notably drunkenness, wére increasing, ‘“‘real’’ criminal
activity, defined as the commission of offenses against persons and
property, was decreasing. Thus Lane concludes that crime was in decline
during this period despite rapid urbanization. He even argues that the
increase in public-disorder offenses is consistent with the trend, noting that
with less real crime to contend with, police were concentrating on
enforcing higher standards of public behavior. From this viewpoint, rising
arrests for drunkenness are consistent with actual decreases in its occur-
rence.
Lane (1974) has gone on to make the point that British as well as
American scholars are agreed that the preindustrial population of the early
eighteenth century was far more criminal than the largely urbanized and
more fully industrialized population of the late nineteenth century. Of
Britain, Lane (1980, p. 29) notes that ‘‘first in the factory towns, then in
agricultural districts dominated increasingly by rational entrepreneurs,
lastly in the great commercial (nonindustrial) metropolis of London, a
nation once famed for its boozy rowdiness at public hangings acquired a
stereo-type involving roses, tea, and understatement.’’ More generally,
Lane (1980, p. 35; see also Monkkonen, 1975, 1981) suggests that when
measured over any considerable period of the nineteenth century, most
studies show that serious crime, however defined, was either declining or,
at worst, stable. The evidence of decline is particularly strong in England.
Monkkonen (1981) has put together data on public-disorder offenses
from a large number of American cities for the years 1860 to 1980. In
contrast to the findings (but not necessarily the conclusions) of the earlier
study by Lane, these data indicate overall decline in per capita arrests for
public misbehavior from the onset of the Civil War to the present (see Fig.
4-6). There are of course interruptions in this trend, the most spectacular
of which is a burst in drunk and disorderly-conduct arrests which occurred
between 1945 and 1946. Monkkonen speculates that three factors linked to
the demobilization following World War II produced this burst: the
increased numbers in arrest-prone age groups (young men), the return to
work of younger police officers, and the increased postprohibition con-
sumption of alcohol. While Monkkonen (1981, p. 545) acknowledges the
difficulty in knowing whether these rates reflect actual changes in public
behavior and an overall decline in public order, and also that not all cities
followed this pattern, he nonetheless concludes that “if anything, the
110 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

1,000
Arrests
per

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980

Year

Figure 4-6 Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct per 1,000 population, urban
data, 1860-1977. (Source: Monkkonen, 1981:543)

biases in the data should have distorted the trend in an upward direction,
making the actual downward direction seem all the more reliable.”
However, easily the most interesting finding in the literature on
variations in crime rates over time is the suggestion of a U-shaped curve in
the occurrence of serious crimes. This curve has been discussed most
extensively by Gurr (1979, 1981, see also Gurr et al., 1977), but it can be
discerned in the work of Monkkonen (1981), and has been observed by
Lane (1980, p. 36; see also 1979) as well. While Gurr (1981, p. 296) is
cautious in his assessment of evidence for the curve, noting that “‘the
evidence for it is substantial in some societies, especially the English-
speaking and Scandinavian countries, but either lacking or contradictory in
others,” Lane (1980, p. 36) is somewhat less guarded in pointing to the
“exciting possibility that there is a single comprehensive explanation for
long-term trends in the Western world as a whole over the past two
centuries.”” Here we can note only a small part of the evidence for the
curve.
One part of the evidence involves a long-term trend from about 1200 to
the present in English homicide. This trend is traced in Figure 4-7 and is
predominantly and dramatically downward, with the beginning of an
upward turn in the mid-twentieth century. What is most dramatic in the
figure, and perhaps most important in adding perspective to our current
circumstances, is that rates of violent crime were far higher in medieval and
early modern England than in the twentieth century—probably ten and
possibly twenty or more times higher. This is the case in spite of the
increases that seem to have begun since the 1950s, and in spite of many ups
and downs along the way (Beattie, 1974).
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 111

e Oxford

@ London

~
owe
~ e
SS ®
_~
SS e
N“ e
® London

10
ry e

© Bristol

Essex , eee
l | ef ts
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Figure 4-7 \ndicators of homicides per 100,000 population in England, thirteenth to
twentieth centuries. Each dot represents the estimated homicide rate for a city or
county for periods ranging from several years to several decades. (Source: Gurr,
1981:313)

More complicated is the evidence from the United States, graphed in

Figure 4-8. This figure broadly documents three surges of interpersonal
violence at approximately fifty-year intervals: 1860, 1900, and 1960. Gurr
(1981, p. 326) notes that these waves or cycles are of such amplitude that it
is impossible to say conclusively whether they are superimposed on a
longer-run decline. However, he then provocatively suggests the follow-
ing:
112 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Chicago

Boston

7
Suffolk 7 28cities
County
Boston

Philadelphia Se New Hampshire

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 4-8 \Indicators of homicides per 100,000 population in the United States,
1840-1980. (Source: Gurr, 1981:325)

To the extent that North America from settlement to industrializa-

tion was an extension of British culture and society, | suspect that
the underlying trend was downward. But as Lane points out
(personal communication), non-English immigrants have unques-
tionably added to the violence of American cities: the Irish,
especially from the 1840s through the 1860s; possibly the Italians,
in the early twentieth century; and in-migrating blacks throughout.
In the end Gurr and also Lane seem convinced of the long-term downward
trends they have observed, even more than the U-shaped curve. Indeed,
Gurr ultimately (1981, p. 342) describes the upturn of recent years in
violent crime as “‘simply the latest, and best-documented, deviation from
the underlying trend.”
Are, then, crime rates increasing? Almost nobody seems to doubt a real
increase in violent crime in most western societies in the 1960s and 1970s.
But the most sophisticated forecasts, taking into account the movement of
baby-boom children out of the violence-prone years and other significant
factors, today suggest a new stability or even a decline in crime rates. One
such forecast, predicting declines for two of three crimes in the 1980s, is
summarized in Table 4-1 (Cohen et al., 1980). The increasing crime rates of
the 1960s and 1970s are of real and immediate importance, but over the
longer term, they may come to seem much less so.
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 113

TABLE 4-17
EQUILIBRIA FORECAST COMPARISONS FOR ROBBERY,
BURGLARY, AND AUTOMOBILE THEFT RATES, UNITED
STATES, 1977 AND 1985

Equilibria

Equation used to 1977

forecast (ex post) 1985 (ex ante)

Robbery rate, (3) ........ 318.3 236.3*, 217.47

Burglary rate, (5) ........ 1,509.6 1,798.2*, 1,821.4t
Automobile theft rate, (8). . 536.0 492.3*, 454.17

*Assumes a 5% unemployment rate.

tAssumes a 6% unemployment rate.
Source: Cohen et al., 1980 p. 113.

ARE THERE CLASS DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR?

Few issues in criminology cause more controversy than the question of
whether criminal behavior is differentially distributed by class. Much of the
controversy derives from two assumptions about the occurrence of criminal
behavior in the “‘underclass.”’ The first assumption is that poverty induces
many socially injurious experiences and an unequal distribution of oppor-
tunities, both of which are conducive to increased criminal behavior. The
second assumption is that the poor are victims of discrimination by
authorities, leading to their more frequent apprehension, prosecution,
conviction, and punishment for criminal behavior. The first assumption
suggests that members of the underclass are more criminal in their
behavior. The second assumption suggests that apart from any behavioral
differences, members of the underclass are more likely to be processed as
criminals. However, note that while these assumptions are quite different
from one another, both may still be true. Indeed, we will argue that both of
these assumptions are true. The interesting question is, How true is each?
The first of the above assumptions, that criminal behavior is class-linked, is
examined in this section. The second assumption, that class differences
derive from discriminatory enforcement, is considered in Chapter 8.
Official records of crime and delinquency suggest an uneven distribution
of offenses by class. As early as 1889 in Italy, Bonger (1916) noted that
indigents constituted from 74.7 to 88.1 percent of convictions for all
crimes, excluding forgery. It comes as little surprise that in nineteenth-
century Italy the “‘well-to-do” were less likely to commit crimes and less
114 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

likely to be convicted for doing so. However, early American research

conducted at the census tract and neighborhood level of analysis produced
a similar picture. For example, Shaw and McKay (1942) reported a
correlation of .89 between rates of delinquency and rates of families on
relief across 140 ecological units in Chicago, and subsequent studies in
other large U.S. cities produced similar results (Lander, 1954; Bordua,
1958; Chilton, 1964; Schmid, 1960a, 1960b).
However, the meaning of the above findings is not as straightforward as
may at first seem apparent. First, it is well-known that ecological correla-
tions (relationships based on data collected from areal units like census
tracts) tend to be substantially larger than correlations based on data
collected from individuals (Hannan, 1971). Second, we have noted that
official data may often reflect a ‘“‘response” as well as a “behavioral”
component. To begin to sort out these components, we must first get some
sense of what is going on in the official data at the individual level.
Two recent literature reviews (Tittle, Villemez, and Smith, 1978;
Braithwaite, 1981) have considered individual-level studies using official
data. Both conclude that there is some relationship between the class
position and official delinquency of individuals, although Tittle et al. find
this relationship to be declining. We consider these studies further below.
Meanwhile, an unfortunate problem with the individual-level studies of
official delinquency these reviews consider is that they usually are based on
nonrepresentative samples. Hindelang et al. (1981) make this point and
demonstrate with one such study that the class-official delinquency rela-
tionship reduces from .45 to .11 when more appropriate estimation
procedures are used. All of this is to suggest that at the level of individuals,
and considering official data, there well may be some relationship between
class position and delinquent behavior, but that the relationship is not
large. We turn now to the self-report studies.
As we have noted, the self-report method was first applied in the 1940s.
Porterfield (1943) compared the delinquency of Texas college students with
that of children who had been brought before a juvenile court. The
findings revealed that while every college student surveyed reported at
least one offense, there were no class differences in self-reported delin-
quency. Many studies later, the existence of a class-self-reported delin-
quency relationship remains at issue. Tittle et al. (1978) have concluded
that such a relationship is a “myth.”” Using summary measures to bring
together the results of thirty-five studies, Tittle et al. find a small overall
relationship (official and self-report) between class and delinquency
(gamma = —.09), but a very weak relationship when only self-report
measures are used (gamma = —.06). A subsequent review by Braithwaite
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 115

(1981) finds more substantial evidence of a relationship between official

delinquency and class, but the situation with regard to self-report measures
remains unclear. Thus forty-seven of the studies reviewed by Braithwaite
are summarized in Table 4-2, with twenty-five of them finding some
evidence of the expected relationship, and twenty-two reporting no
relationship at all. In sum, the official data are more supportive of a
class-delinquency relationship than are the self-report data. The issue is
why?
One answer we have already suggested and will consider further in
Chapter 8 is that the official data are class-biased, reflecting class prejudice
and discrimination. However, it is equally important to consider the
possibility that self-report and official data are measuring different things.
Self-report instruments vary widely in content (Gold, 1970). Some contain
many items of only minor seriousness, while others tap more serious
infractions. As well, many self-report studies only crudely measure the
frequency with which various infractions occur. Finally, as suggested by the
work of Hindelang et al., some offenders may recall more infractions than
others.
Self-report studies have sometimes candidly acknowledged these points.
For example, in a pioneer study of middle-class delinquency, Edmund Vaz
(1966) finds no higher incidence of delinquency among lower-class respon-
dents than among respondents from the middle and upper classes. This
study usefully emphasizes that much middle- and upper-class delinquency
remains ‘‘hidden.’’ However, Vaz (ibid., p. 25) nonetheless concludes his
study with the observation that “‘the largest amount and toughest kind of
delinquency is found usually in the slum or ‘disorganized’ areas of large
cities.’’ Vaz (ibid.) bases his conclusion on the assumption that his own
research ‘‘does not include the hard-core nor variety of delinquency found
in metropolitan centers.’””» Meanwhile, another indication that different
types of behaviors probably are class-linked is found in the derivation by
Vaz (1965, 1967) of two unidimensional scales for the measurement of
middle-class delinquency (see also Casparis and Vaz, 1973; Clark and
Wenninger, 1962). These scales (1967, p. 141) include the following kinds
of items: “‘taken little things that did not belong to you; gambled for money
at cards, dice, or other games; driven a car beyond the speed limit; skipped
school without a legitimate excuse; been feeling high from drinking beer,
wine, liquor; bought or tried to buy beer, wine, or liquor from a store or
adult; taken a glass of beer, wine, or liquor at a party or elsewhere with
your friends; tried to be intimate (go the limit) with a member of the
opposite sex.’ Most of these behaviors neither require nor inspire an
official response!
 Sim (O86L)
| 9ZL'L ‘gjdwes jeuoijen uojeby pue 301)/5
SoA Lv
SOITUNWIWOO (L96L) BO1UO/|J
ZL6 ‘SiMe pue 49/}U9q
ON G ie)
SalvUNWWOo (Z96L) 4eBulUUan\
vSL'L ‘SNnY pue 44e|5
gON Pue SX 8e 10)
A@MJON 40
: (S96L)
seoie jens pur
iC) ZLE'E ‘uabiag ‘O|SO "ye Je eNSHYD
ON GZ
Ayo "Ss'N
10) ZLY Uda{SOMP!|\) (8Z6L) YIIAOAUIBD
SOA 0€
pue|1aZ}HIMS (€Z6L)
ie) 687 jeany ze pue suedsed
ON ez
eleaysny ‘4oIMsd| (8Z6L) eHemuUeIg
re) ZZv ‘guinoqja|y ‘eueqsig pue ayiemuyieig
ON Ze
| pve eueqsig (6Z6L) eHemMuUesIg
ON SL
(vZ6L)
1@) OOL’E s!oull]] uoWIS pue Jabieg
ON LL
| g9sc'L UOpUO} (8Z6L) UOS|eq
SO €g
| Gtv'l uopuo7] (696L) UOS|eg
SOK vv
ie) O8L Ayla “S'f) paweuuln (S96L) PlOUW
ON Ze
(896L)
© 86L epuojy ‘eduel nypues pue ual|V7
eSB i)
10) 9€8 uoyBulysem (P96L) SHOAV
ON ik
azis Apnis jo (s)4oyiny
gjeulwui4ds esOuw SW}! JO auieuuolysenb
JOquUINN JO M@IAJOqU| ajdwes uoles07
sajiuaAnt[
sse|d-18MO7
AWIYD FTNAANC
GalLY¥Od3au-41aS GNV SSV19 IVIDOS N33ML3¢8 dIHSNOILV14Y¥ 4HL NO S3HIGNLS 40 NOSIYVdNOD V

116
c-b F1avVL
 }0I|/9PUe SSOA BIUJOSI2D L19'2

cl
(vZ6L)

sar
sON
pue
UsOYW)F(S96L) LU|OYx901S Sa
Aeduig
pue yein

on
san pue pON

L? co
UOSy9145(9961)

0S6O8L
pejs6u3
pue 9]1]e9S 002 uMOUUA)

oe
49)492H (LZ6L)

Sa
(a}e9S
TOYUS-aAN)
sdd3 (6S6L) ayees 9GEe LL san pue aON
UOSyd19(EZ6L) jeiny yein 9EE vL
PIOD (OZ6L) ‘WUi|4 ueBlysipy cCG LS

Gee
I|ESsSeH (vZ6L) cL8
jON Sar
‘yoanyoysiyy uMou,uP)
Man puejeaz !49Si1H
pue
) sON
pueON
(sajeos
14OUS-dAN
YOOU|SwH
(G96L) JeINy JUOWSA umouyuy uMouyur)
ON

(aje9s
yIOUS-eAN)
!49S41H (696L) ‘PuoWYsIYeluiBsIA 9
UOsuYyor(696L)
sar

uojeg aBnoy
yON

umouxuy) yu) uMou

LZL'L
euoisuyor
pueON

(8Z6L) oBesiuy veL'L 0€

Alle (vZ6L) Z |}BWS SUMO}
Ul ELL SIG
SOA
ON

MEN IO,
Ajjay pue Ulg paweuun
‘S'N 8d
(SZ6L)
SOA

A\unoo
14SOd}e1
pue peweuun
‘S'N umouxuy)
e1y soo}
ON

(GZ6L) Ayo
jaiyduey
pue IES "Sf UMO} 6EL
4eux|NeY(OZ6L)
SoA

PIEUOgoI\y
(896L) uopuo7]
pue LS8
34'S pue|6uz
Sah

Uapsieyy(6Z6L) s1oull|| L9v'z

OuljeleN(6Z6L) [e4JUsDYION
‘S'fF DLL'L
8¢ ge

‘aAn youspue oly

g
|jews ose’z
SokON ON

UOS|IO (8S6L) SelWiUNWWOd

117
 FIGVL
@-y PAUOD

118
V NOSIYVdINIOD
40 SSIGNLS
NO SHL dIHSNOIW13SY
N34M14dIVIDOS SSV19GNV G31¥O0d3u-414S
FTNAANS
AWIYSD

SSB|D-JOMO7
uolje907 ajdues MIIAII}U|
JO Joquny sojluaAnt
(s)soulny 4fO Apnis 9ZIS asieuUOlsEnb
fO Swell asOW é/eulwwio

SAN|IUd (VLEL) paweuuy

“SN AyD 690 ) UMOUNU SOA
JesuanH(LZ6L) ‘aubojo9 Auewiay 66S e) QL SOA
ssiaypue sapoyuy a|[IAUSEN SSL | Ul uMOU SOA
(LO6L)
UIMIaYUS(896L) ‘UMO}9|PPII\
O14O 082 10) 02 Sa Pue iON
WNIO|S
Ppue Buds uo}Bulysenn
3181S Zvz'€ 16) G Sor
(€96L)
ZeA (996L) Bpeues 6E9'L (0) LZ ON
SSOA (996L) njnjouoH 0¢9 0 OL ON
Biaqyjen
Ja je obes1y9 Or e) EL SO

ISOM (EZEL) uopUuO?7 LLY | 8 SOA

(vZ6L)
XOS|IAA (6961) Ax20Y ujeyuno €0v 0) uMOURUL) ON
eae
swell
pue POD jeuoieN ‘ajdues Lv8 OL ON
(ZZ6L) ‘sn
UOS|IM
18 “|€ (GZ6L) eueqsig 62L | 8 ON
MO|SUIN\\
(LOGL) so7 sajebuy 6SZ2 10) 6 ON

Ud||V¥ePU NYPUCSWEES
O} JaIdsajUISIW
4/94} ejJep
Je BuO JUIOd U! say} Jaded
se Buimoys
yey) sjUedsajope
WO1) YBiy aWOdU! Saljluuey
ase a10W JUaNbUI|ap
UY} BSOY} WWOJJ MO] BUOdU! ‘Sel|iWey AYA Aajop siy}st “Huyjzznd
* * yy" si ayinb Jea/9 Jeu} 9/!4YM YQpJO BSOU}
Ul BY}
Mo| Ajiwe} awoou! AsoBeyeo
aie YBIyuO peliodai-sjes ‘AoUaNbuIjap
AjuO %/EJo asoyy
ul ay} JayBiy awosu! AsoBaje9
ase ybiyuo
payodai-jjas ‘Aouanbuljap

pue
wos
ual|\y
nypues
Je10L

MO7
yBiq

payejnajea
(GOL)%00L

%vS
(LS)

MO}
(€6)%00L

%€9
(65)

Ajiwe4
4BIH
awooul
Aguenbuljeq
(87)%0v

(vE)%LE
 8%,q 104 au) jel4ISNpul,,
,,Aj!9 ‘ajdwes,,ON,,10} 184}0 ‘SeV1e 194] SI Ue UOlle|90SseUBEMjeaq|eID0S Sse/d PUe BY} B40UU SNOH9S
Jodai-jjas ADUaNbuUl|ap
‘stay! UdAa U! 84) 18}12| ‘seoie
|, siysi e Guo] jeuipny Apnis
ul YydiyMau) diysuO!je|aiUGeMieqSse|dPue BWLD
S| PaulWexea
Je OM) au!) ‘spojiedJolun| pue s0/UasyBiy
"}|OOYDS
4104 JayuyieuaU} polad B18M 94} YOYS-aAN SWa}i paljissejo
se snoluasuoU AjjuedijiuBis
pajelas
0} |B/90S ‘sse|o SNOHOS
Aouanbuijap
sem AjjuesipiubisPaleloosse YIM jeEI90S ssejO1e ay} JolUN!YBiY jOOYDS ‘|aAgjjNq JOU Je ay} 40j/UasYHIYy |OOYDS [Aa]
siyt, Apnis si paseqUO Ue jensnuN WopuUeiUOU aj|dwes
Jo Og YyBiYy jooyss ‘sAog
O¢ Skog YIM auo yinoo ‘adueieadde
0g shoquo
uoleqgoidpue OG pejeiaoieou!“siapuayo seuy] ‘sajeosqns |e10Ua6,,,,1J94) SNOlias,, ,,/1j84}pue uowwwod,, ,,Aduanbuljap
pemoys
suoljejasi09
JO ‘OZ1" ‘7 pue (1° Ajanijoadsai
YIM |BI90s ‘ssejdjng UBYM asay SjjNSal919M UB¥O1 UMOPOJU! B1OW “|!2}ap 94} SUO!}2/31409
aiam anp0} -3a|pp!iW
Pue snjejs-18MO| sjuapuodsas Buljiodes
aiow Aduanbuljap
UeY} asoy)ul ay} ssejo-iaddn‘AioBaj}eo a|14M 8194} 318M
OU saouaieyIpUsamjeq -ai/ppilu Pue snjejs-48MO|
‘sAoq
,SAA,,,
10) ‘S8}PWAl,,ON,,4104 “sajeW
YY JaquiNU
JO SWs}!Ul siy} Apis JUasaidadSEUULD JNOYIM “SUIIJOIA
1, siy Apnjs si paseqUO Ue jensnuN WopueJUOU ‘aj|dwes
ay] ajdwes pajsisuod
JO QOL pa}esedI1e9U!‘SIPPUAYO
JEL OAOId,, /AUBWAdXZ
‘siapUaljo
Puke QOL SUINOA OYM 818M Ajjeloiyo ‘juanbuljapuou
SOA,,5JO}, ‘SA}CW ,,ON,,10} “SO/PUW9}
88Syau} UOISSsNdSIp
Jo siy} ApnjsUl 84} ‘}x9}
ssej9-18M07,
YINOAPIP jou YiwWpe
oO} BuljyiWWOd
e 19}e046 JaquuNU
JO JUdIAYJIP ‘Sasualjo ‘JAAEMOH Aay} ps}j}/Lupe
0} Hul}WWOd
SOW
sasuayoYIM 191e916 AdUanbayueY} ssej9-a|ppiw
‘YyINOA
aul, yuapusdepul a|qelueA aaysi Ajiwel,, ,pUNOIByDeq
Jayyes UeY} jeI90s ssejdse ‘YONs Ajiwe4,, ,,punoibyDeq
si paxapul
Aq ay}
saquinu
JO ‘ssejd-a|ppiW jUeAalaI-|OOYOS
sjefqo
U! au} awWOY ‘auoydaja}) ‘Aseuo!oIp ‘elpadojsAoUa
(‘d}a pue ay ainjeu
JO 84}
jed!|60j;o4dAsddiysuoljejas
usaMieqjudied
pue ‘pjiud Ajejnoiqed
YIM PueBas
0} jOOYIS “SUO!}e}9Edx~a
Jey]‘Ss! ay} juapuadapul
ajqeuea
Siodind
0} aq Ue XApU!
JO 94} adUd}SIxa
JO e B|PpiwWSsejo SOYJe
U! a4} Ajiwe} ‘uoljenyis
-agunos ‘alemuyeig
g6L
‘1 “dd ‘pe-€p

119
120 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

What is done with the answers provided by self-report surveys can also
be significant. Answers to such surveys frequently are summed to provide a
cumulative score on a delinquency scale for each individual. In turn, a “cut
point” is often designated for the purpose of distinguishing “delinquents”
from ‘“nondelinquents.”’ Often the mean or median score on the scale is
chosen to draw this distinction. The scale scores then are correlated with
the social class backgrounds of the respondents to determine the existence
and/or extent of a relationship (see, for example, Chambliss and Naga-
sawa, 1969). The problem, Nettler notes (1974, p. 95), is that “‘since it is
not known what score on the questionnaire represents activities equivalent
to those for which the same people . . . [would be] arrested, the cutting
points are arbitrary” (emphasis added). The concern is that a small change
in the cut point may make a substantial difference in the findings that
result. For example, it is unlikely that a median cut point on a scale of
trivial items would produce any other finding than that behaviors are
rather evenly distributed across class positions.
Several recent studies address the above issues by emphasizing behav-
iors that are legally sanctionable, and report some relationship between
class and delinquency. For example,
¢ Elliot and Ageton (1980) find a weak but significant relationship for
predatory crimes against persons and a total offense index.
¢ Thornberry and Farnworth (1982) find that white males with fathers of
lower class position are more likely to have committed violent offenses.
¢ Johnson (1980) finds a weak but significant relationship between
seriousness of offense and class.
The implication of these studies is that if offenses considered in self-report
surveys are made commensurate with those found in official data, a
class-offense relationship will be observed; albeit a relationship that is
small, and in this respect similar to that found in official data collected for
individuals.
Two further factors complicate the search for a class-offense relation-
ship. First, there is little consistency in, or consensus about, the measure-
ment of class in criminology (Thornberry and Farnworth, 1982). For the
most part, American research has measured class in terms of graded levels
of occupational status. However, it recently has been argued that class
should be measured in terms of the positions persons occupy in relation to
one another in and out of the workforce (e.g., Clelland and Carter,1980;
Greenberg, 1981). Unfortunately, there are too few efforts of the latter
type to assess what differences new measures of class might make. The
differences may be important. Meanwhile, it also has been argued that for
adolescents it is status in school, rather than parents’ status, that should
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 121

make the difference (Stark, 1979). There are studies that make a con-
vincing case that stream or track and other indicators of school status do
correlate with delinquent behavior (Kelly, 1975; See Polk, 1957/1958, 1983).
The second factor that complicates the search for a class-offense
relationship is the high correlation between class, however measured, and
race. One attempted solution to this problem, adopted by Hindelang et al.
(1981), is to consider only whites in assessing the relationship between class
and delinquency. Using this approach, they find little relationship. Alter-
natively, Hindelang et al. do find a significant relationship between race
and self-reported delinquency, a relationship that is most noteworthy
when serious offenses are considered. More specifically, these findings
indicate (ibid., p. 170) that ‘black males disproportionately and
consistently . . . report being involved in what could be characterized as
face-to-face violent offenses often involving theft: used club, knife or gun
to get something; threatened to beat someone up if he didn’t give you
money; used physical force to get money; carried a razor, switchblade, or
gun; pulled a knife; hit a teacher; beat up someone so badly they probably
needed a doctor; and jumped or helped jump somebody.”’ Note the
difference in these items and those linked to middle-class delinquency
above. The focus on these kinds of items is consistent with the finding of
Hindelang (1978) that there are substantial differences by race of offender
in the reporting of victims of common-law personal crimes.
Such findings lead us to the conclusion that when various kinds of data
sources are used to collect information on the kinds of serious offenses that
are most likely to result in official sanctions, some relationship between
class and criminality is apparent. It should be emphasized that the
relationship is not large, but that it also may be found to increase in size as
attention is given to samples that include black respondents and offenses of
a serious or violent nature as they occur in large American cities. Past
self-report research has often glossed over the potential importance of the
latter factors, providing data on whites, for minor offenses, committed in
small and middle-sized cities where research is often more easily conduct-
ed. One consequence is that today the data, as well as available data
analytic techniques, do not allow us to be very certain of the separate and
interacting effects of race and class on criminal and delinquent behavior.
This in particular remains an important and difficult issue for further
research.
Finally, it requires mention that our conception of what constitutes a
serious criminal or delinquent act is subject to change. Perhaps even more
to the point, there is evidence that as some activities become more
common in the upper classes, they come to be considered less serious in
nature. For example, in the period of one generation, marijuana use
122 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

shifted in status from a presumed source of “‘reefer madness” to a “radical

chic’? social lubricant readily available to those who could afford it.
Self-report studies reflect this change in status: Barter et al. (1970) and
Suchman (1968) report a higher incidence of marijuana use among persons
from high-income families, and a California study (Blum, 1969) comparing
patterns of usage in working and middle-class high schools, reveals higher
figures in the latter. Acknowledging such changes, however, should not
obscure the importance of our more general conclusion that the disadvan-
tages of social class are correlated with the increased likelihood of those
forms of crime and delinquency now considered more serious, and dealt
with as such.

ARE MEN MORE CRIMINAL THAN WOMEN?

Although criminologists only recently have begun to study seriously the
crimes of women, a large volume of research already has accumulated.
This research focuses primarily on three issues: (1) the extent to which men
are more criminal in their behavior than women; (2) whether this gap is
narrowing, and (3) the comparability of the criminal behavior patterns of
men and women. Various sources of data have been used to explore these
issues.
Official agency data tell us only part of the story of crime and gender,
but they are an important part and remarkably consistent. With the
exception of peculiarly female crimes, such as prostitution and infanticide,
and various ‘‘victimless crimes’ on which credible statistical data are
seldom available, men are nearly always shown to be much more involved
in criminal activity than women. Table 4-3 shows UCR arrest rates and
ratios per 100,000 population by sex for selected property offenses for the
period 1969-1975. From the pioneering explorations of official crime
statistics by Quételet (1842) to the modern tabulations by Radzinowicz
(1937), Pollak (1961), Adler (1975), Simon (1975), and Smart (1976),
such statistics have consistently shown that men are more criminal than
women. However, although this pattern is apparent in Table 4-3 as well, it
is also the case that the ratio of male to female arrest rates has declined in
recent years. For example, we see in Table 4-3 that between 1960 and 1975
the ratio of male to female rates of index property crimes (combining the
offenses of burglary, larceny, and auto theft) decreased from 9:43 to only
3:93. Similar declines in the ratio of male to female rates are also apparent
in Table 4-3 for the individual crimes of burglary, larceny theft, auto theft,
fraud/embezzlement, and stolen property. The question commonly asked
 FTGVL
€-b
ALY3SdOud
SWIND SSLVY¥GNV SOILWY
Y4d 000’00L
YO4 S3IVINS4
GNV “SFIVW GL-096L

aaiuy Ayadoid Auaciey

BWLD X@pPUl Aie|bing you}

/9|EW /2\EN /2|EWN

dea ajewe, a|elN! ayewas gjewa a|eI ajewoaj ajewe, a/eI ayeway
SL6L CLCv L'ZS9L 6 OLE v88S 86°81 9'6LE S'ELE Ly?
vLEL L8ev O'80ZL 66E HENS, 6°26S OL8L GV8E G'0€6 (AA
EZ6L 9'6EE LYV9EL cO'V VATA 9'6LD 88°81 E0E9 8902 GEC
cL6L O'LcE VL8EL vev QE? 8'v9V 6L OL €€62 EDL voz
LZ6L SLZE LOLvL Lov ver L897 00°02 L982 €98L vlL?e

OZ6L L862 GO0vL 697 8°02 SSv© 88'Lc 8'L9Z CvL6 LLZé
696L RASTA CELEL Los vsL veV8 E9°ES 8°07 0299 66°C
896L EEC O'S9ZL cBG 9ZL Lvev 99°02 0-981 €'0c9 ES
L96L 6002 O'OLZL c0'9 O91 8907 Sc cv OISAy £709 LVe
9961 EBL
Cc GS8ZLL SES EL9 L“L9E GG'9¢ O'c9L 9'9Lg 9Ge

S96L SPRYA L°SELL Sv'9 VEL 69Ec GSILC VSSL 9645 GL,
v96L oO'9SL O'COLL 90°L Let GSE
L 96°22 OISSL €9Sc GLY
e961 VEL6 €vvol vLL OL6 GCvE Le cv SV/AEIE 8'62S Lov
e961 O'VEL Ov0l
GS IEE LL 6 Leve 08°82 GSLL 8'0ES 097
LO6L ECLL 6°2OOL €6'8 601 6vE€ vO'cEe 0°96 20S€ Sas
O96L LOL6 196€ ev'6 86 LYE Cee e248 L8VV 8°

123
 FTGVL
E- P,AUOI

124
ALYSdOud
FWIYD SSLVY GNV SOLLVY
Yad 000'00L
YO S31IVW34
GNV “SFIVIN GL-O96L

spnel4 ug|O1S
OINY }JeuU] jusWe|zzaqua Ayiadoid

/P\EIN /P\EI\) /|EIN

JED ajewe4 a|eW ajeway a|ew9e4 ale ajeway a|ewe4 a|e\ ajeway
G/6L OL 9 O'SSL VL CO L249 CCVL CLS EON VEL6 6 cl
vLEL LL 6 Gvsl OS'SL LES OLCL GGG VEL ELSL 0S'6
EL6L GOL v'8ZL 66°91 LY6 O'LOL Lyé GOL LOLc v9'6
cL6L LOL L’6ZL SLL CV BELL 89'¢ L’OL O'LOL 00°OL
LZ6L SLL 9661 OL cB OY C6LL CAG OL 9 OLLL LvV'OL

OZ6L L’OL C07€ €0'02 cISe L’vol €6'S 68 €6© 8v'OL

6961 OL 6 SLL Ov'6L 9°62 0°26 vis So OGL LL VS
8961 OLc OL?9 99°02 Eve 978 Sve BV HS)Sy ESL
L96L €8 S002 Cire ONG, 8°28 AS Ske 697 ECO'EL
996L (Eu LO6L UC LL ONAe v98 COE 67 Qe: Gi LAS)

G96BL [Ee 68Lc v2 0S’ ENG Ac) Lov 6S EE6 LL 69°

v96L (Lil esl8 99'ES L’6L vVL8 8S'7 ee Ge: 626
e961 €9 LLL6 LE 6c L8L 6°06 98°17 vc L82 LL 96°
c96L 3) O'L9L 0€'SZ LOL vVL8 ecg Gc 8'8¢ Caalt
LO6BL os ENGL 22 0S LOL £68 [ESS ve CLG SELL
O96L VS 6VLc GOILG LYL 628 86'S KG CG lt ev

-aainoS ‘Waiawisuayals
‘8/6 aj/qe)
‘| ‘pale|NuOjas
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 125

of these kinds of data is whether the gap between males and females in
rates of property crime has therefore declined.
Different answers have been given to this question, and there is reason
to think that the differences derive from the kinds of measures applied.
Steffensmeier (1978, 1980) notes that disparities between the sexes can be
measured in absolute and relative terms. He advocates the former. Some
ratio and percentage measures of relative differences, he argues, can be
misleading because, if the starting point is low, small absolute changes will
look relatively large. This may often be the case with female crime rates.
Furthermore, he notes that percentage or ratio measures of relative change
may be unstable when the measure is premised on part-to-part rather than
part-to-whole comparisons. In place of the part-to-part ratio measures,
Steffensmeier calculates the percentage that the female rate contributes
(% FC) to the male rate plus female rate for each offense. He also
calculates absolute differences between male and female rates. These
various kinds of measures are presented in Table 4-4 to illustrate the point
that a relative gap in crime rates between the sexes can narrow while the
absolute gap actually widens.
Indeed, for all crimes except forgery and embezzlement in Table 4-4, the
relative gap does decline, while the absolute difference increases. Using
larceny as an illustration, the arrest rate for females was 87.3 in 1960 and
376.2 in 1978. For males it was 487.4 in 1960 and 870.4 in 1978. The two
relative measures of change presented in this table both indicate a
narrowing of the male/female gap: the ratio of rates declined from 5:58 to
2:31, and the % FC increased from 15:2 to 30:2. However, Steffensmeier’s
point is that only limited significance can be attached to these changes
because, during the same period, the absolute difference between male
and female rates widened to 494.2 (870.4 — 376.2) from 400.1 (487.4 —
87.3). Based on the kinds of calculations presented in Table 4-4, Steff-
ensmeier concludes that the relative gains made by women in their rates of
crime are often more apparent than real. However, there are important
differences of opinion on this point.
Rita Simon, whose work (e.g., 1975) may have had the greatest influ-
ence in this area, offers a convergence theory in which patterns of crim-
inality for women increasingly resemble those for men. For example, she
has analyzed arrest statistics for a forty-year period (1932 to 1972) and
concluded that: (1) the proportion of all persons arrested in 1972 who were
women was greater than was the case one, two, or three decades earlier;
(2) the increase was greater for serious offenses than for other kinds of
offenses; and (3) the increase in female arrest rates among the serious
offenses was caused almost entirely by women’s greater participation in
property offenses, especially larceny. Simon (1976b) extrapolates from the
 CLSL
S'0 80
“th Et

SL SLL coSOL O'vL 8Z6L

SEvL

Ge 9Le c 6vL v's O96L

194} ONY
vos
gS

WS 6E'9L L'9€S LCE 8Z6L

VSLE
60 6Ll
is

4 L6VE Lycee £6 O96L

Ase\6ing
SEvL
60 Sy

ye) 6L VL LYVSlL 6 OL 8Z6L

O'eL

90
£0 vv 98° Le G97 gic O96L
Aseqqoy
auljnosey

Er9'€?
c0 L°0

Lv eGig 89 L°? 8Z6L

L°0 ELS0'S8 A 8'9E SUL
£0 v96L
8c
Lvl
€0°S
judwa|zzequiy
90 90

vl 8Z6L
8'EC
9°09
SENG

OSLc82
60 cos
O96L
c6
ORAS;
Aio6104

cstSe
6S 8Z6L
€00L
eS8l
G8'L
60 6L

Sal V96L
EOL
vel
OS'v
pnei4

cV6v

oSlCOE
oC

06
8Z6L
CILE
v028
LEIS

L007
G8
vs O96L
e248
VL8v
8°
Auaaie7
Ajl8d

s}saiie
ajews}soue

ajewal
ejewel 93eJ a}e1 ]UUTBRe)

% o:|
qdV
adAL
jo
ajewe4
ae
/2\2IN

I]2B
JB
JO

$0
%

%
O96L (79) GNVW eLL6L
ANIINOSVW ALYSdOY¥d‘SAWIYD SAWIYDGNV YO4
A1Y4ddOYd Y3d
SOILVY 000'00L S3IVWGNV YOS
SAIVIWSS ALLad LSSYYV S31VH GNV

126
bb
FTEGVL
 uosly
v961L 60

ol
vv

v6
L8
8Z6L Vis

S'8
6LL

L°0 c0

L°0 L'0
WSI|EPUe/A

L8L
egb

VILL
v96L 9°8 SSL

80
8Z6L G02

EES

ecvi
DL LL

HS GZ
cl
LL Gig
uajoys Ayiadoid

L022

9°02
0961 Ec

ev
8Z6L Sree

€'9¢
O'v2
€0 G

20 80

c8 €'OL

lt GL'EL
0'v0L

S/Z/L\
:aJ0//
U| BOS SESE P9G| eYep a1eM pasn BSNedaq
SI4] SEM 84} jsal|129
JedAJO} YOIYMejep 919M payiodai Ajayeiedas
104 asayj *salioBajed
aBBeUaDIAG,
JO aja} “‘UOIINGI4JUOD
BIN|OSGYg “BOUSIOYLIP
-aainN0S ‘Walauisuayays
‘Lg6L ajGe}
‘| ‘pajyejNUOjel

127
128 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

latter findings and predicts that “‘if present rates in these crimes persist,
approximately equal numbers of men and women will be arrested for fraud
and embezzlement by the 1980’s, and for forgery and counterfeiting the
proportions should be equal by the 2010’s. The prediction made for
embezzlement and fraud can be extended to larceny as well.”
Steffensmeier is most at odds with Simon on these last points. He finds
that arrest-rate projections for larceny show a widening of the absolute gap
with each passing decade to the year 2000, with similar results for fraud and
forgery. He concludes (1980, p. 1098) that ‘female gains have been
leveling off in recent years and it is likely that crime will be as much a
male-dominated phenomenon in the year 2000 as it is in 1977.” Still this
does not deny Simon’s more fundamental point that, in relative terms,
women are now significantly more involved in crime than they were in the
past.
In terms of crime patterns, Simon emphasizes that the relative increases
in adult women’s crime rates are concentrated in the area of property
crime. This point is important to Simon’s theoretical argument that as
women increase their participation in the labor force, their opportunity to
commit certain types of crime also increases. Steffensmeier does not reject
this argument; rather, he seeks to diminish its significance. His point is
that, while the female contribution to property crime generally, and again
in a relative sense, has increased, the amount of the increase that is
occupationally related (e.g., embezzlement) is small. A problem here
involves the vagueness of general offense categories like larceny. When
categories are broken down, Steffensmeier argues that the greater contri-
butions of women are in the areas of petty theft and fraud.
Some support for Steffensmeier’s suggestions is provided in Table 4-4.
This table includes a division between “masculine” and “‘petty property”
crimes. As both Steffensmeier and Simon suggest, “‘masculine”’ crimes like
robbery, burglary, and auto theft remain predominantly male phenomena,
in spite of some recent relative increases in female participation. In
contrast, the petty property crime rates of women have increased notably,
and the absolute differences between the male and female rates for petty
crimes like forgery and embezzlement have actually declined: between
1960 and 1978 the sex difference in forgery rates declined from 42.8 to
36.8, and for embezzlement from 11.3 to 4.7. Still, the absolute differences
between male and female rates of other petty property crimes like larceny
and fraud have increased over this period, and it may be important to note
that embezzlement represents only a very small part of female arrests: 0.1
percent in 1978, down from a similarly small 0.3 percent in 1964.
Steffensmeier’s point is that women are being arrested for traditionally
female kinds of larceny like fraud rather than for nontraditional kinds of
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 129

female crime such as embezzlement. However, this does not make the
nontraditional gains any less important; indeed, in terms of dollars and the
threat posed to the economic order, the nontraditional female crimes may
be very important. Simon and Steffensmeier here offer different interpre-
tations of similar empirical findings.
Last, there is the issue of female involvement in violent crime. Simon’s
findings seem to contradict Adler’s prediction of growing female violence.
Other sources of data seem to be consistent with Simon’s position as well,
at least for adult women (see Noblet and Burcart, 1976; Hill and Harris,
1981; Steffensmeier, 1980). Thus the violence of adult women is clearly
patterned differently from the violence of men (Ward, Jackson, and Ward,
1969; Wolfgang, 1958), and the patterning has not shown much sign of
change. However, this point is less clear for adolescent women. Noblet and
Burcart (p. 655) find that arrests for violent crimes and property crimes
increased equally among adolescent women between 1960 and 1970, and
Hill and Harris (1981) report sex-ratio drops between 1963 and 1974 in the
population under 18 for a variety of violent crimes. We will return below to
the issue of changing patterns of violence among adolescent women.
Hindelang (1979) has analyzed data on the sex of offenders reported by
victims derived from the 1973 through 1976 surveys of American crime
victims, called the National Crime Surveys (NCS). The findings of these
surveys are summarized in Table 4-5 along with 1976 Uniform Crime
Reports data. A comparison of the NCS and UCR data (see Table 4-5)
reveals a very similar picture, leading Hindelang (1979, p. 152) to surmise
that ‘“‘in general, it appears that even at the earliest stage in the offending
process for which data are available, the conclusions we can draw about sex
and involvement in crime from victimization survey data are essentially the
same as those derived from arrest data for the same types of crimes.”’ Thus
these data indicate that (1) women offenders are a small portion of all
offenders reported by victims (e.g., in 1976 they accounted for 4 percent of
all robberies, 8 percent of all aggravated assaults, 14 percent of all simple
assaults, 5 percent of all burglaries, and 5 percent of all motor vehicle
thefts reported by victims), and (2) what increase in female involvement in
crime has occurred during the short period of these surveys is most
conspicuously in the area of larceny offenses (women accounted for 14
percent of all larcenies reported by victims in 1972, and 17 percent of such
larcenies in 1976). Again, these data indicate that petty property crimes
are the ‘‘traditional female crimes,” and that they are the crimes in which
increases in female involvement are most clearly occurring. Finally,
Hindelang reports that, when the sex of the victim was held constant in his
analyses, there was no evidence that male chivalry (males’ reluctance to
report crimes against them by women) had the effect of reducing the
 je!N19WIWOD
‘seseyjuaied Ul Sesed jo JAqWNN,

|eINIAWLWUOD,

‘/sIapUaso
9}N}I}SUOD
A|;/e19UBB
sJapUa}O
“sisAjeuUe
pepnjoul
(8pvL d ‘626, ‘Buejepuipy ees) ejqesedwiod jou ale saloHejeo Auaoie| SON Pue YON PULq
(SAalIaqqoO4

AJOqqo4
JUBdIEd
SAlIEQqOI

ajeLUa
a/qe|leAe

papnjoxe

Y}JIJ-UO

‘AduaY
BSNedaq

Aay}
‘uiod e yyey Aq auljoep jUubil sajewiajs 10} sobejuaosied Asaqqos ay} ‘eyep Aseqqoi €/6| pue Z/6L

aiam
JAMA}
ZUB}
JNOGe

84]
au}
10}
919M

Uaaq

aAeY

Z/GL
ejJep

E761

JI
Ul
JO
PUL
Mes

9Y}
JOU

JO)

104
|e
JO
(LEL'6ZZ) (679°S6Z) (LO€’E6Z) (SLE'9LZ) (vve'SE6) Ayiedoid

pjoyasnoy
WEL EL %IL WG %vL papuej}jeun jo Auaaie]

Auaaie]
(LLO’LSE)
(LEv'O8E)

(ZL2’600)
(Sve’Z0g) (@Z0'S1) (996’SES) (€€8'89S) (~90'S69)

wo}
AGL
%IL
WL

|RUOSIA8d
vl

(SZ9'6€0'Z)
(vOL'60Z'L)
(6GZ'9€9'L)

Auaose|
(ZS6’€8¢) (ZEEe'L0g)

SLL
%VL Slt
(6€p'029'L) (€00’818'L)
LL GL vl Yl Yb gAusoie7
(GOZ'OLL) (0€0'69) (€€6'LZL)
(1Z9'L9L)
(€L2'Z8)
WG Se %V %E VE }JOU}] BJDIUSA JOJO
(€6Z’Z0S) (pOE'8Sr) (676'709) (9Z9'€6r) (OLb’€9S)
HG %v WG WG Aie|6ing
%S

SL

(680'S68’'L)
(OSO‘L6L‘Z)
(LLO‘980’Z)

ajdwis
ynesse
(v98'PZE'€) (GEG’E8z'E) (LOO’p9e’€)
(16%'Z70'€)
(L62'8ZZ’€)

%GL
WSL
RV

VL %G1
(O9€’986'L) (OL6'Z86'L)
PEL

%B %9 %L %8 %S ynesse poajeaeibby
(ZZ9'9ZL’Z)
(LLL'8v2'7) (Sv6'ZZL'Z)
(OLL‘0L0°Z)
(9LL‘S9E’Z)
Sol.

WV ev Sl. e%v 2%9 Asaqqoy

(000'L9L) (0S0'222) (LZL'EZZ) (€€L'E0Z) AS78'ZEZ)
Sel

%L %E %0 Yl %0 edey
YON9Z6L

GL6L
9Z6L vL6l e€Z6L eCL6L BUD JO BdAL

SON
SON SON
FIVINSS NI
SLSAYYV WYOJINNFIW/YD 9Z6L AINO
‘SLYOdFY
N339 AG
‘SSIWW34 SdALSO NI
SIIYD JINIYD
TWNOILLVWN GNV
‘AZAYNS ‘92-2261
GSLVWILSA 4O
SADVLNADYSd AS
SYAGN3440 GaLY¥Od3SY OL
SWILOIA AAVH

130
S-b
ATGVL
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 131

number of female-offender victimizations reported to the police. In sum,

victimization data seem to confirm the picture of women and crime
portrayed in public agency data.
The gender-crime patterns we have seen in public agency and victimiza-
tion data reappear in the self-report studies, but with significant variations
in degree. For example, official arrest ratios by sex are substantially higher
than the sex ratios by offense found in self-report surveys. Nye and Short
(1957) find a sex ratio among adolescents of 2.42 in a midwestern setting
and 2.82 in a western setting. Wise’s (1967) New England study yields an
adolescent differential of 2.30; Hindelang’s (1971) California data yield a
sex ratio of 2.56; Kratcoski and Kratcoski (1975) report a 2.00 sex ratio;
and Cernkovich and Giordano (1979) find a ratio of 2.18 (see also Hagan,
Simpson, and Gillis [1979]; Jensen and Eve [1976]; Hindelang et al.
[1981]). In each of these instances, males exceed females in self-reported
delinquencies by more than two to one. However, this figure is still
considerably less than that indicated by public agency data. The 1975 FBI
Uniform Crime Reports indicate that the male/female arrest ratio for those
under 18 years of age is 3.72. One explanation for this disparity is that
police are more sensitive and responsive to male delinquencies.
In an attempt to estimate how police selection practices might influence
delinquency sex ratios, Feyerherm (1981) has calculated a series of
“transition probabilities” that reflect the likelihood that male and female
adolescents will be processed through a series of steps beginning with
police contact and leading to arrest. The results of these calculations reveal
that, while the ratio of male to female delinquency at the stage of
self-report was on the order of 1.70, at the point of arrest the ratio had
increased to 3.88, more than doubling the apparent difference between
males and females and approximately the figures found in public agency
data.
Two explanations are offered: (1) that police are biased in their arrest
practices, and (2) that male adolescents are involved in more serious kinds
of delinquency. This brings us to the kinds of self-reported activities in
which male and female adolescents are involved.
The important point to be made here is that, while female adolescents
may be more “versatile” in their delinquencies than female adults are in
their criminal behavior, nonetheless, as the seriousness of the events
increases, so also do the differences between levels of male and female
participation, among both adolescents and adults. A first indication that
female adolescents may be unexpectedly versatile in their delinquencies is
found in the work of Hindelang (1971). Hindelang reports that, while
males may be much more delinquent than females, female delinquencies,
much like those of males, stlll are spread across a broad range of activities.
 132 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

However, more recently Feyerherm (1981) has pointed out that the
seriousness of such activities may differ substantially by sex. Thus, in
Feyerherm’s data, three levels of theft are examined, with the following
results: in the lowest level, under $10, the ratio of male to female
participation is 1.80; between $10 and $50 the ratio incteases to 4.56; over
$50, it increases to 22.00. The conclusion (ibid., p. 88) is that ‘“‘since the
sets of arrest statistics most often examined are designed to deal primarily
with serious offenses, this tendency may explain why arrest information is
more likely to show strong male-female differences.”’
A key difference between the self-report studies and those based on
public agency data is that the former are generally time-bound in their
coverage. This makes it more difficult to answer questions about change
over time when using self-report data. Fortunately, however, Smith and
Visher (1980) have brought together many of these studies, along with
those focusing on public agency data, and have offered a “meta-analysis” of
the data they review. Their analysis indicates that the relative involvement
of males and females in crime is trending toward similarity for both
self-report and official measures, but that the rate of the trend is signifi-
. cantly greater for the self-reported measures. Beyond this, Smith and
Visher report that, although women are closing the gap in termis of minor
forms of crime and delinquency, there is no indication that equal gender
representation in the area of serious criminal behavior has yet occurred.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, they note that, while the gender-
deviance relation is diminishing for both youths and adults, their data
indicate that this trend is stronger for youths.
The last point is significant because, as Smith and Visher (1980) note,
“Tt is at least plausible that shifting sex-role ideologies may be more salient
for younger females and, thus, may have a greater impact upon the
behavior of this group.”’ This hypothesis and an analysis of public agency
data in support of it are found in the work of Hill and Harris (1981).
There remain three other sources of data on women and crime. First,
the records of the internal security departments of corporate entities have
been used to study shoplifting and the crimes of employees against these
bureaucracies. The studies of shoplifting indicate that this is a traditionally
female crime in that it has involved large numbers of women for some time
(Cameron, 1964).
Employee theft is another area in which private agency data have been
put to interesting use. Franklin (1979) finds, in a study based on the reports
of a large retail organization, that although a majority of the employees
were women, the majority of employee thieves were men. Similarly, it is
also found that the greater the value of the theft, the greater the likelihood
that it was committed by a male employee. Indeed, the female thefts were
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 133

relatively petty, with 80 percent of the thefts valued between $1 and $150
committed by females. These private agency data, then, seem to further
confirm the impression that women continue to be involved in the
“traditional” types of female crime.
The latter point is made in a somewhat different way by observational
case studies of different types of criminal behavior. Miller (1973) reports
on the basis of his work with street-corner gangs that females continue to
play largely ancillary roles. As Steffensmeier (1980, p. 1102) notes, this
does not mean there have been no serious and significant female criminals:
there are now and always have been cases of female professional thieves,
robbers, and so on (Block, 1977; Byrnes, 1969; Inanni, 1974; Jackson,
1969; Lucas, 1926; Reitman, 1937). However, the female role, then and
now, has typically been as an accomplice to a male who both organized the
crime and was the central figure in its execution (although see Giordano,
1978).
A study based on archival records puts much of the preceding discussion
into a broader historical perspective. This study, by Cernkovich and
Giordano (1979), is based on police blotters from the city of Toledo, Ohio,
for the years 1890-1973. The length of the time period covered is unique to
this study, and these conclusions are drawn: (1) women are now being
arrested for offenses that are increasingly similar to those for which males
are arrested; (2) female rates of arrest are increasing more rapidly than
male rates; and (3) male-to-female ratios are declining for many offenses.
The changing character of female crime is noted in qualitative as well as
quantitative terms. Thus, notes made by police officers in the margins of
the blotters indicate that, whereas in the earliest periods a higher percent-
age of the total number of women arrested were somehow tied to ‘“‘houses
of ill fame”’ (see also Heyl 1979), by the 1930s there began to be a more
active, independent-from-hearth-and-home (as well as from house-of-
prostitution) quality to the offenses. Indeed, the 1930s show significant
increases in such property offenses as robbery, burglary, theft, and
embezzlement. The significance of the timing of this shift is that it also
marks the onset of the great depression, a time that was particularly
precarious for women. Thus Giordano, Kerbel, and Dudley (1981)
conclude that “‘this analysis of offense types as well as the characteristics of
women arrested suggests that the increases may reflect the fact that certain
categories of women (e.g., young, single, minority) [were] now in an even
more unfavorable position in the labor market at the same time they
[were] . . . increasingly expected to function independently.”
We are now in a position to draw some conclusions about the relation
between gender and crime. We have noted that this relationship is strong
and that it is likely to remain so into the near future, at least in an absolute
134 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

sense. On the other hand, in a relative sense, there is evidence that women
are becoming more like men in their levels of involvement in crime, with
this being particularly true of younger women and in the area of property
crime. The areas of female criminality that are changing fastest are those
that have been traditionally female, including petty forms of theft and
fraud. In the more traditionally male areas of crime, the differences appear
more durable.

HOW CRIMINAL ARE THE CORPORATIONS?

In the preceding sections we have placed great emphasis on the seriousness
of crime and its relationship to class and gender. We have noted that when
consideration is limited to the crimes widely considered serious by the
public, criminal behavior is found to be disproportionately male and
underclass in incidence and prevalence. However, we have also empha-
sized that conceptions of seriousness are variable. This point becomes
particularly important when we turn to white-collar and corporate crimes,
for these crimes traditionally are not taken as seriously as more conven-
tional “‘street’’ crime by the public and its governments. Edwin Sutherland
(1949, p. 9) in his classic study of White Collar Crime, noted the practical
and theoretical inadequacy of such conceptions, in terms of their neglect of
much upperworld crime and policies toward such crimes.
The thesis of this book, stated positively, is that persons of the
upper socio-economic class engage in much criminal behavior;
that this criminal behavior differs from the criminal behavior of the
lower socio-economic class principally in the administrative proce-
dures which are used in dealing with the offenders; and that
variations in administrative procedures are not significant from the
point of view of causation of crime. Today tuberculosis is treated
by streptomycin; but the causes of tuberculosis were no different
when it was treated by poultices and blood-letting.
Although Sutherland focused conceptually on what he called ‘‘white-
collar crime” —i.e., ““a crime committed by a person of respectability and
high social status in the course of his occupation’—decisions against
corporations were the units of his statistical analysis. In Chapter 9 we will
further discuss the confusion in conceptualizations of white-collar and
corporate crime; here it is enough to note that our interest in this section is
in crimes committed by and through corporations. Sutherland’s study
covered the “‘life careers,” through 1944, of seventy large corporations.
The analysis considered the following types of law violations: restraint of
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 135

trade; misrepresentation in advertising; infringement of patents,

trade-
marks, and copyrights; “unfair labor practices” as defined by the National
Labor Relations Law and a few decisions under other iabor laws; rebates;
financial fraud and violation of trust; violations of war regulations; and
some miscellaneous offenses. “All of the cases included in the tabulation
are violations of law, most of them may properly be defined as crimes, and
the others are closely allied to criminal behavior’ (Sutherland, 1949, p.
18). The issue of definition is important because, as we noted in Chapter 2,
Sutherland favored a liberal definition of crime based on two criteria: the
legal definition of a social harm and the provision of a penalty.
Sutherland found in his research that each of the seventy large corpora-
tions had one or more decisions against it, and that altogether 980 decisions
had been imposed against the corporations, with an average of 14 decisions
against each. Approximately 16 percent of the decisions were made by
criminal courts, but even when this strict criterion of criminality was used,
Sutherland found that 60 percent of the seventy corporations had been
convicted of crimes and had an average of approximately four convictions
each. An irony of the latter finding was that in many states a person with
four convictions was defined as a “habitual criminal.’”’ When Sutherland
used his own criteria to categorize the decisions, he concluded that 779 of
the 980 decisions constituted criminal convictions.
The distribution of the decisions across time is presented by types of
offenses in Table 4-6. Date of the first adverse decision was used. The
results reveal that approximately 60 percent of the adverse decisions were
rendered in the ten-year period of 1935 to 1944, while only 40 percent were
rendered in the thirty-five-year period leading up to 1935. Sutherland
concluded that increased violations and prosecutions were responsible for
rising levels of official corporation criminality.
The first large-scale comprehensive investigation of the law violations of
major firms since Sutherland’s pioneering work is provided by Clinard and
Yeager (1980). This study involves a systematic analysis of federal adminis-
trative, civil, and criminal actions either initiated or completed by twenty-
five federal agencies against the 477 largest publicly owned manufacturing
(Fortune 500) corporations in the United States during 1975 and 1976. To
this is added a more limited study of the 105 largest wholesale, retail, and
service corporations. The study is restricted to actions initiated against
corporations for violations, which Clinard and Yeager regard as roughly
equivalent to arrests or prosecutions, and actions completed, which they
regard as equivalent to convictions. While it is acknowledged that official
actions taken against corporations are probably only the tip of the iceberg,
Clinard and Yeager argue that these actions nonetheless constitute an
index of illegal behavior by large corporations. Six main forms of corporate
 FTAVL
9-6

136
SNOISID3G LSNIVOV ALN3JATS ‘SNOILLWHOdYOD
AP YVSA-JAIS SCOIY3ad
GNV AG SAdAL
40 SMV1 GSLVIOIA

julesjsay uolejUuasaidaisi|/| dejur)

sojeq JO apes} ul spe juawabulsju|
Joqge| sojeqoy JBUIO EOL seBejuaoiag
1 218P-0r6 aeee ZO ve zg ZOL l ev Ove L've
6€-SEBLae Ah 6G @v 6S 0S Sl 0z Svz 0'Sz
VE-0EELOe7° LG 8 9€ v l OL z6 v6
67-SZ6L SeeSCO L 9z oe — €Z 8 0's
ye-OZ6EL
> ° 2" °° SL € ZL — — 6 ev ev
6L-SLEL Saar 00 L S — 9 Z Sb oP
vVL-OL6L ee62e L EL — vl ZL v9 G9
60-S06Lae ae Le _— 6 L vl g ov LY
pO-006L
* Bee Ge, L 9 L € L ZL ies
66-0681
oa Can = L = = € 9 9°0
400g01 068L *** — = os — = ar Ge. 50
jeJO eeLOS L6 Ze 8S 99 O€1L 086 0'00L
-aasnoS ‘pue|sayINS
‘6HEL
“0 ‘97
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 137

illegal behavior were recorded: administrative, environmental, financial,

labor, manufacturing, and unfair trade practices. Two notable differences
between this study and Sutherland’s are the consideration given here to
official actions initiated as well as completed against corporations, and the
attention given to the seriousness of the violations and characteristics of
the corporations.
The results of this analysis (see Table 4-7) reveal that approximately 60
percent of the 475 manufacturing corporations had at least one action
initiated against them, while more than 200 of the corporations, or 42
percent of the total, had multiple cases charged against them from 1975 to
1976. Thirty-eight of the 300 manufacturing corporations cited for viola-
tions accounted for 52 percent of all violations charged in 1975-1976, with
an average of 23.5 violations per firm. One firm had fifty-four environmen-
tal cases brought against it. Clinard and Yeager also developed a measure
of seriousness to rank these violations, using such criteria as the knowl-
edge, extent, and size of the violation. Corporations in the oil-refining
industry had nearly 60 percent of the total environmental violations, and
more than a third of the serious and moderately serious environmental
violations. More generally, Clinard and Yeager report that large corpora-
tions were more numerous and more serious in their violations.
In spite of the impressive statistical evidence that Sutherland and
Clinard and Yeager have amassed to demonstrate that corporate criminali-
ty is extensive, their larger point is that the criminal law has been
ineffectual in detecting and punishing these crimes. The significance of this
important and growing body of work is therefore to demonstrate that
corporate actors are ineffectively pursued as criminals (Ermann and
Lundman, 1980; Schrager and Short, 1978). There is, however, another
important aspect of this situation. That is, that corporations are nonethe-
less very active participants in the criminal-justice process, pursuing
through the police and courts many individuals who commit crimes against
them (Hagan, 1982, 1983). In other words, corporate actors not only have
often successfully avoided large-scale criminal prosecutions, they also have
proven themselves effective in mobilizing the criminal law to penalize
individuals who offend against them. This is partly because corporate
enterprises, especially retail stores, are attractive targets for crime, and
partly because corporate actors are more and better prepared to pursue
criminal prosecutions. Victimization data collected on burglary and rob-
bery from both commercial and residential samples in thirteen American
cities (U.S. Department of Justice, 1975) help to make these points (see
Tables 4-8 and 4-9).
For example, in every city, and for both burglary and robbery, the per
capita rates of victimization of commercial establishments are higher than
138 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 4-7
INDUSTRY TYPE OF 445 MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONS BY PRIMARY
VIOLATION TYPE AND PERCENTAGE, TOTAL AND SERIOUS/MODERATE
VIOLATIONS*

Primary Vibration Type

Total Administrative Environmental

Industry type Violations % Violations % Violations %

Mining and ili V7 ez 1 0.8 10 2.0

oil production sy g 1,2 1 2.9 1 1.9

W 96 6.7 4 Se 11 De:
Food
S/M 49 7.4 2 5.9 3 5.7

Af 4 0.3
Apparel
S/M 3 0.5

Paper, fiber, al 81 7/ S 2.4 50 10.1

wood SIM 28 4.2 2 5.9 3 5.7

af 115 8.1 13 10.6 55 Aiden
Chemical ee
S/M 49 Ls 3 8.8 12 22.6

T 289 20.1 6 “Oe 229 46.2

Oil refining
S/M 70 10.4 5 14.7 19 35.8

Metal WV 88 6.2 8 6.5 71 14.3

manufacturing sy 43 20 a3 88. 3 5.7

il 28 2.0 8 6.5 5 1.0
I
AGACEN| 0)OX OS) a
S/M 13 2.0

Elsctronic and V 65 4.6 12 9.8 5 1.0

appliances SIM 49 7.4 1 oOlicin 2 3.8

li 238 16.7 20 16.3 19 3.8
Motor vehicles
S/M 142 242 3 8.8 7 Sal

i 18 ee 1 0.8 1 0.2
Aerospace
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 139

TABLE 4-7 cont'd

Primary Vibration Type

Financial Labor Manufacturing Trade

Violations % Violations % Violations % Violations %

1 0.6 2 0.4 3 4.8

1 0.6 2 0.6 3 49

5 12.3 12 6.7 54 10.5 7 11.0

5 13.2 12 TES 20 6.3 7 lites

1 2.4 2 1.1 1 1.6

2 fe? 1 1.6

15 8.3 1 0.2 10 1B

12 7-5 1 Oe WC 16.4

1 2.4 15 8.3 21 4.1 7, lite

1 2.6 10 6.2 16 5.0 7 Aes

25 61.1 9 Sal 8 1 aI (58)

23 60.5 9 5.6 4 153 8 deal

4 2.3 g 0.6 2 B32

2 Ne? 3 0.9 2 3.3

9 5.1 4 0.8 2 Cra

7 4.4 4 ine 2 Bis

1 2.4 30 16.9 12 Zi 5 78)

1 2.6 28 17.4 12 3.8 5 8.2

20 Uk ANAL 33.3 8 WAY

19 Iie Sea05 33.0 8 13.1

NE ee Tce 7a) inl faci tauazion MS

140 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 4-7 cont'd

INDUSTRY TYPE OF 445 MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONS BY PRIMARY
VIOLATION TYPE AND PERCENTAGE, TOTAL AND SERIOUS MODERATE
VIOLATIONS*

Primary Vibration Type

Tota! Administrative Environmental

Industry type Violations % Violations % Violations %

Wo ie! 9.4 18 14.6

Drugs
S/M rei 12.0 5 14.6

: 8 1.6
Industry and q 70 4.9 " 2
farm equipment SIM 42 6.3 3 57

T 11 0.8 1 0.2
Beverages
S/M 7 let

Ww aye! 12.2 18 14.6 31 6.3

Other
S/M 97 14.5 8 23.4

T 1428 100.0 123 100.0 496 100.0

Total
S/M_ 667 100.0 34 100.0 53 100.0

*Industry classification from Fortune, 1976: T=total.

S/M=serious and moderately serious violations.
Source: Clinard, 1980, pp. 390-391.

for individuals and households. Across the thirteen cities, on a per capita
basis, commercial establishments experience more than three times the
burglaries and five times the robberies as households and individuals.
Again, in every city, and for both burglary and robbery, commercial
establishments are more likely than individuals and households to report
the victimization they experience to the police. Across the thirteen cities,
approximately three-quarters (76.1 percent) of the commercial burglary
victims report their experiences to the police, while about half (51.6
percent) of the household burglary victims report their experiences to the
police. Similarly, 82 percent of the commercial robberies and 57 percent of
the individual robberies are reported to the police.In sum, and on a per
capita basis, commercial victims are much more likely than individual
victims to require and make use of the criminal-justice system. Of course,
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 141

TABLE 4-7 cont'd

Primary Vibration Type

Financial Labor Manufacturing Trade

Violations % Violations % Violations % Violations %

6 3.4 109 hal

6 ST) 70 22.0

11 6.2 37 UL 3 4.8

10 6.2 26 8.2 3 4.9

1 2.4 4 2.3 4 0.8 1 1.6

1 2.6 4 DAS 1 0.3 1 1.6

6 14.6 34 14, 81 15e7] 2 OY

6 159 33 20.5 48 15s 2 3.3

4) 100.0 178 100.0 514 100.0 63 100.0

38 100.0 161 100.0 318 100.0 61 100.0

individuals and households outnumber commercial organizations, so that

when the above findings are weighted back to the population, commercial
establishments are reduced in their apparent significance. Even then,
however, commercial establishments are responsible for more than a third,
and in some cities (e.g., Cincinnati in the case of burglary and Miami in the
case of robbery) more than half, of both the burglaries and robberies
reported to the police. In other words, the representation of commercial
victims in the criminal-justice process is large and disproportionate.
Unfortunately, the Panel for the Evaluation of Crime Surveys of the
National Research Council (1976) recommended discontinuation of “‘com-
mercial surveys,’’ and they consequently have not been done in recent
years. We nonetheless speculate further about the influence of “corporate
victims” in the criminal-justice system, as well as about corporate criminal-
ity, in Chapter 9.
142 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 4-8
VICTIMIZATION DATA ON ROBBERY IN THIRTEEN AMERICAN CITIES

« g
e & s
8 c 5 rd E g
8
co
=co SoO 3
am
S= 2
=
Robbery 31 16 15 Uz 10 18
incidents per
1000
population

Percent 53% 51% 51% 47% 65% 51%

reported to
police

Incidents 5,989 2,295 2,091 6,157 1,430 4,182

reported to (64.9%) (73.0%) (54.6%) (60.8%) (43.4%) (80.0%)
police
weighted to
population

Robbery 132 56 VL 140 104 - 49

incidents per
1000
establishments

Percent 83% 771% 87% 78% 69% 95%

reported to
police

Incidents 7237 847 1,740 3,978 1,863 1,045

reported to (35.1%) (27.0%) (45.4%) (39.2%) (56.6%) (20.0%)
police
weighted to
population

Per capita ratio 4.3 3.5 4.8 8.2 10.4 257,

of commercial
to personal
robberies

Total no. of 9,226 3,142 3,831 10,135 3,293 5227;

incidents
reported to
police
weighted to
population
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 143

TABLE 4-8 cont'd

® fe)

oo3 8 ace :
2 c a e

c
5 =
és
5
ze}
2 a)
S
os
&
aes
8
~

& 3 a 2 (= (= 2 Oo
= 2 fe) a 5 a = af
21 18 22 15 11 29 il7/ 18.5

49% 53% 53% 56% 46% 44% 63% 57%

2,793 3,392 2,650 2,744 2,438 6,160 4,914 47,235

(67.9%) (54.6%) (52.4%) (65.3%) (74.0%) (66.1%) (70.4%) (63.8%)

91 nize 137 WY 49 80 88 96.0

88% 83% 83% 97% 85% 717% 90% 82%

1,320 2,822 2,407 1,455 855 3,157 2,070 26,796

(32.1%) (45.4%) (47.6%) (34.7%) (26.0%) -(33.9%) (29.6%) (36.2%)

4.3 9.6 6.2 571 4.5 2.8 5.2 5.2

4,113 6,214 5,057 4,199 3,293 9,317 6,984 74,031

144 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 4-9
VICTIMIZATION DATA ON BURGLARY IN THIRTEEN AMERICAN CITIES

= %

° oO = 7) S we
7) P= 2 2} o =
fe) 5 = ° = =
co co O aE = =
Burglary 149 97 143 164 85 152
incidents per
1000
population

Percent 56% 50% 55% 46% 58% 54%

reported to
police

Incidents 17,360 7,200 12375 32,016 6,090 19,926

reported to (56.7%) (60.4%) (48.9%) (70.4%) (50.4%) (76.9%)
police
weighted to
population

Burglary 576 319 566 518 292 321

incidents per
1000
establishments

Percent 78% 75% 84% 71% 79% 82%

reported to
police

Police weighted 13,260 4,725 13,490 6,004 5,986 5,986

to incidents (43.3%) (39.6%) (29.6%) (49.6%) (23.1%) (25.7%)
reported to
population

Per capita ratio Sic 333 4.0 SW So Zl

of commercial
to household
burglaries

Total no. of 30,620 1FO25, FAS) 634 45,506 12,094 25; On

incidents
reported to
police
weighted to
population
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 145

TABLE 4-9 cont'd

o ie)
2 Cc 8 S
fe) a = fe) ‘O g
a
o
== 5c D
Ss
jez)
©
[=
oO
io)
c n

o
c 12) oO
ae 3 aQ i ie
<= &
=
—Cc s
o
=
oO
oy
+
= fe 2) oO
ise}
= 2 Oo a n aoO =se ~
90)

WAL 112 174 93 138 115 75 128.7

52% 47% 57% 50% 50% 51% 57% 57.6%

14,768 10,199 13,224 8,100 17,650 16,932 11,229 187,069

(74.3%) (62.8%) (56.2%) (66.5%) (74.4%) (64.6%) (62.3%) (64.2%)

436 448 637 293 358 253 330 411.3

71% 68% 77% 73% 80% 72% 79% 76.1%

5,112 6,052 10,318 4,088 6,080 9,288 6,794 104,033

(25.7%) (37.2%) (43.8%) (33.5%) (25.6%) (35.4%) (37.7%) (35.8%)

Zz 4.0 23) Sh72 2.6 22 4.4 S72

19,880 16,251 23,542 12,188 23,730 26,220 18,023 291,202

146 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

CONCLUSIONS
Crime statistics seldom, if ever, speak for themselves. They require
interpretation. Helpful in this interpretation is an awareness that the
components of such statistics include not only the persons and behaviors
they presume to count, but also errors that lead to over- and under-
reporting, some of which are random, and some of which are systematic,
with origins in the individuals and organizations that respond to crime. We
have called the first of the above the “behavioral component” of crime
statistics, the second the “‘error component,” and the third the “‘response
component.” In sorting out these components, modern criminologists have
been informed by comparisons of alternative measures, drawn from a
variety of sources, including: (1) official agencies of crime control, (2)
nonofficial agencies, (3) first-person accounts, (4) victimization surveys,
and (5) observational studies. We can be encouraged as to the validity of
our measures when estimates based on several of these methods agree; and
we can be directed to possible sources of error when the different methods
disagree.
Proceeding on the basis of the above principles, we have suggested
answers to four questions:
1. Are crime rates increasing? In intervals of about fifty years, the
United States has experienced three important surges of violent crime: in
1860, 1900, and 1960. However, there is some possibility that these
periodic surges are actually deviations from a much longer downward trend
that has been traced to medieval and early modern England, when rates of
violent crime were extremely high. In any case, the most sophisticated
forecasts, taking into account the movement of baby-boom children out of
the violence-prone years, suggest a new stability or even decline in some
crime rates in the 1980s.
2. Are there class differences in criminal behavior? Analyses of official
data aggregated into areal units may often exaggerate the link between
social class and criminal and delinquent behavior. Nonetheless, evidence
suggests that the forms of crime and delinquency currently considered most
serious by the public, and treated as such, are unequally distributed across
the class structure, with the underclasses experiencing more than their fair
share of crime and delinquency.
3. Are men more criminal than women? When it comes to criminal
forms of behavior, men clearly exceed women. This does not mean that the
relationship between crime and gender is a simple one: the disparity
between the sexes varies with the class of crime and the time considered.
The biggest changes are occurring for younger women and in the area of
property crime. Although the criminality of women will not soon equal or
surpass that of men, changes are occurring.
 COUNTING CRIME: THE MANY MEASURES OF CRIMINALITY 147

4. How criminal are the corporations? Many corporations are not only
criminal but also criminal recidivists, in the sense of being convicted
repeatedly for criminal offenses. It is assumed further that far more
corporations commit crimes than are caught and convicted. Corporations
not only have often successfully avoided large-scale criminal prosecutions,
they also have proven themselves effective in mobilizing the criminal law to
penalize those (e.g., shoplifters) who offend against them. In this sense,
corporations may benefit more than individuals, both as criminal offenders
and as victims of crime.
Modern theories of crime have not given much attention to the crimes of
women or of corporations. This issue is addressed in some detail in
Chapter 9. On the other hand, much theoretical effort has been devoted to
the explanation of class differences in criminal and delinquent behavior.
The three following chapters consider these theories in the following
groups: the theories of undercontrol; the theories of culture, status, and
opportunity; and the theories of overcontrol. It is to the effort to
understand variations in criminal behavior, then, that we turn next.
UNDERSTANDING CRIME I: THE
THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL

THE ISSUE: WHY DO PEOPLE VIOLATE LAWS THAT MOST OF

US ACCEPT?
‘‘Why,”’ the theories of undercontrol try to explain, “would anyone violate
rules of social conduct that nearly all of us accept?” As the subtitle of this
chapter suggests, the answers given to this question point in various ways
to the absence or ineffectiveness of social controls; that is, these theories
talk about how and why some of us are beyond or out of control. However,
before we consider this theory group in any detail, we should note that the
question we have started with involves a crucial assumption. The question
posed assumes that most of us do agree about the rules we are expected to
follow. As we noted in Chapter 2, this assumption of consensus is subject
to debate, and theories we consider in later chapters begin with rather
different assumptions. Thus the theories we consider here can be regarded
as ‘consensus theories,” and they exist in apposition, if not opposition, to
theories we consider later. For the purposes of this chapter, however, we
will accept the assumption of consensus, noting only that it may be truer of
some rules of social life (e.g., those regulating serious crimes of violence)
than others.
There are at least three kinds of theories of undercontrol, and each
explains lawbreaking in a different way.
¢ Social disorganization theory asserts that the growth of American
cities brought breakdowns in processes that normally regulate lawbreaking
behavior.
¢ Neutralization theory notes that although most of us still learn the
norms and values of our society, some of us also learn to rationalize, or
neutralize, their violation.

* Control theory observes that some people feel less constrained than
others by the norms and values of our society, and therefore that they feel
relatively free to deviate from them.

There is, of course, more to each of these theories than the summary
statements just presented. These statements are helpful, however, in

148
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 149

making the initial point that each of the theories of undercontrol is

concerned with how persons evade, or are freed from, the control of norms
and values they are assumed to share in common. Our task in this chapter
will be to examine each of the theories of undercontrol in more detail.
Before doing so, however, we will first introduce a concept that is
fundamental not only to the theories of undercontrol but to the theories we
consider later.

DURKHEIM'S CONCEPT OF ANOMIE

The concept of anomie emerged in the work of the French sociologist
Emile Durkheim (1897). This concept anticipated the modern theories of
undercontrol (see Hirschi, 1969, p. 3n) in the attention it gave to social
bonds and cultural regulation, and more specifically, to the consequences
of their absence or failure. Thus, in its initial usage, the concept of anomie |
referred to an absence of social regulation, or normlessness. Durkheim —
introduced his discussion of anomie by noting that physical and social
needs are regulated in significantly different ways. For example, when
physical hunger is satiated, the body itself will resist additional food. But
the social needs—including wealth, prestige, and power—are regulated |
externally, through the constraining forces of society. Undisciplined by this |
guardian social order, Durkheim (1897, p. 247) assumed that our desires
are an “insatiable and bottomless abyss.” Further, Durkheim argued
(ibid., p. 252) that humanity’s darkest danger resided in the absence of
regulation, or absolute freedom: “‘It is not true, then, that human activity
can be released from all restraint.... Its nature and method of
manifestation .. . depend not only on itself but on other beings, who
consequently restrain and regulate it.” For Durkheim, as for Kris Kristof-
ferson and Bobby McGee, then, “freedom is just another word for nothing
left to lose.”’
Suicide, the ultimate act of anomie, was the subject of Durkheim’s
best-known research. The assumption that guided this research was that
suicide rates vary with two social conditions: social integration and social
regulation. Durkheim argued that excessively low or high levels of
integration and regulation can bring high rates of suicide. Thus, high levels |
of integration can result in states of altruism, exemplified in the human |
sacrifices of primitive peoples, and the brave but deadly acts of modern
soldiers. On the other hand, low levels of integration are said to result in
egoism and higher rates of suicide among unmarried persons and Protes-
tants (as contrasted with Catholics and Jews). Excessive regulation pro-
 150 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

duces fatalism that causes higher suicide rates among childless married
/women and very young husbands. Finally, low levels of regulation bring
|anomie and higher suicide rates among widows and divorced persons, as
| well as among business people during economic booms and slumps. For
our purposes, anomie, with its attention to economic conditions and its
implications for types of crime and deviance other than suicide, is the most
important element in Durkheim’s discussion.
; Durkheim’s proposed cure for anomie is found in his suggestion (ibid.,
p. 246) that ‘“‘no living being can be happy or even exist unless his needs are
sufficiently proportioned to his means.’’ Rather than social or economic
reform, then, Durkheim in his early work recommends an attitude of
resignation as the solution to the problems of anomie. In particular,
Durkheim was stubborn in his belief that economic reforms could not
effectively resolve conditions of anomie. He insisted instead (ibid., p. 251)
that ‘“‘one sort of heredity will always exist, that of natural talent. A moral
discipline will therefore still be required to make those less favored by
nature accept the lesser advantages which they owe to chances of birth.”
Indeed, Durkheim went so far as to find virtue in poverty, suggesting
. (ibid., p. 254) that “‘it is actually the best school for teaching self-restraint.””
As we will see in Chapter 6, Robert Merton assumed the task of
extracting a more liberal sentiment from the Durkheimian tradition.
Merton did this by reformulating the relationship postulated between goals
and means in the concept of anomie. As we will see in Chapter 7, other
theorists have also identified more radical themes in Durkheim’s later
work. However, for the moment our primary interest is in the emphasis
Durkheim gave to processes of social integration and regulation. It is this
emphasis that ties Durkheim’s early work to the more modern theories of
undercontrol.

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

We have already made reference in Chapter 1 to the importance of the
Chicago school in American criminology. Social disorganization theory
/ had its rootsin the Chicago school and the work of several of its most
important members: W. I. Thomas, Frederick Thrasher, and Clifford
Shaw and his associates. Prominent in the work of all of the early Chicago
; criminologists was the idea of social control. Like Durkheim, these
; theorists believed that it was the absence or failure of controls that
|explained deviant behavior. SOT 2. i Poa ae
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 151

W. I. Thomas and “The Unadjusted Girl”

WwW. Thomas (1909, pp. 14-16) organized his work around the oe
assumption that “control . . . is the object of all purposive activity.” Social
control is necessary, according to Thomas (1923), because there is an |
inevitable contradiction between the wants and needs of individuals and
Society. In particular, individuals pursue their wishes for four things—
security, new experience, response, and recognition—while “an organized
_
society seeks ...to regulate the conflict and “competition inevitable
between its members in the pursuitof their wishes’ (1923, p. 43). The
instruments of social control or regulation are “definitions of situations”’;
these comprise a moral code that for Thomas are society’s defense against
social disorganization.
However, Thomas also observed that modern, urban, capitalist socie-
ties are characterized by competing and socially disorganizing definitions of
individual behavior, including such ideas as ‘“‘women’s rights.” In turn-of-
the-century Chicago, Thomas saw young women seeking new opportuni-
ties in schools, factories, stores, offices, and other previously unavailable
settings. This movement away from the home and its primary relationships
was seen as weakening traditional social controls and as subjecting young
women to conflicting definitions of situations. Thomas was interested in
using these ideas to explain the involvement of young women in prostitu-
tion.
In The Unadjusted Girl, Thomas argued that the processes of social
change that were occurring in cities like Chicago were destroying older ————

social controls and the force of definitions favoring such ideas as “‘virgini-
ty” and “purity.” Particularly for young women whose economic resources
were limited, Thomas (1923, p. 98) argued that sex now took on new
meanings: ‘‘Their sex is used as a condition of the realization of other
wishes. It is their capital.’ Thus Thomas saw sex as a medium through
which impoverished young women could achieve their wishes for “security,
new experience, and response.”’ In sum, prostitution was seen as a product
of the socially disorganizing forces of the city and the changing definitions
of situations that it brought, particularly to young women who were
economically disadvantaged. Note that this view of prostitution may help
to explain the enthusiasm of the “‘humanitarians” for the types of
prostitution legislation we discussed in Chapter 3. The theory of social
disorganization saw informal social controls as in decline, and society aas
_requiring formal social controls, that is, laws, to_ take their place. This view
does not fit well with the notion that prostitution is the world’s oldest
profession, and therefore not the product of recent social change; nor does
 152 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

it fit well with the common assumption that during the first part of this
century ideas about women’s rights had greater currency among middle-
and upper-class women than among underclass women. Nonetheless, the
views held by Thomas were influential.

Thrasher and “The Gang”

Thomas’s conception of the four wishes (the desires for new experience,
_security, response, and recognition) became the basis for Frederick
Thrasher’s (1937) study of juvenile gangs in BTS Thrasher more
LOSI called these wishes the “‘lively energies.” He argued that these
“energies” made adolescent life naturally free and wild. The question,
then, was what conditions would allow ‘these energies free play. The
answer given again involved the disorganization of the community and the
loss of traditional controls. These conditions were to be found, according
_to Thrasher, in city slums characterized by physical deterioration, a rapid
succession of inhabitants, and high mobility. Gangs were seen as a natural
responseto these conditions. or.
But why gangs specifically? Here Thrasher notes that a disorganized
community and family life not only frees adolescent males from social
control, but also fails to provide for the elemental human needs identified
_ by Thomas. Gangs are social organizations that serve these needs. The
_functions of the gang are to establish order and fulfill human needs. The
gang constitutes a form of collective behavior that As spontaneous: and
unplanned in origin.
Thrasher is also rather specific about the joining and leaving of gangs.
Again, the key variable is social control. He argues that girls, preadoles-
cent boys, and children of both sexes in certain ethnic groups rarely join
gangs because they are effectively controlled by their families. On the
other hand, boys leave gangs when obligations of marriage and work
introduce new kinds of controls on their behavior.
In all of this, we should not lose sight of the fact that Thrasher saw
delinquency as a fun and playful pursuit (Bordua, 1961). Thrasher’s
descriptions of the slums of Chicago are scenes of excitement, with their
railroad yards, industrial properties, and waterways offering ‘‘a realm for
adventure that is unexcelled in the playgrounds or in the more orderly
portions of the city” (p. 479). Given these attractions, and the absence of
controls, delinquency was seen as a normal and natural response.

Shaw, McKay, and Delinquency Areas

Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1931; 1942; 1969) conducted aseriesof_
studies beginning in the late 1920s in Chicago that sought to identify areas
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 153

_of social disorganization and the processes that characterize them. What
they found was that variety of measures of social disorganization—truancy,
tuberculosis, infant mortality, mental disorder, economic dependency,
adult crime, and juvenile delinquency—tended to occur in common. In
general, the rates were highest in slums near the city center, and they |

which this pattern was premised is discussed in Chapter 1. ) Since these

problems were assumed to be contrary to the shared values of area
inhabitants, they were taken as indications that these areas were unable to
realize the goals of their residents. In other words, they were taken as
indicators of social disorganization.
Shaw and McKay also attempted to determine the sorts of community
characteristics that were correlated with delinquency, so that they could
infer from these characteristics what the central components of social
disorganization were and how they caused delinquency. Three typesof
correlates were identified: the economic status of the community, the
mobility of the community, and its heterogeneity. The implication was that
poverty, high mobility, and heterogeneity lead to weak controls and, in
turn, to high rates of delinquency. Of.course, poverty, mobility, and
heterogeneity have been distinctive features of the centers of American
cities for some time, and their discussion therefore speaks directly to the
issue of why America’s central cities have experienced so much crime and
delinquency. Nonetheless, Shaw and McKay’s work and that of other
social disorganization theorists has received a good deal of criticism. A
discussion of some of the sources of this criticism follows.

Some Critical Comments on Social Disorganization Theory

One very basic critique of social disorganization theory has involved
efforts to test the assertion that poverty is a primary determinant of
community variations in rates of official delinquency. Five of these studies
have attracted the most attention (Lander, 1954; Polk, 1957-1958; Bordua,
1958-1959; Chilton, 1964; Quinney, 1964). All save the next-to-last of
these studies conclude that the economic well-being of an area }s less
important in its relationship to delinquency than social disorganization
theory suggests. However, as Gordon (1967) and, more recently, Korn-
‘-hauser (1978) have noted, these studies have suffered from statistical
problems (most notable, multicollinearity) that make their conclusions
doubtful. In the end, Gordon concludes that there is a correlation at the
aggregate level between socioeconomic status and official delinquency
rates, with the lower end of the socioeconomic continuum contributing
most to the relationship. As we noted in the previous chapter, the use of
154 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

AN EXAMPLE: THE SOCIAL ORDER OF THE SLUM A mod-

ern descendant of the Chicago school of sociology, Gerald Suttles, has _
offered a somewhat different view of slum communities than that provided by ©
social disorganization theory. His research is based on a part of Chicago that _
he calls the ‘Addams area,” where he lived from 1963 to 1966. Suttles notes _
that this neighborhood had achieved notoriety for its lawlessness, gangster- _
ism, and general departure from the standards of the city. It became the
stronghold of Al Capone, the ‘Gena Brothers,” and the “40” gang in the
1920s. On the other hand, Hull House was founded in the neighborhood by
Jane Addams, and Mother Cabrini, America’s first and only Roman Catholic
saint, devoted much of her life to the area.
Measured by the usual yardstick of success, Suttles observes, it is
- tempting to adopt the social disorganization perspective and to think of the
local residents of the Addams area as inadequate and disadvantaged people
suffering from cultural deprivation, unemployment, and a number of other
“urban ills.” However, Suttles (1976, p. 3) argues that when this area is
viewed from the inside it can be seen that it is intricately organized according
to its own standards, a set of standards that “require discipline and
self-restraint in the same way as do the moral dictates of the wider
community.” The basis of these standards is a pattern Suttles calls “ordered
segmentation,” in which age, sex, ethnic, and territorial units are fitted
together like building blocks to create a larger structure. This patterning is
apparent in the activities that surround the adolescent male street-corner
groups (i.e., gangs) that were of so much concern to social disorganization
theorists like Thrasher, Shaw, and McKay.
In a manner not so different from Thrasher, Suttles (ibid., p. 220) suggests
that “the street corner group provides a way of ordering people into a —
manageably small number of social aggregates. ... The function of the
named street corner group is rudimentary and primitive: it defines groups of
people so that they can be seen as representatives rather than individuals.”
However, these groups often become problematic as rumors circulate about
them in rather predictable, socially organized, ways. For example,
In the winter of 1964 a Mexican from Eighteenth Street was badly hurt by ©
someone who tied him to a telephone pole and ran a car into him. Three
Italians were arrested as drivers of the car but later released. Among the
Mexicans on Eighteenth Street, the rumor was that the “outfit” had “got
off” the three Italians. To this was added the general view that ‘someone
from around here’s gonna get one of those Dagos.” Implicitly this meant
any “‘dago” in the Addams area. Being Italian and living in the Addams
area is equivalent to belonging to the “outfit” so far as those from
_ Eighteenth Street are concerned.
The rumor circulated on Eighteenth Street until late spring when an
open dance was held in the Addams area. A large number of boys from —
Eighteenth Street attended. Outside the dance, boys congregated and
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 155

syed one another. A group of Mexican boys congregated at one location _

_ only a few yards from several Italian boys. A shot rang out and Snout, an _
Italian boy, fell wounded. A policeman no more than a few yards away
_gave chase and wounded one of the assailants. The rest got away.
_ Immediately, there was a gathering among the Italian boys in the
_Addams area, and the question of “‘what will be done about those guys on
Fighteenth Street” arose. On this occasion, however, they waited for a
_report on Snout’s condition. No one was badly hurt. Later another rumor _
developed among the Italians: “Our (Italian) policemen are going to take -
care of it.”’ From that point on, no one felt any need to retaliate against —
Eighteenth Street. The fact that there was no subsequent evidence that_
_the Italian policemen had done aay ne did not lessen en faith in
i th

one a very selective path governed by the ordered segmentation of the a

area. Thus, he observes that such rumors usually spread among the younger_
males, crossing ethnic and sex boundaries at the same age level. A result is
that a rumor may spread downward among the younger children of an area, _
it will seldom reach upward to their parents before a number of street _
orkers and police officers have heard some version of the rumor. It is__
_ therefore generally the latter who intervene to forestall serious conflict. —
| When conflict does erupt, it too follows a pattern of ordered segmentation. _
The boys involved tend to attack others known to them, and to exploit |
sons they do not know. The girls hang back and evade the conflict, with |
possible exception of black girls, whose status more nearly approximates
yf the boys. The truth of unfounded rumors is assumed, and ethnic _
ces further antagonize their interpretation. Area adults seldom
rcede effectively because they know so little about what is happening in
boys’ world. Suttles (ibid., p. 220) therefore concludes that “in various _
ayS, age, sex, residence, and ethnicity continually reappear to define _
pal ticipant and onlooker, victim and victimizer, the ignorant and the wise,
emaker and the peacemaker.” In this sense, slum communities _

aggregated official police data in these studies may inflate such a relation-
ship; nonetheless, this relationship is one which crime and delinquency
theories must explain.
More serious criticisms of social disorganization theory have questioned
the imprecision and possible circularity of the social disorganization
concept and its use to characterize slum or ghetto life. The imprecision or
circularity of social disorganization theory lies in its inclusion of delinquen-
_cy rates as one of its indicators. Kornhauser (1978, pp. 118-120) notes that
 156 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

a problem here may have been the reluctance of social disorganization

theorists to be explicit about the causal structure of their theory. Rather,
they sometimes seem to be using the presence of delinquency to explain its
occurrence, which certainly sounds like circular, or tautological, thinking.
' However, if what they really meant was that poverty, heterogeneity, and
mobility cause social disorganization, and that crime and delinquency are
its consequences, then they may be on safer ground (Kornhauser, 1978).
Still, are slums and ghettos really socially disorganized? Such conclu-
sions often seem to be little more than middle-class value judgments about
disadvantaged ways of living. In response to just this kind of concern, a
number of observational studies (e.g., Whyte, 1955; Liebow, 1967;
Rainwater, 1970; Suttles, 1978) have sought to determine how slum and
ghetto communities are ordered. We turn now to a recent study of this
kind.

NEUTRALIZATION THEORY
Neutralization theory brings with it a shiftaway from the objective
conditions of underclass life, and a new emphasis on the subjective manner
in which crime- producing s situations are interpreted. At base, neutralization
) theory assumes that people’s actions are |guided bytheir thoughts. Thus,
the question asked by this theory is, What is it about the thoughts of
otherwise good people that sometimes turn them bad? It can be noted that
the question posed assumes that most people, most of the time, are guided
by “good” thoughts. In other words, neutralization theory, like social
disorganization theory, assumes that there is general agreement in our
society about “the good things in life” and the appropriate ways of
obtaining them, Thus, Sykes and Matza (1957, p. 665n) are able to observe
that the juvenile delinquent ‘“‘recognizes both the legitimacy of the
dominant social order and its moral ‘rightness.’ ’ With Morris Cohen, the
neutralization theorists suggest that one of the most fascinating puzzles of
human behavior is how individuals come to violate the laws in which they
believe.
One of the most important contributions of this theoretical approach,
then, was to alter the emphasis of sociological theory on crime and
| delinquency as lower-class phenomena. Applications of neutralization
|theory include the early work of Sutherland on white-collar crime, the
research of his student Cressey on embezzlement, and the connections
drawn by Sykes and Matza between the acts of delinquents and the
lifestyles of the “leisure class.” The strand that ties these works together,
across several generations of sociological research, is an interest in how the
thinking of “good” people sometimes leads them to deviate. The answer is
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 157

call “rationalizations,’ thosnorms ead values that inhibit both crime and
_delinquency.

Sutherland and Differential Association

Edwin Sutherland (1924) organized muchof his work around
the concept
of “differential association.”’ His focus was not only on associations among
people, as the phrase implies, but also on the connections of ideas to
behavior. Sutherland’s basic thesis was that people |behave criminally only
when they define such behavi as acceptable.
or Thus, “the hypothesis of
differential association is that criminal behavior is learned in association
with those who define such behavior favorably and in isolation from those
who define it unfavorably, and that a person in an appropriate situation
engages in such criminal behavior if, and only if, the weight of the
favorable definitions exceeds the weight of the unfavorable definitions”
(Sutherland, 1949, p. 234).
Sutherland applied this hypothesis most provocatively in his White
Collar Crime. As noted in Chapter 4, this study was based on a sample of
seventy large corporations, and their encounters with civil and criminal
agencies of social control. From these data emerged several dramatic
conclusions:
e That corporate criminality is both common and persistent.
¢ That convictions generally do not result in a loss of status for offenders
among their business associates.
¢ That there is widespread corporate contempt for government regula-
tory agencies and the personnel involved in their administration.
¢ That most white-collar business crime is organized crime, in the sense
that the violations are often either internally organized corporate affairs or
are extended through several corporations.
Theoretically, Sutherland was concerned with how white-collar crimi-
nals come to define their illegal business practices as acceptable. His
conclusion was that a general ideology grows out of involvement in specific
‘practices, and that ‘this ideology in turn serves to justify the practices
involved. The ideology itself is transmitted in a collection of common
commercial clichés, including:
‘“‘We’re not in business for our health.”
‘Business is business.”
“Tt isn’t how you get your money, but what you do with it that counts.”
“Tt’s the law of the jungle.”
 158 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Sutherland (1949, p. 247) suggests that this justificatory ideology is diffused

in an atmosphere that is isolated from competing points of view. Thus,
“the persons who define business practices as undesirable and illegal are
customarily called ‘communists’ or ‘socialists’ and their definitions carry
little weight.”’
Sutherland, then, laid the broad outlines for neutralization theory with
the suggestion that variable definitions determine whether social conduct
will be considered lawful or unlawful. We will pursue this point further in a
discussion of corporate homicide below. It remained, however, for Suther-
land’s student, Cressey, and later Sykes and Matza, to give more specific
content to this perspective. Cressey’s contribution was to make the causal
structure of the theory emphatic.

Cressey and “Other People’s Money”

Donald Cressey (1953, 1971) developed his theoretical perspective in a
study of embezzlement, and then later expanded his explanation to cover a
varietyof “respectable crimes” (1965). The original research was guided
by_a1 demanding ‘methodology, called ‘analytic induction” (Znaniecki,
1934; Lindesmith, 1947), in which the investigator iss bound by the
provision that the discovery of a single negative case requires rejection of
the hypothesis under investigation. Using this approach, Cressey tested
and rejected several hypotheses before settling on an explanation that
survived interviews with 133 imprisoned embezzlers and a rereading of
some 200 cases in Sutherland’s files. The result was a four-part explanation
of the violation of financial trust.
Cressey’s explanation requires first that the subjects be in positions of
financial trust; second, that they think of themselves as having nonshare-
able (usually aanclill problems; third, that they be aware of techniques
for violating the financial trust; and fourth, that they have access to a set of
verbalizations that rationalizes their crimes. The two most important
features of this explanation ;are the presence of the nonshareable problem
and the rrationalization of guilt.
The presence of the nonshareable problem in Cressey’s theory reflects
the assumption that deviants and conformists alike share the basic values of
the surrounding society, and therefore that some kind of problem is
necessary to stimulate the violation of these values. Thus, Cressey’s
jembezzlers are assumed to be moral people who accept in good faith the
/position of trust that they occupy. A nonshareable | financial problem is
required to initiate their decline. This problem is assumed to be so serious
that it cannot be shared, discussed, or otherwise resolved with the help of
others.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 159

However, the nonshareable problem alone is not enough to bring

embezzlement. Driven to thoughtsof trust violation, the potentialembez-
_Zler is subject to the guilt produced in the conflict between societal values
and personal needs.
Verbalizations aare the key to theneutralization of this guilt, and they are
similar in form to those found by Sutherland (Cressey, 1971, chap. 4).

“Some of our most respectable citizens got their start in life by using
other people’s money temporarily.”
“All people steal when they get in a tight spot.”
“My intent is only to use this money temporarily, so I am ‘borrowing,’
not ‘stealing.’ ”’
“T have been trying to live an honest life but I have had nothing but
troubles, so ‘to hell with it!’ ”

We will argue in later sections that the nonshareable problem and

verbalization components of Cressey’s theory are subject to challenge,
using the very methodology of “negative cases” that he suggests. Howev-
er, for the moment, we will simply note that Cressey (1965, p. 15) believes
the verbalization compenent of his theory to have a more general
application: ““The generalization I have developed here was made to fit
only one crime—embezzling. But I suspect that the verbalization section of
the generalization will fit other types of respectable crime as well.’ Sykes
and Matza expand on this observation by suggesting that there may be a
further link between the “respectable” acts of the leisure class and the
more commonplace acts of delinquents.

Sykes, Matza, and the Techniques of Neutralization

Although many theories of deviance assume that the deviant, particularly
the lower-class delinquent, is a markedly different type of person from “‘the
rest of us,’’ Sykes and Matza (1957, 1961) suggest that the similarities
actually outnumber the differences. Their argument is based in part on the
observations that delinquents usually exhibit guilt or shame when they
violate the law, that they frequently accord approval to certain conforming
figures, and that they ofteneo between ee andPasi

behavior “techniques of neutralization; and we believe Re RINT ANS

make up a crucial component of Sutherland’s ‘definitions favorable to the
violation of law.” Us
Sykes and Matza suggest that there are five techniques of neutralization:
 160 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Denialof responsibility. Here delinquents picture themselves as the

helpless agents of social forces (e.g., unloving parents, bad companions, or
a slum neighborhood). Thus the lament of the delinquent to Officer
Krupke in West Side Story, ‘I’m not a delinquent, ’'m misunderstood, I’m
psychologically disturbed.”
/ Denial of injury. Here delinquents argue that their behavior does not
/ really cause any great harm. Thus vandalism is seen as “mischief,” auto
theft as “borrowing,” and gang fighting as a “private quarrel.”
Denial of the victim. Here delinquents conceive of themselves as
avengers, while victims are transformed into wrongdoers. For example, the
delinquents might describe themselves as “Robin Hoods,” stealing from
the rich to give to the poor.
Condemnation of the condemners. Here delinquents allege that their
captors are either hypocrites, deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal
spite. The effect of this approach is to ‘‘change the subject’”’ of concern,
placing the focus instead on the alleged misdeeds of others.
Appeal to higher loyalties. Here delinquents see themselves as caught
between the demands of society, its laws, and the needs of smaller groups
‘(siblings, the gang, or the friendship clique). The appeal is to ‘‘friends and
family first.”
It can be noted that all of the above neutralizations have some support
in society at large. Beyond this, Sykes and Matza (1961, p. 717) suggest
that “the delinquent has picked up and emphasized one part of the
dominant value system, namely, the subterranean values that coexist with
other, publicly proclaimed values possessing a more respectable air.”
| These subterranean, or latent, values include a search for adventure,
_excitement, and thrills, and are said to exist side by side with such
| -conformity-producing values as security, routinization, and stability. Fur-
ther, Sykes and Matza cite Arthur Davis (1944) and Thorsten Veblen
(1967) in arguing that delinquents conform to society, rather than deviate
from it, when they add the desire for ‘““big money” to their value system.
| Summarizing, then, subterranean values make delinquency desirable,
‘while
the techniques ofneutralization
allow this desireto take direction.

Some Critical Comments on Neutralization Theory

Where Cressey postulates a nonshareable problem as the stimulating factor
in embezzlement, Sykes and Matza suggest a simple attraction to the
“good life” as the source of delinquency. It can be observed, however, that
if the attraction is “big enough,” then the need for neutralization might
seem superfluous. Support for this view is available in the Schwendingers’
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME I: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 161

(1967) finding that delinquents, when offered the opportunity to rationa-

lize projected deviant behaviors, seldom do so. Instead, delinquents
observed in this study assessed their situations tactically, comparing the
pains versus gains of contemplated acts (cf. Hirschi, 1969). A major
criticism of neutralization theory, then, is that it may underestimate the
pleasures of a deviant lifestyle and at the same time overestimate the guilt
experienced by those who choose to pursue such pleasures. This last point
can be clarified by considering further the crime of embezzlement.
Recall that Cressey (1971, p. 16) developed his theory of embezzlement
with the proviso that ‘the discovery by the investigator or any other
investigator of a single negative case disproves the explanation and
requires a re-formulation.”’ Operating under this proviso, Gwynn Nettler
(1974) interviewed six Canadian embezzlers convicted during the past
decade of stealing from a low of $60,000 to more than $300,000. Included
among the six were two male attorneys, one female bookeeper, one female
bank cashier, one male social worker, and one male investment counselor.
Only one of the six cases conformed to Cressey’s requirement that a
nonshareable problem be the stimulant to theft.
In contrast, Nettler (ibid., p. 75) suggests that the remaining five cases |
“are more clearly described as individuals who wanted things they could |
not afford and who were presented with (or who invented) ways of taking ©
other people’s money.”’ In all of these cases there was desire—something |
one could do with the money, and in each of the cases there was|
opportunity—a way to take the money with little apparent risk. In fact,
Nettler (ibid.) suggests that in two of the cases the opportunities were so
open, for so long, that it would have required strong defenses or weak
desires to resist the temptations offered.
For example, a social worker in charge of a welfare.agency resisted
for seven years stealing the inadequately guarded funds entrusted
him. Only after these years of handling easy money did he
succumb to the pleasures of acquiring some $25,000 annually in
“welfare payments’’ made to non-existent clients. These benefits
accrued for eight years before his arrest. The thefts were not
engaged to meet a secret financial difficulty. They did, of course,
produce an unshareable financial embarrassment. In this case,
money was stolen because it was, like Everest, there.

Most individuals probably possess neither strong defenses nor weak |

desires, and in attractive circumstances neutralizations therefore may be as \
likely to occur after the fact as before the act. In other words, neutraliza-
tions, verbalizations, or rationalizations may justify as well as cause acts of
deviance (cf. Hackler, 1971, p. 72). Still neutralizations can play a very
162 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

important role, particularly in the area of white-collar crime. Neutraliza-

tions of white-collar indiscretions, if widely enough accepted, can prevent
definition of the behaviors involved as criminal, not only by the actors
involved, but also by reactors. As we will note next, this is precisely the
issue involved in the definition of corporate homicide.

AN EXAMPLE: CORPORATE HOMICIDE AND THE FORD

MOTOR COMPANY An interesting illustration of how important defini-
tions of crime and deviance can be is found in the prosecution, albeit
unsuccessful, of the Ford Motor Company for reckless homicide resulting
from design and marketing decisions made about its subcompact car, the
Pinto. Swigert and Farrell (1980-1981) have charted the process by which
notions of corporate homicide have gained legal recognition, with particular
reference to the Ford Pinto case. They note that until recently, the dominant
precedent, first established in the 1909 case of People v. Rochester Railway
and Light Company, has been that corporations are incapable of forming the
criminal intent that is necessary to constitute a provable crime like homicide
| against a person. Also, in many state and federal statutes, homicide is
defined as the criminal slaying of “another human being,” with “another”
referring to the same class of being as the victim. These precedents and
statutes together have acted to diminish the plausibility of the idea that
corporations can, in a criminal sense, kill people. Instead, corporate
misbehavior has been viewed as entailing a diffuse, impersonal kind of cost to
society that should be understood in economic (i.e., civil) rather than moral
(i.e., criminal) terms. This kind of thinking, it can be noted, allows corporate
decision-makers to disassociate their actions from their harmful consequenc-
es for individuals; in other words, to neutralize potential feelings of guilt. In
more practical terms, the difference amounts to that between civil claims of
unsafe-product liability and criminal charges of homicide.
However, the indictment of the Ford Motor Company and the trial that
followed constituted official recognition of a new public harm—homicide by a
corporation. Columnists Jack Anderson and Les Whitten (cited in Swigert
and Farrell, 1980-1981, p. 170) brought the issue into full public view when,
on December 30, 1976, they charged that:

Buried in secret files of the Ford Motor Company lies evidence that big
auto makers have put profits ahead of lives. Their lack of concern has
caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car
crashes. Undisclosed Ford tests have demonstrated that the big auto
makers could have made safer automobiles by spending a few dollars
_ more on each car.

Swigert and Farrell argue that this kind of press attention was a part of a |
reconceptualization in the public mind of the harm that can result from _
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 163

| corporate acts.
As these harms were personalized in press accounts, they
: ve charges of criminal homicide became more plausible.
In the beginning, Swigert and Farrell note, more attention was given in ©
_ news stories to the Pinto’s mechanical defect, its faulty fuel-tank design, than
_ t@ the issue of personal harm; furthermore, the two issues were kept_
separate. For example, in the Anderson-Whitten column quoted above, a
harm-oriented statement, “lack of concern [of the big automakers] has _
| caused thousands of people to die or be horribly disfigured in fiery car
crashes,” was set apart from the defect-oriented comments that “‘in most
American-made cars, the fuel tanks are located behind the rear axle. In this
exposed position, a high-speed rear-end collision can cause the tank to _
explode, turning the car into a giant torch.” Over time, however, more
_ attention was given to the personalization of harm, and the mechanical defect
- _and personal harm issues increasingly were fused. On February 8, 1978, for —
| example, the Washington Post (cited in Swigert and Farrell, 1980-1981, pp.
173-174) reported that punitive damages were awarded to a “teen-ager who _
_suffered severe burns over 95 percent of his body when the gas tank of a 1972
Pinto exploded.”’ As the two issues were combined, mechanical defect ceased
to compete with personal harm as an appropriate definition of the problem.
“This public recognition of personal harm,” Swigert and Farrell (ibid., p.
180) suggest, “was ultimately reflected in the grand jury decision that the
_Pinto-related deaths of three Indiana teenagers were like homicide.”
However, while the grand jury and the state of Indiana saw grounds to
| indict, the trial jury, after listening to ten weeks of testimony and deliberat-_ /
ing three days, returneda verdict of not guilty. The question that remains, _
hen, is whether it will continue to be possible for large corporations to |
| neutralize their guilt in the causation of individual harms, even deaths, as
civil liabilities (i.e., as a cost and risk of doing business) or whether a new
__ attitude toward corporate activities might prevail. Swigert and Farrell (ibid.,
_ p. 177) cite several court cases that suggest the latter and quote the president
_ of the National District Attorneys’ Association as predicting that “‘a psycho-
logical barrier has been broken, and the big corporations are now vulnera-
ble.” Time will tell.

CONTROL THEORY
The last group of theories we will consider in this chapter, the control rol
theories of crime and delinquency, have their roots in social disorrganiza-
tion theory. Much about them may therefore seem familiar. However,
there is at least one feature of the control theories that renders them
unique. Sociological theories of crime and deviance typically assume that
people are ‘‘good”’ unless they are‘driven ‘‘bad”—either by social| injustice
 164 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

or by some other problem beyond their control. In contrast, control theory

_takes a more neutral view of the human condition, assuming that most
people have an equal propensity for both “bad” and “good.” In this view,
_people become “‘good” as society makes them so. “Good” and “‘bad” must
be placed in quotation marks here because they have little or no intrinsic
meaning outside of the society that defines them. That society defines these_
_qualities through its norms and values; that these norms and values are
_widely (although not thoroughly or enthusiastically) shared; and that every
_society attempts to impose its norms and values on its members are the key
_assumptions of «control theory. The interest of the control theorist, then, is
in that which restrains us. Instead of asking of the deviant, ““Why do you do
it?,” the control theorist wonders, ““Why don’t we all do it?” Agreeing that
“vice is nice,’’ one control theorist, Travis Hirschi (1969, p. 34), answers,
“We would if we dared.”
} Traditionally, control theory sees constraints as operating inside and
‘outside the individual. Thus, Walter Reckless (1961, pp. 44-45) one a
broad outline of the concerns of control theory byfocusing on “inner_
containment” and “outer containment.” On the one hand, “Inner contain-
\ ment consists mainly of self components, such as self-control, [and] good
self-concept,’’ while “‘outer containment represents the structural buffer in
\ the person’s immediate social world which is able to hold him within
_bounds.”’ Inner containment is seen as resulting primarily from the success
‘ofthe family at internalizing the “‘good values of society”’ in the minds of its
offspring; when the family fails, control theorists are interested also in the
-role of the community, the police, and other formal agencies of outer
containment. ees Ved etk
In large part, control theory tends to regard deviance as the result of
“bad” (said politely, “‘inadequate’’) socialization into ‘‘good” (said socio-
logically, ““conforming’’) values. Parsons (1951, p. 320) says it this way:
“The relevance of tendencies to deviance, and the corresponding relevance
of mechanisms of social control, goes back to the . . . socialization process
and continues throughout the life cycle.’’ More simply stated, the problem
is that of making people believe (whether through childhood socialization
or adult resocialization) that they want what society defines as the “good
life.” This shared desire is the essence of what control theorists call the
“social bond.” According to control theory, when the social bond is weak
or broken, deviant behavior islikely to follow. od ay
Hirschi and the Elements of the Social Bond
If it is the social bond that keeps people from deviating, then we will need
to know what it is that constitutes this bond, and how the absence of its
binding character is associated with deviance. Travis Hirschi (1969)
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 165

suggests that there are four elements of the social bond: (1) attachment, (2) |
commitment, (3) involvemen andt,
(4) belief. In turn, we will consider
briefly each of these elements.
The importance
of attachment to othersis that it arouses in us a
sensitivity to their wishes and expectations. To be attached to siblings,
parents, teachers, or anyone else is to be concerned about their feelings.
Thus, although we ‘‘always hurt the ones we love,” we usually do so
unintentionally. More commonly, we seek to protect our loved ones from
the type of hurt, loss, and embarrassment that deviant behavior can bring.
It is this type of attachment that can make a person feel “tied down” or
“locked in;” that the “‘swinging single’’ seeks to avoid by refusing to ‘“‘get
involved;” and that the transient antihero of the movie Five Easy Pieces
calls the ‘‘auspicious beginning,” and desperately leaves behind. But for
most of us, most of the time, the wishes and expectations of others seem to
add a meaning to our lives. As the fearful 40-year-old of the film
Middle-Aged Crazy finally concludes from the perspective of midlife, ‘“‘no }
strings, no people.” An act of deviance is an act against the wishes and
expectations of such people. Conversely, to be unattached is to be
unaffected by constraints. In other words, .detachment provides the |
freedom to deviate.
Commitment refers to the investment of time and energy toward
_achieving a goal like getting an education, building a business, paying off a
mortgage, or building a reputation. Society is structured so that many, but
not all, of us develop such commitments. As a part of our normal social
life, most of us acquire goods, reputations, and prospects; in other words, a
way of living that we do not want to risk losing. Hirschi refers to these
accumulations as society’s ‘“‘insurance policy” against the violation of its
rules. To deviate is to risk losing these accumulations, and control theory
assumes that it is this commitment (or ‘‘stake in conformity,” as we will call
it later) that keeps most of us “honest.” In other words, it is not so much
that most of us wish to be honest, but that we fear the costs of being
dishonest. Alternatively, the pipiens Obdeviance involve those who feel
they really have “nothing to lose.’
To be involved is to be busy. Too busy, hopefully, to deviate. The
thinking behind this proposition is as old as the homily that “‘idle hands are
the devil’s workshop,” and as perennial as the desire to do something. The
assumption is simply that if a person is busy doing conventional things,
then there will be little time or opportunity to deviate. The catch, of
course, is that the subject of involvement must be conventional, or, in
other words, conforming.
Belief in society’s values is the last of the elements of the social bond.
Hirschi stresses that deviance is not caused by beliefs that require such \
behavior; rather deviance is made possible bythe absence of beliefs that
 166 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

forbid deviance. Said differently, it is not that the deviant holds different
values from the rest of us, but rather that he or she holds the dominant
| values in reduced amount. The assumption is that persons unconstrained
| bysociety’s values feelno moral obligation to conform to its norms. The
concluding hypthesis is that the less people believe they should obey the
rules, the more likely they are to deviate from them.
According to control theory, the less committed, attached, involved,
| and believing individuals are, the less is their bond to society. The
question, then, is how this bond is created. To this the control theorist has
as many answers as there are people and processes that touch the
individual. Two answers, however, receive particular attention: the first
involves relationships within the family; the second the personal stake an
individual develops in conforming to the rules of society. After considering
these answers, we will then consider what may happen when the social
bond is not created.

Nye and Family Relationships

To focus on the family as a causal factor in criminal behavior is to run the
risk of seeming old-fashioned (cf. Hirschi, 1973). Wilkinson (1974) notes
that family breakdown was first emphasized as a causal factor at the turn of
the century, and was accepted as an important variable until about 1930. In
Chapter 3 we saw the significance of this concern about the family in the
generation of juvenile delinquency legislation. The architects of this
legislation often seemed to be acting on the basis of social disorganization
and control theories. However, from about 1930 to about 1950, family
breakdown was rejected as a causal factor, and although some signs of
renewed interest emerged in the 1950s, to date, concern with the family
remains limited. In explanation, Wilkinson suggests that in the early 1900s
the family was seen as important because of its near-exclusive control over
the development of children, and because of a very negative attitude
toward divorce. However, in the 1930s the family’s protective, religious,
recreational, and educational functions began to shift dramatically to other
institutions. At the same time, attitudes toward divorce were softening. Of
course none of this meant that the family was now of no importance, but
Wilkinson suggests that we began to think and act more and more as if this
were the case. Wilkinson (1974, p. 735) summarizes our situation this way:
. the decline in concern for the... home... came about not be-
cause scientific evidence provided conclusive grounds for rejecting it, but
because cultural and ideological factors favoring its acceptance early in this
century became less important.” The research of F. Ivan Nye (1958) and
the contro] theorists serves to correct this trend.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 167

Nye suggests _ that the family contributes to the creation of the social
_bond1 in four ways: through the provision of (1) internalized controls, (2)

controls are pesomed to operate Rbrouei the medium |of the child’s
conscience. Such controls consist primarily of internalized norms and
values, whose binding power is based in feelings of anxiety and guilt,
conditioned through parental rewards and punishments (this conditioning
process is discussed further below). Indirect controls consist primarliy of
the desire not to hurt or embarrass one’s family by getting caught acting |
against their wishes or expectations. This sort of control, then, depends on\
affection for, or an attachment to, the family. Direct controls,on the other
hand, depend more on restrictions and punishments. Examples here
consist of rules about time spent away from home, choice of friends, and
types of activities. Finally, the family’s role in need satisfaction eventually
involves its ability to prepare the child for ‘“‘success’’: at school, with peers,
and often in finding work. That some families are better able to do all these
things is proposed as an influential factor in ensuring conformity, and
avoiding crime and delinquency.
It is interesting to note that Nye and others (Gibbons and Griswold,
1957; Toby, 1957a) find the family more influential in preventing delin-
quency with girls than boys. This is explained in terms of the larger role
assigned to parents in our society in restricting the activities of girls. Also
interesting is the finding of a U-shaped relationship between the strictness
of direct controls and delinquency. In other words, as Durkheim would
have suggested, delinquent behavior is at a minimum where a moderate
amount of direct control is exercised. The explanation is that when direct
controls become too pervasive, it becomes impossible for adolescents to
function as normal members of their peer group. Finally, Nye (1958, p. 51)
reports that it is not so much whether a home is /egally broken, but the —
happiness of the home, that influences the prospects of deviant behavior.
Thus, “‘the happiness of the marriage was found to be much more closely
related to delinquent behavior in children than whether the marriage was
an original marriage or a remarriage or one in which the child was living
with one parent only.”’

Toby and the Stake in Conformity

Although it is the family that is in large part responsible for the preparation
of its offspring, it is society itself that must receive the final product. Thus,
one measure of a “‘just”’ society is that it provides meaningful places for its
members. For those who find a meaningful place in UH ONE and for those
who believe in the promise of such a place, there is a “‘stake in conformi-
168 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

ty.” The problem, of course, is that individuals vary in the stake they feel
in conformity. This problem begins in the family, gains significance in the
school, and ends in the workplace.
In North America, education and occupation are closely associated, and
in turn highly correlated with class position and ethnic background. Thus
Jackson Toby (1957b, p. 516) notes that an upper-class white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant schoolchild is heavily favored to have a high stake in conformi-
ty.
He comes from a “good” family. He lives in a “respectable”
neighborhood. His teachers like him; he gets good marks and he
moves easily from grade to grade. These social victories provide a
reasonable basis for anticipating future achievements. He expects
to complete college and take up a business or professional career.
If he applied his energies to burglary instead of to homework, he
would risk not only the ego-flattering rewards currently available
but his future prospects as well.
But the development of a stake in conformity is not entirely class-based.
Some immigrant groups, most notably Jews and Asians, have assumed an
immediate stake in conformity that in spite of prejudice and discrimination
moved them from poverty to affluence in a single generation (Porter,
1965). Toby (1957a) notes that in the case of the Jews, their social assent was
grounded in generations of respect for religious learning. In the new world,
this faith was transferred to the educational system, yielding a commitment
to conformity that paid off in occupational advancement. Alternatively,
Porter (1965, p. 172) suggests that ‘‘those who are reared in a milieu
indifferent to education are not likely to acquire a high evalution of it.”’ It is
these instances that challenge a society to demonstrate that the pursuit of
education and other kinds of conforming behavior can be rewarding.
Without this kind of faith in conformity, there can be no perceived stake in
conformity, and the probability of deviation increases.

Akers‘s Social Learning Theory

Thus far, the control theories we have considered have offered good
reasons why crime and deviance may occur; but why does it, and why does
it assume specific forms? This question and an answer to it are posed by
Ronald Akers (1977, p. 66) when he notes that “‘the person whose ties with
conformity have been broken may remain just a candidate for deviance;
whether he becomes deviant depends on further social or other rewards.”
Akers’s answer (see also Burgess and Akers, 1966; Eysenck, 1964; Trasler,
1962) derives from his social learning theory of crime and deviance, which
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 169

in turn is linked to Sutherland’s differential association theory of crime.

However, as Akers (1977, p. 65) notes, ‘“‘control theory is the theory that is
most compatible with social learning.”
The most important principle of social learning theory is that deviant
behavior results from a conditioning process in which rewards and punish-
‘ments shape the behaviors they follow. The four ways in which rewards and
punishments shape deviant and conforming, behaviors are indicated in
Table 5-1. Thus specific types of deviant behavior are strengthened through
Teward (“positive reinforcement”) and avoidance of punishment (‘‘nega-
tive reinforcement”) or weakened (punished) by adversive stimuli (‘‘posi- _
tive punishment’) and lack of reward (‘negative punishment’’). The
concept of “differential reinforcement” is used to explain the specific
process by which deviant behavior becomes dominant over conforming
behavior in any particular situation. The idea is that given two alternative _
acts, both of which produce and are reinforced by the same or similar
consequences, the one with the higher probability of being maintained will
be the one that is reinforced most frequently and in the greatest amount. In
addition, Akers notes that an individual learns to evaluate behaviors as
good or bad, and these definitions themselves can be reinforced and
themselves become reinforcers. A result is that the more a person defines
his or her behavior as a positive good or at least justified, the more likely
he or she is to engage in it. Akers (1977, p. 58) therefore concludes that *‘a_
_person will participate in deviant activity . . . to the extent that it has been
differentially reinforced over conforming benavios and defined as more
_desirable than, or at least as justified as, conforming alternatives.”
Akers’s version of social learning theory is particularly interesting in its
accounts of how individuals move from conforming to criminal and
noncriminal patterns of deviant behavior. These accounts represent a
blending of the themes of control theory and the principles of social
learning theory. For example, it is noted that in groups with prescriptive

TABLE 5-17
FOUR WAYS IN WHICH REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR
ACCORDING TO SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Behavior increases— Behavior decreases—

Stimulus reinforcement punishment

35 Positive reinforcement (reward Positive punishment (punisher

received) received)
= Negative reinforcement (punisher Negative punishment (reward
removed or avoided) removed or lost)

Source: Akers, 1977, p. 46

170 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

norms (norms that allow some drinking) most people do drink moderately.
In such groups, an alcoholic’s excessive drinking may not confront the
group’s controls or norms until it is so far out of hand that he or she is no
longer welcome in the group. A break at this point from the more
moderate group opens the way for a move to other groups which tolerate
and reward heavier drinking. According to the social learning perspective,
then, it is not simply the absence of controls, but also theavailability of
alternative rewards, that explains criminal and deviant behavior.

Some Critical Comments on Control Theory

Many of the hypotheses of control theory have been well supported by
research (Hirschi, 1969; Nye, 1958; Hindelang, 1973; Jensen, 1969; Linden
and Hackler, 1973; Linden, 1976; Dinitz, Scarpitti, and Reckless, 1962;
Reiss, 1951; Hagan and Simpson, 1977). A recent and extensive test of the
theory (Wiatrowski, Griswold, and Roberts, 1981) demonstrates that the
school as well as the family is extremely important in developing the bond
to society, arguing (p. 539) that “the emergence of schools as primary
socializing institutions reflects the division of labor in a complex society,
where specialized social institutions perform functions of education, socia-
lization, and preparation for adult social roles which previously occurred
within the family.” A slightly revised model of social control theory
emerges from this research in which social class position and ability are
included because of their relationship to elements of the social bond, which
in turn affect involvement in delinquency. This revised model of a control
theory of delinquency is pictured in Figure 5-1.
The body of evidence that has accumulated in support of a control
theory of crime and delinquency is impressive. Rather than question these

Figure 5-1 A revised model of the Control Theory of Delinquency. (Source: Wiatrowski
et al., 1981:537)
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 171

findings, or minimize their significance, our central complaint will be that

the implications of control theory have not been carried through to their
logical conclusions. Theoretical discussion and research in the control
tradition have focused on lower- and middle-class adolescents, as in the
study just discussed. Yet, it can be argued that the prevalence of social
controls varies in unexplored ways with social class. In particular, we are
concerned with the widespread freedom to deviate that exists among
established economic and political elites (see Hagan et al., 1984). Part of
the problem at this level of society is that upperworld “indiscretions” are
not necessarily defined as disreputable, much less criminal, further freeing
individuals to pursue their interests without moral or legal constraint. We
will develop this point further by considering neutralization and control
explanations of the most dramatic set of upperworld crimes of our time:
“Watergate.”’ Our argument is that expanding the attention of control
theory to upperworld crime and deviance will serve to correct a limitation
in its previous application.

AN EXAMPLE: ‘“CWATERGATE””. The dea experience called

“Watergate” is a chronology of events that spanned the period fromJune 12, |
1972, to August 8, 1974. The outline of these events will be familiar to most _
eaders, beginning with the unsuccessful break-in at the Democratic National _
Committee headquarters in Washington’s Watergate complex, and ending_
ith Richard Nixon’s resignation as President of the United States. The most _
comprehensive view of executive activity during the course of these events is
rovided in the Presidential Transcripts (1974), the abridged 1,200-page
ecord of selected White House conversations. We will use these transcripts
. consider neutralization and control explanations of the Watergate crimes. _
Of.course, a problem in using these materials is that they are known to be _
ncomplete. However, we will argue that in spite of the self-serving potential
yf the transcripts, they actually provide ‘support for |an explanation of
/atergate that is far from flattering (Hagan, 1975a).
least five rationalizations, or neutralizations, of Woteae cover-
ere offered in the course of Nixon’ s conversations. They include: (1) the
ection of national security: “*. . . the whole thing was national security”
: ential Transcripts, p. 125);@ the protection of the Presidency:
itisn’t the man, its the office vid., p. 267); (3) support of the
ants: ©. x on of justice, we were simply
) loyalty: “Well, the point
hurt tum, a lot of
(ibid., Pp 359); and ~
egot to do, you have
172 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

got to maintain the Presidency out of this. I have got things to do for this
country” (ibid., p. 673).
The most important of these rationalizations, judging from the attention it
received from the participants, was the assertion that administration agents
- were simply trying to “‘help’’ defendants by offering them cash payments.
However, discussions relating to the support rationalization reveal that its
importance was as an excuse, or justification, rather than as a cause for the
payments being made. For example, in the March 21, 1973, conversation in
which the decision was made to pay Howard Hunt “‘hush money” (ibid., p.
133), the discussion was entirely tactical.
PRESIDENT: That’s why for your immediate things you have no choice
but to come up with the $120,000, or whatever it is. Right?
DEAN: That’s right.
PRESIDENT: Would you agree that that’s the prime thing, that you damn
well better get that done?
DEAN: Obviously he ought to be given some signal anyway.
PRESIDENT: (Expletive deleted), get it.
Several weeks later, on April 14, the support rationalization appears for the
first time, with little effort to deny its justificatory character. Here the former
President reports: “Support, well, I heard something about that at a much
later time”’ (ibid., p. 242). Later in the same conversation, (ibid., p. 272) the
ad hoc character of the rationalization becomes even more obvious.
HALDEMAN: What Dean did, he did with all conscience in terms. . .
[of] the higher good.
PRESIDENT: Dean, you’ve got to have a talk with Dean. I feel that I
should not talk to him.
EHRLICHMAN: I have talked to him.
PRESIDENT: What’s he say about motive. He says it was a hush-up?
EHRLICHMAN: .. . He says he knew, he had to know that people were
trying to bring that result about.
Similar discussions surround the remaining neutralizations. In each case,
the rationalization is introduced in a justificatory context. The concerns are
tactical: the avoidance of legal prosecution, political embarrassment, and |
moral blame. These concerns relate more to the consequences than to the _
causes of upperworld crime. However, as we noted earlier in our discussion _
of corporate homicide, the consequences can be important. |
On the other hand, a control theory of upperworld crime may offer more
in the way of a causal explanation of upperworld crime. Stated generally,
from the perspective of control theory, the problem is to explain why all
upperworld citizens are not criminals, or, perhaps viewed more candidly,
why some of us are less criminal than others. Answers to the control —
theorist’s question comes from within and without. Unfortunately, the first -
line of defense, inner constraints, is problematic iin a society whose concep- |
tion of upperworld morality is badly defined ae data oe .
indicate that the public regards white-colla
other kinds of crime (Rossi, et al., 197
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 173

| morality that harshly condemns upperworld crime, the occurrence of such

behaviors will depend largely on the risks and rewards (in other words, the
perceived outer constraints) associated with violating public and financial
trust. Watergate provides the example.
The actors involved in Watergate proved unconstrained by either moral
ties or by a set of operating principles that were themselves unclear. A
careful reading of the Presidential Transcripts reveal few references to, or
considerations of, societal values. Occasional mention is made of the Nixon
administration’s “commitment” to “law and order’; however, the references
are in passing (see p. 362), and obviously not a matter of extended
consideration. Repeatedly, the rights and obligations of the executive branch
(e.g., the limits of “executive privilege,” the meaning of ‘“‘national security,”
and the scope of “high crimes and misdemeanors’’) were debated in terms of
a vague Constitution and undecided public opinion. Similarly, the situational
controls operative at the time of the initial Watergate offenses were
inadequate. White House aides were able to manipulate funds and personnel
for criminal political purposes with little expectation of detection. One
reason why there was so little expectation of detection, of course, was that
the criminals in this case were people who controlled the institutions of legal
control (who could have been better positioned to deviate than those who
controlled the FBI, the Justice Department, etc.?). Furthermore, once
“caught,” punishment became problematic in an atmosphere confused by
promiscuous discussions of pardons. The uncertainties surrounding these
events emphasize, then, the porous nature of the controls operative in one
upperworld setting.
The final irony of Watergate is that the people involved presumably had a
high stake in conformity. The final costs of exposure outweighed any benefits
the Watergate activities could ever have produced. Hirschi (1969, p. 21)
notes, however, that if a person can calculate the costs of a line of action, he
or she is also capable of miscalculation. Clearly, Richard Nixon miscalculated
these costs over and over again.
If there is a message to the policy-minded in the Watergate experience and
a control theory of upperworld crime, it is that checks and balances on power
are crucial. Upperworld vocations, particularly politics and business, ofter
carry with them a freedom to deviate unparalleled in the underworld. As
Eee theory reminds us, unchecked freedom is a criminogenic condition.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The theories of undercontrol begin with the assumption that we are
generaliy agreed about what is “‘good” and ‘“‘bad” in our society. In other
words, that we are in consensus about our norms and values. The question
asked, then, is why some people violate laws that so many of us support.
The undercontrol theories are agreed that the problem is one of regulation,
174 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

or more specifically, the absence or failure of it. Durkheim anticipated this

theoretical tradition with his concept of anomie, which refers to the
absence of regulation, or normlessness. Each of the theories of under-
control tries to account for problems of regulation in a somewhat different
way. .
¢ Social disorganization theory focuses on the assumed breakdown in
processes that regulate lawbreaking behavior caused by the rapid growth
of American cities.
¢ Neutralization theory argues that although we share norms and values
in common, some of us develop ways of rationalizing, or neutralizing, the
guilt that comes with their violation.
* Control theory argues that some of us are bound less tightly than
others to society’s norms and values, and that those whose ties are weakest
deviate most.
We have noted weaknesses in each of these theories. A serious problem
with social disorganization theory is its tendency to include crime and
delinquency among other indicators of social disorganization. The problem
with this is that it renders the theory circular; a description more than an
explanation. However, as this perspective is moved toward the isolation of
poverty, heterogeneity, and mobility as specified causes of social disorgani-
zation, with crime and delinquency as its consequences, then this perspec-
tive takes on more of the character of a theory. Furthermore, as this
approach draws our attention to the ways in which slum and ghetto
communities are distinctively ordered, it can be particularly useful.
In response to neutralization theory, we suggested that verbalizations
reducing feelings of guilt may more frequently follow than precede deviant
activities. In other words, neutralizations may be justifications rather than
causes of criminal behavior. This does not deny, however, that rationaliza-
tions help to perpetuate such behaviors.
Finally, we suggested that the implications of control theory need to be
expanded into the upper regions of the class structure. The absence of
decided public opinion about the seriousness of upperworld deviance, and
the weakness of rules, regulations, and checks and balances on the powers
and privileges of upperworld citizens, leaves members of the upperworld
seductively free to deviate. To ignore this is to deny a fundamental insight
of control theory.
One final way of consolidating our understanding of the theories of
undercontrol is to indicate how this group of theories might collectively
explain the relationship reported in Chapter 4 between social class and
criminal and delinquent behavior. We noted in Chapter 4 that this
relationship has been much debated and sometimes exaggerated, but that
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME |: THE THEORIES OF UNDERCONTROL 1175

it nonetheless persists and requires explanation. Historically, the social

disorganization version of undercontrol theory located the source of «his
relationship in the rapid growth of American cities, arguing that the
circumstances of city life (poverty, heterogeneity, and mobility) were
breaking down normal processes of social control. Later, control theorists
noted that poverty has the effect of reducing the commitment of disadvan-
taged groups to conformity. The point made is that as class-linked
differences in life chances are experienced, first in school and later in work,
individuals’ conceptions of their stakes in conformity diminish. The
assumed result is a class-specific feeling of having little to lose, and much to
gain, by exploring criminal and delinquent success routes. In addition,
‘economic hardships are assumed themselves to produce a deterioration in
(or at least a reordering of) family, school, and community life that
weakens the control mechanisms restricting involvement in crime and
delinquency. Finally, the social learning version of undercontrol theory
asserts that crime and delinquency can be rewarding, particularly to those
in need, and the neutralization version of undercontrol theory notes that
verbalizations can play a role in perpetuating, if not actually in causing,
these behaviors.
It must be emphasized that the consensually based theories of under-
control we have reviewed represent only one possible way of understand-
ing the class-crime relationship. The following two chapters offer alterna-
tive ways of understanding this relationship. We turn next, then, to the
theories of culture, status, and opportunity.
UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: 6
THEORIES OF CULTURE,
STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY

THE ISSUE: WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CHALLENGE THE STANDARDS

OF THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THEY LIVE?
The theories discussed in the preceding chapter argue that people become
criminal or delinquent because the bonds that constrain others do not
constrain them. We noted that these theories were characterized by an
assumption of consensus; an assumption that we all share values in
common, with variation in amount rather than in kind. In contrast, the
theories that we will consider in this chapter do not assume a weakness of
values or constraints. Quite the contrary: the theories of this chapter begin
to talk about differences in values and/or the means of their attainment
that derive from variations in culture, status, and opportunity. These
differences are seen as dividing people, pushing them to challenge the
standards of the society that surrounds them. From these theoretical
perspectives, then, people do not fall or drift into crime and delinquency,
they are pushed. But how and by what? The three theories considered in
this chapter offer three different answers.
¢ Class culture theories see crime and delinquency as the natural
outgrowth of the traditions that accompany underclass life.
e Status frustration theories see crime and delinquency
as a group
response to societal expectations which the members of the group cannot
fulfill and theretore choose to challenge.
¢ Opportunity theories see crime and delinquency asa product of a
disparity between the goals that all of us share and the means that only
some of us have for goal attainment.
What these theories have in common is that they all see forces as impelling
individuals toward criminal and delinquent behavior. Before we turn to a
more detailed examination of these theories and the forces they describe,
we first must introduce the concept of a “‘subculture,’’ a concept that is
central to the theories we consider in this chapter.

The Several Meanings of Subculture

The term “subculture” is used in various ways by sociologists and
anthropologists. An important distinction among these usages is noted by
176
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 1177

Yinger (1960). He notes that a first use of the term “‘subculture”’ is simply
to identify basic differences in norms and values between dominant and
subordinate groups in society. The reference here, then, is to differences in
values linked to hierarchically ordered groups in our society. The second
usage adds something to the first: it adds a social-psychological sense of
frustration that originates in and perpetuates the differences in norms and
values. Yinger distinguishes this second usage with the term “‘contra-
culture.” However, both usages can be regarded as variations on the basic
notion of a subculture. As we will see, all of the theories considered in this
chapter make use of the concept of a subculture.

THE THEORIES OF CLASS CULTURE

Miller's Theory of Lower-Class Culture
The first theory of crime and delinquency we will consider in this chapter is
offered by Walter Miller, who sees these activities (1958, p. 19) as a simple
“by-product of . . . the lower class system.”” What is unique about this
theory is that it sees the lower, or under, class as having its own cultural
history. Indeed, Miller argues that ‘lower class culture is a distinctive
tradition many centures old with an integrity of its own.”
Miller goes on to argue that the enduring traditions of the lower class
are built around six “‘focal concerns” (see Table 6-1). ‘“Trouble”’ is the first
of these concerns. Getting into and out of trouble are seen by Miller as
major preoccupations of lower-class life. For lower-class men, Miller
suggests that a preoccupation with trouble follows from fighting, drinking,
and sexual adventures (or as R. P. Murphy succinctly describes it to the
psychiatrist in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, “fucking and fighting”’).
To the concern with trouble is added a preoccupation with “toughness.”
The image here is of the ‘“‘tough guy” of movies and television—hard,
fearless, undemonstrative, and skilled in physical combat: Macho Man. It
is the Clint Eastwood figure of the spaghetti westerns, the Charles Bronson
antihero of urban tales of vengeance, the Tommy Lee Jones drifter of Back
Roads, and Robert De Niro’s Raging Bull.
Added to toughness, however, Miller suggests that there is a further
concern with “smartness.” This “smartness”? involves the capacity to
outsmart, “take,” “con,” or “‘hustle’”’ others. The media model here is the
card shark, the professional gambler, the pool hustler, the con artist, and
the promoter. It is the ingenuity and humor that Burt Reynolds adds to
Smokey and the Bandit and that Paul Newman gives to Butch Cassidy.
All the preceding qualities are combined, according to Miller, in the
“search for excitement.” Miller argues that this search has its origins in the
extreme fluctuations that accompany the lower-class work cycle: fluctua-
178 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 6-1
FOCAL CONCERNS OF LOWER CLASS CULTURE

Perceived Alternatives
Area (state, quality, condition)

1. Trouble: law-abiding behavior law-violating behavior

2. Toughness: physical prowess, skill; weakness, ineptitude;

“masculinity”; effeminacy;
fearlessness, bravery, daring timidity, cowardice, caution

3. Smartness: ability to outsmart, dupe, “con”; gullibility, ““con-ability”;

gaining money by “wits”; gaining money by hard work;
shrewdness, adroitness in repartee slowness, dull-wittedness,
verbal maladroitness

4. Excitement: thrill; boredom;

risk, danger; “deadness,’’ safeness;
change, activity sameness, passivity
5, Fate: favored by fortune, being “lucky” ill-omened, being “unlucky”
6. Autonomy: freedom from external constraint; presence of external constraint;
freedom from superordinate presence of strong authority;
authority; ; dependency, being ‘‘cared for’
independence

tions between periods of exhausting and repetitive work and short week-
end bursts of release, relief, and excitement. The concern is that the
weekend search for “‘cheap thrills” leads commonly to “trouble” at the end
of a ‘‘Saturday Night Special” —the cheap handguns too frequently used to
resolve deadly disputes between friends and relatives.
Miller argues that a resignation to ‘‘fate’”’ in lower-class culture leads to
an acceptance of these fatal outcomes. The assumption here is that a man is
not lucky at cards, horses, sex, or by extension in other areas of life, by
plan or intent, but rather by chance. Good luck is not developed, it is dealt.
Finally, Miller asserts that lower-class adolescent males, for reasons we
will suggest in a moment, have an ambivalent desire for ‘‘autonomy.’’ One
side of this desire is verbalized explicitly in such assertions as “‘No one’s
gonna push me around,” in the pointed reminder that ‘“‘you know where
you can stick it,” and in the poignant occupational refrain, ‘““You can take
your job and shove it.”” However, Miller (ibid., p. 13) suggests that such
assertions may sometimes contain an implicit call for restraint. The
argument is that, “‘since ‘being controlled’ is equated with ‘being cared
for,’ attempts are frequently made to ‘test’ the severity or strictness of
superordinate authority to see if it remains firm.’’ Miller illustrates this
argument by asserting that lower-class patients in mental hospitals will
exercise considerable ingenuity to ensure continued commitment while
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 179

persistently voicing the desire to leave, and that delinquent boys frequently
will “run” from detention facilities in order to activate efforts to return
them. These activities are described by Miller (ibid.) as reflecting ‘‘power-
ful dependency cravings,” and, as we will see, these ‘‘cravings” are linked
to the structure of lower-class families.
The focal concern with autonomy, along with the remaining focal
concerns we have discussed, is presumed to have its basis in a type of
“‘female-based household” disproportionately found in lower-class com-
munities. However, the problem posed by this kind of family is not simply
its weakness, as suggested in the preceding chapter, but rather its
structure, in terms of the role models it provides, or more accurately, fails
to provide. Miller (ibid., p. 6) estimates that about 15 percent of all North
Americans make up the “hard-core”’ lower-class group, “defined primarily
by its use of the ‘female-based household’ as the basic form of child-
rearing.”’ Miller is particularly concerned that males growing up in such
families are deprived of appropriate role models.
It is here that group processes, emphasized in one way or another by all
of the theories in this chapter, become important. It is in street-corner
groups, according to Miller, that lower-class male adolescents resolve their
sex-role problems. However, the individuals in these one-sex peer groups
are resolving their uncertainties in the company of others facing similar
sex-role difficulties. Miller submits, then, that it is not surprising that these
subcultural groupings wind up emphasizing the themes of lower-class
culture described above—toughness, smartness, and autonomy—that sym-
bolize male adulthood around them. He concludes (ibid., p. 18) that
simply “following . . . practices... of... lower-class culture automati-
cally violates certain legal norms.” That is, the historically rooted values of
lower-class culture, particularly when exaggerated and acted out in the
group context we have described, bring male adolescents into open conflict
with the law. In later chapters, we will see that the group conflict theorists
have linked a similar idea into a rather radical set of conclusions. However,
Miller offers his conclusions without any critical comment of this kind.

Banfield and “The Unheavenly City”

An even more dismal view of lower-class culture is found in Edward
Banfield’s work on the plight of American cities. The pessimistic character
of Banfield’s perspective is signaled in his choice of an introductory
quotation from Henry George to begin his discussion of crime in the city
(Banfieid, 1968, p. 158).
... let the policeman’s club be thrown down or wrested from him,
and the foundations of the great deep are opened, and quicker
than ever before chaos comes again. Strong as it may seem, our
180 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

civilization is evolving destructive forces. Not desert and forest,

but city slums... are nursing the barbarians who may be to the
new what Hun and Vandal were to the old.
Banfield’s argument is that there are subcultural groups with varying
likelihoods of crime that emerge in the city. Two factors are said to
determine this ‘‘proneness”’ to crime: propensity and incentive. Propensity
for crime is said to depend on the individual’s class culture, personality,
sex, and age, factors that are individually and collectively resistant to
change. In other words, the propensity to crime is thought to be relatively
constant. The second factor, incentive, is said to depend on situational
factors, such as the number of police in an area and the availability and
value of things for the taking. These situational factors are changeable,
and therefore the incentive for crime is a variable. Together, propensity
and incentive are said to determine an individual’s proneness to crime, so
that collectively ‘“‘a city’s potential for crime may be thought of as the
average proneness of persons in various ‘sex-age-culture-personality’
groups times their number’”’ (ibid., p. 159).
It is Banfield’s discussion of propensity that is most important for our
purposes, for it is the assumption of a constant propensity to crime that
makes Banfield’s theory subcultural. According to Banfield, five elements
determine propensity: type of morality, ego strength, time horizon, taste_
for risk, and the willingness to inflict injury. Each of these elements
involves the taking of value positions that are in conflict with the
surrounding society.
For example, there are three types of morality, each referring to ways in
which individuals distinguish between “right” and ‘‘wrong.”’

e Preconventional morality sees a “‘right’’ action to be one that serves

one’s purpose and that one can get away with; conversely, a “wrong”
action is seen as one that brings failure or punishment.
¢ Conventional morality sees the “right” action as doing one’s “‘duty”’ or
doing what those in authority require.
¢ Postconventional morality sees the “right”? action as one that is in
accord with some universal (or very general) principle that is worthy of
support.

The first and third of these moralities, of course, can conflict with the
second, and it is the first that Banfield seems to see as creating a
particularly high propensity for crime in the underclass.
The remaining elements of propensity also reflect value premises. ‘“‘Ego
strength” refers to the capacity for self-control; ‘‘time horizon” refers to an
individual’s consideration of the future; “taste for risk” refers to a person’s
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 181

preference for taking chances; and the “willingness to inflict injury”

involves just that, the willingness of an individual to impose pain on others.
The five elements of propensity are seen by Banfield as combining to
reinforce one another in various social roles. Thus males, adolescents, and
persons of lower-class background are seen as most likely to adopt a
‘“‘preconventional morality,” to be low in ‘“‘ego strength,” to have a short
“time horizon,” an advanced “‘taste for risk,” and a greater ‘‘willingness to
inflict injury.” The result (ibid., p. 165) is that “when male adolescence
and lower-class culture meet in the same person, they will interact,
reinforce each other and produce an extraordinarily high propensity
towards crime.’’ Furthermore, these patterns are predicted to be even
more pronounced for groups than individuals. Like Miller, then, Banfield
sees crime and delinquency as a normal group-linked response to the social
context in which it emerges. In the end, Banfield is talking about a high
subcultural propensity for crime that is located largely in the underclass
and which places the affected groups in probable conflict with the
prevailing societal values that surround them.

Wolfgang, Ferracuti, and the “Subculture of Violence”

The theories we have discussed to this point consider subcultural processes
generally; however, this approach is also used by Wolfgang and Ferracuti
(1967) to explain violent behavior more specifically. We consider Wolfgang
and Ferracuti’s work as a theory of class culture because its origin seems to
date from Wolfgang’s (1958) early research on homicide and the differ-
ences found within and between ethnic groups in rates of homicide in
America. What Wolfgang found in his classic study of homicide in
Philadelphia was that nonwhite males aged 20-24 had a rate of 54.6
homicides per 100,000 population, compared with only 3.8 for white males
of the same ages. Beyond this, nonwhite females were found to have a
higher homicide rate (10.2) than white males, as well as white females
(0.6). These dramatic differences have endured through the years since
Wolfgang’s early study, and they are paralleled by pronounced patterns of
violence in other parts of the world as well. For example, in Colombia La
Violencia has claimed thousands of lives in a wave of violence that spans
several decades. In Sardinia the Vendetta Barbaricina provides another
bloody example of a long tradition characterized by deadly quarrels. And
in El Salvador violence has become so commonplace as to stimulate the
expression la vida vale nada, “‘life is worth nothing.”
Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967, p. 152) suggest in explanation of these
cross-culturally located pockets of violence that “there should be a direct
relationship between rates of homicide and the extent to which the
182 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

subculture of violence represents a cluster of values around the theme of

violence.’’ These values include the importance attached to human life and
the manner in which individuals interpret the cues of others as calling for
violence in response. Where life is worth little, and where violence
becomes a quick and definitive response to life’s problems and frustrating
circumstances, the subculture of violence thrives.
There are fascinating parallels between subcultural norms of violence
and those that can exist throughout a culture during periods of war. In
wartime, whole nations can become vicarious participants in acts of
violence against a common enemy. Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s point (1967,
p. 156) is that subcultural environments can approximate the conditions of
war. Thus, “Homicide . . . is often a situation not unlike that of confronta-
tions in wartime combat, in which two individuals committed to the value
of violence come together, and in which chance, prowess, or possession of
a particular weapon dictates the identity of the slayer and the slain.”’ The
distinction between offender and victim becomes crucial, of course, as the
subculture of violence must give way to the legal response of the
surrounding culture whose values have been violated. However, Wolfgang
and Ferracuti, like Miller and Banfield, do not emphasize in their analysis
the role of the conflict between dominant and subordinate cultural groups.
Rather, the focus is more one-sidedly on the subcultural side of the
equation.

Some Critical Comments on Theories of Class Culture

A common criticism of the theories of class culture involves their tendency
to infer values from the behaviors they seek to explain. The problem is that
these theories often seem to be explaining behaviors by referring to the
prevalence of the behaviors themselves. Wolfgang and Ferracuti note at
one point that ‘“‘some circularity of thought is obvious in the effort to
specify the dependent variable (homicide), and also to infer the indepen-
dent variable (the existence of a subculture of violence).”’ Nettler (1974, p.
152) makes the same point by noting that “‘it is as though one were to say
that ‘People are murderous because they live violently,’ or ‘People like to
fight because they are hostile.’ ’’ It is not that such statements are false;
rather, it is that they describe what we already know. These subcultural
descriptions begin to be explanatory as they widen their descriptive net to
include new and independent components of the phenomenon under
study. To date, such efforts largely have involved the collection of survey
data on attitudes and values, with results that are mixed.
Rossi et al. (1974) report in a study of the public ranking of the
seriousness of crimes, discussed earlier in Chapter 2, that the subgroup
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME Il: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 183

least in agreement with their total sample consisted of black males with less
than high school education. The main points of disagreement in the data
centered around certain crimes against the person, particularly those in
which the offender and victim are known to each other. For example,
compared to the total sample, ‘‘beating up an acquaintance”’ was regarded
much less seriously by poorly educated black males. Otherwise, however,
Rossi et al., found considerable consensus.
Meanwhile, Ball-Rokeach (1973), in analyzing responses to the Roke-
ach Value Survey, found no important differences in the rankings of
eighteen “terminal values” or eighteen ‘instrumental values” by men
classified as having no, a “moderate,” or a “high” degree of participation
in violence at any time in their lives. Controls in this analysis for education
and income, essential for the examination of a subculture which may be
class-based, do not affect the findings. No control is included, however, for
race.
But the best available data for a test of the subculture-of-violence
hypothesis comes from a 1968 national survey supervised by Ball-Rokeach
for the President’s Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.
Respondents were asked about their general approval of the use of
physical aggression in certain kinds of interpersonal interactions; those
who gave general approval were then asked about four or five more specific
situations. Erlanger’s (1974) analysis of these data reveals an absence of
major differences by race or class in approval of interpersonal violence.
Typical of the findings is that for marital fighting. When approval of a
husband slapping his wife is examined, 25 percent of the white and 37
percent of the black married men say that they can imagine a situation in
which they would approve. There is no systematic variation by income or
education. Furthermore. variation by race decreases when follow-up items
are examined, and a similar pattern is found for items relating to approval
of a man choking an adult male stranger. Finally, approval of punching an
adult male stranger is higher among whites than blacks.
Thus, aside from the persistent patterning of criminal violence across
places and groups, there is little consistent evidence to support the
class-culture or subculture-of-violence approaches. Some possible sources
of this inconsistency become apparent in the example we consider next.

N EXAMPLE: MACHISMO AND CHICANO GANG

- VIOLENCE As we have noted, gang violence is regarded by the theories
we have been considering as one expression of lower-class culture. In the
‘Chicano barrios of East Los Angeles, this violence is seen as an expression of
184 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

machismo. Howard Erlanger (1979) has analyzed the situation in some

detail. He begins by noting that there are more than a million persons of
Mexican heritage living in East Los Angeles, a number comparable to the
population of Guadalajara or Monterey. Chicanos use the term “barrio” to
refer to the many subcommunities or neighborhoods that make up East Los
Angeles, and in the central, poorest barrios in this area most male youth are
thought to belong to gangs. The questioniswhat role notions of machismo
play in generating violence between the barrio gangs.
Common conception sees machismo as a cultural value that predisposes
men to an exaggerated sense of honor, hypersensitivity, intransigence, sexual
promiscuity, callousness and cruelty toward women, physical aggression, and
lack of respect for human life. Erlanger found in his initial interviews with
Chicano youth that machismo meant having courage, ‘“‘not backing down,”
and being ready to fight. However, he also found that to those interviewed,
violence itself was not directly a macho trait. This point became clear in
discussions of Cesar Chavez—the militant but nonviolent organizer of
migrant farm workers. Although he does not use violence, respondents
noted, Chavez does fight. One youth interviewed observed (ibid., p. 238),
I don’t know [Chavez] personally, but from what I hear about him and
what I’ve read about him. I don’t think he’d [pause]. If somebody came up
to him and slapped him, I think he’d try [pause]. He wouldn’t fen back
you know, but he’d fight back in words, not with fists.
Erlanger concludes from this part of his study that the core values of the
Chicano subculture, then, are not directly concerned with violence, but
rather with defending oneself in a more abstract sense.
Erlanger goes on to argue, in a manner that anticipates the status
frustration theories we consider next, that this defense of self is a necessary
response to the cultural abuse experienced in the school and community.
From the time of the American conquest of the northern territories of
Mexico in 1848, persons of Mexican heritage living within the United States
have been subject to economic and cultural domination by Anglos. Erlanger
describes the resulting feelings of powerlessness, exclusion, and absence of
control over the conditions of their environment as producing a sense of
‘‘estrangement.” A Chicano who has “made it’ and become a teacher recalls
the experiences that breed this estrangement (ibid., p. 239):
I heard teachers saying out in the field, “You goddam Mexican” to
another teacher who was umpiring. . . . I heard teachers reprimand kids
who were speaking Spanish in the hallways . . . and this was supposed to
be a time when they were teaching Spanish in school already. I ee.
teachers saying, ““What do you expect of these kids?’’
The response to this estrangement is an identification with an alternative
source of identity, the barrio gang. Erlanger’s interviews indicate that this
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 185

_ identification is equal to that with the family and is much more intense than
_ that with religion, with political entities, or, with the exception we note in a
. moment, with the Chicano people as a whole. The following testimonial from
ne ee interviewed (ibid., p. 240) makes this point graphically:
Q: What Pn trying to figure out is which was more important? What
____ would you consider more serious-an insult to you or an insult to the barrio
_ you were a part of at that time?
A: Probably the barrio—the neighborhood.
Q: The barrio was more important?
A: Yeah, there’s people I’ve seen who have given up their lives for the
neighborhood. I’ve seen people die. .
Q: Literally die?
A: Yeah, yelling out, like “j Que vivas!” [Long live the neighbor-
hood!].
Still, Erlanger notes that this intense sentiment need not necessarily lead
to intergang violence. Indeed, during an interlude in the late 1960s and early
- 1970s in East Los Angeles, a broadly based political movement dramatically
altered the established pattern. The movement itself included walkouts from
the city schools, a moratorium protesting the disproportionate Chicano
fatalities in the Vietnamese war, protest of allocation of Catholic church
funds to construction of churches in West Los Angeles rather than to social _
programs in the barrios, protests against police treatment of Chicanos, anda
protest of a state educational conference. During this period, Erlanger (ibid.,
p. 244) reports that a new focus on carnalismo, involving the values of
brotherhood, pride, and unity, became prominent.

The experience of one respondent well illustrates this situation. Now in —

his twenties and still a member of one of the toughest barrio gangs, he was
never a part of the movement, does not have a clear idea of what the
issues were or why the events took place, and does not feel that the
movement affected his sense of being Chicano. But although his ideas and
self-concept were unchanged by the movement, his lifestyle was pro-
foundly affected. He remembered the movement period as one in which
the types of actions that would otherwise be provocative did not evoke a
combative response. For example, he reported that during the movement
period he dated a girl whose brother was a member of a gang with which
his gang has had an intense rivalry for over 30 years, but that he suffered
no repercussions. Although he would have been willing to fight if
challenged for this action, the challenge did not occur, and in general he
‘reported that a high degree of freedom of movement between the two
barrios existed. This is because those youths who were affiliated with the
movement were playing by the new rules of carnalismo, and did not
support their comrades who played by the old rules.
Erlanger’s point is that there may be subcultural values that are associated
186 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

with criminal violence, but these values find the form and place of their
_ expression according to the social, economic, and political mos i
prevail. As noted above, theories of lower-class cultu: :
the latter conditions. This iis less true of the theories we consi

THE THEORIES OF STATUS FRUSTRATION

Kobrin and the Conflict of Values
The theories we have considered thus far in this chapter see underclass
crime and delinquency as developing in a world of their own, in a culture
that is dominated by its own internal dynamics. In contrast, the theories of
status frustration that we consider next focus on the conflicts that exist
between competing value systems. An example of one of these theories is
found in Solomon Kobrin’s (1951) discussion of the conflict of values in
delinquency areas.
Kobrin began with the observation that what we know from delinquen-
cy research discourages the easy separation of adolescents into groupings
of ‘‘delinquents”’ and “‘nondelinquents.”’ “In a real sense,” Kobrin (1951,
p. 657) noted, “they are neither and they are both.” His point was that
many adolescents move between these worlds, and that it is only over a
period of time that some adolescents come to live more or less completely
in one or the other of them. For Kobrin, the particular path taken depends
partly on the kind of community and partly on the kind of individual
experience involved. Both of these considerations are central to the
theories we consider in the remainder of this chapter.
A unique feature of Kobrin’s approach is the idea that criminal and
conventional value systems can be integrated as well as in conflict with one
another. He notes (1951, p. 657) that “‘the criminal culture shares with the
conventional culture the goal of a large and assured money income, and
like the conventional culture utilizes the flexible processes of politics to
achieve this goal.’”’ The extent to which the two cultural systems are
intertwined, particularly through corruption of the political process, is
determinate of the kinds of delinquency that may emerge. For example, in
communities where organized crime receives protection through political
manipulation of the police and their enforcement activities, delinquency
becomes an avenue to success in specialized kinds of adult criminal careers.
Here, Kobrin argues, delinquency is a training ground for the acquisition
of skills in the use of instrumental violence, concealment of offense,
evasion of detection and arrest, and the purchase of immunity from
punishment. Adolescents who master these skills can reasonably look
forward to profitable adult criminal careers.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 187

In contrast, where the criminal and conventional value systems achieve

no integration, the prospects for adolescent delinquency are much differ-
ent. Delinquency here is more expressive than instrumental, unconstrained
by controls originating at any point (criminal or conventional) in the adult
social structure. The result is that violent physical combat is pursued by
both individuals and groups, almost as a form of recreation: ‘Here groups
of delinquents may be seen as excluded, isolated conflict groups dedicated
to an unending battle against all forms of coristraint.’’ The question that
remains, though, is what motivates this violently expressive kind of
activity. The answer that Kobrin gives derives from his premise that even
in the circumstances described above there is a connection between
criminal and conventional value systems, in the form of the status criteria
set by the dominant, conventional system.
Drawing from the early writings of Albert Cohen, whose work we
consider in the next section, Kobrin argues that much adolescent delin-
quency can be seen as a form of defensive adaptation to the inability to
satisfy conventional status criteria. The problem, according to Cohen, is
that by virtue of their underclass backgrounds many children of the lower
class are relatively unequipped to move toward goals explicit in the
middle-class culture of the wider society. Confronted by the inability to
meet the criteria necessary to reach these goals, and faced with the assault
to self-image and ego conveyed by this failure, the underclass child is left
looking for a way out. The problem is the more pressing, according to
Kobrin, because the child has been judged negatively not only by the
surrogates of middle-class culture but by him or herself as well. Again, the
problem is that conventional and unconventional value systems intersect.
Kobrin argues that the “solution” to this status problem is for the
underclass child to reject the middle-class values. Kobrin uses an example
of school vandalism to make this point in a graphic way.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the not uncommon burgla-
ries of schools in delinquency areas in which the delinquent
escapade is sometimes crowned, as it were, by defecating upon
the school principal’s desk.... In a sense, such an act is a
dramatically exaggerated denial of a system of values which the
delinquent has at least partially introjected, but which for the sake
of preserving a tolerable self-image he must reject.
In sum, rebellion becomes an attractive way out of a situation that is
insulting to the ego. Below we will note how this rebellion takes on a group
form. Here it is enough to make clear that Kobrin’s theory of a conflict of
values is built on a social-psychological base, a base that is developed even
more fully by Cohen.
188 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Cohen's Theory of Status Deprivation

We noted above that Kobrin’s theory is based in part on an early version of
the work of Albert Cohen. We will now discuss Cohen’s work in the
greater detail provided by his book Delinquent Boys (1955).
Albert Cohen (ibid., pp. 88-91) sees American society as characterized
by a dominant set of middle-class values, including ambition, individual
responsibility, the cultivation and possession of skills, a readiness and
ability to postpone gratification, rationality, personableness, the control of
physical aggression and violence, wholesome recreation, and respect for
property. In contrast, Cohen (ibid., p. 97) sees the working class as
characterized by a rather different set of attributes: a dependence on
primary groups, spontaneity, emotional irrepressibility, a freer use of
aggression, and a reduced likelihood of valuing the “good appearance”’
and “‘personality”’ necessary to make it in a middle-class world.
It is when the working-class child enters the “‘middle-classified”’ school
that middle- and working-class values come into significant conflict. It is
here, according to Cohen, that the working-class child is assessed against a
‘middle class measuring rod.” The problem of the child-cum-adolescent is
clearly stated (ibid., p. 117):

To win the favor of the people in charge he must change his habits,
his values, his ambitions, his speech and his associates. Even were
these things possible, the game might not be worth the candle. So,
having sampled what they have to offer, he returns to the street or
to his “clubhouse” in a cellar where “‘facilities’’ are meager but
human relations more satisfying.

It is interesting to note that Cohen does not assume that the adolescents
he describes actively want, or in other words value, what they cannot
obtain. Instead, Cohen implies that middle-class values exist as repressed
and unrecognized sources of status anxiety for the children of the under-
class (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965, p. 53). It is not so much the denial of
valued goals that hurts, but rather the more immediate degradation of
classroom comparisons: ““The contempt or indifference of others, particu-
larly of . . . schoolmates and teachers, .. . is difficult. . . to shrug off”
(Cohen, 1955, p. 123). The problem of the working-class adolescent, then,
is one of adjusting to a status that he or she has little alternative but to
accept. The attraction of the delinquent contraculture is that it facilitates
this process by offering alternative criteria of status which working-class
adolescents can meet.
The delinquent contraculture performs its role by turning disadvantage
to advantage. Said sociologically, it redefines the criteria of status so that
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 189

disvalued attributes become status-giving assets. It is significant to add,

however, that this redefinition is conducted with a vengeance. Underclass
values and norms are refashioned into “an explicit and wholesale repudia-
tion of middle class standards” (ibid., p. 129). In sum, they “express
contempt for a way of life by making its opposite a criterion of status”
(ibid., p. 134). It is as if the delinquent contraculture were defiantly
insisting that “‘we’re everything you say we are and worse.”
Cohen maintains that the result of all this is a delinquent contraculture
that is nonutilitarian, malicious, and negativisitic in its core values. Said
differently, this seems to say that members of the delinquent contraculture
“raise hell for the hell of it.” Cohen does not insist that all delinquency
springs fully formed from the observance of contracultural norms and
values. However, he does suggest (ibid., p. 315) ‘“‘that for most delinquents
delinquency would not be available as a response were it not socially
legitimized and given a kind of respectability, albeit by a restricted
community of fellow-adventurers.”” Within this confined community of
peers, crime and delinquency become an accepted response to an unaccep-
table environment.

Criticism of Status Frustration Theories

One problem the status frustration theories, like other subcultural theor-
ies, have confronted is the mixed results of studies that have attempted to
document the assumed value conflict between subordinate and dominant
cultural groups in our society. One of the most innovative studies of this
issue, by Short and Strodtbeck (1965), used detached workers as interview-
ers and informants to gather data on the value positions of gang delin-
quents and nondelinquents in Chicago. On the one hand this study finds
that the acceptance of middle-class values that encourage rewarded
behaviors is quite general, but that on the other hand middle-class norms
prohibiting deviant types of behavior decline in force in the lower class. Of
related interest is the finding that lower-class delinquents endorse “‘middle-
class” views of family life (e.g., stable monogamous relationships) in
private interviews, but not in the presence of peers. The implication is that
the kinds of subcultural values described by Cohen and others may be the
consequence of the shared misconceptions of individuals when placed in
the context of the subcultural group (Matza, 1964, pp. 53-59). This finding
seems to say that it is the group process itself which is most important to the
expression and understanding of subcultural values.
There is another, perhaps related, kind of misconception that is
associated with the approaches we have been considering. These accounts
frequently seem to exaggerate the prevalence of gang activity. Thus many
190 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

efforts to study gang behavior cast doubt on the organizational reality of

gangs. For example, a classic field observation study by Yablonsky (1959)
of gang life in New York City found that gangs are often loose affiliations of
real, and sometimes imagined, individuals that could more accurately be
described as “near groups.” The conclusion of this study was that the
“‘size”’ of the gangs studied was determined as much as anything else by the
shifting needs of a gang’s leadership. The following incident (ibid., p. 217)
is indicative.
In one interview, a gang leader distorted the size and affiliations of
the gang as his emotional state shifted. In an hour interview, the
size of his gang varied from 100 members to 4,000, from 5 brother
gangs or alliances to 60, from about 10 square blocks of territorial
control to include jurisdiction over the 5 boroughs of New York
City, New Jersey, and part of Philadelphia.
Yablonsky’s study does not stand alone. Studies from settings as far
afield as Paris (Vaz, 1962), London (Scott, 1956; Downes, 1966), Cordoba,
Argentina (deFleur, 1967), as well as other American cities (Thrasher,
1937; Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Klein and Crawford, 1967) reveal
similar conclusions about gang membership and organization. Yet it may
not only be a gang’s leadership that distorts the public impression of its
size, form, and character. This point will become clear in the example of
status frustration theory that we consider next.

AN.| EXAMPLE: HELL’S ANGELS. A unique feature of

ustration ‘theory is its focus on group processes and their role
ion of individuals to the denial or loss of status. The
ocesse s ae perhaps nowhere more dramatically described than in]

— hey“are sbviens oe and it Ne them” (p.

Thompson (p. 332) suggests that most eee are losers
eee b
poor men and drifters, losers and s ers. lat m
ee eae is that netay

on ‘ie way out,’,-

to make the a. ofthisse
hese outlaws ride (p. 127). —
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 191

___ Acchopper is often a work of art, costing as much as $3,000 to build, not
a counting labor. From the polished chrome spokes to the perfectly
___ balanced super-light flywheel and the twelve coats of special paint on the
_ gas tank, it is a beautiful, graceful machine and so nearly perfect
: mechanically that it is hard to conceive it screaming along some midnight
_ highway in the hands of a drunken hoodlum only moments away from a
high-speed crash into a tree or a steel guardrail.
Why this obsession with a machine? Thompson (p. 119) argues that for an _
_ Angel, “His motorcycle is the one thing in life he has absolutely mastered. It
is his only valid status symbol, his equalizer.”
_ But this “equalizer” can have real meaning only with the help of a
reinforcing group. Thus Thompson (p. 102) notes that “the majority of
_ would-be Angels are independents who suddenly feel the need for fellowship
and status,” and (p. 120) that ‘“‘each Angel is a mirror in the mutual
admiration society. They reflect and reassure each other, in strength and
weakness, folly and triumph.”’ Thompson goes on to argue that it is the
lengths to which Hell’s Angels will go to reinforce one another that makes
them so threatening to the rest of us; and he suggests that it is this, combined
with a belief in total retaliation for any offense or insult, that makes the
Angels such a problem for police and so morbidly fascinating to the general
public. At least within the confines of the Angel’s gang, position and status
are certain: ““. . . in any argument a fellow Angel is always right. To disagree
with a Hell’s Angel is to be wrong.” And, observes Thompson (p. 95), who
ultimately was the victim of a beating himself, ‘When you get in an argument
with a group of outlaw motorcyclists, your chances of emerging unmaimed
depend on the number of heavy-handed allies you can muster in the time it
takes to smash a beer bottle. In this league, sportsmanship is for old liberals
and young fools.”
In the end, though, Thompson suggests that much of what we know and
| think about groups like Hell’s Angels is a product of exaggerated news media
- coverage, and the desire of many of us te consume it. The role of the media is
_ discussed further in our consideration of labeling theory in the next chapter.
| Here it is enough to ask why many of us might want to read about the horrors
| perpetrated by the Hell’s Angels. Thompson (p. 334) answers,
. . , the main reasons the Angels are such good copy is that they are acting
out the day-dreams of millions of losers who don’t wear any defiant
_ insignia and who don’t know how to be outlaws. The streets of every city
are thronged with men who would pay all the money they could get their
hands on to be transformed—even for a day—into hairy, hard-fisted
_ brutes who walk over cops, extort free drinks from terrified bartenders
and thunder out of town on big motorcycles after raping the banker’s
daughter. Even people who think the Angels should all be put to sleep
| find it easy to identify with them. They command a fascination, however
reluctant, that borders on psychic masturbation.
192 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

The point this passage makes, and that we will explore further in the next —
chapter, is that the social audience may play a part in creating the kind of |
subculture we have been describing. ©

THE THEORIES OF OPPORTUNITY

In the preceding chapter we discussed the work of Emile Durkheim and its
anticipation of the theories of undercontrol. The link was Durkheim’s
concept of anomie and its focus on the absence of regulation, or norm-
lessness. Durkheim believed that limitations of both goals and means were
required to avoid anomie. Opportunity theory as well is premised on the
notion of anomie, but it is a concept of anomie refashioned by Robert
Merton. Thus while Durkheim argued that the goals of individuals are
infinitely variable, and that stability and conformity depended on the
moderation of unrestricted goals, Merton asserted that these goals were
constant, and the subject of societal consensus. Merton’s reformulation,
then, shifts our attention to the relationship between fixed goals and the
variable means of achieving them.

Merton, Social Structure, and Anomie

Merton’s (1938, 1957, 1959) reformulation of Durkheim’s theory of
anomie derives from a basic disagreement with the assumptions that
underlie the original discussion. Rather than seeing human beings’ desires
as “insatiable” and ‘‘bottomless,” for example, Merton (1957, p. 31)
observes that “‘the image of man as an untamed bundle of impulses begins
to look more like a caricature than a portrait.’’ Furthermore, Merton is
interested in exploring variations in crime and deviance by social class.
“For whatever the role of impulses,” reasons Merton (ibid., p. 131),
“there still remains the further question of why it is that the frequency of
deviant behavior varies within different social structures.’’ Merton locates
the answer to this question in social structures, particularly the class
structure, and the pressure it places on persons located disadvantageously
in society.
Merton (ibid., p. 132) focused on two features of social and cultural
structure: culturally defined goals, and the acceptable structural means of
achieving these goals. Merton argued that in societies like our own, goals
such as financial success often are emphasized to the neglect of adequate
means of achieving them. Anomie does not result simply from the
unregulated goals that Durkheim discussed, then, but rather from a faulty
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 193

relationship between goals and the legitimate means of access to them. The
problem is a combination of shared success goals and the limited means for
their attainment.
Merton went on to develop a typology of goals, means, and ways of
adapting to their relationship. This typology is presented in Figure 6-1. The
first type of adaptation in the figure represents what many theories of crime
and deviance leave unexplained: conformity. Merton’s theory asserts that
conforming behavior will occur where the goals and means of society are
accepted, and successfully pursued.
The second type of adaptation, called “innovation,” ‘‘occurs when the
individual has assimilated the cultural emphasis upon the goal without
equally internalizing the institutional norms governing ways and means for
its attainment” (ibid., p. 141). Merton has in mind here the most common
economic and property crimes of adults and juveniles, with the particular
concern that these crimes are more common in the underclass. The
explanation that follows (ibid., p. 146) derives from a class-located strain
between shared goals and scarce means.
Of those located in the lower reaches of the social structure, the
culture makes incompatible demands. On the one hand, they are
asked to orient their conduct toward the prospect of large wealth—
“Every man a king” said Marden and Carnegie and Long—and on
the other, they are largely denied effective opportunities to do so
institutionally. The consequence of this structural inconsistency is
a high rate of deviant behavior.
Not all victims of this contradiction immediately recognize its form.
However, if their consciousness is provoked, Merton warns, they may
become ready candidates for the fifth type of adaptation: rebellion. We
consider this possibility last.
Merton suggests that while innovation is a common adaptation of the
lower class, ritualism, the third type of adaptation, is a common fate of the

Figure 6-1 Types of adaptation to the relationship between cultural goals and institu-
tionalized means. Note: (+) signifies acceptance, (—) signifies elimination, and (+)
signifies “rejection and substitution of new goals and standards.) (From Robert
Merton, 1957)
Culture Institutionalized
Goals Means
|. Conformity ae an
Il. Innovation + =
II1. Ritualism = 15
IV. Retreatism = =
ut
V. Rebellion es
194 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

lower middle class. The ritualist clings compulsively to institutional norms

despite having forgone all hopes of successfully achieving societal goals. In
other words, the ritualist is an obsessive follower of rules who scarcely
stops to wonder why.
The fourth of the adaptations, retreatism, is the least common. Merton
enumerates a list of societal dropouts in this category, including psychotics,
artists, pariahs, outcasts, vagrants, tramps, alcoholics, and drug addicts.
The retreatists are in society but not of it, in the sense that they have
rejected both the goals and the means of society.
The last type of adaptation is rebellion. An organized struggle for
social, economic, and political change is the essence of this adaptation,
seeking to ‘introduce a social structure in which the cultural standards of
success would be sharply modified and provision would be made for a
closer correspondence between merit, effort, and reward” (ibid., p. 155).
Above we noted that when the second type of adaptation, innovation,
becomes conscious of its class basis, a progression to rebellion can occur.
We will note in the following chapter that the Marxist theories of crime
have as well talked about this kind of progression. Notwithstanding this
possibility, however, Merton (ibid., p. 157) also notes that “‘it is typically
members of a ruling class rather than the most depressed strata who
organize the resentful and the rebellious into a revolutionary group.”
In any case, socially structured adaptations to failure are the focus of
Merton’s theory of anomie. Problems of access to legitimate means of
achieving the goals we all share collectively are the focus of the theory.
This leaves the illegitimate means of achieving these goals still to be
explored, a task taken on by Cloward and Ohlin. We turn next, then, to the
theoretical consideration of socially structured criminal career routes.

Cloward, Ohlin, and Differential Opportunity

Cloward and Ohlin (1960; see also Cloward, 1959) note that no matter how
accurately Merton might depict the pressures and motivations that can lead
to crime, the particular type of crime pursued has been left unexplained.
Why one form of criminal career rather than another? Cloward and Ohlin’s
answer (ibid., p. 147) is that to be a thief, much as to be an insurance agent
or a lawyer, an individual “‘must have access to a learning environment
and, once having been trained, must be allowed to perform his role.”’ Their
argument is that if we are going to understand criminal career choices, then
we would do well to give them the same kind of detailed attention given to
the pursuit of conforming success routes. Cloward and Ohlin (ibid., p. 152)
suggest that to do this we “‘think of individuals as being located in two
Opportunity structures—one legitimate, the other illegitimate.’’ Given
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 195

limited access to success goals by legitimate means, they argue, the nature
of the criminal or delinquent response will vary according to the illegiti-
mate means available.
The varying kinds of illegitimate opportunities available in city slums
and ghettos are seen as leading to three types of criminal subcultures:
stable criminal, conflict, and retreatist. Drawing from the work of Kobrin
discussed earlier in this chapter, Cloward and Ohlin observe that some
linkage between persons in legitimate and illegitimate roles is necessary to
the development of a stable criminal pattern. Thus the adolescent who is to
move toward a stable criminal-career pattern must eventually develop
connections with mature criminals, law-enforcement officials, politicians,
bail underwriters, lawyers, fences, and others. These contacts lead to the
kinds of experiences that can expand the potential criminal’s knowledge
and skills, and facilitate new opportunities for more protected and
rewarding criminal activities. ‘““The criminal, like the occupant of a
conventional role, must establish relationships with other categories of
persons, all of whom contribute in one way or another to the successful
performance of criminal activity” (ibid., p. 165). What distinguishes this
account from the earlier work of Kobrin is the emphasis on socially
structured patterns of opportunity as opposed to cultural values.
Cloward and Ohlin go on to point out that violence is disruptive of both
criminal and conventional activities, and therefore that the occurrence of
violent conflict will be restricted where opportunities for stable criminal
and conventional career patterns exist. Alternatively their point is that
where neither success route is present, controls on violence are absent, and
conflict patterns therefore will emerge. This is the problem of the
disorganized slum, where criminal and conventional opportunity struc-
tures are blocked: ‘“‘As long as conventional and criminal opportunity
structures remain closed, violence continues unchecked” (ibid., p. 175).
There remains the final problem of those who fail in their experiences
with both the criminal and the conflict opportunity structures. Competition
can be intense in these spheres, as it is in the world of more conventional
opportunity. Cloward and Ohlin argue that those who lose in both of the
former spheres are “double failures” fated to a kind of “‘retreatism”’ that is
built around a world of drugs.
At a number of points, Cloward and Ohlin seem to suggest that
offenders are conscious participants in the direction of their fates. In a
departure from Merton, then, these authors (ibid., p. 108) seem to see
most deviant actors as being actively aware of the injustices of their
class-linked experiences. Arguing that “the basic endowments of delin-
quents are the equal of or greater than those of their nondelinquent
peers,” Cloward and Ohlin (ibid., p. 117) characterize the criminals of the
196 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

future as ‘‘persons who have been led to expect opportunities because of

their potential ability to meet the formal, institutionally established criteria
of evaluation.” The sense of injustice emerges, however, as it becomes
apparent that “ultimate success is likely to involve such criteria as race,
speech, mannerisms, familial ties, and ‘connections’ 2 Gbidies pasts);
Gradually, the future criminal becomes conscious that the deck is stacked,
and thus “he perceives his failure to gain access to opportunities as an
injustice in the system rather than as a deficiency in himself” (ibid.). It is
this view of the situation that allows the individual ‘‘to join with others in a
delinquent solution to his problem without great concern about the moral
validity of his actions” (ibid.). Cloward and Ohlin (ibid., p. 122) add to this
the further suggestion that “the efforts of reformers to expose discrimina-
tory practices actually furnish such persons with further justification for
withdrawing sentiments in support of the legitimacy of the established
norms” (cf. Banfield, 1968, p. 171; Matza, 1964, pp. 95-98).

Some Critical Comments on Anomie and Opportunity

Does the common criminal consciously consider the sources of his or her
plight and consciously choose a response to it? Such explicit turning points
are not easily located in most of our lives, including those of common
criminals. Bordua (1961, pp. 134-135) makes the point this way: ‘‘Each
generation does not meet and solve anew the problems of class structured
barriers to opportunity, but begins with the solutions of its forebears.”
Cloward and Ohlin’s account seems to demand that each potential
offender think through in conscious terms the contradiction of his or her
position in the class structure. Although we will discuss in a later chapter
some important race and class variations in the perception of criminal
injustice (Hagan and Albonetti, 1982), there is a large body of research
(Stinchcombe, 1964; Reiss and Rhodes, 1967; Downes, 1966; Hirschi,
1969; Short, Rivera, and Tennyson, 1965) that fails to find evidence of the
specific kind of thought process suggested by Cloward and Ohlin. There is
no doubt that opportunities unjustly are denied to particular groups. Our
point is simply that the historical background of this situation may blur in
most people’s minds its connection with immediate circumstances.
If we wish to talk of the motivations of individuals, it may be enough
simply to note that in circumstances where opportunities are limited, crime
may be one of the few options available. Thus, when the famous bank
robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, his well-known
answer was not that this institution was a rejected part of a corporate
power structure that had unjustly denied him legitimate opportunity, but
rather that he had made this particular career choice ‘“‘because that’s where
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 197

AN EXAMPLE: A FAMILY BUSINESS AND THE BLACK

MAFIA. Francis Ianni (1972, 1974) has noted that over several generations
different ethnic groups have been associated with organized crime in North
America. To explain the changing ethnic involvement in organized-crime
activities, lanni proposes the concept of “ethnic succession.” This concept
_tefers to the process by which successive ethnic groups have come to North
America in search of a better life, but without the ready means (e.g.,
_ education, language, and job skills) to achieve it. In each of a series of cases,
_ participation in organized crime has been a group-based response to this
disparity between goals and means. Thus Ianni notes that in the United
States, first the Irish, then the Jews, later the Italians, and most recently
black Americans have been prominently involved in organized crime. In
turn, as these groups have gained access to legitimate means of attaining
success, and consequently moved up the social ladder, their involvement in
organized crime has declined.
Ianni illustrates his argument most convincingly in a discussion of Italian
involvement in organized crime. This discussion begins with a historical
analysis of organized crime in Italy. Here Janni notes that the roots of
organized crime can be found in a collection of secret societies, of which the
Mafia is only one. Furthermore, the word ‘‘Mafia’’ has been used in two
ways: first as an adjective to describe the type of man who is known and
respected because he gets things done, and second as a noun to refer to
criminal organizations and societies. These meanings are often confused and
may be a source of the exaggerated claims made for the existence of a single,
all-powerful criminal organization. In contrast to this image of unity and
omnipotence, Ianni notes, the Mafia began as a collection of local organiza-
tions in Sicily in the early nineteenth century. The emergence of the Mafia
coincided with the breakdown of feudalism. In effect, the Mafia served as an
intermediary, paying landowners who had fled to the cities lump-sum rents
for their rural estates, and then rerenting them to peasants. In other words,
the Mafia filled a vacuum between the social strata in Sicily and became a
source of order within the Sicilian social system. The Mafia continued to be
prominent until the time of Mussolini. Thus, the Mafia was not a single
organization that could have emigrated en masse to North America.
Nonetheless, the attitudes that surrounded use of the term “‘Mafia”’ as an
adjective did begin to have an impact in North America in the 1920s, notably
because of prohibition, one result of which was to create an illegal industry
well suited to a large new immigrant group whose other opportunities were
_ few. Many Italians, who had traditionally produced their own wine at home,
began turning their household wineries into home stills, and central organiza-
ions es to bollect | thisnew source ofie aoe Later, with pe
198 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

_ emerging a Geo: in.es crime, intools he calls a “Black

Mafia.” Today black involvement in organized crime has not effectively
extended beyond the ghettos of America into the larger marketplaces that are
_ still dominated by Italian-American «crime families. Ianni notes that the same
condition prevailed among the Italians in the earlier part of this century,
_ when prohibition provided a ready source for extraghetto profits. According
to Ianni, it will be necessary for the following to take place before black
crime networks can be formed into larger combines like those that have
charact rized Italian-American involvement iin organized crime: (1) greater
: ol oversectors oforganized crime (e.g., drugs) outside as well as inside
theghetto; (2) some organizing principle (e.£) ethnic consciousness) that
_ will serve as kinship did among the Italians to bring disparate networks
together into larger, monopolistic crimi rganiz tions, and (3) better
_ access to political power and the ability t it. lanni leaves the clear
and lasting impression that these requireme nts will be met, and that a
full-fledged Black Mafia will. emerge as; part ofthecontinuing pattern of
ethnic succession he describes.

the money is” (New York Times, Nov. 19, 1980 p. 38). No sense of injustice
is required to explain this behavior; it reflects a rational choice made
among the limited options associated with disadvantaged circumstances.
Meanwhile, however, it is also important to recall that Merton’s early
version of opportunity theory was constructed to explain group-based rates
of deviant behavior rather than the actions or thoughts of individuals.
Where this theme has been pursued in recent work, it has generated
interesting empirical results. For example, Blau and Blau (1982) have used
data from America’s 125 largest metropolitan areas to demonstrate that
differences in income and socioeconomic status, particularly as linked to
race, can explain correlations of the kind noted in Chapter 4 between race
and criminal violence. The assumption that underlies their analysis is that
in a democracy like the United States, which places a heavy emphasis on
equal access to opportunities, socioeconomic inequalities (e.g., income)
that are associated with ascribed positions (e.g., race) consolidate and
reinforce ethnic and class differences, thereby producing pervasive conflict
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THEORIES OF CULTURE, STATUS, AND OPPORTUNITY 199

and violence. “Great economic inequalities generally foster conflict and

violence,” the Blaus (ibid., p. 119) observe, ‘‘but ascriptive inequalities do
so particularly.” That is, inequalities based on ascriptive criteria like race
are particularly likely to produce criminal violence. The Blaus’ analysis
offers evidence to support these predictions.
Returning our focus to group-based rates, and away from individuals, in
the way research like the Blaus’ does, encourages us also to consider the
historical roots of differential opportunity structures and their ultimate
consequences for the individuals and groups caught in the resulting social
and economic circumstances. This kind of focus is reflected in the
opportunity-based explanation of ethnic group involvement in organized
crime we consider next.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter began by talking about differences in cultural values and
ended by focusing on differences in socially structured patterns of oppor-
tunity. This shift in emphasis, from the cultural to the structural, is
important. Cultural theories attend more to the values and attitudes of
individuals and the motivations they produce. Structural theories attend
more to the ways in which societies are organized to satisfy (or dissatisfy)
human needs and wants, and to the group-linked advantages and disadvan-
tages that result. In the following chapter, we will see that the structural
theme in criminological theory is elaborated and extended in the theories
of overcontrol.
However, cultural and structural theories are not mutually exclusive,
and the theories considered in this chapter also have important features in
common. They all in one way or another begin to talk about basic conflicts
in our society, and these conflicts are seen as a part of the motivation or
pressures that push some people to challenge the laws of the society in
which they live. The push these theories provide comes in several forms.
¢ Class culture theories cite persistent and pervasive values in the
culture of underclass life as an inevitable source of crime and delinquency.
e Status frustration theories see crime and delinquency as defensive,
group-supported reactions to the problems of meeting middle-class status
expectations.
¢ Opportunity theories call attention to the gap between shared success
goals and the variable means of attaining them, and see crime and
delinquency as a common means of closing this gap, or at least of
responding to it.
200 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

All of these theories call attention to the role of subcultural groups in

organizing the conflicts they identify.
We have noted difficulties with each of these theories. The class cultural
theories have a tendency toward circularity, explaining behaviors in terms
of themselves, or in terms of attitudes or values “not far removed.
Furthermore, those studies that have looked for race and/or class differ-
ences in values and attitudes have not proved very successful. Finally,
insofar as a subculture of violence exists, we concluded that its expression
may depend on the conditions that surround it. Thus we noted that in the
barrios of East Los Angeles, gang violence has ebbed and flowed with
changes in political conditions.
The status frustration theories have suffered from a similar failure of
research to find predicted differences in values and attitudes, and from the
finding that the emphasis this approach gives to gangs may overestimate
their prevalence and importance. However, the preceding kinds of studies
have suggested that shared misconceptions of individuals about their peers
may influence individual behavior and the public perception of it. The
status frustration theories help explain where these shared misconceptions
come from and why they are consequential.
The opportunity theories draw attention to the structural inequalities
that can lead to group-linked variations in rates of crime and delinquency.
While in the hands of Cloward and Ohlin this theory may predict a greater
consciousness and understanding of the inequalities of opportunity, and
their connection to crime and delinquency, than research can confirm, the
emphasis on opportunity structures has proved productive in explaining
race and class differences in criminal violence and variations in ethnic
participation in organized crime.
A final way of consolidating our understanding of the theories of class,
status, and opportunity is to summarize how this group of theories might
collectively explain the relationship reported in Chapter 4 between social
class and criminal and delinquent behavior. All of these theories see crime
and delinquency as a response to inequalities. The theories vary in the
mechanisms they see as mediating the impact of inequalities on crime and
delinquency: the class-cultural theories focus on long-standing cultural
values, the status frustration theories concentrate on patterns of defensive
adaptation, and the opportunity theories emphasize the structuring of the
means of goal attainment. Each of these approaches identifies a channel
through which the pressure toward crime and delinquency may flow. It is
this pressure and the inequality from which it derives that these theories
use to explain the relationship between crime and class. As we have noted,
the latter two theories are more optimistic than the first about the
prospects of changing this relationship.
UNDERSTANDING CRIME III:
THE THEORIES OF
OVERCONTROL

THE ISSUE: WHY DO WE REACT TO CRIME THE WAY WE DO?

The theories of crime we will consider in this chapter often seem to turn
the study of crime on its head. Instead of asking why some persons behave
in ways we call ‘‘criminal,” the theories of overcontrol more often ask why
we respond to these persons in the ways we do. That is, they ask why it is
that we single out such persons to be called ‘“‘criminals.’’ These theories,
then, are very concerned with “criminalization,’’ the process by which
particular kinds of persons and behaviors are designated as criminal.
Underlying the study of criminalization is an awareness that the dividing
line between what is and is not called ‘“‘criminal’’ is changeable, and
frequently subject to conflict. Thus unlike the theories of undercontrol,
which assume a basic societal consensus about the definition of crime, the
theories of overcontrol make the conflicts that may underlie these defini-
tions a starting point for their work. The importance of this difference is
expressed in a change of focus that characterizes much modern criminolog-
ical work. The new focus is on how behaviors become valued or disvalued
by and within particular groups, and on how such evaluations may in turn
influence future behaviors. In other words, the theories of overcontrol
focus not simply on criminal behaviors but on the criminal status of these
behaviors. The causes and consequences of criminal status are of particular
interest.
Another salient feature of the theories of overcontrol is their tendency
to be critical of the processes they describe and seek to explain. These
theories all note the role of the state in determining definitions of crime,
and tend to see the state as too zealous in the exercise of its definitional
powers, at least in response to crimes of the underclass. While the theories
of undercontrol may see the state as merely compensating for the
inadequacies of the family, school, and community, the theories of
overcontrol are more likely to see state crime-control activities as intru-
sions or as instances of repression.
The theories of overcontrol we consider in this chapter are:
¢ Labeling theories, which are often credited with providing the first
concentrated look at the societal response to crime.
201
202 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

° Group conflict theories, which link the labeling of crime to socially and
economically dominant groups in society.
¢ Marxist theories, which have made economic forces the focal point in
the understanding of crime-control activities.
Of course, there is much more to each of the theories than these
summary statements indicate. These statements suggest, however, the
emphasis placed by these theories on the role of conflict in the process of
criminalization. Our task in this chapter is to examine each of the theories
in greater detail. As we do so, the themes of conflict and criminalization
will form a recurring backdrop to our discussion.

LABELING THEORY
In the previous chapter we noted that criminal and delinquent activities
may often be a normal part of the subcultural environment from which
they emerge. Whether these activities become the subjects of criminal
disrepute may depend, therefore, on their discovery by representatives of
the surrounding society. A prominent concern of labeling theory is that
defining subcultural or other behaviors as criminal may increase the ©
problems posed by these behaviors, resulting in the maintenance or even
escalation of the behavior patterns involved. Kitsuse and Dietrick (1959)
put the problem this way: ‘‘. . . the delinquent subculture persists because,
once established, it creates for those who participate in it, the very
problems which were the bases for its emergence.” The striking implica-
tion of this line of thought is that many of these problems could be avoided -
by modifying the societal response to these subcultural activities; in other
words, by avoiding the labels that define these behaviors as criminal.

Tannenbaum and the “Dramatization of Evil”

An early version of labeling theory appears in the historian Franklin
Tannenbaum’s textbook Crime and the Community. Tannenbaum (1938, p.
17) was struck by the fact that initial acts of juvenile delinquency can be a
normal part of adolescent street life: “Breaking windows, annoying
people, running around porches, climbing over roofs, stealing from push
carts, playing truant—all are items of play, adventure, [and] excitement.”
On the other hand, the larger community, including merchants and others,
may see such activities as a nuisance, evil, or delinquency. Sounding a
theme that will echo throughout this chapter, Tannenbaum (ibid., p. 17)
explains that “‘this conflict . . . is one that arises out of a divergence of
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME Ili: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 203

\values.”” He then focuses on the translation of this value conflict into an

official response to the individual at hand. This translation is of particular
concern because “‘there is a gradual shift from the definition of the specific
acts as evil to a definition of the individual as evil, so that all his acts come
to be looked upon with suspicion” (ibid., p. 17). One particular step in this
process is singled out as crucial by Tannenbaum (ibid., p. 19), for “‘the first
dramatization of ‘evil’ which separates the child out of his group for
specialized treatment plays a greater role in making the criminal than
perhaps any other experience.” In other words, first impressions count,
and it is therefore the first application of a criminal label that may have the
biggest impact on the individual.
It is the impact of this initial ‘dramatization of evil” on the individual’s
self-concept that is of particular concern. The individual, Tannenbaum
contends (ibid., pp. 17-18), is overwhelmed by the response to his or her
acts and begins to think of him or herself as the “type of person’’—a
delinquent or criminal—who would do such things. Over time, “the young
delinquent becomes bad because he is defined as bad and because he is not
believed if he is good.” This is thought to be the case in spite of the fact
that officials involved in this process may intend to “reform” the individu-
al. Tannenbaum’s point is that these very efforts may intensify the problem
by calling more attention to it. “The way out,” he suggests (ibid., p. 20),
“is through a refusal to dramatize the evil. The less said about it the
better.”

Lemert and Primary and Secondary Deviance

Tannenbaum’s discussion of the dramatization of evil is elaborated by
Edwin Lemert’s (1951, 1967) suggestion of specific terms to distinguish acts
that occur before and after the initial societal response. Primary deviation,
on the one hand, refers to the initial acts of the individual which call out the
societal reaction. Lemert notes that primary acts may happen at random or
be stimulated by a broad diversity of initiating factors. What is theoretical-
ly significant, however, is that the initial acts have little impact on the
individual’s self-concept: ‘‘Primary deviation . . . has only marginal impli-
cations for the psychic structure of the individual” (Lemert, 1967, p. 17).
On the other hand, secondary deviation consists of the behaviors that
follow from the societal reaction to primary acts of deviance. At least in
part, the cause of secondary behaviors is a traumatization of self-concept
that results from the first dramatization of evil, “altering the psychic
structure, producing specialized organization of social roles and self-
regarding attitudes” (ibid., pp. 40-41). Of greatest concern, however, is
that secondary deviation often involves the stabilization of the deviant
204 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

behavior pattern. ‘Objective evidences of this change will be found in the

symbolic appurtenances of the new role, in clothes, speech, posture, and
mannerisms, which in some cases heighten social visibility, and which in
some cases serve as symbolic cues to professionalization” (Lemert, 1951,
p. 76). This version of labeling theory again implies that a “refusal to
respond” might diminish or even eliminate some of the problems.
A classic example of secondary deviation, which may or may not involve
criminal consequences, is found in Lemert’s (1962) discussion of paranoia.
‘People who are called ‘“‘paranoid” are conventionally assumed to engage in
defensive or vengeful acts in response to inaccurate perceptions that the
individuals and/or groups that surround them are conspiring against them.
Lemert’s provocative point (ibid., p. 3) is that in the end these perceptions
very often turn out to be accurate, even if they may have been exaggerated
or inaccurate in the beginning. The problem is that ‘‘while the paranoid
person reacts differentially to his social environment, it is also true that
‘others’ react differentially to him and this reaction commonly if not
typically involves covertly organized action and conspiratorial behavior in
a very real sense.’ For example (ibid., p. 8), as the peers or even the family
members of a person become aware of “‘problems’”’ in his or her behaviors,
the pattern of social interaction begins to subtly change: “. . . it becomes
spurious, distinguished by patronizing, evasion, ‘humoring, guiding con-
versation on to selected topics, under-reaction, and silence, all calculated
either to prevent intense interaction or to protect individual and group
values by restricting access to them.” These changes will be perceived,
probably accurately, by the person involved, producing a new set of
communication problems for him or her. Lemert’s concern is that the
result is a spiraling pattern of secondary deviation that is very difficult to
reverse, and, alternatively, very likely to end in exclusion from the group
or individual relationship involved. This provides the ultimate ratification
of the “‘paranoid”’ person’s initial, and now fulfilled, expectations. This is a
pattern that can lead away from conforming, and into nonconforming,
groups.

Becker's “Outsiders”
In his volume The Outsiders, Howard Becker (1963; see also 1964) notes
that society creates ‘‘outsiders”’ by generating the rules that define crime
and other kinds of deviance. Becker (1963, p. 2) also notes, however, that
the persons who are so defined may have a quite different view of the
matter. Thus “the rule-breaker may feel his judges are outsiders.” It is the
two-sided character of the conflict that makes the rule-making process
political; and it is through this political process that “social groups create
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 205

deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance” (ibid..,

p. 9). Perhaps the most important distinction that emerges from this view
of crime and deviance is that drawn between rule-breaking behavior on the
one hand and the disreputable status of being called ‘‘criminal’’ or
“deviant” on the other.
With the above point in mind, Becker (ibid., p. 14) suggests that “it
might be worthwhile to refer to such behavior as rule-breaking behavior
and reserve the term deviant for those labelled as deviant by some segment
of society.”’ The inevitable question that this distinction raises is that of
“who makes the rules?” Becker’s answer (ibid., p. 18)—‘‘those groups
whose social position gives them weapons and power’—is pursued in
greater detail by the group conflict and Marxist theorists that we consider
below. Becker’s more immediate interest, however,is in the individuals
who are on the receiving end of the labeling process.
Becker suggests that we understand these processes as unfolding in
careerlike progressions. Thus a parallel is drawn with more conventional
occupational careers and the sequence of movements they involve from
one position to another. Each movement, it is noted, involves a “‘career
contingency” that includes both objective facts of social structure and
changes in the perspectives, motivations, and desires of the individual. The
most consequential career contingency in Becker’s description of the
deviant career is the imposition of a disvalued label. Thus (ibid., p. 31),
“‘one of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of
deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and
publically labelled as deviant.”’ Behind this assertion lies an assumption
that the imposition of a disvalued label begins a process through which the
individual’s self-concept is stigmatized (cf. Goffman, 1961, 1963) or
degraded (Garfinkel, 1956), so that she or he becomes what the label
implies. Said differently (Becker, 1963, p. 34), the labeling process is a
self-fulfilling prophecy which “‘sets in motion several mechanisms which
conspire to shape the person in the image people have of him.”

Cicourel and the Ethnomethodology of Juvenile Justice

If labels do indeed have the kinds of effects suggested above, it is
important to know how individuals are singled out to receive them.
Stereotypes may in various ways play a role in the process. This possibility
is explored in the ethnomethodological work of Aaron Cicourel (1968),
who introduces his research by noting (p. 24) that ‘following an ethno-
methodological perspective ... directs the researcher’s attention...
particularly to theories employed by police, probation, and court officials
when describing the existence of delinquency.” The purpose of this
 206 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

emphasis is to try to understand how official ‘‘theories” held by police and

others may influence the process of labeling delinquents. These official
decision-makers, according to Cicourel, develop stereotyped views of the
' causes of delinquency, and therefore of what types of adolescents are likely
to be delinquents. Cicourel (ibid., p. 40) calls this a process of “‘typifica-
tion” in which “‘the language and physical behavior employed by different
types of adolescents provide law enforcement officials with the ‘evidence’
or ‘data’ for employing a typology of typical delinquents and ‘good kids’
whereby juveniles are labelled, and categorized for further action.”
The danger of this type of decision-making, of course, is that it bypasses
traditional safeguards involving standards of due process and associated
presumptions of innocence. In their place, a presumption of guilt is
introduced for certain types of suspects: ‘““Thus the officer’s preconstituted
typifications and stock of knowledge at hand leads him to prejudge much of
what he encounters’ (ibid., p. 67). More specifically, Cicourel (ibid.)
suggests that this typification process is based on class-linked commonsense
assumptions of the police about where delinquency is most frequently to be
found.
My observations suggest police and probation perspectives follow
community typifications in organizing the city into areas where
they expect to receive tne most difficulty from deviant or ‘‘difficult”
elements to areas where little trouble is expected and where more
care should be taken in dealing with the populace because of
socioeconomic and political influence.
What is at issue from this perspective is the extent to which these
assumptions, or typifications, are accurate or inaccurate, and therefore
justified or unjustified. To the extent that the stereotypes are false, the
imposition of legal labels will be biased.

Some Critical Comments on Labeling Theory

Perhaps the most important contribution of labeling theory has been the
stimulus it has provided for research on the societal response to crime and
other kinds of deviance (see, for example, Spector, 1976; Wellford, 1975;
Hagan, 1973; Gove, 1975). There are at least three research traditions that
derive from labeling theory: research of the kind reviewed in Chapter 3 on
the social and historical origins of legal labels; research of the kind to be
reviewed in Chapter 8 on the role of agents of the criminal-justice system in
selecting and processing criminal offenders; and research to be considered
here on the effects of labels on individuals’ future behaviors.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 207

From the outset, labeling theory has included an assumption that the
application of a disvalued label involves a general stigmatizing effect that
can spill over into other aspects of the subject’s life. The argument is that
labels often initiate typification processes that result in self-fulfilling
prophecies. Two studies that are of importance in assessing these argu-
ments are an examination by Fisher (1972) of the effects of being placed on
court probation on future school behavior, and an exploration by Wiat-
rowski et al. (1982) of the effects of being tracked or streamed in school on
later delinquent behavior. A crucial feature these studies share is their
attention to behavior that precedes as well as succeeds the imposition of a
label. There is a tendency for labeling theory to portray the deviant as a
passive victim of one-sided societal abuse; to see deviance as all societal
response and no deviant stimulus (Bordua, 1969). However, labels fre-
quently may identify preexisting and enduring behavioral differences
correctly, and in this sense be the consequence rather than the cause of the
behaviors of concern.
Fisher’s study utilized junior high school students of two types: students
placed on probation (an “‘experimental’’ group) and others without such
experience (a “control” group). Drawing from labeling theory, Fisher
(1972, p. 79) hypothesized that “‘if definition as a deviant leads to increased
imputation of negative attributes, and thus to increased deviance, this
should be reflected in a comparison of performance of ‘deviants’ and
‘non-deviants’ in the school system.”’ Test comparisons were made on
the basis of academic (i.e., grades in academic courses) and nonacademic
(i.e., grades given for work habits, character, personality factors, etc.)
criteria.
What makes Fisher’s study an important test of labeling theory is the
inclusion of both ‘‘before-probation”’ and “‘after-probation”’ data (i.e.,
measures before and after the imposition of the label), and his effort to
control for prelabeling measurements of academic ability. Fisher initially
reports findings supportive of labeling theory in the form of a theoretically
expected relationship between being placed on probation and lower
academic and nonacademic performance. Subsequent analysis, however,
shows differences between experimentals (i.e., the labeled) and controls
(i.e., the nonlabeled) prior to probation that were nearly as great as those
found after the probation label was acquired. Furthermore, in three out of
four statistical controls for academic ability in the postprobationary data,
the initial relationship between probationary status and school perform-
ance is eliminated. As Fisher (ibid., p. 82) notes, “This means that the
essential differences between the two groups may not begin with the label
but may have to do with school adaptation prior to this label.”
208 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

A more recent study by Wiatrowski et al. (1982) produced results that

are consistent with the above study by Fisher. Focusing on a national
sample of high school students who were interviewed at four points in their
schooling, the authors of this study are able to test an explicit causal model
of the effects of curriculum-track placement on delinquent behavior during
the subjects’ senior year and one year after high school. The assumption is
that low track placement has a stigmatizing effect. However, contrary to
the expectations generated by prior work (Polk and Schafer, 1972; Kelly,
1976), this study finds that curriculum tracking did not significantly
contribute to the prediction of delinquent behavior in the senior year or
after high school. Interestingly, Wiatrowski et al. also report that 87
percent of the respondents in their study were satisfied with their curricu-
lum at the end of their junior year. They conclude (ibid., p. 158) that “‘the
absence of major effects of tracking on delinquency in this study may
reflect the fact that students eventually accept their placement in a given
curriculum.”
The results of the above research should not be taken to deny that there
is considerable importance to the labeling viewpoint. Rather, our point is
that in the future we will want to be particularly attentive to the issue of
which labels, in what situations, may actually cause the particular effects
with which we are concerned. As Wiatrowski et al. note, some of the most
important future research will need to examine the possibility that labeling
effects occur very early in the schooling process with initial tracking or
streaming decisions. In any case, the obvious importance of the labeling
approach is that it emphasizes the need to study the societal response to
deviance as a topic in its own right. We go on next to consider a very
different example of how this may be done.

AN EXAMPLE: THESTUDY OFCRIME WAVES To this point we

However, we have also noted that labeling theory isconcerned with how
_ particular kinds of individuals, iin other words identifiable groups of individu-
‘als, are singled out to receive labels. There are several interesting studies in
the labeling tradition that address‘thisissue ty oneey the social forces

consist of increases in cri!see but rather that they iow from

increased sensitivities to the kinds ofbehaviors involved. Two studies, one by
Kai Erikson (1966) of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the seventeenth
century, and another by Mark Fishman (1978) of New York City in the
mid-1970s, will help to clarify the labe r 8Perspective on the occurrence of
crime waves. :
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 209

_Erikson’s work draws from Durkheim the notion that crime and deviance |
_ can actually be a natural and beneficial part of social life. This view argues i
that the societal response to what is called “criminal” and “‘deviant” is a way -
inguishing publicly between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. _
son refers to this labeling process as fulfilling a “boundary maintaining
tion,’ and he argues that it can only be accomplished by open confronta-
between ‘ ‘deviants” and agents of social control. He then suggests that _
ociety will encounter the largest amounts of what it calls “crime” or _
eviance” at precisely those points regarded as most distinctive and
_ important in that society, again, as a way of emphasizing the society’s
_ distinctive social and normative boundaries. For example, the implication is
that because in our society we regard private property as such a fundamental :
institution, we should expect to have a great deal of property crime. The
societal response to such crimes reaffirms the boundaries of the concept of -
_ private property and the consequences of their violation.
Erikson goes on to reason that when a society iis confronted by a challenge
to its boundaries, as a result of realignment of power within the society or the
appearance of new adversaries from outside it, the challenge and the crisis it
_ provokes can be perceived by the members and leaders of the society as
‘something akin to what we now call a crime wave. In his book The Wayward
- Puritans, Erikson identifies three such crime waves that occurred in the
_ Puritan settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony: (1) the Antinomian
controversy of 1636; (2) the Quaker persecutions of the late 1650s; and (3)
the Salem witchcraft hysteria of 1692. The Bay Colony was for the Puritans
an experimental proving ground in which the orthodox principles of their
religion could be tested as the framework for a new way of living. Erikson
argues that the above crime waves were the result of perceived threats and
challenges to this experiment.
For example, the Antinomian controversy of 1636 centered around the
| person of Anne Hutchinson, who came to the colony after its founding and
_ began to question subtle changes that the leadership of the colony had made
in the basic tenets of Puritan thought. Hutchinson shortly captured a large
slowing, so that she became a threat to the established patterns and
hipof the colony. The eventual outcome was a prolonged trial in
Anne Hutchinson and her followers were banished from the colony
communicated from the church.
_ The Quaker persecutions began in 1656 after a group of Quaker mission-
_aries visited the colony. While there were few real differences between the
| Puritans and the Quakers, their very presence in the colony presented a
| challenge by raising the issue of religious toleration in the midst of a
- community founded on the notion of religious orthodoxy. Since England had
just embarked on an era of religious toleration at the time of the original
_ Puritan settlement, this left the exclusive character of the Puritan experiment
in doubt. The Puritans reacted strongly to the activities of the Quaker
sionaries, first by banishing them from the colony, then by subjecting
them to corporal and eventually to capital punishment. Finally, the king of
210 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

England intervened, forbidding further violence against the Quakers. The

Puritans continued to harass the Quakers with vagrancy laws, but from this
point on, as a labeling theorist would ironically predict, the Quakers
gradually diminished their activities in the colony.
In the period between the Quaker invasion and the Salem witch-hunt,
several disturbing events occurred: the legal basis for the colony’s charter
was questioned in England, and disputes over land claims became rampant.
Again, the coherence of the Puritan experiment seemed threatened.
The witchcraft hysteria began in the home of the Reverend Samuel Parris
in Salem. Several young girls who were cared for in the Parris home by a
woman slave named Tituba developed an unusual set of symptoms: scream-
ing unaccountably, falling into grotesque convulsions, and sometimes scamp-
ering along on their hands and knees making noises like the barking of a dog.
A local doctor diagnosed the girls as bewitched, and the local ministry
concluded that the solution was for the girls to identify the witches who were
tormenting them.
Three people, including Tituba, were initially named. Tituba in turn
confessed in court and suggested that there were many additional witches in
ee the colony. More and more persons were named as witches, as the witch-hunt
spread outwards and upwards through the social structure of the colony.
Eventually the pastor of Boston’s First Church and the president of Harvard
College were named, and people began to question the evidence being
applied in the witch-hunt. By 1692 the Puritan experiment was coming to an
end: the sense of mission had gone from the movement, and crime waves
could no longer revive it.
Are modern crime waves any more real in the sense of changes in the
behaviors they seek to control? Mark Fishman (1978) argues that they are not
in a study of a crime wave against the elderly that was reported by the media
in New York City in 1976. Late in that year the city’s three daily newspapers
and five local television stations reported a surge of violence against the
elderly that lasted approximately seven weeks and eventually received
national attention. However, Fishman notes that New York Police Depart-
ment statistics do not substantiate that such a crime wave occurred.
Homicide statistics show an actual 19 percent drop over the previous year’s
rate of elderly persons murdered. More generally, the police statistics
indicate that there was a continuing increase in victimization of the elderly, as
well as of the general population, but not that old people were singled out in
particular.
Fishman seeks to explain this disparity by looking at the way news
coverage is organized. His point with regard to the specific coverage of crime
_news is that something becomes a “‘serious type of crime” more on the basis
_ of what is going on inside newsrooms than outside. For example, Fishman
notes that newsworkers make crime news by seeing “themes” in the news,
that is, by seeing specific incidents as instances of larger trends. Thus the
mugging of an 80-year-old woman is reported as ‘‘the latest instance of the
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME Ill: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 211

news goal be cud what iehan to t nde toine ay up: onheeonld ae a

| reporter to the 113th Precinct. to get on film whatever he could about the
| mugging; (2) the reporter would then go over to the 112th Precinct to geton _
| film the police meeting with senior citizens; a Ke) these two reports would —
: then be followed by a pretaped feature on a‘Senior Citizens Robbery Unit.
| that had been established in the police department. Separately, these stories
: might not have generated much attention; however, seen collectively,
- Fishman observes, they constituted a news theme ‘that would - receive

positions to deny iheSy at poenea crime iene, “Baher ea ‘news

people and public officials can influence and distort our impressions of when |
- increases and decreases in crime are occurring. There is more to the |
4 Ses = crime> than the particalar |oe oe 7

GROUP CONFLICT THEORY

As labeling theory has focused its attention on the application of labels by
some groups to others, it has moved increasingly toward a group conflict
theory of crime. What group conflict theory most conspicuously adds to
the labeling theorist’s interest in the application of labels is a greater
emphasis on the role of self-interested groups in the development of legal |
labels. A key feature of this approach is its assumption that various groups
have specific interests in laws that mandate the imposition of labels, and
that these groups therefore play a central role in guiding particular legal
labels through the lawmaking and law-enforcing process. Dominant socie-
tal groups are seen as imposing criminality on subordinate groups by
making and enforcing laws that make criminals of them.
212 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Vold’s Group Conflict Theory of Crime

Probably the first North American social scientist to write explicitly about a
group conflict theory of crime was the political scientist George Vold
(1958). Vold saw crime as having two components: human behaviors (i.e.,
acts) and the judgments or definitions (i.e., mores, customs, or laws) of
others as to whether specific behaviors are acceptable. Vold regarded the
judgmental component as more significant, and his primary interest was
therefore in the influence of groups in imposing their value judgments by
defining the behaviors of others as criminal.
One of Vold’s most interesting suggestions was that crime and delin-
quency are “minority group” behaviors. He proposed (1958, p. 211), for
example, that “the juvenile gang . . . is nearly always a ‘minority group,’ —
out of sympathy with and in more or less direct opposition to the rules and
regulations of the dominant majority, that is, the established world of adult »
values and power.” The police defend the values of the adult world in this
struggle, while the juvenile gang is seen as seeking the material and
symbolic advantages that it is not permitted under the adult code.
Intergenerational value conflict is the root of the problem, Vold argues,
with adults destined to prevail through their control of the legal process.
Although Vold (ibid., p. 219) held that his theory was relevant to a
“considerable amount of crime,” he also cautioned that “‘the group conflict
hypothesis should not be stretched too far.”’ In the end, he suggested that
his approach was most appropriately applied to four kinds of crime.
_\ Political protest movements underlie the first type of crime Vold
considered. Here he notes that while a successful revolution makes
criminals out of the government officials previously in power, an unsuc-
cessful revolution makes its own leaders into traitors. The former point is
well-illustrated by the fail of the Shah of Iran and the waves of corporal and
capital punishment that followed. The latter point is illustrated by the fates
of members of the Puerto Rican F.A.L.N. in the United States.
Clashes between company and labor interests during strikes and lock-
outs result in the second type of crime considered by Vold. The conflict
here (ibid., p. 216) is that ‘‘participants on either side of a labor dispute
condone whatever criminal behavior is deemed ‘necessary’ for the mainte-
nance of their side of the struggle.”” Thus the history of American labor
relations has often been a bloody one, with strikers particularly likely to
feel the heavy hand of the law.
A third type of crime included within Vold’s theory involves disputes
between and within competing unions. ‘Such disputes often involve
intimidation and personal violence,’ Vold (ibid., p. 217) notes, ‘‘and
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME Ill: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 213

sometimes they become entangled with the ‘rackets’ and gang warfare of
the criminal underworld.”
Racial and ethnic clashes are the basis of the final type of crime
considered under Vold’s theory. Vold (ibid.) observes here that ‘‘numer-
ous kinds of crimes result from the clashes incidental to attempts to
change, or to upset the caste system of racial segregation in various parts of
the world.” Nat Turner’s rebellion in the American south (see Styron,
1967) is an example of this kind of conflict being called “criminal.”
Although Vold narrowed his focus to the four kinds of crimes described
above, more recent efforts have broadened the range of attention of group
conflict theory. Austin Turk has offered what is probably the most
systematic of these efforts.

Turk’s Theory of Crime and the Legal Order

For Austin Turk (1969, p. 25), criminality is first and foremost a status that
is defined and conferred by others: “. . . criminality is not a biological,
psychological, or even behavioral phenomenon, but a social status defined
by the way in which an individual is perceived, evaluated, and treated by
legal authorities.”’ Who, then, defines this criminal status? Turk (ibid., p.
33) answers that there are basically two kinds of people in society: ‘‘There
are those . . . who constitute the dominant, decision-making category—
the authorities—and those who make up the subordinate category, who are
affected by but scarcely affect law—the subjects.” Authorities make laws
that make criminals out of subjects. There remains the question of how this
is accomplished.
The foundation of this state of affairs, according to Turk (ibid., pp.
41-42), is a learning process in which “‘both eventual authorities and
eventual subjects learn and continually relearn to interact with one another
as, respectively, occupants of superior and inferior statuses and performers
of dominating and submitting roles.” The key to this process is that
authorities learn “‘social norms of domination,” while subjects learn
““social norms of deference.’’ However, it is also the case that there can
never be complete agreement on the normative lessons to be learned, with
the significant consequence that the resulting conflict can become a
challenge to authority. Thus, “/awbreaking is taken to be an indicator of
the failure or lack of authority; it is a measure of the extent to which rulers
and ruled... are not bound together in a perfectly stable authority
relationship” (ibid., p. 48). Turk then notes particular conditions in which
the conflict can become most intense. These are the conditions in which
crime rates are expected to be highest. For example, among the conditions
214 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

considered is the relative power of the persons involved. It is the poor and
nonwhite who are assumed to have the least power, and it is therefore
persons with these status characteristics who are expected to have the
highest rates of criminalization. Much of the work in the conflict theory
tradition has focused on the process by which this ‘differential criminal-
ization”’ occurs.

Chambliss and Seidman’s Perspective on Differential Criminalization

William Chambliss and Robert Seidman (1971) begin by noting that our
society is made up of groups with widely varying norms and values. They
do not assume, however, that all societies have always been like our own in
this respect. Some societies that are less complex and less stratified may
resolve internal differences through compromise and reconciliation, allow-
ing a condition of relative consensus. However, reconciliation becomes
progressively more difficult as societies become more complex and highly
stratified, and they argue that in such societies rule enforcement becomes
increasingly common. The issue then becomes one of whose rules will be
enforced and how. Chambliss and Seidman (1971, p. 474) observe that
bureaucratically structured agencies take on such responsibilities in socie-
ties like our own. A consequence of this bureaucratic rule is that “rule
creation and rule enforcement will take place when such creation or
enforcement increases the rewards for the agencies and their officials, and
they will not take place when they are conducive to organizational strain.”
Thus the guiding principle of legal bureaucracy is to maximize organiza-
tional gains and minimize organizational strains.
Chambliss and Seidman (ibid., p. 268) go on to argue that the effect of
the above principle is to operationalize a consequential ‘rule of law”:
“The rule is that discretion at every level. . . will be so exercised as to
bring mainly those who are politically powerless (i.e., the poor) into the
purview of the law.” The reason for this is that the poor are unlikely to
have the resources necessary to generate organizational strains, and
therefore they become attractive targets for organizational activities. It
follows also, Chambliss and Seidman (ibid., p. 475) reason, that ‘‘those
laws which prohibit certain types of behavior popular among lower-class
persons are more likely to be enforced.” From this perspective, then, there
is little surprise that the poor form such a large component of our official
crime statistics. Rather than seeing this as resulting from the behavior of
the poor themselves, Chambliss and Seidman base their explanation in the
dynamics of our bureaucratic legal system and in the class bias of our
society.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 215

Quinney’s Social Reality of Crime

The early work of Richard Quinney goes on to link the above focus on the
formulation and application of criminal definitions with the occurrence of
criminal behaviors. Quinney (1970, p. 21) cites several sources of such
behavior, including (1) structured opportunities, (2) learning experiences,
(3) interpersonal associations and identifications, and (4) self-conceptions.
The attention to structured opportunities and learning experiences reflects
the assumption in Quinney’s work that prior to the legal response there are
class-based differences in behaviors that are later called “‘criminal.’’ This is
because “persons in the segments of society whose behavior patterns are
not represented in formulating and applying criminal definitions are more
likely to act in ways that will be defined as criminal than those in the
segments that formulate and apply criminal definitions” (ibid., p. 21). Said
differently, the rich typically criminalize the behavior patterns that are
learned, often in response to differential opportunities and learning
experiences, by the poor.
On the other hand, the second set of factors discussed by Quinney,
interpersonal associations, identifications, and self-conceptions, suggest
that class-based behavior patterns called ‘“‘criminal”’ exist as a response to
encounters with the law. Drawing here from the labeling theories we
considered above, Quinney (ibid., pp. 21-22) argues that ‘“‘those who have
been defined as criminal begin to conceive of themselves as criminal; as
they adjust to the definitions imposed upon them, they learn to play the
role of criminal.”
All of the above factors are brought together in Quinney’s early work by
a focus on the conceptions of crime held by powerful segments of society.
Of instrumental concern here are the conceptions of crime portrayed in
personal and mass communications, particularly as these conceptions
represent the interests of the socially and economically powerful. Quin-
ney’s point is that the conceptions of crime held by the powerful (i.e., their
definitions of the ‘‘crime problem’’) become real in their consequences; it is
these conceptions, Quinney argues, that ultimately determine “‘the social
reality of crime.” Quinney (ibid., p. 23) summarizes his formulation this
way:

In general . . the more the power segments are concerned about

crime, the greater the probability that criminal definitions will be
created and that behavior patterns will develop in opposition to
criminal definitions. The formulation and application of criminal
definitions and the development of behavior patterns related to
 216 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

criminal definitions are thus joined in full circle by the construction

of criminal conceptions.
A summary diagram of Quinney’s theory is presented in Figure 7-1.

Some Critical Comments on Group Conflict Theory

George Vold (1958) anticipated much of the modern criticism of group
conflict theory when he urged that the conflict hypothesis “‘not be taken too
far.’’ His concern was that this viewpoint applied to some forms of crime
{and deviance better than others. We made a related point in Chapter 2,
and we will do so in a somewhat different way again below, by separating
the consensus crimes (e.g., premeditated murder, kidnapping, etc.) from
the conflict crimes. The point is that most people, most of the time, across
several centuries, and in most nations, rather consistently have called at
least some behaviors ‘“‘criminal.’’ In other words, there is relative consen-
sus about some forms of behavior. Group conflict theory fares best in
explaining other types of crime about which less consensus exists.
It is also important in assessing group conflict theory to take note of
Austin Turk’s warning (1976b, p. 292) that “‘conflict-coercion theory does
not imply that most accused persons are innocent, nor that more and less
powerful people engage in conventional deviations to the same extent. It
does not even imply that legal officials . . . discriminate against less
powerful and on behalf of more powerful people.” This warning is
significant because it acknowledges two kinds of findings too often ignored
in conflict analyses: that there are class-linked differences in criminal-
behavior patterns (see Chapter 4), and that patterns of differential
treatment by legal officials are smaller than frequently assumed (see
Chapter 8). However, having made these somewhat critical points, it is
important that we also reaffirm (see Chapter 3) a more fundamental

Figure 7-1 Model of the social reality of crime. (Source: Quinney, 1970:24)
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 217

assumption of group conflict theory: that activities common among the

socially and economically disadvantaged are more likely to be designated
criminally disreputable than activities more common among the socially
and economically powerful. It is this truth that makes group conflict theory
particularly important in the study of crime. This point is pursued further
below in our consideration of the Marxian theories of crime. We turn first,
however, to two recent studies that illustrate the significant role group
conflict theory increasingly is playing in stimulating important criminologi-
cal research.

| 7
AN EXAMPLE: CRIME AROUND THE WORLD Two social
scientists, Lynn McDonald (1976) and Ted Robert Gurr (1977; see also Gurr
et al., 1977), have recently used conflict theory as a starting point for the
comparative study of crime in different parts of the world. Each focuses on
the early work of Richard Quinney as most representative of the conflict
tradition. As noted above, Quinney very explicitly assigns a causal role to
agencies of law creation and enforcement in determining the amount and
type of crime recorded in a society. Both McDonald and Gurr attempt to
bring data to bear on this provocative hypothesis. Significantly, their results
tell us different things.
McDonald’s analysis is conducted primarily with the nation-state as the
unit of analysis. The first set of data comes from two sources: the Internation-
al Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), providing crime statistics for forty
countries and 38 percent of the world’s population, and United Nations’
statistics on juvenile delinquency, providing information for thirty-one
countries and 25 percent of the world’s population. In preparing these data
for use in testing Quinney’s version of conflict theory, McDonald (1976, p.
152) concludes that across nation-states “the most direct indicator of the
means of formal control was the size of the police force. The greater the
number of police per population the higher the official sanctions rate was
hypothesized to be.’”’ Thus indicators of police-force size and expenditures
are given particular emphasis among other variables in the analyses that
follow. What McDonald (ibid., pp. 154-155) finds is that these variables have
the expected effects: ‘‘the variables most successful at explaining rates of
official crime and sanctions were the indicators of the means for formal
control, and economic and social resources for it.’ Only one notable
exception to this pattern is indicated: more traditional variables, such as
unemployment, are somewhat successful in explaining murder rates.
Two additional points should be made in closing this selective review of
McDonald’s wide-ranging study. First, McDonald makes very clear the
conflict position that official crime figures can be taken as no more than
indicators of “recorded crime.” Second, the relationship between police-
force expenditure and size on the one hand, and recorded crime rates and
218 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

sanctioning on the other, is regarded as one of cause and effect. However,

the issue remains whether the police actually cause increases in crime rates
and sanctioning, or whether the causal arrow points (as more conventionally
assumed) in the opposite direction. This issue, and that of “real crime,” are
addressed again in the work of Gurr, which we consider next.
Gurr’s research is concerned with ‘crime and civil strife,” or with what he
more generally calls “public disorder,” in four major cities of the world—
London, Stockholm, Sydney, and Calcutta—during the past century and a
half. In this account, particular attention is given again to the evolution of
public policies and institutions that define and control disorder. However,
from the beginning Gurr assumes a rather different view of the problem than
McDonald, a view that combines consensual and conflict themes. For
example, Gurr (1977, p. 14) begins with the expectation that although the law
sometimes may be used selectively to criminalize and thereby repress social
movements that threaten elites, nonetheless in other circumstances the law is
also used (albeit usually ineffectively) in response to widely supported
demands for the control of behavior that threatens the safety of all or most of
us.
Gurr finds substantial evidence that criminal legislation is used to protect
class interests (i.e., by defining threatening collective behaviors as criminal)
and that urban police forces have grown most frequently and dramatically in
response to civil strife. However, thisis only half the story. Other types of
criminal law, particularly those dealing with “common crimes,” are found to
have a more consensual base, and increases in common crimes are found to
precede rather than succeed police expansions. Thus Gurr (ibid., p. 130)
notes that ‘‘in virtually every instance of correlation between increased
disorder and an increase in police, disorder came first. In the case of strife
there is typically a year’s lag between a major episode and police expansion;
the indicators for crime usually register increases for five years or more
before police expansion.”’ In other words, Gurr finds a causal eo
opposite to that implied by McDonald.
The task that remains is to make sense of these sometimes ‘diversent
findings. Much of the difference between McDonald and Gurr seems to be of
degree rather than kind. For example, McDonald acknowledges that at least
one crime—murder—is better explained with traditional consensus-based
theories than group conflict theory, and Gurr acknowledges that the elite-
motivated interests emphasized by conflict theory explain much of the
criminalization of civil discontent. Thus, at a minimum, these authors seem
to agree that some selection among the crimes to be considered is necessary if
group conflict theory is to be used to maximum advantage. Put differently,
there seems to be a base of agreement that the more traditional theories work
best in explaining crimes like murder, and that the newer conflict theories
work best in explaining responses to collective protest. The issue still to be
resolved is the extent to which the different theories succeed in explaining the
range of behaviors between the two extremes, and how the range of
behaviors might best be divided with reference to the different theories (see
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 219

MARXIST THEORIES
The debate that exists between consensus and conflict-based theories of
crime is long-standing, and for some years most criminologists remained
agnostic with regard to its underlying issues. (For discussion of this debate,
see Chambliss and Seidman, 1971: Hills, 1971; Chambliss, 1973.) Thus in
the late 1960s, William Chambliss (1969, pp. 8, 10) expressed a common
view when he observed that “‘a resolution of this debate . . . would be
premature”; that “in many cases there is no conflict’; and that “‘the
influence of interest groups . . . is but one aspect of the processes which
determine the emergence and focus of the legal norms.”’ However, in the
early 1970s, this view began to change. For example, two years after the
above observations, Chambliss and Seidman (1971, p. 19) offered a far
more definitive conclusion: ‘Indeed, the empirical studies . . . make it
quite clear that the value-consensus model is . . . incapable of accounting
for the shape and character of the legal system.”’
Similarly, Quinney’s (1969, 1970) early work (reviewed above) talked
about a variety of interest groups and contained a restrained optimism
about legal change. Quinney (1969, p. 5) optimistically noted that criminal
prosecutions emerged in Athens in the sixth century B.c., and that “‘this
step protected .. . the lower class of Athens from aggression by the rich
and powerful.” Furthermore, Quinney (1970, p. 41) conceded that ,
“groups . . . similar in power may well check each other’s interests,”’ and
eae
that “‘interest groups receive their individual claims in return for allowing *
other groups to press for their interests.”” As we have noted, at this stage
Quinney was still a group conflict theorist, denying the assumption that a
diversity of interests typically is resolved through compromise, but ac-
knowledging that a plurality of interests operate, and clinging to the
Poundian hope that “the public interest may become an ideal fulfilled”
(Quinney, 1970, p. 42; cf. Pound, 1943).
However, the English “‘new criminologists” (Taylor et al., 1973, pp.
265-266) soon challenged the work of Quinney and other group conflict
theorists by asserting that “‘the view of law as...in the hands of
‘powerful interest groups,’ does not take us far enough.” Quinney (19750,
p. 193) soon agreed that “from the evidence of radical scholarship,
 220 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

government and business are inseparable.”’ Thus (ibid., p. 194), “‘whilst

pluralists may suggest that there are diverse and conflicting interests among
| groups in the upper class, what is ignored is the fact that members of the
_ ruling class work within a common framework.” Speaking for the new
criminologists, Taylor et al. (1975, p. 3) have endorsed Quinney’s new
position as a “move to a Marxist economism.” We turn next to a
consideration of this new Marxist approach to the study of crime.

The New Criminology

The use of Marxist theory to understand crime is not entirely new (e.g.,
Bonger, 1916; Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939). However, until recently
this perspective was rarely applied, and underdeveloped. Ian Taylor, Paul
Walton, and Jock Young (1973) ended the period of dormancy with their
call for a new criminology. The two key features of their work for our
purposes are a reconstituted perspective on the evolution of criminal laws
and a revised image of criminal offenders.
As noted above, Taylor et al. see the group conflict theorists as having
erred in regarding the criminal law as the outcome of a plurality of interest
groups. There is only one prevailing interest in the view of the new
criminologists: that formed in an alliance of capitalists and the state. This is
|possible, it is argued, because the institutions of capitalism have ensured
‘their interests by masterminding the victory of ‘an ethic of individualism.”
| This ethic holds individuals responsible for their acts, and at the same time
‘diverts attention from the environmental structures in which these acts
|emerge. Even more significantly, however, this ethic has its primary effect
| on the underclass, for it is “the labour forces of the industrial society” that
_ are bound by the ethic of individualism, through the criminal law and its
—=__=
penal sanctions. The latter, of course, are premised on the ethic of
individualism. Meanwhile, ‘‘the state and the owners of labour will be
‘bound only by a civil law which regulates their competition between each’
other” (Taylor et al., 1973, p. 264). Two kinds of citizenship and
responsibility are formed by this societal arrangement, the more advan-
taged of which is “‘beyond incrimination”’ and therefore beyond criminal
sanction.
A second key feature of the new criminology is its attack on the group
conflict theorists for maintaining ‘‘a conception of the criminal man as
——pathological” (ibid., p. 267). Taylor et al. acknowledge that the character
of the “‘pathologies” is more likely in modern theories to be economic or
political than psychological or biological. Still, they note (ibid.) that the
_ picture is one of determination and ‘‘the overwhelming impression is one
y of determination at the expense of purpose and integrity” (emphasis in
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 221

original). The “‘new criminal!” is a “purposive creator and innovator of |

action,” according to the new criminologists, and the crimes of these
offenders are said (ibid.) to be the product of “individual or collective
action taken to resolve . . . inequalities of power and interest.” The new
criminal, then, is the product of an informed ‘‘class consciousness.”
The new criminology is ultimately a call to arms, exhorting its followers
that “the retreat from theory is over, and the politicization of crime and
criminology is imminent”? (ibid., p. 281). This call for action includes
references to “direct action revolutionaries,” exemplified by the work of
activist Scandinavian criminologists (ibid.).

The normative prescription of the new Scandinavian criminology

led to the formation of the K.R.U.M., a trade union for inmates of
Scandinavian prisons, and a union which was able, two years ago,
to cordinate a prison strike across three national boundaries and
across several prison walls.

Among other things, the new criminology is therefore also a strident call
for action.

Spitzer's Marxian Theory of Crime and Deviance

The tendency of the new criminology to see all or most criminals as
conscious catalysts for a classless society strains the credibility of the
perspective presented. This tendency may be as naive, in another direc-
tion, as the tendency of labeling theory earlier to suggest that crime and
deviance are simple products of societal attempts to control them; that is,
all societal response and no deviant stimulus. Steven Spitzer’s development
of a Marxian theory of deviance deals with both of these problems in
interesting ways.
Spitzer (1975, p. 640) begins by arguing that we must account not only |
for the status of labeled criminals but for criminal acts. Thus, ‘““We must not
only ask why specific members of the underclass are selected for official |
processing, but also why they behave as they do.” Spitzer’s answer lies in
the historical and structural characteristics of capitalism. More specifically,
Spitzer (ibid., p. 642) suggests that “problem populations” are produced |
because their behavior, personal qualities, and/er pesition threaten the |
social relations of production in capitalist societies. |
These threats may take various forms as they disturb, hinder, or call into
question any of the following key components of a capitalist society:
1 Capitalist modes of appropriating the product of human labor (e.g.,
when the poor “‘steal’”’ from the rich).
 222 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

2 The social conditions under which capitalist production takes place

(e.g., those who refuse or are unable to perform wage labor).
3 Patterns of distribution and consumption in capitalist society (e.g.,
those who use drugs for escape and transcendence rather than sociability
and adjustment).
4 The process of socialization for productive and nonproductive roles
(e.g., youth who refuse to be schooled or those who deny the validity of
“family life,’’ such as gays).
5 The ideology which supports the functioning of capitalist society
(e.g., proponents of alternative forms of social organization).
In turn, these threats are thought to derive from two sources: directly from
fundamental contradictions in the capitalist mode of production (e.g., the
emergence of “surplus populations’—the unemployed), and indirectly
from disturbances in the system of class rule (e.g., the critical attitudes that
educational institutions may produce in the form, for example, of dropouts
and student radicals).
Spitzer goes on to suggest that the above processes may result in two
distinct kinds of problem populations. On the one hand, there is ‘‘social
/ junk,” which, from the point of view of the dominant class, is a costly yet
relatively harmless burden to society. Examples of this category include
the officially administered aged, handicapped, mentally ill, and retarded,
as well as some kinds of alcohol and drug offenders. In contrast to social
| junk, there is also a category that is described as “‘social dynamite.’’ The
ae)
:S)
‘ distinctive feature of this category of persons is “‘its potential actively to
call into question established relationships, especially relations of produc-
tion and domination” (ibid., p. 645). Correspondingly, Spitzer notes that
social dynamite tends to be more youthful, alienated, and politically
volatile than social junk.
Finally, Spitzer suggests that there are two basic strategies followed in
controlling the above kinds of criminals and deviants. The first strategy is
| referred to as “‘integrative,” the latter as ‘‘segregative.” The first approach
‘ involves control measures applied in the community, such as probation and
\parole, while the latter relies more on the use of institutions. For reasons
that Andrew Scull outlines in greater detail below, it is argued that
integrative controls will increasingly replace segregative controls in mod-
ern capitalist societies. We turn next, then, to a discussion of how the trend
toward integrative control may occur.

Scull’s Theory of Decarceration

To understand the work of Andrew Scull it is necessary first to define the
term ““decarceration.” This term refers to a policy of dealing with offenders
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME Ill: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 223

in and by the community by screening cases out of the criminal-justice

system, settling cases prior to trial, and/or using sanctions other than
imprisonment. More starkly, Scull (1977, p. 1) suggests that decarceration

is shorthand for a state-sponsored policy of closing down asy-

lums, prisons, and reformatories. Mad people, criminals, and
delinquents are being discharged or refused admission to the
dumps in which they have been traditionally housed. Instead, they
are to be left at large, to be coped with “in the community.”

Scull’s purpose is to explain why this kind of change in the structural form
of punishment might be occurring in capitalist societies. His answer builds
on what Marxists (e.g., O'Connor, 1973) call ‘‘the fiscal crisis of the state.”
The argument is that in modern capitalist societies, the state must try to
fulfill two important but contradictory functions: accumulation and legiti- |
mation. The continual use of coercion in the interest of accumulation
threatens the legitimacy of the state. To promote accumulation and
legitimation, the state uses two major forms of expenditure: social capital,
involving services and projects which increase the productivity of the labor
force (e.g., health, housing, education) and social expenses, involving
outlays necessary to maintain social harmony (e.g., welfare payments).
The problem is that both of the above kinds of expenditures are increasing-
ly being taken over by the state, while profits continue to be privately
appropriated. This continuing “‘socialization of capital costs” has resulted
in a fiscal crisis for the state. Meanwhile, the argument is that as the costs _
of institutionalization increase, and therefore contribute to the fiscal crisis,
community alternatives become increasingly attractive. These alternative
forms of treatment, outside of institutions, appear to be cheaper and more
humane.
Scull, of course, does not see the decarceration movement as actually
being humane. Rather, he sees this movement as resulting in the neglect of
criminal and other kinds of dependent populations (i.c., “social junk” in
Spitzer’s terms) who are dumped into “deviant ghettos” with little or no
concern for their care. Scull (ibid., p. 142) writes:

As if they are industrial wastes which can without risk be left to

decompose in some well-contained dump, these problem popula-
tions have increasingly been dealt with by a resort to their
ecological separation and isolation in areas where they may be left
to safely prey on one another.

This is a provocative view of a movement that has otherwise been

understood in more sanguine terms.
224 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Some Critical Comments on the Marxist Theories

A serious problem that has plagued Marxist theories of crime is their
tendency to offer propositions that are difficult, if not impossible, to test.
For example, a key proposition for many Marxist criminologists asserts that
“the criminal law is . . . first and foremost a reflection of the interests and
ideologies of the governing class” (Chambliss, 1974, p. 37; see also
Quinney, 1976b, p. 192). However, little guidance is offered as to what
exactly is the membership of this governing class. Thus Chambliss (1974, p.
37) is ultimately unable to decide “‘whether that class is private industry or
state bureaucracy” and instead winds up reaching the contradictory
conclusion (ibid., p. 27) that “‘government bureaucracies may, in the last
analysis, be controlled by those who influence the society’s economic
resources... , but they also have a life and a force of their own.”
Assuming these two possibilities were not mutually exclusive, which they
would seem to be and which would undermine the notion of a single ruling
class, some significant questions remain unanswered. For example, how
much of private industry and state bureaucracy is to be included within the
“ruling class’? How diverse and extensive can these groupings be and still
be considered a single ‘‘ruling class’? To what extent is there conflict within
and between private industries and state bureaucracies? And, under what
conditions do various industrial or bureaucratic groups prevail?
A response of the Marxist criminologist Richard Quinney (1975), p.
194) to such questions is to suggest that ‘in contrast to pluralist theory,
radical theory notes that the basic interests, in spite of concrete differences,
place the elite into a distinct ruling class” (emphasis added). However, a
difficulty with this formulation is that these “‘basic interests’’ are nowhere
specifically identified, and it is therefore difficult to know what these class
interests would predict in terms of legal control strategies. Thus the
arguments of Spitzer (e.g., 1975, pp. 647-649) and Scull indicate that even
direct release of offenders can be taken as evidence of the use of
“integrative controls” to perpetuate the interests of a ruling class and state
capitalism. This does not make the theory wrong or untrue, it simply
makes it weak in predictive terms and difficult to disconfirm. This problem
is partially addressed in the following discussion of an example of Marxist
research. This study also introduces an important distinction between
“instrumental” and “‘structural’’ Marxism.

AN EXAMPLE: BLACK REBELS BEFORE THE AMERICA

COURTS The example of Marxian theory we will consider involves a _
study by Isaac Balbus (1973) of the legal response to se veral black ghett :
riots: the 1965 Watts revolt, the 1967 Detroit rebellion, an 7
revolt. To begin with, Balbus notes that in each of these cities the “firesinthe |
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME III: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 225

street” made court authorities acutely aware of their interest in aiding

political authorities in stopping the street violence that had engulfed their
cities. Put simply, authorities in all three cities were united in their desire to
reestablish order. However, these revolts were also, of course, very public
events that required formal rationality, or an attention to legal rules and
procedures, for their effective control. Finally, it is clear that in each of the
cities the results of the riots put overwhelming volume pressures on court
organizations, in terms of the numbers of offenders handled, so that some
attention to organizational maintenance was also necessary. Balbus argues
that the need to be mindful of order, formal rationality, and organizational
maintenance produced a remarkably similar court response in all three cities.
Thus during the initial phase in each city the processes of arrest, charging,
and bail-setting were characterized by serious and widespread abrogations of
the dictates of formal rationality and organizational maintenance. For
example, in each city bail was set in amounts high enough to ensure that
those arrested would be “‘kept off the streets” at least for the duration of the
revolt, and in each city both judges and prosecutors publicly acknowledged
this policy of preventive detention. Still, even during this phase of the court
response, Balbus (p. 234) notes that formal legal rationality was not
completely abandoned: “Although the police and military response was
often brutal and led to considerable destruction of life, there was no —
wholesale slaughter of the riot participants. Martial law was nor declared,
and some concern for the legality of the arrests was exhibited.” Balbus
regards the latter as very important in that the effect of this policy was to
treat these events and activities as far as possible as ‘“‘ordinary crimes” rather
than as acts of political protest and revolt.
Meanwhile, Balbus goes on to note that in all three cities the efforts of
court authorities to “keep rioters off the streets’ led to an unprecedented
influx of prisoners into already overburdened detention facilities. However,
this influx and the end of riot activity led ultimately to a dramatic shift in
priorities among order, formal rationality, and organizational maintenance.
The end of the revolts, a consequent decline in court interest in maintaining
_order, the overwhelming threat to organizational maintenance (created by
_ the “keep them off the streets’ policies), and a new concern for reestablish-
ing full formal rationality led to a new effort to “clear the jails.” In each city,
therefore, while bail releases were far less frequent than normal during the
first few days following arrest, releases subsequent to this initial period were
dramatically more frequent than normal.
As well, postrevolt sanctioning policy, like postrevolt bail policy, was
| characterizedby leniency. Thus whereas during the revolt the overriding
interest in order led court authorities to prosecute virtually all those arrested
and to do so on serious charges, in the weeks and months following the
- revolts the combined dictates of formal rationality and organizational
maintenance produced convictions on less serious charges and sentences
which Balbus describes as minimal. Note that in ordinary circumstances it
becomes progressively more difficult with each step into the criminal-justice
226 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

system to escape unscathed. However, what Balbus finds with rioters (p. 238)
is just the opposite.
...we found...a striking reversal of the standard model of the
criminal process which posits a series of screens whose holes progressively
diminish in size and from which the defendants thus find it increasingly
difficulttoescape; following the Los Angeles and Detroit major revolts,
in contrast, the ‘‘holes’’ became progressively larger, and it was much
easier to ‘‘escape”’ at the preliminary hearing and trial stages than it was at
the earlier prosecution stage.
It is through the above means, Balbus concludes, that the American
courts were able to put down the black ghetto revolts of the 1960s. Thus the
revolts were repressed speedily and effectively, a semblance of legality
prevailed (despite serious abrogations in the initial stages), and the equilibri-
um of the court organization was not seriously or permanently disrupted.
A key feature of the above analysis is its attention to the use of formal
rationality. This emphasis distinguishes the analysis as an example of
“structural” as opposed to “instrumental” Marxism (see also Greenberg,
1981). Instrumental Marxists tend to see the state and legal system as
instruments which can be manipulated, almost at will, by the capitalist class
as a whole or, in certain moments, by particular parts of this class. On the
other hand, structural Marxists have argued that state apparatuses exercise a
‘relative’ autonomy in their relationship with the capitalist class: ‘‘This
means that in its basic struggle with the working class, the capitalist class
cannot manipulate state institutions at will’ (Bierne, 1979, p. 379). This is
why, according to Balbus, the courts paid at least some attention to the law in
dealing with ghetto rioters. More generally, the task remains to predict in
advance, and with accuracy, when the law will be more and less autonomous
from the class interests that seek to control it (Jacobs, 1980). It is this
problem of prediction that presents the greatest challenge to the useful
development of a Marxian theory of crime.

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This chapter continued the structural theme of Chapter 6, but with a
difference: the focus has here been on the way society is organized to
control crime. Each kind of theory considered in this chapter does this in a
somewhat different way.
¢ Labeling theories provided the lead in considering the ways in which
society responds to crime and deviance as a topic in its own right.
* Group conflict theories focused in a more specific way on the role of
different kinds of interest groups in making and enforcing the law.
 UNDERSTANDING CRIME II: THE THEORIES OF OVERCONTROL 227

* Marxist theories narrowed attention further by emphasizing the influ-

ence of economic forces in producing what are regarded as the crime
problems of capitalist societies.
The above kinds of theories also share features in common. All are
concerned with the process of criminalization, through which behaviors
come to be considered criminal. As well, in considering the criminalization
process, all of these theories are attentive to the role of conflict in
determining outcomes. It is the exercise of power through conflict that is
assumed to determine much of the patterning of crime. Finally, all of the
theories we have considered in this chapter adopt a somewhat critical
position with regard to the process of criminalization. That is, processes
and patterns of criminalization are not taken for granted, but rather are
examined in terms of the social and economic forces that produce them,
and questioned in terms of the purpose and necessity of these forces,
operating as they do. It is in large part this critical attitude that has led us to
group the theories considered in this chapter as theories of overcontrol.
The theories of this chapter, like those of preceding chapters, have been
subjected to criticism. A basic issue raised with regard to labeling theory is
the extent to which behaviors assumed to result from the imposition of
labels may actually precede them. Several studies using before-and-after
longitudinal data were reviewed, with the resulting conclusion that labels
often accurately identify preexisting behavioral differences. The challenge
for labeling theory is to identify the kinds of situations where criminal
labels consistently result in further criminality than would otherwise have
occurred.
A related kind of concern was expressed for the group conflict theories.
Early theoretical work emphasized the point that while some kinds of
crime are effectively examined in conflict terms, others are not. Yet we
have not progressed very far in our efforts to draw this kind of distinction.
The discussion of consensus and conflict crimes in Chapter 2 is one attempt
to do so, and in our discussion of McDonald’s and Gurr’s work we have
noted that there is additional research that encourages this kind of division.
The most common complaint about the Marxist theories of crime
involves their tendency to be nonfalsifiable. This problem has become
particularly apparent in the shift from instrumental to structural
Marxism. Recall that instead of seeing economic forces as always, or even
usually, determining crime-control patterns in capitalist societies, the
structural Marxists instead acknowledge some autonomy in legal behavior.
Similarly, structural Marxists note that attempts to control crime may be
“integrative” as well as “‘segregative,” resulting in policies as apparently
benign as direct release without trial or conviction. The problem is that all
possibilities are allowed for within the purview of the theory; and insofar
228 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

as the theory does not provide explicit predictions, it becomes difficult to

test. Thus there may be a tendency to accept this theory more on the basis
of faith than on the basis of data. Alternatively, as Marxist theory is
developed, it may be possible to specify those conditions, for example,
when the law is and is not expected to be autonomous from the class
interests that seek to control it. We have reviewed in this chapter
interesting research by Balbus, on the use of criminal law to control ghetto
revolts, that is consistent with this goal. Additional research relevant to the
Marxian theories will be considered in following chapters, particularly
Chapter 8 which focuses on the operations of criminal-justice agencies.
A final way of bringing together our understanding of the theories of
overcontrol is to summarize how they collectively explain the finding in
Chapter 4 of a relationship between social class and criminal and delin-
quent behavior. The labeling theories early on made us aware of the role
police and court bias can play in inflating this relationship, particularly in
the form of official statistics gathered and published by crime-control
agencies. These theories, then, call attention to the role of the societal
response in generating this relationship. The group conflict and Marxist
theories have gone on to note that sources of these differences include
bureaucratic mechanisms that are involved in crime control, group inter-
ests that exercise their influence in the definition of crime, and the kinds of
property relations that generate surplus populations in capitalist societies.
All of these theories imply that our society experiences more crime than is
necessary, and that much of this crime results from governmental overre-
actions to it.
——
RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE
INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL 8
JUSTICE

THE ISSUE: RACE, CLASS, AND CRIMINAL INJUSTICE

Do the poor and minorities receive discriminatory treatment from the
criminal-justice system? This is the issue that has animated research on the
activities of criminal-justice agencies and the work that they do. With the
emergence and development of the theories of overcontrol we discussed in
Chapter 7, research on criminal-justice agencies has become a very central
part of modern criminological work. The theories of overcontrol tradition-
ally have predicted that the activities of criminal-justice agencies are
discriminatory, in the sense noted above, and much recent criminological
work has sought to test the validity of this prediction. However, it should
not be assumed that the issue is as simple as it may initially seem.
The issue is complex, in part, because the meaning of “‘criminal justice,”
like the meaning of ‘‘crime,” discussed in Chapter 1, is symbolic and
variable (Hagan and Abonetti, 1982). The meaning of “‘criminal justice”’ is
symbolic in that the criminal law and its enforcement by criminal-justice
agencies are expected to embody fundamental principles, for example,
“equality before the law,” that are thought to define the very kind of
society in which we live. At the same time, the meaning of “criminal
justice”’ is variable in that these symbols and principles are subject to
change, as well as to alternative understandings. Philosophers from Plato
and Aristotle to Rawls (1971) have resisted these fundamental facts by
seeking and suggesting principles that could give the idea of justice an
absolute and fixed meaning. These efforts have failed (Nettler, 1979, pp.
28-31) because conceptions and perceptions of justice are determined in
substantial part by the times, places, and locations in the social structure
from which they derive. This does not mean that there are no standards by
which criminal justice can be measured, or that criminal justice itself is
standardless. What it does mean is that our standards of criminal justice,
such as equality'before the law, are neither as certain nor as constant as
commonly assumed.
For example, Nettler (1979, p. 30) is able to identify three common
meanings of equality (numerical, proportional, and subjective equality),
all of which are important in determining patterns of legal behavior.
229
230 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

¢ a : ee
. i
\
Me
: \ .
THERE 1S SOME i ( me WORLD 1S JUST, J
+
\, JUSTICE IN THE WORLD. } ee )
Pe tee
FE DET
4 “Ae & oT
jak ae ean MS cys
y THERE IS NO Nie} ed , i
* Seat (ne ©
\ gJustic&e INTHE
x WORLD.
EN ©

re, 4
ce
se"

MANKOFF

‘“‘Numerical equality” refers to efforts to make punishments correspond in

invariant ways to offenses. This meaning of equality is as old as the desire
for ‘‘an eye for an eye,” and as new as calls for determinate sentencing laws
which require judges to give exactly the same sentences to offenders
convicted of the same crimes. ‘‘Proportional equality,” on the other hand,
seeks to vary the punishment in proportion to some characteristic of the
offender; for example, if the punishment is a fine, in proportion to the
person’s income. ‘‘Subjective equality,” or equity, attempts to take more
subjective considerations into account; for example, by judging that
embezzlement is more serious when committed by an elected public official
than when committed by a private citizen, and by varying penalties
accordingly. The variable meanings of “equality” frequently come into
conflict, making it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to conclude wheth-
er discrimination has occurred.
Nettler goes on to draw an important connection between social change
and criminal justice by noting that the specific meaning of ‘“‘equality”’ as
applied in the pursuit of justice often varies with the vantage point
considered. Thus in an earlier era when laws involving the crimes of
women and children developed in this country, an assumption of subjec-
tive equality (or equity) dictated that unequal treatment be mandated by
legislation for what were then regarded as unequal members of society.
Although these laws often encouraged differential leniency, and although
they were justified as “protective,” they perpetuated symbolically an
unequal status for women and children. Today as women, and sometimes
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 231

children, are recognized as equals, equal treatment (numerical equality) is

also demanded, and the older laws in turn are now more likely to be
regarded as “discriminatory.”
In this chapter we will use the various meanings of “equality” to
consider the activities of criminal-justice agencies and the work that they
do. While the multiple meanings of “equality” may complicate the moral
judgments we can reach about the injustices of criminal justice, they will
not prevent us from saying a great deal about what these agencies do, and
about the perceptions of their activities by some very significant parts of
the public. As we will see, the multiple meanings we have considered are a
key part of the conflict that pervades criminal-justice activities today.

UNDERSTANDING THE CRIMINAL-JUSTICE SYSTEM

Two terms recur in writings about the police and courts: the first makes
reference to a criminal-justice process, the second to a criminal-justice
system. When talking about the criminal-justice process, criminologists
generally have in mind the sequence of decisions that confront an accused
person moving through the stages that lead from the discovery to the
punishment of a crime; including arrest, charging, pleading, the setting of
bail, conviction, and sentencing. The interconnections between these
decision points and the actors and agencies that make them are often taken
as constituting a criminal-justice system. This system has some of the
characteristics of a hierarchy in that the organizations which comprise it
can be roughly ranked in their final authority to review decisions made by
others; but as Albert Reiss (1974, p. 680) notes, the flow of people and
information in the system does not correspond altogether with the hierar-
chical arrangements.
Reiss goes on to identify seven major parts of what many call the
“criminal-justice system.”
1 The citizen law-enforcement system, made up of individual and
corporate actors who report cases as victims, complainants, and witnesses.
2 The public law-enforcement, or police, system, which controls deci-
sions about discovering crimes, investigating complaints, making arrests,
pressing warrants, and booking offenders.
3 The defendant system, made up of citizens accused of crimes and
their defense counsel.
4 The public prosecution system, which controls decisions about filing
the information, making the charge, securing the evidence, plea bargain-
ing, and forming the strategy for prosecution.
232 = MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

5 The misdemeanor and felony courts, where substantive and proce-

dural questions of law and adjudication must first be resolved.
6 The correctional system, consisting of the organizations responsible
for the custody and rehabilitation of convicted offenders.
7 The appellate judicial system, which has the power to stay the actions
of others pending review, and the sole power to grant or deny appeals.
We will refer to the above as a “loosely coupled system”’ (see also
Hagan et al., 1979). Leaving aside for the moment the precise meaning
attached to this concept, we can note that there is considerable precedent
for a conception of looseness in the American criminal-justice system.
Reiss (1974, p. 690) speaks of American criminal justice as a “loosely
articulated hierarchical network.” Eisenstein and Jacob (1977, p. 37) note
of this same system that even “‘the judge does not rule or govern, at most,
he manages, and often he is managed by others.”’ Jack Gibbs (1978) is
perhaps most pessimistic in calling the American criminal-justice system an
‘“ungoverned mishmash.” Meanwhile, Reiss suggests that “the major
means of control among the subsystems is internal to each,” with the
significant consequence that “each subsystem creates its own system of
justice.”” The loosely coupled character of the American criminal-justice
system facilitates this tendency toward internal control.
We can now offer a connotative definition of “loose coupling”: it is
meant to evoke the image of entities, in this case court subsystems, that,
although somewhat responsive to one another, still maintain independent
identities with considerable evidence of physical and social separateness
(Weick, 1976). This tendency toward loose coupling is found, of course,
not only in the criminal-justice system, but also in the educational system
and other large bureaucracies. Meyer and Rowan (1979) have noted the
following characteristics that loosely coupled systems share in common:
structural elements (e.g., the representatives of subsystems) are only
loosely linked to one another and to activities; rules often are violated;
decisions often go unimplemented, or if implemented have uncertain
consequences; techniques are often of uncertain efficacy; and evaluation
and inspection systems are often subverted or rendered so vague as to
provide little coordination.
Below we will discuss some specific consequences of loose coupling in
the criminal-justice system, and of occasional attempts to tighten the links.
Here we will note a more general point. A salient advantage of loosely
coupled systems (whether they be the courts, the educational system, or
some other bureaucracy) is that they can easily incorporate changes
demanded by the external environment (e.g., the community) and at the
same time selectively ignore the purposes of the changes. (Attempts to
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 233

abolish plea bargaining are a common example, and are discussed below).
The importance of this capability is that the organization is able to
maintain and often increase its institutional legitimacy by giving the
impression of reforming itself, without dramatically changing its day-to-
day practices. Thus the more such organizations change, the more, for
many practical purposes, they remain the same. All of this is very useful in
serving the symbolic goals of criminal justice noted above, although, as we
will note below, is frequently lends a ceremonial or mythical quality to
criminal-justice operations that frustrates more instrumental goals of
reform.
We turn now to a more specific discussion of some of the important
components of the loosely coupled system we have thus far described in
very general terms.

THE POLICE
From Idea to Reality
As central as police forces are to modern conceptions of the city, they are a
relatively recent innovation. The Metropolitan Police of London was
created in 1829 and served as a model for police forces in the United
States, which were established in every major American city between
about 1840 and 1870. Prior to this, Richardson (1970) notes, an extremely
broad conception of the police prevailed. For example, the term “‘police”’
was used early in the nineteenth century to refer to the general state of
public order and health of the city. The “‘police”’ of a city was considered
good if the streets were clean and public order was maintained.
Police services as we now conceive them were provided by a number of
groups prior to the formation of a full-time force in New York City: a
salaried night watch kept a lookout for fires and disorderly youth, there
was a small group of elected constables, and 100 marshals were appointed
by the mayor. The constables and marshals received their pay in the form
of fees for services and, in criminal matters, acted only when engaged by
the victim of a theft to recover stolen property. To accomplish the latter
goal, officers cultivated extensive contacts among professional criminals.
The corruption involved in such relationships, combined with the absence
of service where no reward was forthcoming, encouraged the search for
another form of police organization.
However, Richardson (1974) notes that these were not the only factors
involved. Urban riots were common in cities like Boston, New York, and
Philadelphia in the 1830s and 1840s. The riots involved ethnic, religious,
234 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

and political rivals, and later labor conflicts. The idea of a civilian police
force under military discipline was attractive as a means of containing such
conflicts. The idea of a police force also spoke to a concern about
“unseemly public behavior,” particularly public drunkenness. The early
nineteenth century represented a high point in the per capita consumption
of alcohol in the United States, and, as Richardson (ibid., p. 213) points
out, “prior to the establishment of bureaucratic police departments, sober
citizens could do nothing about drunken ones except to avoid them or step
over them.” These several factors combined to provide American police
departments with a broad mandate to prevent and detect crime, maintain
public order, and suppress unseemly behavior in public places.
However, what is perhaps most interesting about the development of
this mandate in American cities is that it very early on involved a form of
organization that facilitated the loosely coupled system of internal control
described above. This point is well made by a comparison of the early
London and New York City police.

The Police of Two Cities

The New York City police force was established in 1845, sixteen years after
the London force. From the beginning, the two forces were very different.
London officers were clothed in a long “‘blue-tailored coat, blue trousers
.. and a glazed black top-hat ... with a leather crown” (Critchley,
1967, p. 51). They carried no weapons other than short batons hidden
under the long tails of their coats. In contrast, the New York City police did
not wear a distinguishing blue uniform until 1853, and although not
formally authorized, by the end of the 1860s revolvers were standard
equipment. These outward differences in appearance reflected more
fundamental differences in the organization of the forces and the ways in
which they operated (Miller, 1975).
London’s first police commissioners, Charles Rowan and Richard
Mayne, along with the founder of the force, Sir Robert Peel, were faced
with the task of creating a police strategy to contain very explicit forms of
class conflict. To achieve public acceptance, Rowan and Mayne sought to
identify police practices as closely as possible with the legal system,
drawing on the authority of national sovereignty, the restraints of proce-
dural rules, and guarantees of civil liberties. Their purpose was to make
the police a tightly disciplined body of professionals, subject to summary
dismissal for misconduct and divorced from the politics of the localities
they served. Miller (1975, p. 317) acknowledges that “while the laws of
England were hardly a pure realm of justice above contemporary social
inequality, they were the broadest available source of external legitimation
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 235

for the police.’’ Nineteenth-century observers noted the ironic effective-

ness of this symbolism in containing the class conflicts in London during
this period.

The mob quails before the simple baton of the police officer, and
flies before it, well knowing the moral as well as physical force of
the Nation whose will, as embodied in law, it represents. And take
any man from that mob, place a baton in his hand and a blue coat
on his back, put him forward as the representative of the law, and
he too will be found equally ready to face the mob from which he
was taken, and exhibit the same steadfastness and courage in
defense of constituted order (cited in Silver, 1967, p. 14).

Alternatively, New York City of the mid-nineteenth century was

characterized more by ethnic than class conflict. This is not to say that class
conflicts were unimportant in New York or that the police played no role in
them. By the 1880s and 1890s, American police were playing a prominent
role in controlling labor unrest (see Harring, 1977). However, Miller
(1974, p. 316) notes that in the 1860s, ‘““America’s propertied and working
class alike saw a political order they valued threatened by irresponsible
foreigners who did not appreciate democracy.”’ Here the police were
supporting a political order that was threatened by an alien minority rather
than a native majority. Thus there was no need in New York City to use the
legal system to rise above social conflict. The new police instead drew on
the ideals of democracy and the representation of a local political
community. The authority of the New York City police officer was personal
rather than institutional. The London police were too authoritarian for
democratic America.
The most important consequence of the American reliance on personal
rather than impersonal authority was that it granted much greater discre-
tionary authority to the individual officer. We see in this one historical
source the kind of looseness we have associated with American criminal
justice. An important manifestation of this looseness, or increased discre-
tionary power, was the freedom it granted police officers in the use of
force. While the London commissioners were known for their careful
supervision of the use of force by the city’s ‘‘bobbies,” Miller (1974, p. 319)
notes that by the end of the 1860s,

The New York Times complained that shooting was becoming a

substitute for arrest and described the patrolman as ‘‘an absolute
monarch, within his beat, with complete power of life and death
over all within his range... without the forms of trial or legal
inquiry of any kind.” Amidst a vicious cycle of criminal and police
236 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

violence, the patrolman was free to exercise much greater physical

force than his London colleague.

In sum, New York police officers were both less regulated and less
restrained than their London counterparts. The implication is that histori-
cally American police have had a form of low visibility and wide-ranging
discretion that encourages abuse. That is, the police do much of their work
out of public view and with considerable freedom to shape their own
decisions. How has this discretion been used? What exactly do the police
do with their time? Is it systematically used to the disadvantage of the poor
and minorities? To answer these questions, we turn to contemporary
studies of the use of discretion in the context of what we have characterized
as a loosely coupled criminal-justice system.

Police Work
There is no doubt that modern police work is a diversified task. It has been
variously suggested that we consider the police as an “‘omnibus service
agency” (Clark and Sykes, 1974, p. 462), that we understand the police
officer in his or her correlated roles as ‘‘philosopher, guide, and friend”
(Cumming, Cumming, and Edell, 1965), and that we examine the activities
of the police officer as a ‘“‘peace keeper” (Bittner, 1967). Each in its own
way, these proposals all note that the police do many other things in
addition to catching criminals. One criminologist who traded his armchair
temporarily for a badge observes, “‘As a police officer myself, I found that
society demands too much of its police: not only are they expected to
enforce the law but to be curbside psychiatrists, marriage counselors, social
workers and even ministers and doctors” (Kirkham, 1974).
When in doubt or desperation, it seems, we frequently call the police.
This makes the police the key decision-makers, or gate-keepers, into the
worlds of juvenile and criminal justice. There are at least two factors that
keep the police in this role. The first factor is that the variety of tasks helps
the police to avoid an exclusively oppressive role. Instead, they are able to
serve a social service role as well. The second factor is that the police often
are the only agency available on a twenty-four-hour emergency basis. Thus
in addition to occasional incidents of crime, the police must deal with
everything from unexpected childbirths to bag ladies, skid row residents,
drug addicts, psychiatric cases, domestic disputes, landlord-tenant dis-
putes, and traffic violations. “Perceived through time-and-motion studies,”
Clark and Sykes (1974, p. 462) conclude, “the vast majority of what police
personnel do must be categorized as omnibus service that, on the surface at
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 237

least, could be provided by a nonpolice organization.” The varied demands

on police time are significant, in part, because as we will see, the public
gets, to a surprising extent, much of what it asks for.

The Encounter of Police with Citizens

Albert Reiss and Donald Black (Black and Reiss, 1970; Reiss, 1971b) have
conducted some of the most important research on police-citizen encoun-
ters. Theirs was one of the first studies to use trained field observers to
study police behavior. Thirty-six persons with law and social science
backgrounds rode in patrol cars and walked with police officers in three of
North America’s largest cities. Covering all shifts, all days of the week, for
seven consecutive weeks, the observers reported on 5,713 incidents. The
results inform us about a variety of important issues.
Above we noted the theme of democracy in the historical understanding
of American policing. A very basic insight of the Reiss and Black research
echoes this democratic theme in noting that most police work is “‘reactive”’
rather than “proactive.”’ Their point is that the police in large American
cities usually do not seek out deviant behavior, but rather respond to
complaints about such behavior. They make this point by distinguishing
two basic types of mobilization of the police in terms of who makes the
initial decision that police action is appropriate: ‘“‘reactive mobilizations’”’
are citizen-initiated, while ‘‘proactive mobilizations” are police-initiated.
Most of the incidents Black and Reiss observed were reactive, that is,
citizen-initiated. Interestingly, the historical roots of this pattern go back to
the period between 1880 and 1890—to the advent of the patrol wagon and
signal system, based on alarm boxes spread throughout large American
cities. This system was invented in Chicago in 1881 and was employed in
more than 100 cities by 1900. The modern analogue, of course, is the
radio-dispatched patrol car. The point is that these technologies allowed
the police to organize their work “reactively” around citizen calls for
assistance, rather than “‘proactively,” as the older ‘“‘watch” system implied
(Harring, 1977, p. 294-5).
So it is the citizens of the community, and not the police, who assume
the initiating role in much modern police work. Once past this initiating
stage, however, the police officer assumes a more central role in the
unfolding social drama. It is his or her role to make sense of and/or reorder
the situation in question. Reiss and Bordua (1967) argue that the basic
tactic for accomplishing these goals is to “take charge.” Often, the intent is
to “freeze” the situation and avoid escalation of the incident involved.
Verbal and physical expressions of authority are the principal instruments
238 § MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

used in this “‘take-charge” strategy. This strategy becomes most important

when it fails, because, as we see next, it is in these circumstances that
unnecessary arrests and brutality are most likely to occur.

The Use and Abuse of Force

Slippage in the amount of respect they are receiving in police-citizen
encounters may be perceived by officers as a warning signal that they are
losing their authoritative edge, and the outcome of such a situation may be
the unnecessary use of force. Alarmed at the apparent willingness of
Chicago police to resort to the use of violence, William Westley (1970)
designed a study to determine just how extensive police rationalizations of
the use of brutality were. Westley found in the course of his research that
the police regard the public as their enemy, feeling that the demands of
their occupation set them in conflict with the community. Skolnick (1966)
has noted that the requirement that police enforce unpopular morality and
traffic laws further distances then from the public, while the danger of the
potentially more violent aspects of policing leads them to treat large parts
of the public as “symbolic assailants.” Taylor Buckner (1970) summarizes
the situation when he describes the relationship of the police to society as
one of “antagonistic symbiosis.”” The problem is that most societal
institutions need the police to carry out their “‘dirty work”? but seldom
value police services. Meanwhile, the police must rely on the support of
these social institutions but can never satisfy their range of conflicting
demands.
Westley goes on to note additional pressures that complicate the police
officer’s work, including the competition between patrol officers and
detectives for important arrests, the publicity value associated with solved
cases, and public demands for strict control of certain offenses (e.g., sexual
assaults and drug abuse). All of these factors encourage or pressure officers
to enlarge on the areas of their work where the use of violence will be
legally justified. Westley finds that the results of these pressurés are
tendencies toward police secrecy, attempts to coerce respect from the
public, and a belief that almost any means are legitimate in completing an
important arrest.
Westley (1953, p. 39) uses the results of a survey conducted with the
Chicago police to support his thesis, for his data indicate that “37% of the
men believed that it was legitimate to coerce respect.’ The point, of
course, is that police officers who believe this are likely to resort to
violence to obtain respect from the public. Reiss (19715) goes on to suggest
that as the kinds of factors we have discussed accumulate, and as they are
combined with a perception that the courts are not proceeding in agree-
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 239

ment with police views, levels of police brutality will increase. In such
circumstances, Reiss suggests, a “‘police subculture” with its own standards
of justice may emerge. Skolnick regards this subculture as a logical
extension of the police officer’s ‘working personality.” The implications
are Ominous.
Using records on 1,500 civilians killed by the police across the United
States up to 1970, Kobler (1980) has recently dramatized just how ominous
the police use of force can be. This research begins by noting that the
police are the only representatives of governmental authority who in the
ordinary course of events legally are permitted to use force against citizens.
Other agencies of the state must rely upon requests, persuasion, public
opinion, custody, and legal and judicial processes to gain compliance with
rules and laws. One might expect, then, that the police access to force
would be ciosely monitored. However, this is not the case, despite the fact
that the ratio of citizens to police killed in these deadly encounters is on the
order of 5:1. In fact, only 3 of the 1,500 killings resulted in criminal
punishments. At the same time, there is considerable evidence that a
sizable percentage of the killings were of questionable necessity and
justifiability. This point is made most effectively by noting that when some
threat of death or severe injury to a person is used as the criterion for the
justifiability of a police homicide, it is estimated that about 40 percent of
the deaths were justifiable, 20 percent questionable, and 40 percent
unjustifiable. Just how academic such a calculation is becomes apparent,
however, when it is recalled that less than 1 percent of the police homicides
were legally judged unjustifiable. ‘‘Defense of life’ and “‘fleeing felon”
rules regularly and leniently are used to justify such killings. Indeed, in
some states “‘reasonable suspicion”’ that the victim is carrying out a felony,
or simply the act of fleeing itself, is justifiable grounds for the police use of
deadly force. Kobler notes that the “fleeing felon” rule seems to derive
from the time when all felonies were punishable by death. However, given
that today many nonviolent offenses (e.g., statutory rape, larceny, sodo-
my, perjury, adultery) are accorded felony status, and that today the death
penalty is rare, the fleeing felon rule seems rather incongruous. In any
case, such laws and the above findings make clear the great significance of
the police use of discretion in relations with the public.

The Role of Suspect Demeanor

One hypothesis implied by the above findings is that it would be suspects
who do not show respect in their interactions with the police who would be
most likely to be subjected to arrest and conviction. Piliavin and Briar
(1964) set out to test this hypothesis. Their expectation was that the
240 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

“demeanor” of juveniles constitutes a basic set of cues used by the police

to make their decisions in juvenile cases. Consistent with this expectation,
Piliavin and Briar found that other than previous record, it was the
juvenile’s general demeanor that was the most crucial determinant of both
decisions on the street (i.e., whether to take the juvenile in) and the
decision made in the station (i.e., whether to release or detain). More
specifically, Piliavin and Briar found that the degree of “‘contriteness”
projected by juveniles influences their legal fate. Their conclusion is that
the official delinquent is the product of a social as well as a legal judgment
made by the police.
Implicit in the Piliavin and Briar study is an explanation for higher arrest
rates among juveniles from minority groups. The explanation is that
juveniles from minority groups are more frequently arrested because their
demeanor elicits a punitive police response (Ferdinand and Luchterhand,
1970; Black, 1971). A fascinating test of a hypothesis of this kind is found
in a study by Sykes and Clark (1975). They note that in general an
“asymmetrical status norm” characterizes police-citizen encounters. This
norm requires that the police receive more deference than they give; for
example, in the form of being addressed as “‘officer,’’ while the citizen is
addressed by given name. This asymmetry exists in part because the police
represent the authority of the law, and also because the police are often of
higher occupational and socioeconomic status than the suspects they
confront. All of this becomes more complicated and problematic when
elements of race and ethnicity are present in the situation. For example, an
entirely unprejudiced officer, in expecting general deference, may be
interpreted by a minority citizen as indicating the officer’s own ethnic
group’s superordination. On the other hand, the minority citizen’s refusal
to express deference may be viewed by the officer as a refusal to
acknowledge the normal social obligations of all citizens and the officer’s
symbolic status. In sum, observation of the asymmetrical status norm can
convey double meanings, placing both the officer and the minority civilian
in a double bind. Sykes and Clark are able to show with their data that this
can lead to the more punitive treatment of minorities.
We are therefore back to the issue with which we started this chapter:
what role do the racial and class positions of citizens play in determining
the outcomes of their encounters with police? An increasing number of
studies have sought to answer this very question.

The Role of Police Bias

One of the first systematic efforts to summarize research on class bias in the
use of police discretion is provided by David Bordua (1969). Four studies
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 241

are emphasized in this review. Each of the studies examines factors

associated with police decision-making in juvenile cases. Their purpose
is to answer the following question, “What determinants operate in
police decisions regarding the handling of juveniles taken into custody?”
The studies Bordua cites were conducted by Goldman (1963), McEa-
chern and Bauzer (1967), Bodine (1964), and Terry (1965). In three of the
four studies, Bordua (1969, p. 158) finds that the following factors
influence the disposition of juvenile cases: “If we put together the findings
of McEachern and Bauzer and Bodine we find that offense type, arrest
record, probation status, age, department, and officer all seem to affect
disposition; of the factors common to these studies, and also in Goldman’s,
offense and previous record seem the most securely established.’ What
stands out in this summary is that class and race achieve no consensual
recognition as determinants of police dispositions in juvenile cases.
Robert Terry’s (1965) study of police work in a midwestern city is the
last piece of research considered in Bordua’s review, and it is this study
that is most central to his conclusions. What Terry found was that offense,
prior record, and age held up as correlates of disposition of decision. When
twelve factors were considered, ‘“Terry points out that his results imply a
rather ‘legalistic’ handling of juveniles and also that the much claimed
socio-economic bias of the police simply does not appear” (Bordua, 1969,
p. 158). Although, as we note further below, not all studies confirm Terry’s
legalistic viewpoint (e.g., Ferdinand and Luchterhand, 1970; Smith, 1982),
there are recent assessments that reach similar conclusions (e.g., Green,
1970; Hirschi, 1975). The implication is that if race and class biases exist in
police decision-making, they apparently are not as pervasive as was once
believed.
Bordua offers a compelling explanation for the failure of a more
substantial class bias to show up in police statistics. The police are
constrained in the number of juveniles that they can refer to court, and
beyond court, there is limited institutional space for juveniles. The great
majority of juveniles must be returned to the community, and the police
know this. Thus in Terry’s study nearly 90 percent of the juveniles were
returned to the community without a court appearance, with court
referrals reserved for only the most severe cases. Bordua (1969, p. 158)
concludes that we should therefore not be surprised at the absence of
substantial class bias in police studies: “. . . in order for socio-economic
bias to appear, it would have to be monumental since after all the police
must pay some attention to the law.”
The important research of Albert Reiss and Donald Black (Black and
Reiss, 1970; Reiss, 1971b) was designed so as to allow examination of racial
differences in the police treatment of suspects and offenders in several
242 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

large American cities. At the outset, this research revealed a disparity

between the proportion of black and white juveniles taken into custody
and later arrested: only 8 percent of the whites were eventually arrested, as
compared to 21 percent of the blacks. The disparity was explained partly
by the fact that black juveniles were disproportionately involved in more
serious offenses. However, a second factor was also found to account for
the disparity: the preferences of black complainants.
The point that Black and Reiss make with these data is that a
complainant in search of justice can make direct demands with which the
police officer has little choice but to comply. In the cases of complaints
about black juveniles in these data, the complainants seeking more severe
dispositions are themselves black. On the other hand, the white officer
acting without a black complainant is considerably more lenient; and when
no complainant is involved in the police-juvenile encounter, the racial
difference in arrest rates nearly disappears (14 percent for blacks, 10
percent for whites). The conclusion Black and Reiss (1970, p. 72) reach is
that, ‘Given the prominent role of the . . . [black] complainant in the race
differential... , it may be inappropriate to consider this pattern as an
instance of discrimination on the part of police.”
However, if the police did not exercise racial prejudice in the kinds of
decisions that Black and Reiss studied, there is nonetheless plenty of
evidence that they held prejudicial attitudes toward blacks, as reflected in
verbal expressions of hostility. Thus an earlier report by Black and Reiss
(1967) indicates that over the course of the observations, a large majority
of the police expressed antiblack attitudes. The implication is that there is a
disparity between words and deeds. Another part of the above study offers
interesting evidence on this point. Here Reiss (1968) looked at incidents of
police brutality, taking into account whether the officer involved was black
or white. The results indicated that white officers inflicted less than half as
much of their brutality on black citizens as did black officers. Reiss (ibid.,
p. 17) uses these findings to reflect on the words and deeds issue,
concluding, “though no precise estimates are possible, the facts just given
suggest that white policemen, even though they are prejudiced... , do
not discriminate . . . in the excessive use of force.”
In this section we have given considerable attention to the research of
Reiss and Black. Two recent studies that yield somewhat different findings
should also be considered. The first is a study done by Ericson (1982) in a
suburban Canadian jurisdiction. Of 1,323 encounters between citizens and
officers observed in Ericson’s study, 47.4 percent were characterized as
proactive mobilizations, and only 52.6 percent as reactive mobilizations.
“On the surface,” Ericson (ibid., p. 74) notes, ‘‘our data reveal that patrol
officers are much more assertive in producing encounters with citizens than
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 243

the figures provided by Reiss, Black and others would lead us to believe.”
Still, when only ‘‘major incidents” are looked at in the Canadian data,
Ericson reports that more than 82 percent result from reactive mobiliza-
tions. In these incidents, complainants may still loom large in the decision-
making process.
A second study by Smith (1982), based on 742 suspect contacts with
police in twenty-four American departments, confirms the influence of
complainants but also points to the impact of suspect characteristics. Thus
this study reports that antagonistic suspects are much more likely to be
taken into custody than suspects who display deference. Furthermore,
black suspects are more likely to be arrested. Smith explains that part of
this race effect can be accounted for by the fact that black suspects are
significantly more likely to act toward the police in a hostile or antagonistic
manner. Nonetheless, and apart from suspect behavior and victim de-
mands, it remains the case that in Smith’s data black suspects are
somewhat more likely than white suspects to be arrested.

The Social Organization of Police Work

The inconsistency of findings on such issues as race and class bias in police
decision-making encourages the search for factors, such as the way in
which police work is variously organized within and between departments,
that might increase or decrease the occurrence of discrimination. For
example, we know that very different kinds of police organizations have
developed across the cities of America. One distinguishing feature that
may be relevant to the occurrence of discrimination in policing is the
degree to which different departments have become professionalized. By
the 1930s, Richardson (1974) notes, a model of the police as professional
had come to dominate the literature on police work. A department was
considered professional to the extent that it freed itself from political
interference, had long-term leadership, employed the latest technology,
and emphasized its crime-fighting capabilities. The development of the
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Police Academy under
the auspices of the FBI both played a role in furthering the goal of
professionalism. The major crime index and the clearance ratio of the UCR
gave a measure to evaluate departments in the pursuit of professional
standards, and the National Police Academy provided an institutionalized
form of certification for police administrators. Some argued that the worst
of two worlds was coming into being, in that American departments still
lacked the careful administrative controls characteristic of English and
European police, while now the tradition of control by local elected
political officials was being dismantled as well (Berkley, 1969). Nonethe-
244 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

less, the hope was that the ‘“‘new police officer,” a well-educated and
’

extensively trained public servant, working in a highly organized and

technologically proficient department, would be less prone to brutality and
other patterns of decision-making that produce disparity in enforcement.
James Q. Wilson (1968a; see also 19685) provides a classic evaluation of
this ‘“new look” in the organization of police work. Wilson begins by
noting that the considerable discretion given officers in their handling of
juveniles allows the organization of a department to make a large
difference in the disposition of juvenile cases. Two cities are considered by
Wilson, one in a western city and another in an eastern city, and compared
in their respective ways of dealing with juvenile cases. ““Western City”’ is
characterized as having a ‘“‘professional’’ department. The department is
highly organized and centralized; its officers are recruited on the basis of
their achievement as contrasted with their ascribed characteristics, with
education playing a particularly important role in hiring decisions.
On the other hand, “Eastern City” is characterized as having a
“fraternal” department. Decentralization is a distinguishing feature of the
department. Here officers are chosen primarily on the basis of their
ascribed rather than achieved characteristics. Special significance is at-
tached to their residence and recognition in the community. Rather than
formal training, the focus in the department is on learning “how to get
along.” The difference between the cities is well expressed by the
expectation in the fraternal type of setting that “it’s not what you know,
but who you know that counts.”
A comparison of the official statistics generated by the departments in
the two cities is revealing. The “‘professional’’ officers in Western City,
operating within the framework of their impersonal standards, apparently
arrest a relatively larger share of the juveniles they encounter. In other
words, the professional department of Western City follows a more
punitive policy.
Where this pattern becomes most interesting, however, is as it involves
black neighborhoods. Blacks are referred to court in Eastern City at a
higher rate than whites, while blacks and whites are referred at about the
same rate in Western City. In other words, a disparity occurs in the
fraternal department, but not in the professional department. The absence
of statistical controls for the kinds of variables considered above (victim
demands, suspect demeanor) makes it difficult to call this disparity
“discrimination.” What is intriguing, however, is that the disparity in
referrals vanishes in the professional department not by way of a reduction
in arrests but through an increased arrest rate. Put differently, profession-
alization reduces or eliminates discrimination, but at the cost of increasing
arrests overall.
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 245

Wilson has an explanation for the higher arrest rate that characterizes
the more professional department. This explanation focuses on the in-
depth, personalized knowledge that officers in fraternal departments have
of the communities in which they work. Other than through patrol
assignments, officers in professional departments tend to know little of the
communities in which they work. In fraternal departments, officers are
often picked from the community and for their relationship to it. The
significance of this difference is that officers in a fraternal department, such
as Eastern City, may often be aware of means other than arrest for
resolving cases involving juveniles. Knowing the family, the neighborhood,
and the kinds of problems that regularly disturb it, officers may often be
able to find personalized solutions that avoid the need for arrests.
Not only the kind of department, but also the work done within it, may
influence the use made of police discretion. We have already noted the
important distinction between reactive and proactive mobilizations of the
police. Some crimes, particularly what are often called “‘victimless crimes”’
(e.g., drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.), nearly always require a pro-
active form of police work, because there are no complainants to initiate
cases and provide information. Whole areas of police work, for example,
the work done by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration, are
organized around the problems of such investigations (Wilson, 1978). In
this kind of police work, and, as we will see later, in the resulting
prosecutions, it is often necessary, by improvising on the forms of
discretion available, to find means of tightening the links in an otherwise
loosely coupled criminal-justice system. The links are tightened as a means
of successfully pursuing what are otherwise usually unprosecutable cases.
Jerome Skolnick’s (1975) classic study, Justice Without Trial, illustrates this
point.
Skolnick’s observations of a middle-sized American police force lead
him to conclude that there are important differences between the kinds of
work done by what are called “‘peace officers” (ordinary patrol personnel)
and “‘law officers’’ (specialists, including detectives, members of the vice
and fraud squads, etc.) The key difference is that the latter kinds of police
work are more punitive and inquisitory in nature, relying heavily on the
use of offenders or persons who can supply information about offenses.
Thus Skolnick notes that because reports of crimes of vice do not arise
from citizen complaints, law officers must use informers to lead them to
potential offenders. The result is a gamelike pattern of activities that is at
its peak in the area of narcotics. Narcotics enforcement encourages, and
often may require, the expansion of discretion into undelegated areas.
Narcotics officers must cultivate networks of informers, develop entrap-
ment techniques, evade or circumvent search-and-seizure restrictions,
246 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

become knowledgeable about the use of various drugs, and become skilled
interrogators. The need for informers is the most serious of these potential-
ly corrupting requirements. Officers must cultivate and coerce their
informers to extract necessary information, as illustrated in such films as
Prince of the City. This may require not only the unauthorized use of drugs
and money, and therefore access to them, but the negotiation and
manipulation of police reports, plea bargaining, and charging practices as
well. At the same time, officers with well-developed informer networks can
become very central persons in police and court operations, because the
information they obtain can be crucial to convictions not only in narcotics
but in other kinds of cases. In an otherwise loosely coupled system, then,
law officers and prosecutors may have resources to exchange: law officers
have and can get information needed for convictions, while prosecutors
control the plea bargaining that can be used to further develop these
information sources. The end result may, in these circumstances, be a
more tightly coupled set of operations than is characteristically the case.
We pursue these points, as they relate to the courts, below.
In the end, Skolnick concludes that the narcotics division of a depart-
ment can be a source of the widespread abuse of discretion. By focusing on
this proactive form of police work, Skolnick provides a different picture of
policing than Reiss and Black. The implication is that while reactive police
work may be more common, proactive police work is more corrupt.
Neither picture of police work is the more correct; they are, in effect,
two sides of the same coin. As we will see below, the reactive/pro-
active distinction can be crucial to the understanding of court operations
as well.

THE COURTS
Police apprehension is, of course, only a first and tentative step into the
worlds of juvenile and criminal justice. In this section, we will be
concerned with the steps that can lead from apprehension to institutionali-
zation. We will consider first the related roles of the prosecutor in securing
convictions and the defense counsel in representing the accused; second,
the role of the probation officer in the preparation of presentence reports;
and third the role of the judge in finalizing sentencing decisions. We will
introduce our consideration of these interrelated roles by discussing the
history of plea bargaining. We do so because more than any other practice,
it is plea bargaining that has influenced the forms American criminal
justice has taken in this century.
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 247

The Historical Roots of Plea Bargaining

Although it has sometimes been suggested that plea bargaining has
“ancient antecedents” (e.g., Buffalo Law Review, 1974), this view seems
to represent so loose a definition of plea bargaining as to be misleading. We
begin, then, with a definition suggested by Alschuler (1979, p. 213):
“. . . plea bargaining consists of the exchange of official concessions for the
act of self-conviction.” The official concessions offered in exchange for a
plea of guilty may include a reduction in sentence, a reduction in charges,
or other inducements. Participants in such exchanges include the police,
prosecutor, and defense counsel as well as the judge. It is not always easy
to recognize all the elements of plea bargaining in the official records that
must form the basis of much historical research. For example, Newman’s
(1966, pp. 91-92) early description of plea bargaining in Kansas includes
situations where prosecutors negotiated with defendants after the arrest
but before the filing of charges. The records in these cases showed
defendants pleading guilty to charges that had already been reduced before
being officially filed.
Similarly, Milton Heumann (1975; see also Alschuler, 1975) uses the
phrase “implicit plea bargaining” to describe situations where defendants
realize they will be better off if they plead guilty, and do so without actual
negotiation ever taking place. These defendants may avoid a heavy
sentence, even though no word of a “‘deal’’ has been spoken. It is difficult
to know from official records what the inducements to plead may have
been in any particular situation. Nevertheless, Heumann argues convinc-
ingly that a high percentage of guilty pleas in a court is a sure sign of plea
bargaining, whether explicit or implicit.
By this measure, there is little evidence that plea bargaining was
common until the latter part of the nineteenth century. Ferdinand’s (1973,
table 2) study of the Boston Police Court in 1824 reveals only 11 percent of
over 2,000 defendants pleading guilty. A study of prosecution practices in
New York State beginning in 1839 reports that only 25 percent of all felony
convictions were in that year a result of guilty pleas. The same study
reveals that in Manhattan and Brooklyn only 15 percent of all felony
convictions were by guilty plea in 1839, but that the figures increased
steadily at decade intervals to 45, 70, 75, and 80 percent (Moley, 1928, p.
108, cited in Alschuler, 1979). It was not until after the mid-nineteenth
century, then, that plea bargaining became common.
The first United States Supreme Court decision taking note of plea
bargaining occurred in the Whiskey Cases of 1878 (Alschuler, 1979). This,
and evidence like that presented above, leads Alschuler to conclude that
plea bargaining only became a significant practice after the American Civil
248 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

War. Consistent with this, Friedman (1979) presents data on the process-
ing of felony cases in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California,
from 1880 to 1974. These data indicate that most cases have ended with
some kind of guilty plea since the early twentieth century, and that the
number has risen steadily.
Friedman does not regard Alameda County as unique, and goes on to
suggest that the ninety years between 1880 and 1970 can be divided into
three distinct periods. The first period lasts through the turn of the century
and involves a mixed pattern in which many defendants took a chance on
trial by jury, while others either plea bargained or simply pleaded guilty in
hope of leniency. In the second period, lasting until about 1950, the guilty
plea was much more common, perhaps because it looked like the one
chance for leniency, and the only chance for probation. In the most recent
period, plea bargaining has taken center stage. Defendants rely less on
“understandings” and more on outright negotiation. On the other hand,
prosecutors regularly “‘overcharge’’ to strengthen their bargaining posi-
tions. Alschuler (1968, p. 85) confirms this depiction of the latter period
with his description of prosecutors who ‘“‘throw everything in . . . down to
and including spitting on the sidewalk.’’ He goes on (ibid., p. 88) to quote
an Oakland prosecutor as speculating that “‘if_a robber forced his victim to
move from a front room to a back room, I would probably file a kidnapping
charge.”
There is considerable speculation as to why and how plea bargaining
became common. One point is clear: by the turn of the century the practice
was widespread, despite its condemnation by the appellate courts. The
corrupt character of urban courts during this period was certainly a factor.
By 1914, Alschuler (1979, pp. 227-228) notes, there was a New York
defense attorney whose financial arrangements with a magistrate enabled
him to “stand out on the street in front of the Night Court and dicker away
sentences in this form: $300 for ten days, $200 for twenty days, $150 for
thirty days.” The dean of the University of Illinois Law School described a
similar situation during this era in Chicago (Harno, 1928, p. 103, cited in
Alschuler, 1979, p. 228).

When the plea of guilty is found in records it is almost certain to

have in the background, particularly in Cook County, a session of
bargaining with the State’s Attorney.... These approaches...
are frequently made through another person called a “‘fixer.’’ This
sort of person is an abomination and it is a serious indictment
against our system of criminal administration that such a leech not
only can exist but thrive. The “fixer’’ is just what the word
indicates.
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 249

In Manhattan, the role of the “plea getter” is described by Arthur Train

(1924, pp. 223-224, cited in Alschuler, 1979, Dx 228):
Court officers often win fame in accordance with their ability as
“plea getters.” They are anxious that the particular Part [court-
room] to which they are assigned shall make as good a showing as
possible in the number of cases disposed of. Accordingly each
morning some of them visit the pens on the floor below the
courtroom and negotiate with the prisoners for pleas.... The
writer has known of the entire population of a prison pen pleading
guilty one after another under the persuasion of an eloquent
bluecoat.
However, probably the most striking description of these turn-of-the
century prosecution practices and their consequences is provided by Haller
(1979,.p, 277).
A knowledgeable offender, once arrested, might start by attempt-
ing to bribe the arresting officer. If he failed, he could make further
such attempts in the precinct station. Beyond that, a number of
strategies remained. He or his friends might call on a politically
influential attorney, saloonkeeper, or the bailbondsman to ap-
proach the prosecutor or judge for a favor. Or a friend might offer
the victim restitution in return for an agreement to drop the
charges. Even if the defendant was eventually convicted and
incarcerated, he was not likely to perceive this as the triumph of
legal norms; rather, he would feel that he had somehow failed to
find the right levers for manipulating the system.
Nonetheless, Haller does not argue that corruption alone was at work
here. He also cites structural changes that encouraged and facilitated the
growth of plea bargaining. These changes included the creation of modern
police departments and full-time prosecutors to bring defendants into the
system, and the development of incarceration as a standard penalty for
crime. We have already noted in Chapter 1 that by this time victims were
becoming quite peripheral to the system, so that now the “new profession-
als” were left to determine charges and sentences based upon the needs of
the new organizational units and the larger system rather than the interests
of victims.
It is in this context that the courts became a loosely coupled system of
processing agencies standing between an expanding caseload over which
they exercised minimal control and a relatively rigid prison system that
could not admit all who might be eligible. Haller argues that high rates of
dismissals and plea bargaining were two likely responses to the situation.
250 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

But how could they occur in the face of appeals-court disapproval of plea
bargaining? The answer is that the criminal-justice system simply was not
very legally oriented in most urban jurisdictions. We noted in the previous
section the local, highly politicized character of early American policing.
Recruits usually were of blue-collar background, often with no formal
schooling beyond the age of 13 or 14, and they typically started on the
street with no formal training. Police officers were, therefore, expected to
know little law (Haller, 1976). Beyond this, the justices in the lower courts
were mostly nonlawyers, and defendants often appeared in court without
attorneys. It is little wonder that the elite bar scorned such courts and
chose to ignore them. Public-defender offices did not emerge until much
later in the twentieth century. A result was that the appellate review of
criminal cases was rare during the period when plea bargaining became
common, leaving the practice beyond any meaningful supervision. Finally,
late-nineteenth-century cities, and therefore their courts, were dominated
by political machines which were based upon the exchange of favors for
votes. Plea bargaining fit well with this political culture.
To these factors which encouraged and facilitated the growth of plea
bargaining, Lynn Mather (1979) has added two more. In Chapter 1 we
noted that at the end of the nineteenth century a new “positive” school of
criminology, and ultimately a ‘“‘new penology,”’ emerged. This evolving
school of thought was based on a philosophy of “individualized sanctions”
whose purpose was to reform the offender. Plea bargaining provided a
means for judges and prosecutors to reach a sentence that, in their view,
would be more appropriate for the needs of the individual offender.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there was also a
tremendous growth of the criminal law, particularly to criminalize what we
have come to call “‘victimless crimes.”’ In Chapter 3 we noted the range of
the lawmaking efforts associated with the progressive era in American
political history. Pound (1930, p. 23, cited in Alschuler, 1979, p. 234)
observed that ‘“‘of one hundred thousand persons arrested in Chicago in
1912, more than one half were held for violation of legal precepts which did
not exist twenty-five years before.”’ Whether for reasons of caseload
volume or because of uncertainty that these offenses really warranted
penal sanctions, they were frequently plea bargained. As the following
quotation (National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement,
1931, p. 56, cited in Alschuler, 1979, p. 235) indicates, this was nowhere
more clear than in the case of prohibition.
... federal prosecutions under the Prohibition Act terminated in
1930 had become nearly eight times as many as the total number
of all pending federal prosecutions in 1914. In a number of urban
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 251

districts the enforcement agencies maintain that the only practica-

ble way of meeting this situation with the existing machinery of
the federal courts ... is for the United States Attorneys to make
bargains with defendants.
Mather (1973) makes the further point that if drug offenses are
substituted for liquor offenses, there is an interesting similarity in the kinds
of cases settled by plea bargains then and now. However, as we noted
above and will discuss further below, this area of plea bargaining can also
involve elements of coercion. We turn next, then, to a discussion of
research on the prosecution and defense of criminal cases in contemporary
settings.

Decisions to Prosecute
The unique feature of the decision to prosecute a criminal case is that it
officially makes private “‘trouble’’ public (Emerson and Messinger, 1977).
In effect, this decision changes what is often a dyadic relationship between
suspect(s) and victim(s) into a triadic relationship that includes, as third
parties, official agents of the court (Gulliver, 1969). The salient feature of a
triad, of course, is asymmetry: the third party can take sides (Simmel,
1950). The criminal law encourages this possibility (Turk, 1976a), because it
emphasizes a determination of guilt and innocence—what Chambliss and
Seidman (1971) call the ‘“‘winner takes all’? method of dispute settlement.
Criminal prosecutors have virtually complete discretionary power to
determine when the above-described consequences follow from the trouble
brought to them (Blumberg, 1967b; Cox, 1976). In so doing, they use their
discretion to determine which kinds of private trouble will receive public
attention and therefore require expenditures of scarce court resources. In
this sense, initial prosecutorial decisions, usually called “early” or “‘prelim-
inary screening” decisions, are allocational: with respect to the amount
and type of office resources to be used in disposing cases (Emerson, 1969;
Bottomly, 1973). Cases for which no or few further resources will be
committed are distinguished from those for which extensive resources are
needed to arrive at the proper label and/or sanction. Officials relinquish
jurisdiction over the former set of cases either at the time the decision is
made or shortly thereafter. The latter set of cases continues under official
jurisdiction, and receives more individualized treatment.
How, then, are the initial allocational decisions made? Myers and
Hagan (1979) suggest that prosecutors “typify”? (Cicourel, 1968) private
trouble in terms of their prior experience with cases that have been
pursued successfully to conviction and sentencing. They refer to this
252 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

process as “‘strong-cases typification”—a process of allocating prosecutori-

al resources so as to maximize the ratio of convictions (and some times
harsh sentences) to personnel effort invested. Features of cases that reduce
the ratio are typified as weaknesses; they justify or require a plea bargain
or dismissal. Features that enhance the ratio are typified as strengths; they
increase the probability that prosecutors will proceed with the case and
neither offer nor accept a plea bargain. The strong case consists in part,
then, of abstract and generalized evaluations of case-specific characteris-
tics, for example, as to whether the victim is a credible witness.
Since a large number of features characterize each case and can be
interpreted as strengths or weaknesses, the strong case functions as an
ideal that is seldom encountered. However, as a standard, the strong case
expresses the prosecutor’s concern with legally relevant features of the
case. Prominent among these are the amount and quality of evidence that
pertains to the defendant’s guilt (Miller, 1970; Mather, 1973; Neubauer,
1974; Eisenstein and Jacob, 1977). In addition to evidence, prosecutors
tend to couch other elements of the strong case in legally relevant terms.
For example, they note and evaluate victims and defendants with reference
to their probable credibility as witnesses (Miller, 1970; Hall, 1975; Stanko,
1977). Prosecutors also speak of the legal seriousness of the offense
(Blumberg, 1967b; Mather, 1973; Neubauer, 1974). These elements, while
legalistic in tone, are underlain in actual practice by a subtle mixture of
social and legal considerations. Assessments of victim credibility, for
example, depend in part on the victim’s socioeconomic status and behavior
prior to the crime, such as provocation of the defendant (Miller, 1970). For
a variety of reasons, black victims of black defendants tend to be
considered less credible witnesses than white victims of black defendants
(Newman, 1966; Miller, 1970). On these grounds, their cases appear to
move less frequently from the status of private to public trouble. The key
to understanding public processing decisions, then, involves combined
consideration of a variety of variables traditionally separated into ‘‘social’’
and “‘legal’’ categories.

The Role of Defense Counsel

Of course, as a criminal case progresses the defense counsel will also
usually become a part of the decision-making process. However, in a
provocative description of this role, Abraham Blumberg (1967a, 1967b)
suggests that much defense work amounts to “the practice of law as a
confidence game.” The core of this argument is the observation that over
time court officials, prosecutors, and defense lawyers develop working
relationships that place the defendant in the role of a potentially disruptive
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 253

outsider. Several factors are said to encourage this situation. The limita-
tions of court resources put court officials and prosecutors under a strain to
move cases through the court system as efficiently as possible. Meanwhile,
defense lawyers will often gain financially if they handle as many cases as
possible in the shortest period of time. The result is a common desire to
resolve cases quickly, and Blumberg therefore suggests that prosecutors,
judges, and defense attorneys may covertly conspire to encourage the
defendant to plead guilty.
Blumberg goes on to suggest that the defense counsel may adopt a
number of strategies to stimulate the guilty plea and to assure the payment
of his or her legal fees. One of these strategies involves bringing the
defendant’s family into the case. Often with the help of adjournments
offered by an accommodating judge, the defense attorney is able to
convince the family of the financial and practical wisdom of the defendant’s
“pleading guilty for considerations.”’ Donald Newman (1956, 1966) esti-
mates from his research that in about a third of such cases the result is an
alteration in charges, while in about two-thirds of the cases the expectation
is a reduced sentence. There is some uncertainty that reduced sentences
always follow such pleas, an uncertainty that fits well with the analogy to a
confidence game. The suspicions that give rise to this analogy are further
encouraged by Blumberg’s finding that it is usually the lawyer for the
defense who first suggests to the defendant that it would be best to plead
guilty.
Blumberg’s research focuses on private defense counsel, but much
criminal-defense work today is done by public defenders. Does plea
bargaining characterize their cases as well? The classic research of David
Sudnow (1965) in a midwestern public defender’s office provides an
affirmative answer. Sudnow concentrates on providing an in-depth descrip-
tion of the procedures used in bargaining for reduced charges. The
reduction of charges focuses on two types of offenses: ‘necessarily
included offenses” and “‘situationally included offenses.” The former occur
by association with one another in their legal definition; for example,
“homicide”? cannot occur without “‘intent to commit murder.” In contrast,
the latter occur together by convention; for example, “public drunken-
ness” often, but not by necessity, occurs in conjunction with ‘‘creating a
public disturbance.”’ The general premise in bargaining for charge reduc-
tions involves reducing the initial charge to a lesser necessarily or situation-
ally included offense.
The fascinating point that Sudnow’s research makes is that the proce-
dural rules to be followed in deciding what sort of reduction is appropriate
are not set out exclusively by the law. These rules evolve out of lawyers’
and prosecutors’ working conceptions of what they regard as “normal
254 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

crimes”: ‘‘. . . the typical manner in which offenses of given classes are
committed, the social characteristics of the persons who regularly commit
them, the features of the settings in which they occur, the types of victims
often involved, and the like’ (Sudnow, 1965, p. 259). On the basis of these
working conceptions of ‘‘normal crimes’”’ an initial legal categorization can
be established, and attention can then be directed to determining which
(possibly necessarily or situationally included) lesser offenses constitute
the appropriate reduction. Thus Sudnow reports that in the jurisdiction he
observed a burglary charge is routinely reduced to petty theft. The point,
however, is that ‘‘the propriety of proposing petty theft as a reduction does
not derive from its . . . existence in the present case, but is warranted...
[instead] by the relation of the present burglary to ‘burglaries,’ normally
conceived” (ibid., p. 263). Sudnow does note, however, that there must be
a balance between the sentence the defendant might have received for the
original charge and that which will probably be received for the lesser
charge. This balance is greatly assisted by the fact that criminal codes
generally allow the judge so much discretion in sentencing that the
likelihood is substantial of the defendant’s receiving the same sentence for
either the greater or the lesser charge.

Are the Bargains Biased?

What types of defendants benefit most and least from the bargaining
practices we have considered? Chambliss and Seidman (1971, p. 412)
assert that “how favorable a ‘bargain’ one can strike with the prosecutor in
the pretrial confrontations is a direct function of how politically and
economically powerful the defendant is.”’ Yet data collected by Donald
Newman (1956) through interviews with convicted felons cast doubt on
such assertions. Newman reports that when his defendants are compared
in terms of their initial pleas, no significant differences are found by
education, occupation, and residence. Similarly, his ‘‘analysis of the
sample of offenders showed no clear-cut categories separating bargained
from non-bargained convictions” (ibid., p. 780). Still, Newman does
conclude with the assertion (ibid., p. 790) that “‘the way bargaining now
works, the more experienced criminals can manipulate legal processes to
obtain light sentences and better official records.”
A study of criminal prosecution in a western Canadian province
(Hagan, 1975b) focuses more specifically on charge alterations and their
impact on the final disposition imposed. This study emphasizes the crucial
role of defense counsel and the presence of multiple charges in generating
a charge alteration. The latter is a reference to the fact that many offenders
may be systematically “‘overcharged” to set the bargaining process in
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 255

motion. However, no clear evidence is found that experienced offenders

receive more or better “bargains,” and the proportions of white and
nonwhite offenders retaining counsel, pleading guilty, and receiving charge
alterations are approximately equal. Probably the most intriguing finding
of this study is that charge alterations have no substantial impact on final
disposition unless the charges are completely dropped: ‘This finding
suggests that ‘considerations’ won in early stages of the legal process may
ultimately prove illusionary, a finding that fits well with Blumberg’s
characterization of the bargaining process as a ‘confidence game’ ” (ibid.,
p. 544).
Other studies have questioned the advantages at sentencing provided by
plea bargaining. Eisenstein and Jacob (1977, p. 270) report from their
study of criminal courts in three cities that “the effect of dispositional mode
[is] insignificant in accounting for the variance in sentence length.”
Similarly, a major study of plea bargaining in the District of Columbia
concludes that ‘“‘contrary to expectations, sentence concessions were not
routinely awarded to suspects entering guilty pleas” (Rhodes, 1978). Some
studies do find sentencing benefits following from guilty pleas (UhIman and
Walker, 1979, 1980; Brereton and Casper, 1981-82; Zatz and Hagan,
1984), but the issue remains unresolved. Until this issue is resolved, it will
be impossible to answer the question of whether some bargainers benefit
more than others. Meanwhile, we can only speculate. LaFree (1980)
reports the interesting finding that in rape cases black defendants are more
likely to be tried in court than plead guilty. Yet even here there is
uncertainty, for LaFree (ibid., p. 839) observes that he ‘“‘could not
determine from [his] observations whether black defendants were more
reluctant to plead guilty than white defendants or whether the prosecution
was less willing to plea bargain when the defendant was black.” In either
case, it is unlikely that such pleas work to the advantage of black offenders,
but it is impossible to say much more.

The Social Organization of Plea Bargaining

It is clear that the form if not the substance of plea bargaining varies by
characteristics of offenders. Earlier in this chapter we noted how the
proactive character of police work in areas such as drug enforcement has
notable consequences for the way police work is organized. Related
conclusions emerge from research done on the prosecution of drug and
white-collar crimes, two groups of offenses usually thought of as unrelated.
What is similar about them is the absence of complainants. Most white-
collar crimes are so diffuse in character (e.g., price-fixing) that the victims
(consumers) are not aware of their victimization. Meanwhile, drug offend-
256 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

ers are in effect ‘“‘consensual” victims, and are therefore unlikely to

complain of their own “‘victimizations.” A result is that for both of these
types of crimes information and evidence must be developed in a proactive
fashion. :
Plea bargaining is a major means of successfully building such cases
proactively. In exchange for lenient penalties, key informants and witness-
es are encouraged to provide the evidence necessary for the successful
prosecution of others (Cloyd, 1979). The problem is how to get the
leverage required to ‘“‘turn witnesses,” and the key to obtaining the
leverage is to forge a connection between plea negotiations and conces-
sions and coercion ultimately in sentencing. In other words, it is necessary
to tighten the links between prosecutors and sentencing judges, making
these parts of the criminal-justice system more tightly coupled than is
usually the case. Even when this is accomplished, Chein et al. (1964, p.
331) observe that “going after higher levels of the narcotics business
pyramid, to say nothing of the apexes, is a long, hazardous, and at best
uncertain affair.”
To determine more specifically how prosecutors proactively pursue
these goals, Hagan and Bernstein (1979, p. 471) interviewed assistant U.S.
attorneys about their work on white-collar cases (see also Katz, 1979). The
techniques used by prosecutors in these cases are suggested candidly in the
following interview.
Q. How do you urge cooperation from defendants?
A. We threaten to send them to jail. It’s the most effective way
we've ever done it. We make a good, solid case on them and
hang it over their head like a hammer.
Q. And what are the mechanics of doing that, how exactly do you
present it to the defendant?
A. We tell them “if you don’t cooperate, we will convict you. And
we will do it in a way that will make you look—we'lI do it so well
that you would get really good jail time, a solid big chunk of
time.”
Q. At what stage do you do this?
A. Well, we are willing to make deals with people in a whole host
of ways running all the way from giving them a “pass” to they
just don’t get anything at all in return for testifying.
Q. Do you usually indict them first?
A. We make deals at all stages. . . . We talk to them before indict-
ment in the very big cases. Then we have all kinds of pleas like
a guy has committed a felony. We'll let him plead to a
misdemeanor and won't prosecute . . . a whole range of things
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 257

all the way ’til! he pleads to the principal count... to charging

him with exactly what he did and saying nice things about him
at sentencing.
The possibilities this interview reveals are as coercive as they are numer-
ous.
We have already noted that essential to generating cooperation and
establishing credibility is a shared understanding between the prosecutor
and the judge that negotiated agreements will be ratified and expectations
fulfilled. Hagan and Bernstein’s (1979, p. 472) interviews suggest that this
link exists on a very practical level. For example, they quote an assistant
U.S. attorney to the effect that ‘‘judges understand that in order to expose
official corruption you do have to give some concessions to people who are
involved. Again, because only those people who are involved know and
can testify about it.”’
This kind of research establishes that there are a number of ways of
eliciting cooperation from defendants, and that negotiations using a mix of
promised concessions and threatened coercion are very important to
proactive prosecution. In later sections, we will note the impact of reactive
and proactive prosecutorial patterns on the sentencing of white-collar
offenders. Next we consider efforts to alter experimentally the bargaining
policies of criminal courts.

Plea Bargaining Experiments

Citizens are understandably concerned about plea bargaining. It raises the
specter of a kind of criminal justice that is hidden from public view,
operated by careless lawyers who are preoccupied with their caseloads,
resulting in outcomes that may be either too lenient or too severe, as well
as inconsistent and coercive. It is not surprising, then, that there have been
a number of efforts to reform or eliminate plea bargaining. Social scientists
have been skeptical that most of these reforms can accomplish their goals.
Malcolm Feeley (1979, p. 204) articulates this view:
| do not want to claim that efforts to alter the guilty plea process
are foredoomed. | only wish to reiterate what students of mandato-
ry and determinate sentencing schemes have long maintained:
eliminating discretion at one stage of the process fosters it at
others (Alschuler, 1978). Proscribing any post-indictment modifi-
cation of charges may simply result in increased pre-indictment
“olea adjustment.” Reforms that focus exclusively on a narrow
problem without seeing it in the context of the entire system may
258 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

generate unanticipated consequences even less desirable than the

status quo.
Nonetheless, a number of such reforms have been attempted on an
experimental basis.
Plea bargaining related to charges and sentencing was banned across the
state of Alaska by a newly elected attorney general in 1975. An evaluation
of this ban by Rubinstein and White (1979) reports that explicit plea
bargaining was substantially reduced, with no noticeable increase in
implicit bargaining. The most interesting effect, however, was on sentenc-
ing. The severity of sentences for the white-collar crimes of fraud and
forgery increased 117 percent, and for drug crimes 233 percent. An
explanation of these findings is that the ban on plea bargaining made the
proactive prosecution of the cases described above impossible. More
generally, Rubinstein and White conclude that the ban on bargaining
increased the number of trials modestly, but also increased the productivity
of the criminal-justice system, for example, by contributing to a decline in
disposition time. Rubenstein and White speculate that the success of this
ban may result from the fact that prosecutors and defense counsel were
simply wasting less time on negotiations. Whether these results could be
generalized to other jurisdictions, particularly jurisdictions with larger
caseloads, is unclear.
Detroit is an example of a larger jurisdiction that attempted to abolish
plea bargaining in selected cases. The Wayne County (Detroit) prosecu-
tor’s subordinates were prohibited from plea bargaining in any case in
which a recently enacted state firearms statute warranted a mandatory
sentence. This statute imposed an additional two-year prison term if a
defendant possessed a firearm while committing a felony. Heumann and
Loftin (1979) report in an evaluation of this experiment that, although
there is some evidence that the law and the prohibition on plea bargaining
may have selectively increased the severity of sentences for certain classes
of defendants, for the most part disposition patterns appear not to have
been altered dramatically. Furthermore, in many serious cases sentences
for the primary felony were adjusted downward to take into account the
additional two-year penalty; and in ‘‘equity”’ cases in which defendants had
not previously received prison time, other mechanisms, such as abbreviat-
ed bench trials, were often employed to circumvent the mandatory
sentencing provision. These are the kinds of ‘“‘rearrangements”’ that Feeley
warns about above.
A final experiment, conducted in Dade County, Florida, suggests that
some modest goals can be accomplished through plea bargaining reform.
Here a pretrial settlement conference was used as a means of restructuring
plea negotiations. Heinz and Kerstetter (1979) report that these negotia-
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 259

tions took place in front of a judge, with the defendant, victim, and
arresting officer invited to attend. Although the conferences were brief,
they usually reached at least an outline of a settlement. Heinz and
Kerstetter suggest that the change in structure of these bargaining situa-
tions reduced the time involved in processing cases by lowering the
information and decision-making costs to the judges and attorneys. No
significant changes were observed in the settlement rate or in the imposi-
tion of criminal sanctions. Nonetheless, there was some evidence that
police and victims who attended the sessions obtained more information
and developed more positive attitudes about the way their cases were
handled.

The Causes and Consequences of Plea Bargaining

In the end, it must be acknowledged that we know much less about plea
bargaining than we need to. What we do know makes it doubtful that plea
bargaining is merely the result of heavy caseloads, the oppressiveness of
pretrial detention, the low quality of public defenders, the financial
incentives of private attorneys, the laziness of prosecutors, or the stupidity
of judges (Feeley, 1975, 1979; Heumann, 1975). The historical work that
we considered above suggests that there are other factors, more enduring
and less tractable, at work—most notably the rise of specialization and
professionalism (Heumann, 1978; Alschuler, 1979; Friedman, 1979).
Criminal law has become increasingly complicated and open to challenge,
while the emergence of court professionals has provided the personnel to
press these points outside the trial setting. Thus Feeley notes (1979, p. 201)
that the “defendant who, lacking an attorney, might once have sat
passively through a ritual trial is now likely to be represented by counsel
capable of challenging evidence in a host of pretrial proceedings, who will
resort to trial only if the client’s interests cannot otherwise be secured.” At
the same time, prosecutors are now better prepared to sort out cases and
charges at early stages of the court process. From this perspective, there
may be benefits as well as liabilities to plea bargaining.
Clearly, someone must be benefiting from plea bargaining. If not, it is
unlikely that such practices would have grown to their current dimensions.
The task remains to establish how the benefits and liabilities of these
practices are distributed. Meanwhile, the practice persists.

The Role of the Probation Officer

In addition to the prosecutor and the judge, the probation officer also plays
a role in determining dispositions. Wheeler et al. (1968) demonstrate in a
260 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

juvenile court study that the probation officer sustains strategic contact
with, and communicates crucial information between, all participants in
the court process. The background to this aspect of the probation officer’s
role is described in part by Everett Hughes’s (1951, 1962) concept of “‘dirty
work’’—occupational activities that are socially necessary but in some
significant sense “unclean.” In a graphic description of court work, Hughes
(1958, p. 71) notes that “‘what the learned lawyers argue before an
Appellate Court . . . is but a purified distillate of some human mess.”’ But
who undertakes, and by what means, the process of “‘purification’’? It has
been argued that an important part of the task falls to the probation
officer.
Although probation has been called ‘“‘the growth industry of correc-
tions” (Wallace, 1974), the role of the probation officer originated with
religious sponsorship. The history is discussed in greater detail in the
following chapter. However, we note here that the Church of England
Temperance Society appointed the first probation officers as “‘court
missionaries” in 1876 (Chute and Bell, 1956; Timasheff, 1941; Madley,
1965). Their initial responsibilities were to provide lay supervision. How-
ever, as the role of the probation officer became professionalized, much of
its identity was drawn from the field of social work. The result was to add a
methodology to a vocation.
The method of the probation officer follows from the principles of
casework (Diana, 1960; Towle, 1973). These principles outline techniques
for objectifying (i.e., “purifying‘‘) the circumstances of ‘“‘persons in
trouble” (Cicourel, 1968). The primary step involves “‘observing, gather-
ing, and recording”’ the social, legal, and historical facts of the case. These
“social facts’ are then assembled in the form of a probation report.
Gradually, jurists recognized the potential of such reports for informing
the sentencing process (Chute and Bell, 1956, pp. 136-151). From here it
was a small step to the elevation of the probation officer to an advisory role
in the sentencing process: probation reports became presentence reports,
and diagnostic evaluations became prognostic recommendations. Thus,
research by Wahl and Glaser (1963) indicates that as early as twenty years
ago probation officers were spending nearly as much time on presentence
work as on supervision. This arrangement is viewed by many observers as
an efficient and rational division of court labor.
The work of Everett Hughes suggests another view of this process.
Hughes notes that occupations within institutions often maintain symbiotic
(i.e., mutually rewarding) status relationships. Thus, the judiciary rein-
forces its status by delegating to probation officers the “dirty work” of
collecting information for sentencing. Senior probation officers, in turn,
can enhance their own status by turning over to less experienced probation
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 261

officers increasing responsibilities for case supervision. A consequence is

that senior probation officers spend more time in office and court activities.
Most importantly, however, the court activities of probation officers now
involve prestige-conferring opportunities to offer presentence recommen-
dations. The results of these organizational rearrangements, then, may be
socially rewarding for both groups.
Hughes (1958, p. 77) warns, however, that such organizational innova-
tions may often have unanticipated consequences. One of the consequenc-
es is suggested by Carter and Wilkins (1967), who cite the close and
apparently causal relationship between recommendations and dispositions,
and suggest the hypothesis that probation officers are a source of dispari-
ties in judicial sentencing. A study by Hagan (1975c; see also Myers, 1979)
examines this hypothesis by comparing cases where probation officers’
recommendations are explicitly requested to cases where they are not. In
the former cases, particularly in rural jurisdictions (Hagan, 1977a), it is
found that the recommendations are influenced by a succession of varia-
bles, beginning with the offender’s ethnic background, following with the
probation officer’s perception of the offender’s demeanor, and culminating
in the probation officer’s perception of the offender’s prospects for success
on probation. More specifically, nonwhite offenders whose demeanor was
perceived unfavorably by probation officers were evaluated as having
poorer prospects for success on probation, and were less likely to receive a
lenient recommendation for sentence.
Recall, however, that the above research focuses on cases where
recommendations are explicitly requested from probation officers. Often
“evaluations” are requested instead of recommendations, or the recom-
mendations are requested in writing and are not presented formally in
court. A recent study (Hagan, Hewitt, and Alwin, 1979) argues that the
latter kind of arrangement often functions to make the participation of the
probation officer in criminal cases seem more consequential than it is.
Prosecutors, as we noted above, can also have a strong interest in
sentencing, particularly as a means of ratifying plea bargaining, and judges
are sensitive to this. The data analyzed indicate that prosecutors actually
are much more influential in their recommendations for sentences than are
probation officers. The set of arrangements described above, then, allows
the courts, in effect, to have it both ways: the involvement of probation
officers in the presentencing process helps to legitimize court decisions,
while limiting their involvement to evaluation or undisclosed recommenda-
tions allows prosecutors to maintain their influence—all without the
appearance of overt conflict or contradiction. In terms that we used earlier,
probation officers may be only loosely coupled to the decision-making
process, or actually decoupled from it, while the link between prosecutors
262 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

and judges is strengthened. Hagan et al. refer to this as a form of

‘ceremonial justice,” in that it may be the appearance of justice, more
than anything else, that is most clearly served by the involvement of
probation officers in sentencing.

The Role of the Judiciary

Judges must bear the ultimate responsibility for sentencing decisions, and
it is these decisions, more than any of the others made in the criminal-
justice system, that have attracted social scientific attention. This should
not be surprising. As Thurman Arnold (1967, p. 23) observes, ““The center
of ideals of every western government is in its judicial system.” Sentencing
decisions are a very visible product of this system. However, we noted at
the outset of this chapter that despite the strength with which fundamental
ideals like ‘“‘equality before the law” are held, such ideals are ambiguously
operationalized. This has become particularly apparent in the study of
sentencing decisions, as researchers have tried to distinguish, for example,
between “‘legal” and ‘‘extralegal’’ sources of inequality in these decisions.
As we will see below, this issue, and others related to it, have made it
difficult to reach meaningful conclusions about the issue of discrimination
in sentencing.
A distinction frequently drawn in the 1960s and early 1970s was that
offense seriousness (as indicated by the maximum sentence allowed by
law) and prior conviction record (often written into the law as a basis for
more severe sentences) were “‘legal’’ influences on sentencing, while the
race, sex, age, and other characteristics of offenders not included in the law
were “extralegal.”’ Difficulties with this distinction cut in at least two
directions.
On one hand, it has been noted that what are called ‘legal variables”
differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (i.e., rankings of offense seriousness
vary among states), that what is legal at one stage of decision-making may
not be at another (e.g., community ties may be considered relevant for bail
decisions and irrelevant at sentencing), and that what is legal at the
sentencing stage (e.g., prior record) may be the product of discrimination
at earlier stages (e.g., by the police) (see Bernstein et al., 1977). On the
other hand, it can also be noted that what are called ‘‘extralegal variables”
are directly or indirectly built into some parts of the criminal law. For
example, probation statutes often encourage consideration of the offend-
er’s age, and there remain some state statutes (e.g., many prostitution
laws) that justify differential treatment by sex. Many statutes encourage
judicial consideration of an offender’s employment record at various stages
of the criminal-justice process (see, for example, the language of the
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 263

criminal-code bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in the first
session of the Nineteenth Congress), a factor that works disproportionate-
ly against black offenders. Thus even though the Fourteenth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution provides that ‘no state shall... deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” the law
seems to provide judges and other decision-makers with plenty of latitude
to do just that. In sum, the law is an ambiguous guide as to the factors that
may legitimately influence sentencing.
To acknowledge the uncertain nature of what influences on sentencing
are acceptable, we can speak of “legitimized” and “‘nonlegitimized” rather
than legal and extralegal influences on sentencing. Legitimized and nonleg-
itimized influences are those that within a given structural context the
public thinks should and should not affect sentencing. Although there is no
method for unambiguously sorting all influences on sentencing into these
two categories, social survey data do provide one important source of
information about what influences are and are not regarded as legitimate
by the public at any given time and place. Such surveys make it clear that
the American public regards prior convictions and type of offense as
legitimate influences on sentencing, and that it does not regard economic
and ethnic characteristics as legitimate influences on sentencing. Much
sentencing research has sought to determine whether the latter factors
exercise an influence when the former factors are taken fully into account
(see, for example, Hagan, 1974; Kleck, 1981; Hagan and Bumiller,
1983).
These studies usually incorporate either an “‘individual-processual”’ or a
“‘structural-contextual” approach to the study of sentencing. The first of
these approaches emphasizes the premise that sentencing is the end result
of a decision-making process involving many stages (e.g., Farrell and
Swigert, 19786). The latter approach adds a second premise: that both the
individuals and the system occupy variable positions or locations within a
social structure. The point of the latter approach is that sentencing patterns
will vary by social context. Several recent studies incorporate the second
premise of the structural-contextual approach. Using data sets from several
jurisdictions, Balbus (1973), Eisenstein and Jacob (1977), and Levin (1977)
have linked variations in political environments to sentencing behavior.
Within single jurisdictions, Lizotte (1978) and LaFree (1980) have linked
individuals’ relational positions in the social structure to sentencing
outcomes, while Hagan (1982) has examined the consequences when
corporate entities, as compared to individuals, act as victim-complainants
in the criminal-justice process. Each of these studies adds some feature of
structural and contextual variation to its consideration of the individual
processing that leads to sentencing decisions.
264 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Consideration of the structural contexts in which sentencing studies

have been done helps to make sense of some otherwise puzzling results.
For example, while Peterson and Hagan (1984) report that sentencing
studies reveal a gradual tendency toward the equal treatment of whites and
blacks during this century in America, they also note studies that reveal
differential severity as well as leniency in the treatment of blacks. The
general tendency toward equality is explained by noting that the legal
structure of race relations in America, however slowly and imperfectly, has
improved over the last half-century. But there are important exceptions to
this trend that can also be understood in terms of structural context. Early
in this century in the south, blacks convicted of offenses against white
victims were particularly likely to receive severe sentences, especially in
rape cases (Wolfgang and Riedel, 1973), and there is evidence that this
pattern continues today (LaFree, 1980). We should perhaps not be
surprised by the persistence of this pattern: interracial crimes represent
intense conflict across important structural divisions in our racially strati-
fied society. Rape, as Eldridge Cleaver graphically noted in Soul on Ice, is
a crime that symbolizes these conflicts. On the other hand, homicide is less
likely than rape to be an interracial crime, and in fact more often is
intraracial, involving blacks victimizing blacks. Studies focusing on homi-
cide have sometimes found blacks receiving more lenient treatment than
whites (Garfinkel, 1949; Bowers and Pearce, 1980). To the extent that
blacks occupy less-valued structural positions in our society, we should not
be surprised to find the cases of black victims receiving lenient treatment.
Furthermore, a more general tendency to see some kinds of black
offenders, for example black drug offenders (Peterson and Hagan, 1983),
as victims may partially explain the trend toward equality noted above, as
well as the anomaly of black offenders (see Kleck, 1981) sometimes
receiving more lenient sentences than whites. Further attention is given in
the chapter that follows to the role of structural context in determining the
sentencing of white collar offenders. Here it is enough to note that
sentencing varies across structural contexts, as offender and offense
characteristics take on different meanings in these variable settings.

CONCLUSIONS
We began this chapter with a question: do the poor and minorities receive
discriminatory treatment from the criminal-justice system? Criminologists
as far apart as Richard Quinney (1970:142) and Travis Hirschi (1980, p.
284) have answered this question affirmatively. The issue that remains is
that of determining the structural contexts in which discrimination be-
comes more or less acute. Unfortunately, we have noted from the outset
 RESPONDING TO CRIME: THE INJUSTICES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 265

that the issue of discrimination is more complex than it may initially seem.
The complexity derives from the uncertain meaning of such key concepts as
“equality before the law.”’ To establish in what contexts equality before the
law does or does not exist, it is necessary to know unambiguously what the
legal standards of criminal justice decisions are. We have seen with each of
the decisions we have considered that no such certainty exists. Instead,
factors that may or may not have legal justification can influence all of
them: for example, the demeanor of a suspect can influence decisions to
arrest, the credibility of a witness can influence decisions to prosecute, and
the employment status of a convicted offender can influence decisions to
sentence. Since minority and underclass persons are more likely to be
perceived as poor in demeanor, evaluated as less-credible witnesses, and
unemployed, these factors often can account for the more severe treatment
that poor and minority offenders sometimes receive. It is important that
research continue to determine how such factors mediate the effects of race
and class position on criminal-justice decision-making. However, whether
such mediated effects are designated as discriminatory is an issue that is
often open to interpretation, and therefore to variation in public percep-
tion.
Using data gathered in a national survey, Hagan and Albonetti (1982)
have looked at how two structural cleavages in North American society,
race and class, influence perceptions of criminal justice. Ten aspects of
criminal justice are considered in this research: two involving law-
enforcement officials/police, four involving the courts, two involving
juries, and one each involving lawyers and judges. All of the areas
considered relate directly or indirectly to the justness of decisions reached
in the criminal-justice system, with special attention given to the experien-
ces of economic and ethnic minorities with problems of equality before the
law. Items taping the preceding issues are combined to form a scale of
perceived criminal injustice. The analysis of the national survey data
including this scale and its component parts produced three major findings:
(1) that black Americans are considerably more likely than white Ameri-
cans to perceive criminal injustice; (2) that regardless of race, members of
the surplus population (i.e., the unemployed) are significantly more likely
than members of other classes to perceive criminal injustice; and (3) that
class position conditions the relationship of race to the perception of
criminal injustice, with the division between the races in these perceptions
being most acute in the professional managerial class.
Various interpretations can be given to the above findings, and further
research will be required to choose among them. Regardless of which
interpretations prevail, however, it is clear that sharp conflicts do exist in
American perceptions of criminal-justice activities. These conflicts may be
as important as the conflicts that underlie the activities themselves.
UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW
CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED
CRIMES OF CLASS AND
GENDER

THE ISSUE: CAN OLD THEORIES EXPLAIN NEW CRIMES?

Modern criminalicy often seems an embarrassment to modern criminology.
Th e source of the embarrassment is that, while the public has been much
concerned in recent years about apparent increases in the crimes of
women, persons of high occupational position, and corporations, existing
theories of crime have had relatively little to say about these crimes
(H arris, 1977; Wheeler, 1976). Nonetheless, modern criminologists have in
other ways begun to take notice of such crimes and the public response to
them. For example, Freda Adler (1977, p. 101) writes that today’s women
are
no longer satisfied with their traditional limitation to the typewrit-
er, the mimeograph machine, and the coffee-maker, they are
increasingly taking a more active role. ... So aggressive did their
activities become that on 28 December 1968 the females of the
United States reached a criminal landmark when the first one of
them was admitted to the infamous Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion “Ten Most Wanted” list. Since that time the inclusion of
women for murder, robbery, kidnapping, and violent revolution-
ary acts has become quite common.
Equally striking is Clinard and Yeager’s (1980, p. 14) description of the
widespread publicity given to corporate criminality in recent years.
For example, widespread publicity has been given to the Water-
gate investigations and illegal Nixon political contributions; the
questionable or illegal foreign payments by more than 300 large
corporations; the apparent role of ITT in heading off federal
antitrust action by donating heavily for the 1972 Republican
National Convention; the political contributions of the Associated
Milk Producers to obtain an increase in milk price supports; the
flagrant violations of Equity Funding; the conviction of Allied
Chemical for polluting the James River; the recalls and suits
involving Ford Pintos; and Firestone’s recall of more than 10
million defective tires. These cases in particular have led to greater
266
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 267

public concern and increasingly negative attitudes towards the

corporations, as has been shown in public opinion polls.
Against this background, existing theories seem curiously preoccupied
with the more common street crimes of underclass men.
Can existing theories explain the new crimes? We believe that to do so
existing theories must be less exclusive in their conceptual boundaries, and
more comparative and historical in their methods. To do otherwise is to
miss what the changing circumstances of class, gender, and work can tell us
about crime, and vice versa, what the changing character of crime can tell
us about the social organization of class, gender, and work.
Modern criminologists characteristically organize their thinkingin one
of two ways: (1) around informal processes of social control that involve
institutions such as the school and family (see, for example, the theories of
undercontrol discussed in Chapter 5), or (2) around formal processes of _
social control that involve institutions such as the juvenile and criminal
law, and occasionally the civil law (see, for example, the theories of
overcontrol discussed in Chapter 7). The first kind of thinking has been
primarily concerned with thecauses of delinquent and criminal behavior,
the second with reactions to such behavior. We argue below that it is no
longer useful to preserve these divisions; that to understand the unex-
plained crimes of class and gender it is necessary to think simultaneously
about informal and formal controls; and that it is important to think about
the variable ways in which these controls operate on men and women, and
on persons in various kinds of occupational positions, particularly in large
corporations. The thread that will tie the following discussion together is a
focus on the social organization of work and the stratification system that
derives from it. It is the world of work that makes the divisions of class and
gender particularly acute, and indirectly explains much of the variation in
the kinds of crime we will attempt to understand.

GENDER, WORK, AND CRIME

When it comes to criminal formsof deviance, men clearly exceed women
(Hindelang, 1979; Nettler, 1978). This does not mean that the relationship
between gender and criminality is a simple one: the disparity between the
sexes varies with the class of crime, time, and social setting. We make this
variation a part of our account below. Nonetheless, we can begin secure in
the assumption that today men in North America are significantly more
likely to be involved in the more serious forms of crime (the evidence for
this conclusion is summarized in Chapter 4). The association between
gender and crime is largely unexplored in existing theories of crime. Our
 268 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

argument is that an explanation for the strong but neglected association

between gender and crime is to be found in the social organizationof the
world of work, the stratification system, and the different means usedto
control men and women.
We note first that the most fundamental aspect 3 the stratification.
systemis not how actors are allocated to social classes or how rewards
(e.g., prestige and income) are distributed. Instead, the most fundamental
aspectiswho is eligible in the first place to compete for the rewards and
_outcomes distributed in the system. Clearly, women are far more restricted
than men in their access to the rewards of the stratification system. This is
not simply a matter of overt economic discrimination in, or exclusion from,
the world of work; it is a matter of men more generally being ascribed to
the public arena (i.e., the world of work) and women to the private sphere
(i.e., the home). It is of special significance to us that one consequence of
the restriction of women to the private space is to make them less available
for the public ascription of criminal and delinquent statuses (Stinchcombe,
1963). However, a better understanding of this situation requires an
awareness of its historical precedents.
Crime and work are sexually stratified. This pattern of stratification is
linked historically to the removal of men’s work from the home and the
emergence of the formal segregative agencies of social control that we
recognize today as the criminal-justice system. With the rise of large-scale
trade and commerce, and later of industrialization, there emerged a
growing differentiation between formal and informal structures of social
control. Scull (1976, p. 346) makes this point when he notes that ‘‘the
development of national and international markets produced a diminution,
if not a destruction, of the influcnce traditionally exerted by local groups
(especially kinship groups),”’ leading eventually “‘to the development of a
state sponsored system of segregative control.”’
The historical differentiation noted by Scull between the constraints
imposed at one end of a continuum by the family, and at the other end by
the state, is reflected conceptually in the sociological concept of social
control (Black, 1983; Gibbs, 1977; Janowitz, 1975). Operationally, social
control is recognized in formally and informally organized acts of surveil-
lance, supervision, and sanctioning. Scull’s historical concern is that, in
conjunction with advancing capitalism and the movement of work away
from the home, surveillance, supervision, and sanctioning activities have
shifted increasingly in their locus of organization from family and kinship
groups to the state. In brief, the new form of work brought a new form of
social control, now called “crime control,” as operationalized in modern
systems of criminal justice. Our point is that this linkage between the
control of crime and work had much more to do with the legal control of
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 269

men than women—for it was the former who were moving most rapidly
into the new and more public places of work (Huber, i976, pp. 371-388).
The result was to subject men increasingly to the formal social control of
_the emerging criminal-justice system, while leaving women to the informal
social control of the family.
It is therefore our argument that two well-established statistical
regularities—the exclusion of women from the ‘“‘race’’ for stratification
» outcomes and less crime among women—have as a common source
patterns of informal social controls involving women, which are established
and perpetuated within the family. An adequate understanding of this
point, and a more complete explanation of patterns of crime and delin-
quency among both men and women, requires that we give combined
attention to differing types of social-control processes. As we have noted,
such processes usually have been considered independently.
Thus in the formative years of American criminology, researchers were
concerned most conspicuously with informal processes of social control
(e.g., Ross, 1901; Park, 1921; see also Schwendiger and Schwendiger,
1974). These early explanations of crime gave considerable attention to the
role of the family and community in accounting for increasing rates of
crime and delinquency in changing urban environments (e.g., Park, 1915;
Thomas, 1923; Thrasher, 1927; Shaw and McKay, 1931; see also Wilkin-
son, 1974).
Gradually, interest shifted to socially structured patterns of opportunity
(e.g., Merton, 1938; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960), then to the growing impact
of formal agencies of social control (e.g., the police, courts, and correc-
tions) on individuals (e. g., Tannenbaum, 1938; Lemert, 1951; Becker,
1963), and finally to such agencies as institutions worthy of study in and of
themselves (e.g., Wheeler, 1968; Skolnick, 1975; Reiss, 1971b). Thus the
question asked most commonly today is how such agencies come, histori-
cally and organizationally, to seek out as their customary targets young,
poor, urban males, and how this selection corresponds to the wishes of
dominant interest groups (e.g., Taylor, Walton, and Young, 1973; Chamb-
liss and Seidman, 1971; Quinney, 1970).
However, it is our contention that the question of differential treatment
cannot be answered effectively without simultaneous consideration of both
formal and informal structures of social control, and their linkages into the
stratification system. Underlying this combined consideration is the funda-
mental assumption that formal social controls are inversely related to
informal social controls. Identifying law and its application with formal
social control, and family and kinship group activity with informal social
control, Donald Black (1976) applies this proposition at two levels: across
collectivities Aes8., nations, corporations, status groups) and across indvid-_
270 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

source of the modern urgency to do something about the legal control of

corporations, and the greater formal social control imposed on men than
women. Similarly, the less informal social control individuals are subject
to, the more law to which they will be subjected. Black’s theory implies
that a shifting balance exists between the two types of social control, with
one type growing in compensation for a decline in the other. To this we
might add that the balance shifts toward more formal social control as the
behaviors involved become more public and diverse in their character.
Scull’s argument is that the advance of capitalism makes this shift
inexorable. Whether the causal agent is capitalism, industrialization,
urbanization, or all of the preceding, the trend seems apparent.
It is important to add here that formal social controls extend beyond the
law, and that informal social controls extend beyond the family. For
example, rules of the workplace, sometimes enforced by private security
personnel, exist in greater and lesser degrees of formality (Spitzer and
Scull, 1977; Shearing and Stenning, 1983). As well, activities of peer and
work groups can constitute informal social controls. These aspects of social
control are considered in relation to corporate criminality below.
In terms of our immediate interest in gender and crime, we can begin to
make the argument we are developing more formal by offering the
following general proposition:

1 Formal legal controls

are inversely related to informal familial
controls.
The logic of this proposition is that as the surveillance and supervisory
activities of the family diminish in their influence, the application of the law
and its sanctions will increase.
This proposed relationship between formal legal controls and informal
social controls is made particularly significant for our purposes by the
further proposition that these control structures are sexually stratified. For
example, when it comes to the care of children:

informal familial controls.

More specifically,

2.1 Mothers more than fathers are the instruments of informal familial
controls over children. ~_

controls.
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 271

Together, the above propositions form the basis of female assignment to an

instrument-object relationship in the socialization process—what Rosa-_
beth Kanter (1974; see also Millman, 1975) calls the ‘intimate oppression”
of informal social control. Chowdrow (1971) observes the same process
when she notes that “women are the primary socializers. Men may also
help in child care, but their ‘work’ is elsewhere; for women it is the
reverse.”’ A result is that “young girls, used to relying on older siblings and
adults (‘seeking help’), soon give this help (‘offer help and support’) to
younger children.’’ Cummings (1977) reports that this instrument-object
cycle persists among working women who come to believe in ‘“‘Horatia
Alger as a feminist Model’’—the model of a woman who makes time to be
both the primary socializer of her children and the architect of a career.
The point is that even among more liberated women, the instrument-
object realtionship may be perpetuated.
Children are not insensitive to the sexually stratified relationship
between the instruments and objects of informal familial controls: “‘As the
child’s social perception becomes more sophisticated, (s)he is able to
discriminate between the behavior of... father and... mother and
decipher from an abundance of clues that people are divided into two
categories—male and female—and that (s)he and one parent belong to one
category, and the other parent belongs to the other” (Udry, 1974, p. 53).
Further, Udry (ibid., p. 54) observes that “by age three, the boy will begin
to perceive that some new requirements go with being male. Males are not
supposed to be passive, compliant, and dependent, but on the contrary,
are expected to be aggressive, independent, and self-assertive.”’ Although
Udry designates these socialized signals of masculinity as “requirements,”
the reader likely will agree that aggressiveness, independence, and asser-
tiveness connote freeness (or the absence of control) more than restriction.
Beyond this, our point is that it is mothers more than fathers who are held
responsible for socializing “‘passivity, compliance, and dependence” into
their daughters more than their sons.
Our primary interest, of course, is in the implications of this instrument-
object relationship for the patterning of crime and delinquency. To
understand the connection we are postulating, it is useful to regard
criminal and delinquent behavior as pleasurable, if not liberating. Crime
and delinquency can be fun (Bordua, 1961; Hagan, 1977c; Greenberg,
1981)—and perhaps even more important, a type of fun that is infrequently
allowed to women. One reason why delinquency is fun is that it anticipates
a range of activities, some having to do with criminal and others with more
conventional occupations, that are more open to males than females. It is
the sexually stratified socialization process described above that cultivates
this awareness, with results that include the following:
272 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

2.2.1 Women define risk-taking less positively than men.

2.2.2 Women define involvement in crime and delinquency less posi-_
tively than men.
2.2.3 Women are therefore less likely to have been involved incriminal
and delinquent behavior than men.
However, the above propositions are not the end of the story. The
sexual stratification of social control is made complete with the formal
ascription of deviant status. That men more than women are engaged
instrumentally in this ascriptive process is as obvious as the visibility of
one’s local constabulary: police, court, and correctional workers are
overwhelmingly male (e.g., Milton, 1972). Meanwhile, Pollak (1951; see
also Simon, 1975; Nagel and Hagan, 1983) argues that women are
underrepresented as the objects of official crime statistics because they are
underdetected, underreported, and underpunished. Our final propositions
are therefore that:

3 Men more than women are the instruments

of formal social control,
and, ;
3.1 Offensive behavior held constant, men more than women are the
objects of formal social controls.
Summarizing, the above propositions tie the concern of the early
deviance theorists with informal processes of social control to the more
recent interest in processes of formal social control. Our coordinating
hypothesis is that the two control processes are inversely related. Underly-
ing both processes is a gender-based system of sexual stratification that
characterizes the world of crime and delinquency as it does the world of
work. We believe that there is considerable evidence to support this
perspective.
For example, using a survey design with 611 students in four suburban
Canadian schools, Hagan, Simpson, and Gillis (1979) have attempted to
test each of the above propositions. Items drawn from Hirschi’s (1969)
formulation of control theory are used to measure maternal and paternal
familial controls, scales are developed for the measurement of ‘‘taste for
risk” and the “‘perception of delinquency as fun,’ and measures are
provided of official police contacts and self-reported delinquency. The
results of the analysis are summarized in the causal model presented in
Figure 9-1. This model provides initial support for the proposition that
when it comes to child care, females more than males are made the
instruments and the objects of informal social control. Thus it is found that
both mothers and fathers control their daughters more than their sons (in
terms of knowing where they are and who they are with), but that mothers
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER
273

Figure 9-1 A gender-based model of deviance and control. (Source: Hagan, Simpson,
and Gillis, 1979:coefficients deleted)

control their daughters even more than do their fathers. Furthermore,

elsewhere in the model, the causal influences of paternal controls disap-
pear, while the causal effects of maternal controls persist. The consequenc-
es of this instrument-object relationship are recognized in the direct effects
of maternal controls and sex role on the socially acquired taste for risk, and
the effect of all three of these variables on the perception of delinquent
pursuits as fun. Said differently, these findings strongly suggest that it is the
instrument-object relationship established between mothers and daughters
that denies delinquency as a fun and liberating pursuit for girls: meanwhile,
it isadolescent boys who disproportionately are allowed delinquency as an
outlet, at least to the point of encountering the police. Finally, the object
status of males in the formal control process is indicated by the direct effect
of sex role on police contacts: all other variables taken into account,
including the amount of delinquent behavior, it is boys more than girls who
are most likely to be picked up by the police.
What these findings seem to suggest is that women are systematically
““oversocialized.” It has been argued (Wrong, 1981) that the perspectives
of an earlier era presented an oversocialized conception of the human
being. Perhaps part of the problem was that these perspectives focused so
exclusively on men, for our findings suggest that women are oversocialized.
The point of the gender-based propositions presented above is to place this
finding within the context of alarger stratification system—a system which
makes women the instruments and objects of informal social controls, and |
274 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

men the instruments and objects of formal social controls. Thus, we have
argued that in the world of crime and delinquency, as in the world of work,
women are denied full access to the public sphere through a socialization
sequence that moves from mother to daughter in a cycle that is self-
renewing. :
It is interesting to speculate about the prospects for change in these
structural arrangements. Adler (1975) has argued that there is a rising new
breed of violent, aggressive female offender (but see Steffensmeier, 1978),
and a recent review by Smith and Visher (1980) argues that behavioral
differences between the sexes are diminishing. Similarly, Rita Simon
(1975) suggests that as occupational opportunities for women expand, and
as formal control agents become less chivalrous, male-female patterns of
crime should become increasingly alike. However, Simon also acknowl-
edges that to date such changes are limited in scope, and Huber (1976, p.
361; see also Lorber, 1975) emphasizes more generally that “the problem is
not only women’s invisibility in market and political institutions but also
men’s invisibility in the home.”
Huber’s point is that it is easier to get women some new types of work
than it is to relieve them of responsibilities for child-care. An increasingly
common consequence is a double burden for women. Furthermore, when
middle- and upper-class women are relieved of child-care, it is commonly
through the employment of underclass women to act as their surrogates. In
either case, the instrument-object relationship of women in the informal
process of social control is preserved. Thus, while women may be
employed in instrumental roles with increasing frequency by formal
agencies of social control (e.g., as police officers), and while women may
increasingly receive an equality of object status from these agencies, it
seems less likely that the home-based instrument-object relationship of
women and its enduring consequences will change as quickly. Male and
female rates of criminality therefore are likely to remain quite different for
some time to come.

CLASS, CRIME, AND CORPORATIONS

Our interest turns next to crimes committed through and on behalf of
corporations. The involvement of corporations in crime has been recog-
nized at least since E. A. Ross (1907, p. 7) wrote of a new type of criminal
“who picks pockets with a ‘rake-off’ instead of a jimmy, cheats with a
company prospectus instead of a deck of cards, or scuttles his town instead
of his ship.” These new criminals earned a lasting label with Edwin
Sutherland’s (1940) presidential address on the topic of “white-collar
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 275

crime” to the American Sociological Society. Sutherland (ibid., p. 9)

proposed that white-collar crime be defined “as a crime committed by a
and high social status in the course of his
‘person of respectability
occupation.”
From this point on, Wheeler and Rothman (1982, p. 1404) note, there
has been continuing confusion about the role of occupation and
organization in the study of white-collar crime (see also Shapiro, 1980). For
example, they note that two influential works, Clinard’s and Hartung’s
research on black-market activities during World War II, defined white-
collar crime in two rather different ways. Clinard (1952, p. 8) defined
white-collar crime occupationally, as “‘illegal activities among business and
professional men,” while Hartung (1950, p. 25) included an organizational
component, defining such crimes as “‘a violation of law regulating business,
which is committed for a firm by the firm or its agents in the conduct of its
business.” The problem, of course, is that the occupational and organiza-
tional components of many white-collar crimes cannot be easily separated.
Clinard and Yeager (1980, p. 19) has recently made this point with the
example of a Firestone official who aided his corporation in securing and
administering illegal political contributions benefiting the corporation, but
then embezzled much of the funds for himself. We will concern ourselves
here with both the occupational and the organizational aspects of corpo-
rate crime.
It is increasingly recognized that the organizational form of the corpora-
tion is crucial to understanding most white-collar crime (Reiss, 1980;
Schrager and Short, 1978; Wheeler, 1976; Ermann and Lundman, 1978). As
Wheeler and Rothman (1982, p. 1406) note, the corporation “‘is for white
collar criminals what the gun or knife is for the common criminal—a tool to
obtain money from victims.”’ Of course, the importance of the corporation
is not unique to the world of crime. From the industrial revolution on it has
become increasingly apparent that ‘““among the variety of interests that
men have, those interests that have been successfully collected to create
corporate actors are the interests that dominate the society” (Coleman,
1974, p. 49). The above reference to men is not accidental. It forms the
connection between the first and second parts of this chapter, for,

4 Corporate entities are disproportionately male in employment, own-

ership, and control.

What makes the above proposition interesting is its connection into the
control structure of western industrial societies, because, while we have
already argued that men are less likely than women to be instruments and
objects of informal familial controls, we now propose that
276 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

“You've shown great corporate potential, Ms Cranmore. You're deceptive, conniving,

manipulative—without sacrificing your femininity.” © 1983 Punch/Rothco. All rights
reserved.

5 Corporate
entities (dominated by men) are less likely than individual

There are two aspects of the above proposition that require further
comment. The first has to do with differences between corporate and
individual actors, the second with the role of individual actors within
corporate entities. Any discussion of corporate entities must be clear in
acknowledging that the corporation itself is a “‘legal fiction,’ with, as H. L.
Mencken aptly observed, “no pants to kick or soul to damn.” Thus
corporations are “‘juristic persons”’ that the law chooses to treat, for many
practical purposes, like “‘natural persons.” The limits of this legal analogy
in terms of formal social controls, including the impossibility of imprison-
ing or executing corporations, are considered below. Here we focus on
differences between corporate and individual actors with regard to infor-
mal social controls.
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 277

We have noted earlier the role of maternal and paternal controls in

generating gender differences in crime. These controls are conventionally
understood to induce in human beings feelings of guilt, shame, and a sense
of responsibility that discourage criminality. Yet the old legal saw tells us
that the corporation has no conscience or soul. Stone (1975, Dies)
describes the problem well:
When individuals are placed in an organizational structure, some
of the ordinary internalized restraints seem to lose their hold. And
if we decide to look beyond the individual employees and find an
organizational ‘‘mind” to work with, a “corporate conscience”
distinct from the consciences of particular individuals, it is not
readily apparent where we would begin—much less what we
would be talking about.
Stone goes on to suggest interesting ways in which the ‘corporate
conscience” and “‘corporate responsibility’? could be increased; however,
our need here is to recognize fully the problems caused by the present
weakness of these controls.
The problem is in part one of the absence of cultural beliefs to
discourage corporate criminality (see Geis, 1961). C. Wright Mills (1956,
p. 95) captured part of the problem in his observation that “‘it is better, so
the image runs, to take one dime from each of ten million people at the
point of a corporation than $100,000 from each of ten banks at the point of
a gun.’’ However, even if condemnatory beliefs about corporate crime
were strong, there would be no mechanisms in place to assure their
controlling influence. Indeed, the internal structure of the modern corpo-
ration often seems at odds with the control of corporate crime.
Consider for a moment the internal structure of a typical modern
corporation, as illustrated by Woodmansee’s description of the General
Electric Corporation of 1975 (cited in Clinard and Yeager, 1980, pp.
24-25), noting the complexity of this enterprise and its sexual stratification.
We begin by describing the way GE’s employees are officially
organized into separate layers of authority. The corporation is like
a pyramid. The great majority of the company’s workers form the
base of this pyramid; they take orders coming down from above
but do not give orders to anyone else. If you were hired by GE for
one of these lowest-level positions, you might find yourself work-
ing on an assembly line, installing a motor in a certain type of
refrigerator. You would be in a group of 5 to 50 workers who all
take orders from one supervisor, or foreman, or manager. Your
supervisor is on the second step of the pyramid; she or he, and the
278 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

other supervisors who specialize in this type of refrigerator, all

take orders from a General Manager.
There are about 180 of these General Managers at GE; each one
heads a Department with one or two thousand employees. The
General Manager of your Department, and the General Managers
of the one or two other Departments which produce GE’s other
types of refrigerators, are in turn supervised by the Vice President/
General Manager of the Refrigerator Division. This man (there are
only men at this level and above) is one of the 50 men at GE
responsible for heading GE’s Divisions. He, and the heads of
several other Divisions which produce major applicances, look up
to the next step of the pyramid and see, towering above, the Vice
President/Group Executive who heads the entire Major Appliance
Group. While there are over 300,000 workers at the base of the
pyramid, there are only 10 men on this Group Executive level.
Responsibility for overseeing all of GE’s product lines is divided
between the ten. At about the same level of authority in the
company are the executives of GE’s Corporate Staff; these men are
concerned not with particular products but with general corporate
matters such as accounting, planning, legal affairs, and relations
with employees, with the public and with government.
And now the four men at the top of the pyramid come into view;
the three Vice Chairmen of the Board of Directors, and standing
above them, GE’s Chief Executive. ... Usually, these four men
confer alone, but once a month, 15 other men join them for a
meeting. The 15 other members of the Board of Directors are not
called up from lower levels of the GE pyramid; they drift in
sideways from the heights of neighboring pyramids. Thirteen of
them are chairmen or presidents of other corporations, the four-
teenth is a former corporate chairman, and the fifteenth is a
university president.

Could or should the board of directors of the above corporation exercise

the kind of control over its employees that individual actors are expected to
exercise over their dependents? Indeed, is there any analogy at all? Stone
(1975, p. 62) points out that top officers and directors theoretically are
liable to suit by the corporation itself (via a shareholders’ action) if they
through negligence allow a law violation to occur. However, Stone then
cites an Allis-Chalmers antitrust case to make the point that legally little is
expected from corporations in the way of control over their individual
actors. In dismissing the claim made in this case, the Delaware Supreme
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 279

Court (Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 188 A.2d 125, 130 [Del.
1963]) said:
The precise charge made against these director defendants is that,
even though they had no knowledge or any suspicion of wrongdo-
ing on the part of the company’s employees, they still should have
put into effect a system of watchfulness which would have brought
such misconduct to their attention in ample time to have brought it
to anend. ...Onthe contrary, it appears that directors are entitled
to rely on the honesty and integrity of their subordinates until
something occurs to put them on suspicion that something is
wrong. If such occurs and goes unheeded, then liability of the
directors might well follow, but absent cause for suspicion there is
no duty upon the directors to install and operate a corporate
system of espionage to ferret out wrongdoing which they have no
reason to suspect exists.
The duties of the Allis-Chalmers Directors were fixed by the
nature of the enterprise which employed in excess of 30,000
persons, and extended over a large geographical area. By force of
necessity, the company’s Directors could not know personally all
the company’s employees. The very magnitude of the enterprise
required them to confine their control to the broad policy deci-
sions.
The effect of this kind of decision is to reinforce the practice of top
management keeping itself uninformed about the very details of illegal
activities that the public interest requires they know.
How widespread is this executive disengagement from the details of
corporate criminality? Two intriguing studies (Baumhart, 1961; Brenner
and Molander, 1977) published in the Harvard Business Review suggest
that the problem is large and growing. The latter of these studies reports
that the percentage of executives who have reported an inability to be
honest in providing information to top management has nearly doubled
since the earlier research, done in the 1950s. About half of those surveyed
in the latter study thought that their superiors frequently did not wish to
know how results were obtained, as long as the desired outcome was
accomplished. Furthermore, the executives surveyed “frequently com-
plained of superiors’ pressure to support incorrect viewpoints, sign false
documents, overlook superiors’ wrongdoing, and do business with superi-
ors’ friends” (Brenner and Molander, 1977).
The last set of findings suggests not only the absence of controls within
the workplace, but the presence as well of pressures from the top of an
 280 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

industry downward that generate corporate criminality. Farberman (1975)

has referred to such pressures in the automotive RSLS and in other
highly concentrated corporate sectors, as constituting a “criminogenic
market structure.” The crime-generating feature of these markets is their
domination by a relatively small number of manufacturers who insist that
their dealers sell in high volume and at a small per unit profit. Dealerships
that fail to perform risk the loss of their franchises in an industry where the
alternatives are few. A result is high pressure to maximize sales and
_Minimize service. More specifically, Farberman suggests that dealers in the
car industry are induced by the short profit margins on new cars to
compensate through fraudulent warranty work and repair rackets. The
connection between these findings and those noted above is that the
executives of the automotive industry can distance themselves from the _
criminal consequences of the “forcing model” (high volume/low per unit
profit) they impose. The result is an absence of control over repair and
warranty frauds within the industry.
We have now made the case that corporate entities are less likely than
individual actors to be the instruments and objects of informal social
controls; and furthermore that individual actors acting within corporate
entities are also less bound by such controls than would otherwise be the
case. The question that follows is whether formal legal controls compen-
sate for this imbalance. Although we will argue below that there may be a
historical trend in this direction, we propose first that this is not currently
the case. Thus,

6 Corporate actors are less liable than individual actors to the risk of
being
the objects of formal social control.
7 Corporate actors are therefore less likely than individual actors to be
_the objects of formal legal control. e
Furthermore,

8 Corporate actors are more likely than individual actors to be the

instruments of formal social control.
Each of these propositions requires clarification and elaboration.
“We have arranged things,” writes Christopher Stone (1975, p. 46), “‘so
that the people who call the shots do not have to bear the full risks.” This,
in a nutshell, is the consequence of the limited liabilities borne by modern
corporate actors.

Take, for example, a small corporation involved in shipping dyna-

mite. The shareholders of such a company, who are typically also
the managers, do not want their dynamite-laden truck to blow up.
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 281

But if it does, they know that those injured cannot, except in rare
cases, sue them as individuals to recover their full damages if the
amount left in the corporation’s bank account is inadequate to
make full compensation (which it will be if the explosion has, say,
leveled downtown Portland). What this means is that in deciding
how much money to spend on safety devices, and whether or not
to allow trucks to drive through major cities, the calculations are
skewed toward higher risks than suggested by the “rational
economic corporation/free market” model that is dreamily put
forth in textbooks. If no accident results, the shareholders will reap
the profits of skimping on safety measures. If a truck blows up, the
underlying human interests wil! be shielded from fully bearing the
harm that they have caused. And then, there is nothing to prevent
the same men from setting up a new dynamite shipping corpora-
tion the next day; all it takes is the imagination to think up a new
name, and some $50 in filing fees (Stone, 1975, pp. 46-47).

It is conceded that large corporations are not quite so free to dissolve

and reconstitute their operations. However, there is a related problem of
liability in the separation of shareholder and management interests. Given
that corporate officers gain their primary rewards through salaries, the
effects of damage judgments are indirect, and judging from experience,
limited. Stone (ibid., p. 47) reminds us that in 1972, for example, the Ford
Motor Company suffered fines and penalties of approximately $7 million
for a violation of the Environmental Protection Act. Yet the salaries of the
chief executives of this company increased dramatically in following years.
There is no record of shareholders successfully altering such patterns by
changing management in the wake of lawsuits.
Probably the most disconcerting instances of limited liability, however, _
involve job- induced illness and death. It is estimated that _annually about
100 ,000 Americans die because of occupational diseases, while about
390,000 workers are disabled (U.S. News and World Report, Feb. 5, 1979,
p. 39). Simon and Eitzen (1982, p. 110) offer the following examples of the
specific risks of continued exposure in certain industries.
¢ Workers in the dyestuffs industry (working with aromatic hydrocar-
bons) have about thirty times the risk of the general population of dying
from bladder cancer.
e The wives of men who work with vinyl chloride are twice as likely as
other women to have miscarriages or stillbirths.
e In 1978, Occidental Chemical Company workers handling the pesti-
cide DBCP were found to be sterile as a result of the exposure, substantiat-
282 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

ing a 1961 study by Dow Chemical which indicated that DBCP caused
sterility in rats.
e A 1976 government study determined that if 129,00 workers were
exposed to the current legal level of cotton-dust exposure, over a period of
time 23,497 would likely become byssinotics (victims of “brown lung’’).
¢ Starting with 632 asbestos workers in 1943, one researcher determined
each of their fates after twenty years of employment. By 1973, 444 were
dead, a rate 50 percent greater than for the average white male. The rate
for lung cancer was 700 percent greater than expected, and the rate for all
types of cancer was four times as great.
Swartz (1975) has argued that at least some of these deaths andillnesses
should be considered as criminal in origin; indeed, that some should be
considered murders. “By any legitimate criteria,” writes Swartz (ibid., p.
18), ‘corporate executives who willfully make a decision to expose workers
to a dangerous substance which eventually causes the death of some of the
workers, should be considered murderers.’’ A recent film about Karen
Silkwood provides a compelling example. Yet Swartz observes that no
executive has ever served a day in jail for such a practice, while most are
probably well rewarded for saving the company money.
But what of the corporate actors who are held criminally liable and
processed through the criminal-justice system? Are they liable to as severe
sanctioning as individual actors? Notions of ‘equality before the law” are
perhaps nowhere more subjective in meaning than in their application to
the sentencing of white-collar offenders. This is reflected in at least two
kinds of comments made by judges about the sentences they impose for
white-collar crimes. It is reflected first in the suggestion that white-collar
offenders experience sanctions differently than other kinds of offenders,
and second in the assertion that different kinds of sanctions are appropriate
in white-collar cases.
The view, common among judges, that white-collar offenders experi-
ence sanctions differently than other kinds of offenders is well summarized
by Mann, Wheeler, and Sarat’s (1980, pp. 483-484) conclusions after
interviewing a sample of American federal district court judges: ‘“‘Most
judges have a widespread belief that the suffering experienced by a
white-collar person as a result of apprehension, public indictment and
conviction, and the collateral disabilities incident to conviction—loss of
job, professional licenses, and status in the community—completely satis-
fies the need to punish the individual.” The argument for white-collar
leniency is therefore clear: the defendant, having suffered enough from the
acts of prosecution and conviction, does not require a severe sentence.
What kinds of sentences therefore are appropriate for white-collar
offenders? In white-collar cases judges seem to face a recurring problem:
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 283

how to accomplish the goal of general deterrence without doing a

perceived injustice to the individual offender. A judge interviewed by
Mann et al. (ibid., p. 499) suggests the mental conflict this dilemma
stimulates.

The problem is the tension between use of incarceration for its

deterrent factors, and the inclination not to use it because it is too
excessive given the non-criminal record of the [white-collar] of-
fender. From the individual standpoint there are good arguments
against sentencing; from the societal interest of deterring crime
there are some good arguments for using the sentence. ... the
tension between those two values is very acute.

Mann et al. (ibid.) conclude that most judges seek a compromise in

resolving this dilemma. ‘““The weekend sentence, the very short jail term,
and the relatively frequent use of amended sentences (where a judge
imposes a prison term and later reduces it) are evidence of this search for a
compromise.”
It is important also to acknowledge the disputed role of fines in
sentencing white-collar offenders. Posner (1980, p. 409) asserts that “‘the
white-collar criminal... should be punished only by monetary penal-
ties.”’ His argument is that if fines are suitably large they are an equally
effective deterrent, cheaper to administer, and therefore socially prefera-
ble to imprisonment and other “‘afflictive” punishments. We have already
noted that corporate entities are liable to little else than fines. However,
Mann et al. find federal judges to be skeptical of the effectiveness of fines.
They report (1980, p. 496),
. a conspicuous absence of responses by judges that a fine was
the appropriate sanction to be imposed on a defendant. . . . Where
fines were used in conjunction with another sentence it was
generally the other sentence... that was thought to have the
intended deterrent effect. Where the fine was used alone, the idea
that the commencement of the criminal process against the
defendant was the punishment seemed to be the more important
in the judges’ minds than the fine itself.

The sense that emerges is that judges are acutely aware of the issues of
deterrence, disparity, and discrimination in the sentencing «of white- -collar

‘sentences ‘that combine sanctions in a compromise |“ps tiem Consistent with

this view, Hagan and Nagel (1982) find, in a sentencing study covering the
period from 1963 to 1976 in the federal court for the Southern District of
New York, that judges attempted to compensate I for shorter prison terms
284 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

given white-collar offenders by adding probation or fines to their senten-

ces, Similarly, fines were most frequently used in conjunction . with prison
and probation sentences. Finally, white-collar offenders in this district
were more likely than other offenders to receive amended or shortened
sentences. While we will have reason to consider some recent and
interesting changes in these patterns below, here we can simply note that
the above findings support the proposition that white-collar offenders are
advantaged by the specific types and combinations of formal sanctions that
are imposed on them.
We turn now to the proposition that corporate actors are more likely
than individual actors to be instruments of formal social control. Given
that in Anglo-American systems of criminal law it is almost always a
state-supported prosecutor who pursues cases through the criminal-justice
system, individual actors have little opportunity to be instruments of
formal legal control. Individual victims effectively are decoupled from the
criminal-justice process. Beyond this, however, Hagan (1982) has shown
that corporate actors play a disproportionate role in bringing cases to the
law (see Tables in Chapter 4). Using victimization data on burglary and
robbery collected in thirteen American cities, it is shown (as might be
expected, given the opportunities and benefits of crimes against corporate
actors), that for both burglary and robbery, the per capita rates of
victimization are higher for commercial establishments than for individuals
and households. More to the point, however, for both burglary and
robbery, commercial establishments are more likely than individual
households to report the victimizations they experience to the police.
Undoubtedly, this difference is influenced by types and amounts of
corporate insurance coverage. Nonetheless, it remains significant that on a
per capita basis, corporate actors are much more likely than individual
actors to require and make use of the formal legal system. Beyond this,
Hagan finds, using Canadian data, that corporate actors are more likely
than individuals to obtain convictions, and that the likelihood of conviction
increases with the size of the organization. A more general conclusion of
this study is that corporate actors not only have proven themselves
successful in avoiding large-scale criminal prosecutions, they also have
demonstrated themselves effective iin using criminal prosecutions to pena-
lize individual actors who offend against them.
Given all that precedes, our next proposition should not surprise.
9 Corporate actors profit more from, and perpetrate larger, crimes than
individual actors. ed
The evidence for this proposition comes from an intriguing study by
Wheeler and Rothman (1982). Using data gathered from presentence
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 285

reports completed from 1976 to 1978 in American federal courts, Wheeler.

_and Rothman categorized white-collar offenders intothree groups: those -
who committed offenses alone or with affiliated others using neither an_
occupational nor an organizational role (individual offenders); those who
committed offenses alone or with affiliated others using an occupational_
role (occupational offenders); and those who committed offenses in which
both organization and occupation were ingredients (organizational offend-
_ers). The results of this study indicate in a variety of ways the enormous
advantages accruing to those who use formal organizations in their crimes.
For example, across a subset of four offenses, the ‘‘median take” for
individual offenders was $5,279, for occupational offenders $17,106, and
for organizational offenders $117,392. Why the organizational edge?
Wheeler and Rothman (ibid., p. 1417) answer with an example.
Represented by its president, a corporation entered into a factor-
ing agreement with a leading New York commercial bank, present-
ing it with $1.2 million in false billings over the course of seven
months; the company’s statements were either infiated to reflect
much more business than was actually being done, or were simply
made up. Would the bank have done this for an individual?
Whether we conclude that organizations are trusted more than
individuals, or that they simply operate on a much larger scale, it is
clear that the havoc caused when organizations are used outside
the law far exceeds anything produced by unaffiliated actors.
The point is that just as the organizational form has facilitated economic
and technological development on a scale far beyond that achieved by
individuals, so too has this form allowed criminal gains of a magnitude that
men and women acting alone would find hard to attain.
We turn finally to our last proposition:
10 Formal legal controls
are growing faster for corporate actors than for
individual actors.
This proposition corresponds to the first proposition we offered at the
beginning of the chapter, namely, that formal legal controls are inversely
related to informal social controls. We have already noted the relative
weakness of both formal and informal controls as they affect corporate as
compared to individual actors. The point of our last proposition is to
observe that while the history of the modern corporation is relatively
short, there is an apparent trend toward the compensation of weak
informal controls through the expansion of formal legal controls. This
trend is recognized in a variety of ways, but perhaps most dramatically in
the events of the post-Watergate period.
286 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Prior to Watergate, but especially immediately after it, the resources of

the American federal courts were increasingly used to prosecute and
punish various kinds of white-collar and corporate criminals. Katz (1980)
has described the emergence of this new enforcement, priority, and it is
reflected in the “‘proactive’”’ prosecutorial polices of several U.S. attorneys
described by Hagan and Nagel (1982). Wheeler et al. (1982) have even
sought to demonstrate that such policies have led to the more severe
sentencing of high-status white-collar offenders. Hagan and Palloni (1983)
concur in reporting an increased use of imprisonment with white-collar
offenders after Watergate, but also indicate that the length of the prison
sentences is unusually short. In any case, the prosecution, if not the
sentencing, of white-collar offenders did increase after Watergate.
Of course, the need for increasing control of corporate actors was
recognized much earlier in this century. Berg (1982, p. 176) speaks of “‘the
drift toward public controls since the Pujo committee’s investigations of
the armaments industry; the old post-World War [ investigations of the
armaments industry; the TNEC explorations . . . ; the New, the Fair, and
other Deals; and the logic behind interventions by New Frontiersmen and
Great Society Builders.’ An interesting question is whether the Reagan
and later administrations will dismantle the embodiments of this trend.
However, Berg notes that the Reagan administration today speaks less and
less about deregulation, and more and more about se/f-regulation. The
point is that the need for regulation is acknowledged; the difference is in
the optimism attached to public and private sources of regulation.
Meanwhile, the division between the public and private spheres be-
comes increasingly obscure.
Private airlines operate out of public airports to serve passengers
who arrive in public buses or private taxis (the latter with publicly
controlled medallions), that use public parkways. Steelmakers’
sales are often facilitated by publicly accorded ‘‘trigger prices”;
these are set by public leaders in response to competition from
private overseas firms whose managers, in turn, enjoy public
support from their home governments.... Scientists in
universities—some state, some private—collect royalties from
licenses to patents on discoveries that emanate from publicly
supported research. ... New York City’s government is currently
“selling’’ the depreciation allowances on its buses to a private
profit-making syndicate in need of tax offsets. It was President
Dwight Eisenhower, finally, who cautioned Americans about the
most visible of the public/private partnerships, the so-called
military-industrial complex (Berg, 1982, p. 179).
 UNDERSTANDING THE “NEW CRIMES”: THE UNEXPLAINED CRIMES OF CLASS AND GENDER 287

Where such partnerships will lead us is unclear. That they will require new
and undeveloped mechanisms of control is a lesson of our changing
corporate as well as individual experience.

CONCLUSIONS
The instrument and object relationships established by and through formal
and informal structures of social control are more taken for granted than
studied in western societies. Yet we have argued that these structural
relationships are central to the explanation of the variable participation of
men and women, and corporations and individuals, in crime. Like the
grammar that comes subconsciously to organize our writing and speech,
these instrument-object relationships, we have argued, play a powerful
role in organizing our involvement in work as well as in crime. Thus we
argued that women are characteristically denied full access to the public
sphere through a socialization process that moves from mother to daughter
in a cycle that is self-renewing, as well as self-denying, in terms of the
experience of work as well as crime. Women are more likely than men to
be the instruments and objects of the informal social controls that
dominate childhood socialization, while men are more likely than women
to be the instruments and objects of the formal legal controls that
dominate adolescent and adult criminality. Meanwhile, the corporate
forms that dominate the world of work, and that are dominated by men,
are less likely to be objects of both formal and informal social control than
are individual actors. The absence of more formal legal control of
corporate crime means that we know less about this kind of crime than we
could, while the reiative absence of informal social control leads us to
expect that there is much more corporate criminality than is officially
recognized. Of course, all of the above is subject to change, and it is the
prospect of change that is beginning to raise some of these structural
relationships to new levels of public awareness.
For example, we are as a society today much more self-conscious about
the sex-role socialization of our children, and we similarly are more
critically aware of the need to channel constructively the growth and
development of corporate power. This kind of critical awareness inevitably
raises questions about the ways in which formal and informal structures of
control operate. Analyses of these instrument-object relationships can be
informed by modern criminological theory. This implies a theory of crime
that is sensitive to the larger social structure in which controls exercise their
influence.
LIVING WITH CRIME: THE 70
FAILURES AND FUTURES OF
PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT,
AND PREVENTION

THE ISSUE: HOW TO RESPOND TO CRIME

How could and should we best respond to crime? There are two very
different questions here. The first question—how could we best respond to
crime?—is at least in part empirical. That is, assuming agreement that our
common goal is to reduce crime, we can go about the task, empirically, of
measuring what kinds of responses to crime produce what kinds of
outcomes. We will explore the results of research on this topic in this
chapter. However, the second question—how should we best respond to
crime?—cannot be answered by any amount of empirical research. It is a
moral question; a question of values. Empirical research can inform moral
issues, but empirical research cannot finally resolve these issues. When it
attempts to do so, as in debates about capital punishment, the results are
disappointing. Thus whether capital punishment does or does not deter
crime cannot in any definitive way tell us whether capital punishment
should or should not be imposed. Some believe capital punishment is a just
desert, a suitable form of retribution, for some crimes regardless of its
effect(s) on the incidence of crime. Hannah Arendt (1964, p. 254) offers
such a view when she writes of the hanging of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi
war criminal, ‘“‘What good does it do? . . . It will do justice.”’ On the other
side of the ledger, there are those, including Karl Marx (1853), who
believe there is no absolute moral right to punish, even if and when it may
deter further crimes: “... what right have you to punish me for the
amelioration or intimidation of others?”’ We do not attempt to resolve such
moral issues in this chapter. However, we do note the importance of such
issues, and we will attempt to inform them by reviewing historical and
empirical aspects of efforts to punish, treat, and prevent criminal behavior.

THE PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

Criminal sanctions can have nonpunitive as well as punitive purposes.
Seven purposes of criminal sanctions are noted frequently: (1) restraintor
incapacitation: to stop the behavior in question; (2) individual or specific
288
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 289

deterrence: the use of a punishment to reduce the likelihood that the person
who receives it will offend again in the future; (3) general deterrence:
punishing one person to reduce the likelihood that others will pursue the
same kind of behavior; (4) reform or rehabilitation: imposing a punish-
ment, usually in this case called a “‘treatment,”’ to correct what went wrong
in the person who committed the crime; (5) moral affirmation or
symbolism: a punishment intended to reaffirm the moral norm that has
been violated, by making the offender a symbol of the consequences of
violation, and by in this way drawing “moral boundaries” between the
“good” and “‘bad”’ in society; (6) retribution: the use of a punishment to
balance the harm done—in effect, to return the offense in kind; and (7)
restitution or compensation: the imposition of a sanction that also seeks to
reestablish balance, but now usually with the currency of money.
Although the above goals may sometimes overlap, they are not neces-
sarily consistent, and they often seem in conflict. To cite only the most
obvious example, it would seem doubtful that one could achieve the goals
of retribution and rehabilitation at the same time. This point will become
particularly apparent when we consider below the problems of administer-
ing prisons, which often are expected to reconcile such goals. It is
significant to note here, however, that crime-control agents apparently
have come to believe that such conflicting goals can be reconciled. Hogarth
(1971, p. 77) reports that among criminal-court judges a belief in reforma-
tion is associated with a belief in the efficacy of most penal measures,
including institutional measures. Similarly, Wheeler et al. (1968, p. 56)
report that among juvenile-court judges a belief in social welfare ideology
is associated with taking what is commonly regarded as the most severe
actions regarding delinquents, again including institutional measures. In
drawing conclusions from both studies it is noted that judges are often
confronted with having to use institutions in spite of their nonpunitive
goals. Hogarth (1971, p. 77) reasons that “the easiest way out of the
dilemma is to see prisons as therapeutic institutions.”” Wheeler et al. (1968,
p. 50) trace a similar line of thought in noting: “Clearly, if a person thinks |
of the institutions to which these youths are sent as benign, humane, and |
therapeutic, rather than existing as a last resort for punishment and
community protection, then he may more easily be persuaded that it is in
the youth’s behalf that he is sent there.”
We have introduced the above research because it anticipates a theme
that will recur in this chapter. The theme is that we often conceal from
ourselves, as individuals and as a society, the punishments we impose on
others. This is not a new theme in social science. It is, for example, the
essence of Evert Hughes’s (1962) discussion of “‘Good People and Dirty
Work,” and an explanation of how otherwise well-informed publics can
290 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

ignore atrocities that sometimes occur at close physical and/or social

distances from them. The capacity to do this forms a backdrop to a debate
about trends in the punishment of criminals in western societies. Ted
Robert Gurr (1980, p. 46) has written recently that “the contemporary
offender, even when found guilty, is likely to suffer only a small personal
fraction of the retribution which fell on his nineteenth-century counter-
part.” Gurr attributes this assumed improvement to a more general
‘“humanization of interpersonal relations” in western societies. However,
others, while agreeing that the forms of punishment have changed, are not
so quick to conclude that the severity of punishment has diminished. Below
we will discuss the decline of corporal and capital punishment, the shift to
imprisonment, and the rise of probation and parole. As we do so, it is
worthwhile to keep in mind the observation of David Rothman (1980, p.
152) that “lacking a calculus for pain, it is not always easy to measure one
kind of punishment against another. . . . [for example] in no simple sense
can the substitution of solitary [confinement] for the whip be automatically
considered a ‘reform.’ ’’ We will have reason to reflect further on this point
below.

THE DECLINE OF CORPORAL AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Thorsten Sellin (1976, p. 133) has noted that ‘‘it was only natural that those
who established settlements in the New World would bring with them not
only their possessions and skills, but also their social and legal institutions,
including the traditional penal methods of their homelands—Spain, Portu-
gal, France, and England.”’ Included among these methods were the
whipping post, the stocks, the pillory, the stake, the wheel, the gallows, the
gibbet, the branding iron, and instruments of torture and mutilation.
Several of these methods, the whipping post and the gallows, survived into
the mid-twentieth century. The colonists also revived forms of penal
slavery, a set of punishments long since abandoned in the mother country.
Clearly, however, public forms of corporal and capital punishment are
not as popular today as they were in earlier periods of our history.
Particularly graphic is the modern decline in the use of the death penalty in
America, although there are threats of its resurgence (Bowers and Pierce,
1976). Thus in America between 1930 and 1967 there were 3,859 execu-
tions. There were no executions over the next decade, but there have been
a number of executions since, and more than a thousand persons are under
current sentences of death. Only time will tell whether executions will
again become common in America. There is new evidence that use of the
death penalty is discriminatory (Radelet, 1981), and this may again raise the
issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty.
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATIMENT, PREVENTION 291

Nonetheless, current debate about a possible limited return to the death.

penalty should not obscure whatis a clear long-term shift from the public \
punishment of the criminal body to the more private punishment of the.
criminal mind. One way to emphasize this point is to remind ourselves of
just how torturous the former kinds of punishment regularly were. Michel
Foucault (1979, p. 3) provides a graphic example:
On 2 March 1757 Damiens the regicide was condemned “to make
the [amende honorable] before the main door of the Church of
Paris,’” where he was to be “taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing
nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two
pounds”; then, “in the said cart, to the Place de Greve, where, ona
scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his
breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right
hand, holding the knife with which he committed the said parri-
cide, burnt with sulphur, and, on those places where the flesh will
be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax
sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered
by four horses and his limbs and body consumed by fire, reduced
to ashes and his ashes thrown to the winds.”
The task is to explain why we no longer do such things, and why, when we
do contemplate, for example, a return to the death penalty, we do so ina
far different way.
Foucault’s answer begins with the observation that such punishments
did not accomplish their intended results. Their purpose was to display the
crime, its confession, and its consequences in the tortured form of the
offender. However, a problem was that on such occasions, “if the crowd
gathered round the scaffold, it was not simply to witness the sufferings of
the condemned man or to excite the anger of the executioner: it was also to
hear an individual who had nothing more to lose curse the judges, the laws,
the government and religion” (p. 60). The reformers of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries (including the classical criminologists discussed in
Chapter 1) were able to note not only that these punishments were so
severe that they seldom were used, but also that public tortures and
executions did not, as intended, frighten people. Indeed, they often made
their sufferers into folk heroes. Corporal and capital punishment, at least
_asapplied, did not accomplish their goals.
This perhaps also does something to explain why capital punishment,
when it has endured in western capitalist societies, has taken a decidedly
different form. John Lofland (1977, p. 283) notes that “to contrast English
and American state executions circa 1950 with those circa 1700 is virtually
to contrast pure strategies of dramaturgical concealment and openness.”
Lofland’s point is that when we do use the death penalty today we go to
292 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

great lengths to avert attention from the execution itself. Access to the
condemned is restricted, an inconspicuous time for the execution is
selected, removal of the condemned to the place of execution is accom-
plished with dispatch, the place of execution is private, few witnesses are
allowed, the executioner is kept impersonal, the condemned is allowed
little expression, the technique of execution is “clean” and quick, the
corpse is quickly removed, and media attention is restricted. A comparison
of open and concealed strategies is summarized in Table 10-1. The
comfortable assumption is that strategies of concealment are more humane
to the condemned. It may be so. But itmay also be the case that such
strategies make the dealing of death more acceptable to the public,
allowing a punishment to persist when it might not otherwise. Lofiand
(ibid., p. 321) adds to this the irony that ‘“‘however raucous or crude
historic executions may have been, they did provide the condemned with
opportunity for dying with a display of courage and dignity utterly denied
in modern executions.”

THE SHIFT TO IMPRISONMENT

The nineteenth century brought to Europe and America a curtailment of
hanging, the abolition of branding and the stocks, and the _widespread
adoption of the penitentiary as the punishment of first choice for serious
crimes (Ignatieff, 1978, p. 154). Thus most accounts locate a rev olutionary
change in the preferred form of criminal punishment, a shift to the use of
imprisonment, as having occurred between 1780 and 1850 (Rothman,
1971; Foucault, 1977; Ignatieff, 1978). More specifically, Ignatieff (1977,
p. 160) suggests that “it was only after 1776 in America and after 1789 in
France that imprisonment began to replace hanging as the penalty appro-
priate to modern enlightened republics.”
John Howard (1726-1790) is the Englishman whose
name is most
frequently associated with prison reform and the beginning of the peniten-
tiary system. Howard began his reform work as a county sheriff who took |
seriously the task of inspecting prisons. The result was the inevitable
discovery of abuses. However, Ignatieff (1978, p. 52) notes that Howard’s
denunciation of these abuses was not novel. What was novel was the
“scientific” form of the critique. Indeed, ‘‘Howard was one of the first
philanthropists to attempt a systematic description of a social problem.”
The implication is that the mantle of science, as much as the humanitarian
goals of these reforms, was the force behind Howard’s success.
In England, the first national penitentiary, Milbank,
was opened in
1816. Although this prison proved a health hazard and experienced lengthy
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 293

TABLE 10-7
OPEN AND CONCEALED DRAMATURGY OF STATE EXECUTIONS

Open Concealed

Death wait Long Short

Death Many, self-chosen visitors Few, regulated visitors

confinement Diverse activities allowed Few activities allowed
Exhorted about death Left alone about death
Exposed to death preparations Insulated from death
>
preparations

Execution Socially conspicuous day and Socially inconspicuous day

time hour and hour

Death trip Long Short

Elaborate and specialized No transport devices
transport devices Tiny cortege, if any
Large cortege No events en route
Dramatic events en route Simple, private route
Complicated, public route

Death Place Public, outdoors Private, indoors

Large, open, visible Small, enclosed, buffered
Multiple and dispersed Centralized location
locations Neutral decoration
Specialized decoration

Death Unlimited number Small, controlled number

witnesses Socially diverse Socially homogeneous
Perform personal and diverse Perform impersonal and
activities restricted activities

Executioner Professional Part-time

Publicly known Publicly anonymous
Performance discretionary Performance drilled
Strong, colorful, deviant Bland, conformist, quiet
personal style personal style
Personal contact with Impersonal, limited contact
condemned with condemned

Condemned Self-chosen, diverse Narrowly restricted

accoutrements accoutrements
Diverse acts and speech Narrow range of acts and
speech

Death Unreliable, long-acting, noisy, Reliable, fast-acting, quiet,

technique painful, scream-provoking, painless, non-scream-
mutilating, struggle- provoking, non-mutilating,
inducing, odor-causing, non-struggle-inducing,
highly visible odorless, concealed
294 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

TABLE 10-1 (cont'd)

OPEN AND CONCEALED DRAMATURGY OF STATE EXECUTIONS

Open Concealed

Death wait Long Short

Corpse Public display No display

disposal Prolonged Quick
Marked grave Anonymous grave

Death Unrestricted media Restricted media

announcement Suspension of institutional No suspension of institutional
activities and other symbols activities or other symbols

periods of open revolt among its inmates, lessons were learned, and a more
successful regime was established with the opening of Pentonville in 1842.
This institution, built on the principles of solitude, hard labor, and
religious indoctrination, became a model for many of the prisons that
followed.
As early as 1776, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania’s first constitution
instructed that “‘houses ought to be provided for punishing by]hard. labour
those convicted of crimes not capital”’ (cited in Sellin, 1976, p. 139). To this
end, a small ‘“‘penitentiary” section was added to the Walnut Street Jail in
Philadelphia in 1790. This section of the jail allowed for the solitary
confinement of convicts, and in 1794 the death penalty was abolished
except for first-degree murder. The Walnut Street Jail subsequently
became a model for the construction of other state prisons or penitentia-
ries. A number of important institutions were constructed between 1820
and 1830—Auburn, 1819-1823; Ossining, 1825; Pittsburgh, 1826; Philadel-
phia, 1829 (Rothman, 1971). In the separate system at Philadelphia,
prisoners were kept completely isolated in their cells and were forbidden to
communicate or otherwise associate with fellow prisoners. The theory of
the silent regime, common by the 1840s, was that it would eliminate a
criminal subculture that was assumed to cause much crime. Although
prisoners were allowed to work together, they were not allowed to
communicate in any way. As Ignatieff (1981, p. 164) notes, ‘“‘the peniten-
tiary was something new and unprecedented and was understood as such
by the great observers of the age, Alexis de Tocqueville, Charles Dickens,
and Thomas Carlyle.”

reformatory system, as represented by the Elmira Reformatory, estab-

lished in 1876. This institution was the culmination of efforts by the
_National Prison Association, led by the penologist Enoch Wines. What |
distinguished the reformatory from the penitentiary, at least in principle,
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT,
TREATMENT, PREVENTION 295

=-

=
—
=

=
=— ELPA)
PLL
PELE

HH Mi
lit},

Ll i
Uhl |
Separate cell in Pentonville Prison with hammock slung for sleeping and loom for
daywork. (Source: /gnatieff’s A Just Measure of Pain)

was a greater emphasis on education and preparation for a trade. Elmira

was from the beginning thought to have as much or more relevance for
young offenders as for adults. Thus its inmates consisted of first-time felons
between the ages of 16 and 30 who, in the estimation of the sentencing
judge, were thought capable of reformation (Rothman, 1980, p. 33).
Although it cannot be said that Elmira itself was a particularly dramatic
breakthrough in the design and operation ofprisons, it did signal a new and
more modern emphasis on the goal of rehabilitation in penology (Platt,
1969). We consider next some of the problems of accommodating such
goals within contemporary penal settings.
296
PEP
TEN
| | Hl] i) SHE

y
"GLY ah La

i |
au, ‘jadeyd
UO 8U} a}eJedas,, ,,/WWalsAs
Ul a||IAUOJUaY
‘UOSIig Bulinp BUIAIP ‘@D!|AJBS
:a91nos) S,yaljeuby
Y IsNP ainseayy
JO (U/ed
Prisoners
picking
the
under
oakum
silent
Correction,
of
House
Middlesex
at Coldbath
system
Fields.
(Source:
Measure
AJust
/gnatieff’s
Pain)
of

297
 298 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF PRISONS

Much criminological research has focused on prisons, attempting to
determine how they are organized in structural and cultural terms. A
classic early example of this tradition was Donald Clemmer’s (1940) study,
The Prison Community. Clemmer stimulated an enduring interest in three
_aspects of prison life: (1) the ‘inmate code”’: the norms that are presumed
_to_rule prison relations; (2) “argot roles”: the social roles that are
described by prison slang and are assumed to pian the Ee) of
prisoners to the problems of prison life; and (3)‘‘prisonization”: the
_
socialization experience that _accompanies _time spent in prison. This
tradition of research saw the prison experience as determined primarily ey
the structure of the prison itself. Sometimes called the “indigenous origin”
model, this tradition attached great importance to the existence of a
prisoner subculture. Sykes and Messinger (1960) identified five major
components of the inmate code that organized thissubculture: (1) don’t
interfere with inmate interests, be loyal to yourc class—the cons; (2) don’t
_lose your head; play it cool and do your own time; (3) don’t exploit
inmates; be right; (4) don’t weaken; be a man; (5) don’t be a sucker; be
sharp. ;
The most important research in this tradition is Gresham Sykes’s The
‘Society «of Captives (1958). Sykes begins with the premise that prisons are
self-contained institutions that generate their own unique kind of social
order, Fundamental to the social organization of these institutions are the
conflicting tasks they are expected to accomplish. Prison administrators are
expected to maintain the custody of their inmates, to establish and
maintain order within the prison, to make the prison as self-sufficient in
meeting subsistence needs as possible, to provide a punishing experience,
and simultaneously to provide for the rehabilitation of the inmates. The
attempt to accommodate these conflicting tasks inevitably imposes depri-
vations on inmates, the response to which is the emergence of argot roles
(e.g., rats, center men, gorillas, merchants, wolves, punks, fags, ball
busters, real men, toughs, and hipsters). Some of these roles—for example
the “ball buster,” who challenges authorities at every turn, and the
“merchant,” who sells contraband goods and services—are “alienating” in
the sense that they generate discontent and unrest. However, the “real
man’’—who simply wants to “pull his own time’ without the kinds of
provocations that may lead to a longer sentence—is a ‘‘cohesive” social
role. Most of the time, prison officials and guards reach accommodations
with inmates who occupy such cohesive roles, in the interests of prison
stability and order. However, occasional efforts to reorganize or reform
prisons may challenge these arrangements and destabilize the balance
among the roles.
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 299

More recent research challenges the “indigenous origin’? model of the

prison, often with what is now called the “importation hypothesis.” This
hypothesis suggests that the prison subculture derives less from the
structure of the prison itself than from the criminal and conventional
subcultures outside the prison. Work in this latter tradition (Irwin and
Cressey, 1962; Irwin, 1970) increasingly emphasizes the role of race and
ethnicity in establishing the social organization of prison life (Jacobs,
1977).
A benchmark in prison race relations occurred in the late 1950s as
blacks began to protest segregation and discrimination in prisons (Jacobs,
1979). Central to this protest was the Black Muslim movement. The Black
Muslims took an active role in organizing inmates, bringing the spirit of
“black nationalism” into prisons and making possible z a collective challenge
_to the authority of white prison officials. The American Correctional
Association officially fought the Muslims by denouncing their activities. To
the extent that the Muslims took their grievances about religious and racial
discrimination to the courts, they frequently won. Ironically, Jacobs (1979,
p. 10) suggests that ‘‘after their religious grievances were redressed, the
Muslims became a quiescent and stabilizing force in many prisons, which
began to be racked by new cohorts of violent and disorganized ghetto
youth.” Minorities often dominated the prisons, even when they were not
dominant in numbers. For example, Bartollas et al. (1976) report that in an
Ohio juvenile facility characterized by numerical racial equality, lower-
class blacks were the dominant group, followed by middle-class blacks,
lower-class whites, and middle-class whites. They go on to note two distinct
sets of inmate norms. The black inmate norms were: exploit whites, do not
force sex on blacks, and defend your brother; white norms @ucouraved
universal distrust, and each man for himself. More striking still is a finding
by Carroll (1974) that in a Rhode Island institution that was only 25
percent black, 75 percent of the homosexual rapes involved blacks raping
whites.
Jacobs (1979, p. 17) offers a convincing explanation of the dominance of
minorities in contemporary American prison settings.
The key to black dominance is their greater solidarity and ability to
intimidate whites. As the distinct minority in the larger society,
blacks have long experienced racial discrimination. They have
necessarily defined themselves in terms of their racial identity and
have linked their opportunities in the larger society to the fate of
their race. Whites, especially outside the south, have had almost
no experience in grouping together on the basis of being white.
eu has been a more important basis for social interaction.
. Consequently, whites face imprisonment alone or in small
 300 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

cliques based on outside friendships, neighborhood, or ethnic

background.
What is clear from the new prison research is that prisons are no longer,
if ever they were, characterized by homogeneous subcultures or inmate
codes. It is also clear from this research that prisons remain dangerous and
punishing places.

THE RISE OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

It is not difficult to see why modern reformers were anxious to find
alternatives to prison. Probation and parole represented the attractive
prospect of avoiding prison in the first place, or failing this, the prospect of
shortening the duration of prison terms.
The earliest notions of probation can be traced to the reign of Henry II
in_thirteenth-century England, and the introduction of the “benefit of
Come

clergy,” a practice that usually resulted in the removal of an offender from

the jurisdiction of the court (Timasheff, 1941a, 19415). However, the first
use of the term “probation”? is American and can be traced to early
> voluntary activities in the courts of Boston by John Augustus. This work
led ultimately to passage of the first probation Jaw by the Massachusetts
legislature in 1878. It was twenty years before another American state
passed such a law, and longer still until much was done in terms of
implementing the idea of probation. A key figure in advancing the idea was
' Charles Chute, general secretary and executive director of the National
Probation Association from 1915 to 1947 (Hagan, 1977b). Chutewas botha
product of the Ainerican probation movement and a spokesman for it.
The NPA organized its work in various ways. Juvenile court and adult
probation statutes were drafted for a number of states. Most significantly,
however, the association began, with its inception in 1909, a sixteen-year
campaign to obtain passage of a federal probation law in the United States.
For many years, the efforts of the NPA to have a federal probation law
passed were complicated by the strategically located chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Andrew J. Volstead.
In the beginning, the absence of a probation law was much more a
concern for the NPA than it was for the courts. The courts proceeded
through “judge-made law” to claim a common law power to suspend or
“set aside”’ prison sentences. However, in 1915 the attorney general of the
United States began a campaign to prevent suspended sentences, claiming
that this practice was an infringement on the executive pardoning power,
and therefore unconstitutional. In 1916, the issue was placed before the
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 301

Supreme Court in the Killits case, with a resulting decision that no inherent
power existed in the federal courts to suspend sentences permanently.
The result was a court crisis (cf. Lemert, 1970) that accompanied the
onset of the national prohibition of alcohol. As one judge wrote to Chute,
“I am at this time, and have been for the past two months, trying large
criminal dockets for violations of the liquor laws. ... I find myself
seriously embarrassed in knowing how to deal with them under the federal
statutes and the decision of the Supreme Court in the Killits case”’ (cited in
Hagan, 1977b, pp. 301-302). For several years, Representative Volstead
chaired the House Judiciary Committee and blocked efforts to get a
probation bill passed. However, Volstead’s term of office finally ended in
1923. A probation bill was reported favorably in both the House and the
Senate in 1924, and passed into law in 1925.
Court statistics indicate that the slow assent of
ofprobation was linked to
the decline of prohibition. The legal propriety of using probation in
prohibition cases was questioned several times during this period, with the
legality of the practice each time upheld. In the last year of prohibition,
16,907 persons were placed on probation by the courts, 13,537 of whom
were convicted under the National Prohibition Act. There is considerable
evidence that during this period probation was an instrumental resource
used in plea bargaining prohibition cases. In this way, probation may
actually have helped to conceal the unenforceable character of pro-
hibition.
We come, then, to an issue that has confronted both probation and |
parole: have they actually decreased imprisonment? There is no clear |
evidence that they have. As Rothman (1980, p. 9) has noted, “innovations
that appeared to be substitutes for incarceration became supplements to
incarceration.” For example, it is highly unlikely that all the prohibition
violators prosecuted in the federal courts could ever have been sentenced
to jail. There were not jails enough to hold them. Probation has always
been used primarily with young and first offenders who otherwise are
unlikely to be imprisoned. Similarly, parole was largely a refinement in the
way sentences were set. Until about 1900, judges set the precise term of
incarceration for adult offenders. With the turn of the century, judges
began to use minimum and maximum terms, leaving it for parole boards to
decide upon the moment of release and the conditions of postrelease
supervision. Rothman (1980, p. 44) notes that “by 1923, almost half of all
inmates sentenced to state prisons were under an indeterminate sentence,
and a little over half of all releases were under parole.” But there is little in
the history of parole that_encourages the assumption that it peau’
imprisonment. “Parole is not leniency,” concluded the Wickersham Com-
mission in 1939 (cited in Rothman, 1980, pp. 193-194), “‘It adds to the
 302 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

period of imprisonment a further period involving months or even years of

supervision.” The desire to punish, it seems, endured unabated.

THE DETERRENT EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS

One of the most frequently asked questions about criminal sanctions is, Do
they deter crime? Questions of this type always seem to be more
complicated than they first appear. This question is no exception. What
most people seem to have in mind when they inquire about deterrence is
whether punishment has preventive effects. However, as Gibbs (1975, p.
| 2) has noted, deterrence ideallyrefers more aay to the prevention of
crime that results from the fear of punishment: ‘ ‘the omission of an act as a
‘response to the perceived risk and fear of punishment for contrary
_ behavior’ (emphasis in original). To this fine distinction are added others.
We have already noted the distinction between specific (or_ individual or

future behavior of the individual being punished, the latter with the effects
| on the population more generally. A distinction is also drawn between
absolute and restrictive deterrence. The former refers to the absence
throughout a lifetime of criminal behavior, while the latter refers only to a
degree of restraint effected in the amount of a person’s criminal behavior
that would otherwise have been greater. Finally, a distinction is drawn
_between deterrence and incapacitation: the reduction in criminal behavior
that is accomplished simply as a result of keeping offenders “off the street”
for a particular period of time (see, for example, Geerken and Gove,
1972).
Deterrence has been studied in three major ways: through experie-
ments, quasi experiments, and analyses of natural variation (Blumstein,
Cohen, and Nagin, 1978). The latter approach is most common and
involves the use of surveys as well as official records Surveys focus on
individual perceptions and actual experiences of criminal sanctions, and
then look for their correlations with criminal behavior. Official records of
sanctioning and crime are collected and again examined for correlation, in
this case usually by state. The standard deterrence hypotheses hold that
perceived and actual risks of apprehension, conviction, imprisonment, and
_execution are negatively correlated with criminal behavior. Thatis, as rates
of apprehension, conviction, imprisonment, and execution go up, criminal
behavior should go down. These hypotheses follow from assumptions that
the certainty, celerity (i.e., quickness), and severity of punishment are
negatively correlated with criminal behavior. Celerity of punishment is
seldom studied, but rates of apprehension and conviction are often taken
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 303

to reflect certainty of punishment, while imprisonment and execution rates

are assumed to reflect severity.
“Taken as a whole,” concludes a recent National Academy of Science
Panel on Deterrence and Incapacitation (Blumstein, Cohen, and Nagin,
1978, p. 4), “the reported evidence consistently finds a negative association
esas crime rates and the risks of apprehension, conviction or imprison-
ment.” We will examine the basis for such a conclusion in more detail
below. Meanwhile, there is another issue: Is this negative relationship
causal? Or in other words, is the association found between sanctions and |
crime because the higher sanction levels reduce the amount of crime
committed? One alternative explanation for the observed association is
that the moral climate of the context in which the research is done may be
causing both more sanctions and less crime, rather than the sanctions
themselves affecting criminal behavior. In other words, are areas that are
very sensitive to moral issues more likely to have both high sanctioning
rates and less crime? Ideally, the question of causality is dealt with by a
research design that experimentally manipulates the causal variable, in this
case the criminal sanction. Experimental research on deterrence is limited
because of the obvious ethical problems involved in experimentally
manipulating punishments. Nonetheless, some interesting experimental
work has been done on deterrence. We review this work before going
on to consider survey and official record research on the issue of
deterrence.
Two fascinating experiments have been done with taxpayers and the
Internal Revenue Service, and with college students in classrooms. In the |
IRS experiment, Schwartz and Orleans (1967) randomly designated sub- |
jects to be (1) interviewed and made aware of the penalties for tax evasion,
(2) interviewed and reminded of their moral obligation to pay taxes, (3) |
interviewed with neither the warning nor reminder, and (4) an uninter- |
viewed control group. Both the moral reminder and the ‘prospect of

‘Tittle and Rowe (1973) allowed students to grade their own exams. A
moral appeal was issued first to the effect that students were obliged to
mark their exams honestly. The appeal had no effect. However, a later
warning that spot-checks for accuracy would be followed by punishments
for inaccuracies did reduce cheating. These studies are at least consistent in |
indicating a causal effect of threatened sanctions.
. Survey research also provides some support for deterrence hypotheses.
This research has been particularly concerned with the impact of the
perception of sanctions. For example, Jensen et al. (1978,p. 58) identify
perception as the key element of deterrence and argue that “‘the more
 304 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

members of a population perceive the punishment for a type of offense as

being certain, severe and celeritous, the lower the [crime] rate for that
population.” The research of Jensen et al. and others (e.g., Jensen, 1969;
Waldo and Chiricos, 1972; Grasmich and Milligan, 1976;.Silberman, 1976;
Tittle, 1977; Teevan, 1976a,b, 1977) rather consistently supports the
| argument that among surveyed subjects, the more certain sanctions are |

survey studies ae less convincing with regard to severity

ty of sanctions. We
have more to say about this below. Meanwhile, the issue of causal order
has most recently concerned survey researchers in this area. The concern is
to demonstrate that, as measured in social surveys, the perceived certainty
of punishment varies in advance of, rather than in response to involvement
in crime and delinquency. The evidence on this issue is only beginning to
accumulate (Jensen and Stitt, 1982; Paternoster et al., 1982), with mixed
results.
What further knowledge we have about deterrence comes largely from
research based on official records. The two areas in which the natural
variation in sanctions and criminal behavior have been most closely studied
_are with regard to capital punishment and drunken driving. Historically,
deterrence studies involving capital punishment have been conducted in
three ways: (1) comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some
of which had abolished capital punishment; (2) examining time series data

‘the abolition of capital punishment; and (3) comparing homicideee

1 ina
jurisdiction before and after the imposition of a death sentence or
|execution. Although methodologically flawed in various ways, these stud-
re have generally failed to show a deterrent effect of the death penalty
(e.g., Bowers, 1974; Schuessler, 1952; Sellin, 1967; Savitz, 1958). An
exception to this pattern of findings is the recent research of Isaac Ehrlich
(1975), which claims to identifya deterrent effect in a time series that runs
_from 1933 to 1969. Erhlich’s findings are made particularly provocative by
an inference that each additional execution in these data prevented seven
or eight murders. However, subsequent reanalyses do not confirm Ehr-
lich’s conclusions (see Zeisel, 1976). A major problem with Ehrlich’s
analysis is that it is particularly sensitive to the time period 1962 to 1969,
when executions ceased and homicides increased. The problem is, as we :
saw in Chapter 4, that this was a time when most other crimeswere
Ancreasing as well. This broader time-bound pattern makes doubtful the
significance attached by Ehrlich to the death penalty. The only safe
conclusion seems to be the one reached by the Panel on Deterrence and
Incapacitation (Blumstein, Cohen, and Nagin, 1978, p. 9):
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 305

In summary, the flaws in the earlier analyses finding no effect and

the sensitivity of the more recent analysis to minor variations in
model specification and the serious temporal instability of the
results lead the Panel to conclude that the available studies
provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital
punishment.

More revealing are time series studies of the deterrence of drinking and
driving. H. Laurence Ross (1982) has noted that the literature on drinking,
driving, and deterrence is unique in its relatively good measures of effect,
involving time series of fatal crashes gathered by hospitals and health
departments, and by the availability of relatively strong quasi-experimental
designs, based on efforts cross-nationallyto redefine and reinforce laws
dealing with drinking and driving. The result is a set of conditions that
often meet the criteria for the utilization of an interrupted time series
design. That is, there is an independent variable (change in law and/or
enforcement) that changes abruptly at a single point in time, along with
dependent variables (e.g., crash series) that are expected to shift sharply
and simultaneously, and that are measured reliably over an extended
period of time. Beginning in Norway in 1936, several Scandinavian
countries and later Britain (in 1967) imposed strict drinking-and-driving
laws that since have been adopted in many western nations. These efforts
form the basis of a review by Ross (1982) of the deterrent effects of such
laws. Although deterrence theory usually predicts abrupt declines in
behavior that are preferably permanent, Figure 10-1 outlines the alterna-
tive possibilities. What Ross (1982) finds when he looks at the cross- |
national findings is that ‘‘in all cases in which deterrent effectiveness was
noted,it provedto be temporary, disappearing within months ofits
attainment.”’ In other words, cracking down on drunk drivers may produce
deterrent effects, but they are of limited duration.
Where does this leave us? In 1973 Tittle and Logan ended an influential
review of empirical research on deterrence with the necessarily modest
conclusion that ‘‘sanctions apparently have some deterrent effect under \
some circumstances.’ There was not enough systematic research to say
much more. Seven years and fifty studies later, Tittle (1980, p. 4) concludes
that it still is impossible to specify with clarity and certainty the precise
conditions under which sanctions are likely to be important influences on
behavior. The research that will do so remains to be done. Lacking this
research we can only conclude that the burden of evidence at least supports
is causally
the deterrence hypothesis that certainty of criminal sanctioning
related to criminal behavior.
306 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Duration
Permanent Temporary

Gradual

Onset

Abrupt

Figure 10-1 |\mpact models of deterrent effects. (Source: Ross, 1982:73)

TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF CRIME

Thus far our discussion of responses to crime has failed to disclose much
societal interest in the treatment and prevention of crime other than
through the threat of sanctions. If we have demonstrated anything, it is
that the inclination to punish is still very much with us, despite a succession
of reform efforts to modify the punishments, and considerable doubt as to
the deterrent effects of severe punishments. Yet, efforts are made at
treatment and prevention other than by punishment, especially with young
offenders, and some attention to the successes and failures of these efforts
is in order. It is in these efforts that our more optimistic societal sentiments
are revealed. We discuss such efforts under two headings: individual
treatment and social reform.

INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT
There is something very American about the time-honored approach to
nonpunitive crime prevention: individual treatment. Treatment of the
individual fits well with the emphasis traditionally placed on individual
initiative and responsibility in our society. The emphasis in this approach
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 307

to crime prevention is placed on the social--psychological development of |

the criminal, with particular attention to the experiences of adolescence.
The assumption that characterizes this approach is that. much juvenile and _
adult crime could be prevented if only the delinquent or predelinquent
could be identified and corrective therapy applied. A variety of important
treatment programs have been initiated on the basis of this assumption,
often with efforts to evaluate the results.
Among the earliest and most ambitious treatment programs was the
Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (Powers and Witmer, 1951; McCord
and McCord, 1959). Teachers, police officers, social Workers and _a_
_psychiatrist were asked in this project to identify future delinquents; the?
_ selected individuals were then see either to an intensive counseling
program or to a comparison (i.e., “‘control’”’) group that received no
treatment at all. Unfortunately, no positive effects of the counseling
program were revealed in a follow-up evaluation based on subsequent
contacts of the adolescents with local police.
A less rigorously evaluated program that seemed to be more successful
was the Highfields experiment (Weeks, 1958). Based in a progressive
institutional setting, this experiment utilized an intensive program of
guided group interaction with 16- to 17-year-old youths. Inmates from a
more typical reformatory setting were later compared in terms of rates of
reconviction. The results of this comparison indicated that “for every
hundred boys who complete residence, . . . the Highfields program reha-
bilitates twenty-eight more than does the traditional program of caring for
such boys” (ibid., p. 120). However, the comparison was flawed. High-
fields youths tended to be younger, better-educated, first-time offenders. ,
In commonsense language, the Highfields boys were probably “better |
bets” in the first place. Meanwhile, it has also been noted that simply being
in a special program can induce a “‘policy effect’? on the part of police and
others, with the result that control agents respond more. favorably | to the

“may often be confused with presumed “treatment effects” (Lerman, 1968).

_A more stringently evaluated program based onguided group interac-
tion was the Provo Project (Empey and Erickson, 1972). Young “habitual
offenders” were assigned in this program to community-based group
therapy, probation, or institutionalization. A six-month follow-up after
“release” indicated rates of success (i.e., absence of arrests) of 84, 77, and
42 percent respectively. The aplication is that while the community- “based
effort was more successful than incarceration, it was about equal in success
to a period of probation involving almost no treatment at all. In a second
study, the Silverlake Experiment, Empey and Lubeck (1971) compared a
 308 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

residential community-treatment program with a private training school

program. This study also failed to find much evidence that the experimen-
tal program was superior to the control program.
The Opportunities for Youth Project was an experimentally designed
effort to prevent delinquency using employment and teaching machines
(Hackler, 1966). The treatment design involved an effort to improve
subjects’ self-concepts by convincing them that (1) they were capable of
working successfully, and (2) they were competent to assess the adequacy
of teaching machines. Data were gathered on police contacts four years
after the project began. These data indicated that boys involved in the
work program were slightly more delinquent than those in the comparison
group, while boys in the teaching machine program were slightly less so.
These perplexing findings leave “only faint optimism with regard to
uncovering effective ‘cures’ for the ills of delinquency” (Hackler and
Hagan, 1975, p. 105).
We noted above that one of the earliest and most ambitious treatment
programs was the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study. Recently Joan
McCord (1978) completed a thirty-year follow-up of the effects of this
_program. Despite the fact that thirty years after the termination of the
program many of the subjects still remembered their counselors favorably
—‘‘sometimes recalling particular acts of kindness and sometimes noting
the general support they felt in having someone available with whom to
discuss their problems” (1978, p. 288)—-almost no objective evidence could
be found that treatment had improved the lives of those in the treatment
group. Indeed, it is reported that men who had been in the treatment
program were more likely than those in the control group to commit a
__ second crime. Among other things, this follow-up also revealed that men in
the treatment group were more likely to evidence signs of alcoholism and
die younger. McCord (1978, p. 289) reaches the chilling conclusion that
“intervention programs risk damaging the individualsthey are designed to_
assist.”’
One might by now reasonably wonder where this brief introduction to
individualized treatment is leading us. It leads to a much noted conclusion,
based on a review of 231 evaluations of treatment programs and reported
by Robert Martinson (1974), that “with few and isolated exceptions, the
_ rehabilitative efforts that have been reported so far have had no apprecia-
/ ble effect on recidivism” (p. 25). Although this conclusion has been
challenged, it also reflects a general consensus about the evidence of
success in such programs. Previous reviews by Hood and Sparks (1970) and
Bailey (1966) reached similar conclusions, as have subsequent assessments
by Greenberg (1977), Brody (1976), and Fienberg and Grambsch (1979).
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 309

The most noteworthy exception to these conclusions is taken by Palmer

(1975, 1978), who argues for the success of the Community Treatment
Program (CTP) of the California Youth Authority. However, a subsequent
and independent assessment of this program by Paul Lerman (1975, p. 67)
concludes that “‘the CTP did not have an impact on youth behavior that
differed significantly from the impact of the control program.”
There remain the interesting possibilities that particular kinds of
offenders (e.g., particularly “amenable” offenders), and particular kinds
of treatment programs (e.g., those providing extensive supervision),
evaluated in new and/or different ways (e.g., focusing on amount and/or
seriousness of offenses, rather than their simple presence or absence),
might reveal better evidence of success (see, for example, Murray and Cox,
1979; Wilson, 1980). It is also important not to misinterpret the lack of
success so far found (see Question and Answer dialogue within box).
Perhaps the soundest conclusion is that drawn by the Panel on Research on
Rehabilitative Techniques (1979):
. the Panel believes that there is not now in the scientific
literature any basis for any policy or recommendations regarding
rehabilitation of criminal offenders. The data available do not
present any consistent evidence of efficacy that would lead to such
recommendations. ... On the basis of its review, the Panel be-
lieves that the magnitude of the task of reforming criminal offend-
ers has been consistently underestimated. It is clear that far more
intensive and extensive interventions will be required if rehabilita-
tion is to be possible; even then, there is no guarantee of success.

-MARTINSON RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS RE-

EW
| OF TREATMENT PROGRAMS Question: Doesn't this study con-
¢
ely prove that our criminal justice system is a failure?
nswer: No, Only that the weight of the evidence is that the addition of
treatment elements (‘‘programs” of the kind evaluated) to the system has no |
7 appreciable effect in changing offenders into non-offenders. The system may still
_ deter potential offenders or temporarily incapacitate those who are incarcerated.
| These, and many other aspects of criminal justice remain to be evaluated.
| Question: Doesn’t the survey show that probation and parole are ineffective
and should be abandoned?
_ Answer: Not in the least! Indeed, it indicates that those placed on probation
_do no worse than those imprisoned and may do slightly better. It does indicate
that small caseloads on probation do no better than standard caseloads, and that
: probation supervision (as currently practiced) is not an effective “treatment,”
310 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

\ aut ceaseous fon our criminal

le to accomplish, thus freeing them to justify

ing equipment,or a television set might

in additional counselor or psychiatrist. _

3 or we
ae nothow ane wit nee or with what costs.
aS‘various we
§ of“getting tough,” and our planning agencies -
milder and more certain penalties or more
onvict ee inearcerate. In addition, almost _

[ may ph go‘galloping dow he blindey

_ Source: Criminal Justice New. etter,National Council on Gime aneDelinquency, ad
ovember 18, 1974, pp. a 2

PREVENTION THROUGH SOCIAL REFORM

Social reform programs begin withamore sociological assumption than the
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 311

individual treatment programs, namely, that it is the environmental

influences of the peer group, or the social structure of the surrounding |
community, rather than the individual, that must be changed. The
time-honored tools of this approach are “detached workers” and “‘commu-
nity organization.”’
The oldest of the social reform programs, the Chicago Area Project
(CAP), was organized and operated by David McKay and Clifford Shaw
(Kobrin, 1959). The key feature of this program involved the enlistment of
community members and leaders in organizations through which welfare
programs were then developed and administered. A useful description of
these efforts is provided by Burgess, Lohman, and Shaw (1937, p. 8).

The Chicago Area Project is a program which seeks to discover by

actual demonstration and measurement a procedure for the treat-
ment of delinquents and the prevention of delinquency. ... the
distinctive emphasis in the Project is to achieve the fullest possible
neighborhood participation. . . . All of the activities in the program
are carried on with a view to making the neighborhood conscious \
of the problems of delinquency, co//ectively interested in the
welfare of its children, and active in promoting programs for such |
improvements of the community environment as will develop in
the children interests and habits of a constructive and socially
desirable character (emphasis added).

In intent as well as accomplishment, the Chicago Area Project was an

important challenge to the individualistic emphases of programs operated
by psychologists and psychiatrists in the early part of this century.
However, its contributions to crime and delinquency prevention have been
a matter of some uncertainty. Shaw and his colleagues were increasingly
reluctant to assess the success of CAP in quantitative terms. Thus,
although there was evidence that rates of delinquency did decline in areas
served by the project, and that the character of the communities them-
selves was altered, Clifford Shaw in particular became increasingly reluc-
tant to draw strong inferences from these findings. This cautious attitude
and its consequences are considered further below.
A more recent program, the Midcity Youth Project, also aimed its
efforts at the larger community, largely through the medium of detached
street workers (Miller, 1962). In this program, seven street workers
‘concentrated their efforts on approximately 400 members of twenty-one
gangs over a three-year period. The best hopes of this project rested on the
stabilizing influence of the street workers acting as middle-class role
 312 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

models. Unfortunately, the results were not encouraging, “All major

measures of violative behavior—disapproved actions, illegal actions,
during-contact court appearances, before-during-after appearances, and
project-control group appearances—provide consistent support for a find-
ing of ‘negligible impact’ ”’ (ibid., p. 187).
The most expensive and dramatic of modern social reform programs
aimed at delinquency prevention are described by Daniel Patrick Moyn-
ihan in his book Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding (1969). Although
this book is more generally concerned with the American “War on
Poverty,” Moynihan points out that an important model for these pro-
grams was a New York-based delinquency prevention effort, the Mobiliza-
tion for Youth Project (MFY). This project focused initially on the
problem of juvenile delinquency,using Cloward and Ohlin’s differential
opportunity theory of delinquency as its guide. As noted in Chapter 6,
|Cloward and Ohlin’s central thesis is that delinquents use desperately
|deviant measures in an effort to achieve the success goals widely shared in
| the larger society. The burden of the theory isthat opportunities must_ be
expanded so that lower-class youth can achieve success goals by legitimate
(a=
means. The initial MFY project was therefore organized around three
| priorities: (1) jobs for young people; (2) education for young people; and
| (3) community organization. The project was designed as a social experi-
ment: “‘From the outset it was understood that what came to pass in the 13
census tracts on the lower east side would have national significance”
(Moynihan, 1969, p. 59).
However, much was to happen between the design of the MFY project
and the appearance of its results. Juvenile delinquency, and its links to the
problems of employment and race, became a priority of the Kennedy
administration. Following Kennedy’s death, Lyndon Johnson picked up
this priority and the pace of its implementation. Thus before the MFY
project could be completed, much less evaluated, its translation of
differential opportunity theory into social policy became a basis for
national legislation.
However, even before the resulting War on Poverty legislation could
begin to take effect, the New York Daily News declared that the Mobiliza-
tion for Youth project had become “‘infested with subversives.” Significant-
ly, it was not the employment or education programs of MFY that drew the
wrath of the News; it was the community organization program, and its
confrontational tactics. Moynihan (ibid., p. 107) offers this analysis:
If [MFY] started out to create cooperative arrangements that would
open the neighborhood opportunity structures to deviant or po-
tentially deviant youth; in short order the opportunity structure
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 313

was being defined as a power structure, and itself accused of

deviance in the largest social sense of good and bad behavior... .
Reform inched toward revolution. Right or wrong, MFY did not
very long remain the carefully calibrated experiment it had set out
to be.
Moynihan (ibid., p. 112) goes on to suggest that “‘men such as Cloward
moved fairly rapidly from the effort to integrate the poor into the system to
an effort to use the poor to bring down the whole rotten structure.”
What is significant about the events in New York City is that they were
predictive of problems that were to beset the War on Poverty. Education
and job programs, as in the MFY project, received less emphasis than the
community organization efforts guided through Community Action Pro-
grams. Moynihan suggests that a four-stage sequence characterized such
programs:
1 A period of organizing, with much publicity and great expectations.
2 The beginning of operations, with the onset of conflict between the
agency and local government institutions, followed by even greater publici-_
ty.
3 A period of counterattack from local government.
4 Victory for the established institutions, followed by the ultimate
disappearance of the professional reformers.
Moynihan (ibid., p. 170) offers a cryptic synopsis of this unique period in
American government: ‘‘This is the essential fact: the government did not
know what it was doing... . The U.S. government at this time was no
more in possession of confident knowledge as to how to prevent
delinquency . . . than it was the possessor of a dependable formula for
motivating Vietnamese villagers to fight Communism.”
One clear difference between the community organization efforts that
often characterized the War on Poverty and those of the Chicago Area
Project we discussed earlier was the deemphasis in the latter program on
confrontational tactics. This difference became particularly apparent in the
focus of the objections of one of the Chicago Area Project’s most
aggressive young street workers, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s experiences in
this project became part of the basis for a famous book on community
organization, Reveille for Radicals (1969). In this book and in his conflicts
with the leadership of the project, Alinsky consistently insisted that
“confrontational tactics . . . were the only viable means of alleviating the
‘social disorganization’ which Shaw and the Chicago School of Sociology so
eloquently described” (Schlossman and Sedlak, 1983, p. 101). Shaw and
McKay adopted a much more pragmatic attitude.
 314 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

A recent reanalysis by Schiossman and Sedlak (1983) of materials from

the Chicago Area Project suggests that this program may, in retrospect,
deserve greater appreciation than it has received. Schlossman and Sedlak
focus particularly on the project’s work in the Russell Square neighbor-
hood of South Chicago in the 1930s and early 1940s. Between 1932 and
(1937, the Russell Square delinquency arrest rate was more than halved,
while in a comparable South Chicago neighborhood which the projectdid —
not serve, juvenile arrests did not decline at all. While at first Shaw and
McKay Rouen these findings conclusive evidence of success, they later
adopted a much more cautious attitude that eventually led them to eschew
any quantitative measures of impact at all. In doing so, Shaw and McKay
adopted a rather modern skepticism about official statistics. The following
statement by Shaw reflects this new, for Shaw and for 1954, attitude (cited
in Schlossman and Sedlak, 1983, p. 115).
Conclusive statistical proof to sustain any conclusion regarding
the effectiveness of this work in reducing the volume of delinquen-
cy is difficult to secure for many reasons. Trends in rates of
delinquents for small areas are affected by variations in the
definition of what constitutes delinquent behavior, changes in the
composition of the population, and changes in administrative
procedures in law enforcement agencies. We know from our
experiences in the inner city areas that there are a large number of
unofficial cases of unlawful behavior, and the extent to which
these unofficial cases become apprehended and dealt with as
official delinquents depends upon a wide variety of influences and
pressures which vary from one community to another.
Yet, as Schlossman and Sedlak are able to show in their detailed
reanalysis of archival materials, something does seem to have happened in
the Russell Square community. Shaw and McKay were able to generate an
impressive level of public participation in community organization and
delinquency prevention efforts, and they sustained a set of programs that
consistently directed attention to the problems of seriously delinquent
youth, all while avoiding the kinds of confrontations and conflicts that
disrupted and often destroyed federally sponsored programs for delinquen-
cy prevention during the 1970s. With such points in mind, Schlossman and
Sedlak (1983, p. 122) suggest that ‘it seems prudent not to dismiss out of
hand the initial statistical picture that Shaw presented of unique achieve-
ment in Russell Square; that picture may well have captured social reality
; to some degree.” As we survey the disappointing history of delinquency
treatment and prevention programs, this reanalysis suggests one kind of
program that may have achieved some level of success.
 LIVING WITH CRIME: THE FAILURES AND FUTURES OF PUNISHMENT, TREATMENT, PREVENTION 315

CONCLUSIONS
Although criminological research on the deterrent effects of criminal
sanctions and the evaluation of treatment and reform programs have
developed separately, there is no clear conceptual reason why this need be
the case. All constitute societal reactions to criminal behavior, and their
results can be considered in common. Doing so allows us to answer the
broader questions posed at the outset of this chapter.
How, then, could we best respond to crime? Ideally, our review would
_seem to encourage attempts to make criminal sanctions more certain, and ,~
to make community organization programs more pragmatic and sustained.
However, both suggestions are tentative and imprecise. Taking the findings
of recent research even this far strains its credibility, for we know little
about the conditions under which they apply, or the limits to which they
can be generalized. This is a common frustration in mixing the needs to
form. social policy with the constraints of social research (Schlegal, 1979).
However, as we noted at the outset of this volume, modern criminology
is likely to prove more satisfying when it seeks to understand the role of
crime in our society and societal reactions to it than when it seeks to predict
and control criminal behavior. The research we have considered in this
chapter speaks to the former issues as well as the latter. Indeed, capital
. punishment and social reform programs do much to define two ends of a
continuum in the societal response to crime. Both represent responses that
in the extreme might ultimately have substantial deterrent/preventive
effects on criminal behavior. That is, a much more draconian criminal-
justice system and/or a much less stratified social structure would seem
likely to produce notable changes in levels of crime. However, what is
perhaps more interesting and revealing is that we are unlikely to move very
far in either direction. To do so would be to redefine the kind of society in
which we live: a society that prides itself on avoiding totalitarian govern-
mental restraints, and simultaneously accepts high levels of social and
economic inequality. Such a society seems likely to endure much crime,
and we do. Meanwhile, we look for modest revisions in the social order,
including the use of penal sanctions, individual treatment, and social
reform, that will produce marginal reductions in crime. It is unclear how
much of this kind of knowledge we can generate, and how great the
marginal gains in reduced crime might be. Meanwhile, however, we are
learning much about the society that subsidizes our research.
 Vr, i a mL ie
a te ad = ™
- Hi i ire alan
Y i

or

F a
A

<< — = Ms s

Ant tes

iu i "'

. ; aod

: a <

>
:

Pa ’ P

&
Ss,

_——s
|

dt
lf~

.
S

Se -”

A m™
ios

: — a!
~ a =
»7 fi }
i i ms

Pew
" TT?
ia

58 Wer

“er
:
7
= m=

cr : oat
x ;
f

¥ 7
av’
7 Wis) é
i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, Richard L.
1973. “Law Books and Books About Law.” Stanford Law Review 26:175-228.
Addams, Jane
1912 A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil. New York: MacMillan.
Adler, Freda
1975 Sisters in Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1977 ‘The Interaction Between Women’s Emancipation and Female Criminality:
A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” International Journal of Criminology and Penology
5:101-112.
1980 ‘The Interaction Between Women’s Emancipation and Female Criminality:
A Cross-Cultural Perspective.’ In Susan Datesman and Frank Scarpitti (eds.),
Women, Crime and Justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Akers, Ronald
1977 Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, Calif.: Wads-
worth.
Akman, D. D., A. Normandeau, and S. Turner
1967 “The Measurement of Delinquency in Canada.” Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science 58:330-337.
Allen, Francis
1964 The Borderland of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Alinsky, Saul
1969 Reveille for Radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
Allen, Francis
1960 “Raffaele Garofalo.” In H. Mannheim (ed.), Pioneers in Criminology.
London: Stevens.
Almy, Frederic
1902 ‘Juvenile Courts in Buffalo.” Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 20:279-285.
Alschuler, Albert
1968 “The Prosecutor’s Role in Plea Bargaining.” University of Chicago Law
Review 36:50-112.
1975 “The Defense Attorney’s Role in Plea Bargaining.” Yale Law Journal
84:1179-1314.
1979 ‘Plea Bargaining and Its History.” Law and Society Review 13:211-246.,
317
318 | MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Anderson, Eric
1974 ‘Prostitution and Social Justice: Chicago, 1910-15.” Social Science Review
49:203.
Arendt, H.
1964 Rca in Jerusalem: A Report of the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking
Press.
Arnold, Thurman
1967 ‘‘The Criminal Trial.” In Herbert Jacob (ed.), Law Politics and the Federal
Courts. Boston: Little Brown.
Arnold, W. R.
1965 ‘‘Continuities in Research: Scaling Delinquent Behavior.’ Social Problems
13:59-66.
Bachman, G., P. O’Malley, and J. Johnston
1978 Youth in Transition, vol. Vi: Adolescence to Adulthood: Change and
Stability in the Lives of Young Men. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute
for Social Research.
Bailey, W. C.
1966 ‘Correctional Outcome: An Evaluation of 100 Reports.” Journal of Crimi-
nal Law, Criminology and Police Science 57:153-160.
Balbus, Isasac
1973 The Dialectics of Legal Repression. New York: Russell Sage.
Balkin, Steven
1979 “Victimization Rates, Safety and Fear of Crime.” Social Problems 26:343-
358.
Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J.
1973 “‘Values and Violence: A Test of the Subculture of Violence Thesis.”’
American Sociological Review 38(6):736-749.
Banfield, Edward
1968 The Unheavenly City. Boston: Little, Brown.
Barter, James, George Mizner, and Paul Werme
1970 ‘‘Patterns of Drug Use Among College Students: An Epidemiological and
Demographic Survey of Student Attitudes and Practices.’” Department of Psychia-
try, University of Colorado Medical School, unpublished.
Bartollas, C., S. Miller, and S. Dinitz
1976 Juvenile Victimization: The Institutional Paradox. Beverly Hills, Calif.:Sage.
Baumhart, Raymond C.
1961 ‘How Ethical Are Businessmen?” Harvard Business Review 39:5-176.
Beattie, J. M.
1974 ‘The Pattern of Crime in England, 1660-1800.”’ Past and Present 62:47-
95:
Beccaria, Cesare
1764 An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Philadelphia: Nicklin.
Becker, Howard
1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
1964 The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 319

Becker, Theodore
1974 “The Place of Private Police in Society: An Area of Research for the Social
Sciences.”’ Social Problems 21(3):438-455.
Bentham, Jeremy
1892 Introduction to the Principals of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Berg, Ivar
1982 “Social Control and the Economy: In Quest of Common Denominators.”’ In
Jack Gibbs (ed.), Social Control: Views from the Social Sciences. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage.
Berk, Richard, Harold Brackman, and Selma Lesser
1977 A Measure of Justice: An Empirical Study of Changes in the California Penal
Code, 1955-1971. New York: Academic Press.
Berkley, George
1969 “Europe and America: How the Police Work.’’ New Republic. August:15-
18.
Bernstein, Ilene Nagel, Edward Kick, Jan Leung, and Barbara Schulz
1977 “Charge Reduction: An Intermediary Stage in the Process of Labelling.
Criminal Defendants.” Social Forces 56(2):362-384.
Biderman, Albert
1981 “Sources of Data for Victimology.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-
ogy 72:789-817.
Biderman, A. D., et al.
1967 Report of a Pilot Study in the District of Columbia on Victimization and
Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Bierne, Piers
1979 “Empiricism and the Critique of Marxism on Law and Crime.” Social
Problems 26:373-385.
Birket-Smith, Kaj
1959 The Eskimos. London: Methuen.
Bittner, E.
1967 ‘The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping.”” American Sociologi-
cal Review 32:699-715.
Black, Donald
1970 ‘Production of Crime Rates.’’ American Sociological Review 35:733-748.
1971 “The Social Organization of Arrest.’’ Stanford Law Review 23:1087-1111.
1976 The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
1983 “Crime as Social Control.’’ American Sociological Review 48(1):34445.
Black, Donald, and Albert Reiss
1967 Studies in Crime and Law Enforcement in Major Metropolitan Areas.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
1970 ‘Police Control of Juveniles.”’ American Sociological Review 35:63—77.
Blackstone, Sir William
1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
320 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Blau, Judith, and Peter Blau

1982 “The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime.”
American Sociological Review 47:114-129.
Block, Alan ‘,
1977. ‘“‘Aw—Your Mother’s in the Mafia: Women Criminals in Progressive New
York.’’ Contemporary Crisis 1:5-22.
Blum, Richard H.
1969 Students and Drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blum, Richard, and Mary Lou Funkhauser
1965 ‘‘Legislators on Social Scientists and a Social Issue.”’ Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 1:84—-112.
Blumberg, Abraham S.
1967a ‘The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game.” Law and Society Review
1967b Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
1:15-39.
Blumstein, Alfred, and Jacqueline Cohen
1980 “Sentencing of Convicted Offenders: An Analysis of the Public’s View.”
Law and Society Review 14:223-262.
Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin
1978 “Summary.” In Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of
Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Bodine, George E.
1964 Factors Related to Police Dispositions of Juvenile Offenders. Syracuse:
University Youth Development Center.
Bohannan, Paul
1965 “The Differing Realms of the Law.” American Anthropologist 67(6) (pt.
2):33 (Special Publication).
Bonger, William
1916 Criminality and Economic Conditions. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bonnie, Richard J., and Charles H. Whitebread
1974 The Marihuana Conviction. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Bordua, David
1958-59 ‘Juvenile Delinquency and ‘Anomie’: An Attempt at Replication.”
Social Problems 6:230-238.
1961 “Delinquent Subcultures: Sociological Interpretations of Gang Delinquen-
cy.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 338:119-
136.
1969 “Recent Trends: Deviant Behavior and Social Control.’’ Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 369:149-163.
Bottomley, A. K.
1973 Decisions in the Penal Process. South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman.
Bowers, W. J.
1974 Executions in America. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Bowers, William and Glenn Pierce
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 321

1980 “Arbitrariness and Discrimination in Post-Furman Capital Cases.’’ Crime

and Delinquency 26:563-635.
Bowring, Sir John
1962
(1843) The Works of Jeremy Bentham. Published under the superintendance of his
executor, John Bowring. New York: Russell & Russell.
Boyd, Neil
1978 “An Examination of Probation.” Criminal Law Quarterly 355-381.
Braithwaite, John
1981 “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered.” American
Sociological Review 46:36-57.
Brenner, B.
1967 ‘Alcoholism and Fatal Accidents.” Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol
28:517-526.
Brenner, S. N., and E. A. Molander
1977 “Is the Ethics of Business Changing?” Harvard Business Review 55:57—71.
Brereton, David and Jonathan Casper
1981-82 “Does it Pay to Plead Guilty? Differential Sentencing and the Function-
ing of Criminal Courts.”” Law and Society Review. 16:45-70.
Brody, S. R.
1976 The Effectiveness of Sentencing: A Review of the Literature. Home Office
Research Report 35. London: H. M. Stationery Office.
Bryant, Keith L.
1968 “The Juvenile Court Movement: Oklahoma as a Case Study.” Social
Science Quarterly 49:368-376.
Buckner, H. Taylor
1970 “Transformations of Reality in the Legal Process.” Social Research
37(Spring):88-101.
Buffalo Law Review
1974 ‘Comment: The Plea Bargain in Historical Perspective.”’ 23:499.
Burgess, Ernest
1928 ‘Factors Determining Success or Failure on Parole.” In A.A. Bruce (ed.),
The Workings of the Indeterminate-Sentence Law and the Parole System in Illinois.
Springfield, Ill.: State of Illinois.
1931 Children’s Behavior Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burgess, Ernest, Joseph Lohman, and Clifford Shaw
1937 “The Chicago Area Project.”’ National Probation Association Yearbook.
Burgess, Robert L., and Ronald Akers
1966 ‘“‘A Differential Association—Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior.”
Social Problems 14:128-147.
Byrnes, Thomas
1969 1886 Professional Criminals of America. New York: Chelsea House.
Cameron, Mary Owen
1964 The Booster and the Snitch: Department Store Shoplifting. New York: Free
Press.
322 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Campbell, D. T.
1969 ‘Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24:409-429.
Campbell, D. T., and D. Fiske
1959 “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod
Matrix.’’ Psychological Bulletin 56:81—105.
Carroll, Leo
1974 Hacks, Blacks and Cons: Race Relations in a Maximum Security Prison.
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Carter, Robert, and Leslie Wilkins
1967 “Some Factors in Sentencing Policy.”’ Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo-
gy and Police Science 58:503-514.
Casparis, J., and E. W. Vaz
1973 ‘Social Class and Self-Reported Delinquent Acts Among Swiss Boys.”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 14:47-58.
Cavan, Ruth
1968 Delinquency and Crime: Cross Cultural Perspectives. Philadelphia: J.B.
Lippincott, Company.
Cernkovich, Stephen, and Peggy Giordano
1979 ‘‘A Comparative Analysis of Male and Female Delinquency.”’ Sociological
Quarterly 20:131-145.
Chambliss, William
1964 “A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy.” Social Problems
12:67-77.
1969 Crime and the Legal Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1973 ‘Functional and Conflict Theories of Crime.’”’ MSS Modular Publications
17:1-23.
1974 “The State, the Law and the Definition of Behavior as Criminal or
Delinquent.” In Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of Criminology. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill.
1976 “‘Functional and Conflict Theories of Crime: The Heritage of Emile
Durkheim and Karl Marx.” In William J. Chambliss and Milton Mankoff (eds.),
Whose Law, What Order? New York: Wiley.
Chambliss, William, and R. H. Nagasawa
1969 “On the Validity of Official Statistics: A Comparative Study of White,
Black, and Japanese High-School Boys.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 6:71-77.
Chambliss, William, and Robert Seidman
1971 Law, Order and Power. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Chapin, Bradley
1964 The American Law of Treason: Revolutionary and Early National Origins.
Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Chein, I., D. Gerard, R. Lee and E. Rosenfeld
1964 The Road to H: Narcotics, Delinquency and Social Policy. New York: Basic
Books.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 323

Chell, Eugene P.
1958 ‘Sunday Biue Laws: An Analysis of Their Position in Our Society.” Rutgers
Law Review 12:505-521.
Chilton, Roland J.
1964 “Continuity in Delinquency Area Research: A Comparison of Studies for
Baltimore, Detroit and Indianapolis.”” American Sociological Review 29:71-83.
1970 “Social Control through Welfare Legislation: The Impact of a State
‘Suitable Home Law’.” Law and Society Review 5:205-224.
Chowdrow, N.
1971 “Being and Doing: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Socialization of
Males and Females.” In Gornick and Moran (eds.), Women in Sexist Society. New
York: Basic Books.
Chute, Charles, and Marjorie Bell
1956 Crime, Courts and Probation. New York: Macmillan.
Cicourel, Aaron
1968 The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Clairmont, Donald H.
1963 Deviance Among Indians and Eskimos in Aklavik, N.W.T. Ottawa, Ontar-
io: Northern Coordination and Research Centre, Department of Northern Affairs
and National Resources.
1974 “The Development of a Deviance Service Centre.”’ In Jack Haas and Bill
Shaffir (eds.), Decency and Deviance. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
Clark, and Marshall
1967 A Treatise on the Law of Crimes. 7th ed. New York: Holt.
Clark, J. P., and E. P. Wenninger
1962 ‘‘Socio-Economic Class and Area as Correlates of Illegal Behavior Among
Juveniles.”” American Sociological Review 27:826-834.
Clarkia peanGales laa Litt
1966 ‘Polygraph and Interview Validation of Self-Reported Deviant Behavior.”
American Sociological Review 31:516-523.
Clark, John, and Richard Sykes
1974 “Some Determinants of Police Organization and Practice in a Modern
Industrial Bureaucracy.”” In Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of Criminology.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Clelland, Donald, and Timothy Carter
1980 ‘‘The New Myth of Class and Crime.” Criminology 18:319-336.
Clemmer, Donald
1940 The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Clinard, Marshall
1952 The Black Market: A Study of White Collar Crime. New York: Holt,
Rinehart.
1951 “Criminology as a field in American Sociology.” Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science. 41:549-577.
324 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Clinard, Marshall, and Peter Yeager

1980 Corporate Crime. New York: Free Press.
Cloward, Richard
1959 “Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behavior.’’ American Sociologi-
cal Review 24:164-176.
Cloward, Richard, and Lloyd Ohlin
1960 Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York:
ieee etess:
Cloyd, Jerald W.
1979 ‘Prosecution’s Power, Procedural Rights, and Pleading Guilty: The Prob-
lem of Coercion in Plea Bargaining Drug Cases.” Social Problems 26:452-466.
Cohen, Albert
1955 Delinquent Boys. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Lawrence, Marcus Felson, and Kenneth Land
1980 ‘Property Crime Rates in the United States: A Macrodynamic Analysis,
1949-77, with Ex Ante Forecasts for the Mid-1980s.”° American Journal of
Sociology 86:90-118. ,
Cohen, Stanley
1974 ‘Criminology and the Sociology.of Deviance in Britain: A Recent History
and a Current Report.” In P. Rock and M. McIntosh (eds.), Deviance and Social
Control. London: Tavistock.
Cohn, S. F., and J. E. Gallagher
1977 “Crime and the Creation of Criminal Law: A Partial Model.” British
Journal of Law and Society 4:220.
Coleman, James
1974 Power and the Structure of Society. New York: Norton.
Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution
1957 Home Office Report. London: H. M. Stationery Office.
Cook, Beverly B.
1977 “Public Opinion and Federal Judicial Policy.’’ American Journal of Political
Science 21:567—-600.
Cook, Shirley
1969 “Canadian Narcotics Legislation, 1908-23: A Conflict Model Interpreta-
tion.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 6:36—46.
1970 Variations in Response to Illegal Drug Use. Toronto: Alcoholism and Drug
Addiction Research Foundation. Unpublished manuscript.
Courtis, M. C.
1970 Attitudes to Crime and the Police in Toronto: A Report on Some Survey
Findings. Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology.
Cox, Sarah
1976 ‘‘Prosecutorial Discretion: An Overview.” American Criminal Law Review
13:383-434.
Cressey, Donald
1971 Other People’s Money: A Study of the Social Psychology of Embezzlement.
(1953) Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 325

1965 “The Respectable Criminal: Why Some of Our Best Friends Are Crooks.”
Transaction 2:12-15.
Crime in Eight American Cities
1974 National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Washington,
D.C.: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
Critchley, Thomas
1967 A History of Police in England and Wales. London: Constable.
Cumming, Elaine, Ian Cumming, and Laura Edell
1965 ‘Policeman as Philosopher, Guide and Friend.” Social Problems 12:276-
286.
Cummings, L. D.
1977 “Value Stretch in Definitions of Career among College Women: Horatio
Alger as Feminist Model.” Social Problems 25(1):65-74.
Currie, Elliot P.
1968 “The Control of Witchcraft in Renaissance Europe.’”’ Law and Society
Review 3:355.
Cuskey, Walter, T. Premkumar, and Lois Sigel
1979 “Survey of Opiate Addiction Among Females in the United States Between
1850 and 1970.” In Freda Adler and Rita Simon (eds.), The Criminology of
Deviant Women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, Arthur
1944 ‘Veblen’s Study of Modern Germany.” American Sociological Review
9:603-609.
Davis, Kingsley
1966 ‘Sexual Behavior.”’ In Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet (eds.),
Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
demnicurs bs
1967 ‘‘Delinquent Gangs in Cross-Cultural Perspective: The Case of Cordoba.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4:132-141.
Devlin, Lord Patrick
1965 The Enforcement of Morals. London: Oxford University Press.
Diana, Lewis
1960 “What Is Probation.”’ Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science. 51:189-208.
Dickson, Donald T.
1968 ‘Bureaucracy and Morality: An Organizational Perspective on a Moral
Crusade.” Social Problems 16:143-156.
Dinitz, Simon, Frank R. Scarpitti, and Walter Reckless
1962 ‘Delinquency Vulnerability: A Cross Group and Longitudinal Analysis.”
American Sociological Review 27:515-517.
Downes, David
1966 The Delinquent Solution: A Study in Subcultural Theory. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.
1978 “Promise and Performance in British Criminology.” British Journal of
Sociology 29:483-502.
326 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Durkheim, Emile
1951
(1897) Suicide. Translated by John A. Spaulding and ae Simpson. Glencoe,
Ils EreesPress:
1949 The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by Gedtee Simpson. Glencoe,
liiebreeseress:
Duster, Troy
1970 The Legislation of Morality: Law, Drugs and Moral Judgment. New York:
reeseresss
Ehrlich, I.
1975 “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and
Death.” American Economic Review 65:397.
Eisenstein, James, and Herbert Jacob
1977 Felony Justice. Boston: Little, Brown.
Elliot, D. S., and S. S. Ageton
1980 ‘Reconciling Race and Class Differences in Self-Reported and Official
Estimates of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 45:95-110.
Elliott, Mabel
1952 Crime in Modern Society. New York: Harper.
Emerson, Robert M.
1969 Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court. Chicago:
Aldine.
Emerson, Robert, and Sheldon Messinger
1977 ‘The Micro-Politics of Trouble.” Social Problems 25:121-134.
Empey, LeMar, and Maynard Erickson
1972 The Provo Experiment. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington.
Empey, LeMar, and Steven Lubeck
1971 The Silverlake Experiment. Chicago: Aldine.
Ennis, P.H.
1967 Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Report of a National Survey.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ericson, Richard
1982 Reproducing Order: A Study of Police Patrol Work. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Erikson, Kai
1966 Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. New York:
Wiley.
Erlanger, Howard
1974 “The Empirical Status of the Subculture of Violence Thesis.” Social
Problems 22:280-292.
1979 “Estrangement, Machismo and Gang Violence.” Social Science Quarterly
60(2):235-248.
Ermann, M. David, and Richard J. Lundman
1978 Corporate and Governmental Deviance: Problems of Organizational Behav-
ior in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
1980 Corporate Deviance. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 327

Erskine, H.
1974 “The Polls: Fear of Violence and Crime.” Public Opinion Quarterly
38:131-145.
Eysenck, Hans
1964 Crime and Personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Farberman, Harvey A.
1975 “A Criminogenic Market Structure: The Automobile Industry.” Sociologi-
cal Quarterly 16:438-457.
Farington, D. P.
1973 “Self-Reports of Delinquent Behavior: Predictive and Stable?” Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 64:99-110.
Feeley, Malcolm
1975 “The Effects of Heavy Caseloads.” Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
1979 The Process Is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage.
Feldman, Egal
1967 ‘Prostitution, the Alien Woman, and Progressive Imagination: 1910-15.”
American Quarterly 19:192-206.
Ferdinand, Theodore
1967 ‘The Criminal Patterns of Boston Since 1849.” American Journal of
Sociology 73:84-99.
1972 ‘Politics, the Police, and Arresting Practices in Salem, Massachusetts since
the Civil War.” Social Problems 19:572-588.
1973 “Criminality, the Courts, and the Constabulary in Boston: 1703-1967.”
Unpublished manuscript.
Ferdinand, Theodore, and Elmer Luchterhand
1970 “Inner-City Youth, the Police, the Juvenile Court, and Justice.” Social
Problems 17:510-527.
Ferri, Enrica
19S L917
1929 Criminal Sociology. New York: Appleton.
Feurverger, A. and C. Shearing
1982 ‘An Analysis of the Prosecution of Shoplifting,’ Criminology 20(2):273—
289.
Feyerherm, William
1981 ‘Gender Differences in Delinquency: Quantity and Quality,” In Lee H.
Bowker (ed.), Women and Crime in America. New York: Macmillan.
Fienberg, Stephen, and Patricia Grambsch
1979 “An Assessment of the Accuracy of ‘The Effectiveness of Correctional
Treatment’,” In L. Sechrest, S. O. White, and E. D. Brown (eds.), The
Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences.
Filler, Louis
1950 Crusaders for American Liberalism. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press.
Fisher, Sethard
1972 “Stigma and Deviant Careers in Schools.” Social Problems 20:78-83.
328 | MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Fishman, Mark
1978 “Crime Waves as Ideology.” Social Problems 25:531-543.
Foote, Caleb
1956 “Vagrancy-Type Law and Its Administration.” University of Pennsylvania
Law Review 104:603-650.
Foucault, Michel
1977 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan
Sheridan. New York: Pantheon.
Fox, Sanford
1970 “Juvenile Justice Reform: An Historical Perspective.’’ Stanford Law Re-
view 22:1187-1239.
Franklin, Alice
1979 ‘Criminality in the Work Place: A Comparison of Male and Female
Offenders.”’ In Freda Adler and Rita Simon (eds.), The Criminology of Deviant
Women. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Friedman, Lawrence
1979 “Plea Bargaining in Historical Perspective.
29
Law and Society Review
13:247-259.
Friedmann, Wolfgang
1959 Law in a Changing Society. London: Stevens.
1967 Legal Theory. London: Stevens.
Galliher, John F., James L. McCartney, and Barabara Baum
1974 “‘Nebraska’s Marijuana Law: A Case of Unexpected Legislative Innova-
tion.” Law and Society Review 8:441-456.
Galliher, John F., and Allyn Walker
1977 “The Puzzle of the Social Origins of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.”’ Social
Problems 24:367-376.
Garfinkel, Harold
1949 “Research Note on Inter- and Intra-Racial Homicides.”’ Social Forces
27:369-381.
1956 “Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies.’’ American Journal of
Sociology 61:420-424.
Garofalo, Raffaele
1914 Criminology. Boston: Little, Brown.
Geerken, Michael, and Walter Gove
1977 “Deterrence, Overload and Incapacitation: An Empirical Evaluation.”
Social Forces 56:424-447.
Geis, Gilbert
1960 “Jeremy Bentham.” In H. Mannheim (ed.), Pioneers in Criminology.
London: Stevens.
1962 “Toward a Delineation of White-Collar Offenses.” Sociological Inquiry
32:160-171.
Gibbons, Don
1974 “Say, Whatever Became of Maurice Parmelee, Anyway?” Sociological
Quarterly 15:405-416.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 329

1979 The Criminological Enterprise: Theories and Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Gibbons, Don, and Manzer Griswold
1957 “Sex Differences among Juvenile Court Referrals.” Sociology and Social
Research 42:106-110.
Gibbs, Jack
1975 Crime, Punishment and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier.
1977 “Social Control, Deterrence and Perspectives on Social Order.” Social
Forces 56(2):
1978 ‘Deterrence, Penal Policy, and the Sociology of Law.” In Rita Simon (ed.),
Research in Law and Sociology. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.
Gibbs, Jack, and Maynard Erickson
1976 “Crime Rates of American Cities in an Ecological Context.” American
Journal of Sociology 82:605-620.
Gillin, John L.
1926 Criminology and Penology. New York: Century.
Giordano, Peggy
1978 “Guys, Girls and Gangs: The Changing Social Context of Female Delin-
quency.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 69(1):126-132.
Giordano, Peggy, Sandra Kerbel, and Sandra Dudley
1981 “The Economics of Female Criminality: An Analysis of Police Blotters,
1890-1975.” In Lee H. Bowker (ed.), Women and Crime in America. New York:
Macmillan.
Glass, G. V., V. L. Willson, and J. Gottman
1975 The Design and Analysis of Time Series Experiments. Boulder: Colorado
Associated University Press.
Glueck, S., and E. Glueck
1930 500 Criminal Careers. New York: Knopf.
1950 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
Goffman, I.
1961 Asylums. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
1963 Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Gold, M.
1979 Delinquent Behavior in an American City. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.
Goldman, Nathan
1963 The Differential Selection of Offenders for Court Appearance. New York:
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Gordon, Robert
1967 “Issues in the Ecological Study of Delinquency.” American Sociological
Review 32:927-944.
Gove, Walter
1975 “Labelling and Mental Illness: A Critique.” In Walter Gove (ed.), The
Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective. New York: Sage.
330 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Graham, Hugh Davis, and Ted Robert Gurr

1969 The History of Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspec-
tives. New York: Praeger.
Graham, James M. .
1972 ‘Amphetamine Politics on Capitol Hill.” Transaction 9:14.
Grasmich, H. G., and H. Milligan
1976 ‘Deterrence Theory Approach to Socioeconomic Demographic Correlates
of Crime.”’ Social Science Quarterly 57:608-617.
Green, Edward
1970 ‘‘Race, Social Status and Criminal Arrest.” American Sociological Review
35:476-490.
Greenberg, David
1976 ‘On One-Dimensional Criminology.” Theory and Society 3(4):611-621.
1977 “The Correctional Effects of Corrections: A Survey of Evaluations.” In
D. F. Greenberg (ed.), Corrections and Punishment. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage.
1981 Crime and Capitalism. Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield.
Gulliver, P. H.
1969 “Introduction to Case Studies of- Law in Non-Western Societies.” In Laura
Nader (ed.), Law in Culture and Society. Chicago: Aldine.
Gurr, Ted Robert
1977 ‘“‘Crime Trends in Modern Democracies since 1945.” International Annals of
Criminology 16:41-85.
1979 ‘On the History of Violent Crime in Europe and America.” In Hugh D.
Graham and Ted R. Gurr (eds.), Violence in America: Historical and Comparative
Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage.
1980 Development and Decay: Their Impact on Public Order in Western
History”. In James A. Inciardi and Charies E. Faupel (eds.), History and Crime.
Beverly Hills, Calif.:Sage.
1981 ‘‘Historical Trends in Violent Crimes: A Critical Review of the Evidence.”
In M. Toary and N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice: Annual Review of Research.
3:295-353.
Gurr, Ted Robert, Peter Grabosky, and Richard Hula
‘977 The Politics of Crime and Conflict: A Comparative History of Four Cities.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Gusfield, Joseph R.
1963 Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Guyot, D.
1976 “What Productivity? What Bargain?” Public Administration Review
36:341.
Hackler, James
1966 “Boys, Blisters and Behavior-—The Impact of a Work Program in an Urban
Central Area.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3:155-164.
1971 “A Developmental Theory of Delinquency.’ Canadian Review of Sociology
and Anthropology 8(2):61-75.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 331

Hackler, James, and John Hagan

1975 “Work and Teaching Machines as Delinquency Prevention Tools: A Four-
Year Follow-up.” Social Sciences Review 49(1):92-106.
Hagan, John
1973 “Labelling and Deviance: A Case Study in the ‘Sociology ofthe Interesting.’”’
Social Problems 20(4):448-458.
1974 “Extra-Legal Attributes and Criminal Sentencing: An Assessment of a
Sociological Viewpoint.” Law and Society Review 8(3):357-383.
1975a “Explaining Watergate: Toward a Control Theory of Upperworld Crime.”
In Nicholas Kittrie and Jackwell Susman (eds.), Legality, Morality, and Ethics in
Criminal Justice. New York: Praeger.
1975b ‘Parameters of Criminal Prosecution: An Application of Path Analysis to a
Problem of Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police
Science 65:536-544.
1975c_ ‘The Social and Legal Construction of Criminal Justice: A Study of the
Pre-Sentencing Process.”’ Social Problems 22:620-637.
1977a ‘Criminal Justice in Rural and Urban Communities: A Study of the
Bureaucratization of Justice.”’ Social Forces 55:597-612.
1977b “Symbolic Justice: The Status Politics of the American Probation Move-
ment.” Sociological Focus 12:295-309.
1977c The Disreputable Pleasures. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
1980 “The Legislation of Crime and Delinquency: A Review of Theory, Method
and Research.” Law and Society Review 14(3):603-628.
1982 “The Corporate Advantage: The Involvement of Individual and Organiza-
tional Victims in the Criminal Justice Process.”’ Social Forces 60(4):993-1022.
1983 Victims Before the Law. Toronto: Butterworth.
Hagan, John, and Celesta Albonetti
1982 “Race, Class and the Perception of Criminal Injustice in America.”
American Journal of Sociology 88:329-355.
Hagan, John, and Ilene Bernstein
1979 ‘‘The Sentence Bargaining of Upperworld and Underworld Crime in Ten
Federal District Courts.”” Law and Society Review 13:467-478.
Hagan, John, and Kristen Bumiller
1983 “Making Sense of Sentencing: A Review and Critique of Sentencing
Research.” In Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Susan Martin, and Michael
Tonry (eds.), Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.
Hagan, John, Ron Gillis and John Simpson
1984 “The Class Structure of Gender and Delinquency: Toward a Power-Control
Theory of Delinquent Behavior.” Unpublished manuscript.
Hagan, John, John Hewitt, and Duane Alwin
1979 ‘Ceremonial Justice: Crime and Punishment in a Loosely Coupled System.”
Social Forces 58:506-527.
Hagan, John, and Jeffrey Leon
1977 “Rediscovering Delinquency: Social History, Political Ideology and the
Sociology of Law.” American Sociological Review 42:587-598.
332 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Hagan, John, and Ilene Nagel

1982 ‘White Collar Crime, White Collar Time: The Sentencing of White Collar
Criminals in the Southern District of New York.” American Criminal Law Review
20(2)259-301.
Hagan, John, Ilene Nagel, and Celesta Albonetti
1980 ‘The Differential Sentencing of White Collar Offenders in Ten Federal
District Courts.” American Sociological Review 45:802-820.
Hagan, John, and Alberto Palloni
1983 “The Sentencing of White Collar Offenders Before and After Watergate.”
Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, Detroit.
Hagan, John, Edward Silva, and John Simpson
1977. “Conflict and Consensus in the Designation of Deviance.” Social Forces
56(2):320-340.
Hagan, John, and John Simpson
1977 ‘Ties That Bind: Conformity and the Social Control of Student Discon-
tent.”’ Sociology and Social Research 61:520-538.
Hagan, John, John Simpson, and A. R. Gillis
1979 ‘The Sexual Stratification of Social Control: A Gender-Based Perspective
on Crime and Delinquency.” British Journal of Sociology 30(1):25-38.
Halevy, Elie
1955 The Growth of Philosophic Radicalism. Translated by Mary Morris. 3 vols.
Boston: Beacon.
Hall, Jerome
1952 Theft, Law and Society. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrili.
1960 General Principles of Criminal Law. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
1963 Comparative Law and Social Theory. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univer-
sity press.
1975 ‘Role of the Victim in the Prosecution and Disposition of a Criminal Case.”
Vanderbilt Law Review 28(October):931—985.
Haller, Mark
1970 “Urban Crime and Criminal Justice: The Chicago Case.” Journal of
American History 57:619-635.
1976 “Historical Roots of Police Behavior: Chicago, 1890-1925.” Law and
Society Review 10:303-323.
1979 “Plea Bargaining: The Nineteenth Century Context.’ Law and Society
Review 13:273-279.
Hannan, M.
1971 Aggregation and Disaggregation in Sociology. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books.
Harding, Alan
1966 A Social History of English Law. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Harno, Albert J.
1928 ‘The Workings of the Parole Board and Its Relation to the Courts.” Journal
of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology 19:83.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 333

Harring, Sidney
1977 ‘Class Conflict and the Suppression of Tramps in Buffalo, 1892-1894.” Law
and Society Review 11:873-911.
Harris, Anthony R.
1977 “Sex and Theories of Deviance: Toward a Functional Theory of Deviant
Type-Scripts.”” American Sociological Review 42:3-16.
Harris, George E.
1892 A Treatise on Sunday Laws. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers’ Cooperative
Publishing Co.
Hart viele A.
1963 Law, Liberty and Morality. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hartung, Frank E.
1950 “White-Collar Offenses in the Wholesale Meat Industry in Detroit.”
American Journal of Sociology 56:25-34.
Haskins, George Lee
1960 Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts. New York: Macmillan.
Hay, Douglas, Peter Linebaugh, John G. Rule, E. P. Thompson, and Cal
Winslow
1975 Albion’s Fatal Tree. London: A. Lane.
Healy, William
1915 The Individual Delinquent. Boston: Little, Brown.
Heinz, Anne, and Wayne Kerstetter
1979 ‘Pretrial Settlement Conference: Evaluation of a Reform in Plea Bargain-
ing.” Law and Society Review 13:349-366.
Heumann, Milton
1975 “A Note on Plea Bargaining and Case Pressure.” Law and Society Review
9:515-528.
1978 Plea Bargaining: The Experience of Prosecutors, Judges and Defense
Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heumann, Milton, and Colin Loftin
1979 ‘Mandatory Sentencing and the Abolition of Plea Bargaining: The Michi-
gan Felony Firearm Statute.” Law and Society Review 13:393-430.
Heyl, Barbara
1979 “Prostitution: An Extreme Case of Sex Stratification.” In Freda Adler and
Rita Simon (eds.), The Criminology of Deviant Women. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Hibbert, Christopher
1963 The Roots of Evil: A Social History of Crime and Punishment. Boston:
Little, Brown.
Hill, Gary D., and Anthony R. Harris
1981 ‘Changes in the Gender Patterning of Crime, 1953-77: Opportunity v.
Identity.”’ Social Science Quarterly 62(4):658-671.
Hills, S. L.
1971 Crime, Power and Morality. Scranton: Chandler.
334 = MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Hindelang, M. J.
1971 “Age, Sex and Versatility of Delinquent Involvement.” Social Problems
18:522-535.
1973 “Causes of Delinquency: A Partial Replication and Extension.” Social
Problems 20(4):471-487.
1974a ‘Decisions of Shoplifting Victims to Invoke the Criminal Justice Process.”
Social Problems 21:580-593.
1974b “The Uniform Crime Reports Revisited.” Journal of Criminal Justice
2(1):1-17.
1978 “Race and Involvement in Common Law Personal Crimes.” American
Sociological Review 43:93-109.
1979 ‘Sex Differences in Criminal Activity.”” Social Problems 27(2):143-156.
Hindelang, Michael, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis
1981 Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis
1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1973 ‘Procedural Rules and the Study of Deviant Behavior.” Social Problems
21:159-173.
1975 “Labelling Theory and Juvenile Delinquency: An Assessment of the
Evidence.” In Walter Gove (ed.), The Labelling of Deviance: Evaluating a
Perspective. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
1980 ‘‘Postscript to Labelling Theory and Juvenille Delinquency.” In W. R. Gove
(ed.), The Labelling of Deviance. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis, and Hanan Selvin
1967 Delinquency Research: An Appraisal of Analytic Methods. New York: Free
Press:
Hogarth, John
1971 Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Holmes, Kay Ann
1972 “Reflections by Gaslight: Prostitution in Another Age.” Issues in Criminol-
ogy 7:83-101.
Hood, Roger, and Richard Sparks
1970 Key Issues in Criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hopkins, Andrew
1975 “On the Sociology of Criminal Law.” Social Problems 22:608-619.
Horning, Donald N.
1970 ‘Blue-Collar Theft: Conceptions of Property, Attitudes Toward Pilfering,
and Work Group Norms in a Modern Industrial Plant.’’ In Erwin O. Smigel and H.
Laurence Ross (eds.), Crimes Against Bureaucracy. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Horowitz, Irving, and Lee Rainwater
1970 “Journalistic Moralizers.”’ Transaction 7(7):5.
Huber, Joan
1976 ‘“Toward a Socio-Technological Theory of the Women’s Movement.” Social
Problems 23(4):371-388.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 335

Hughes, Everett
1951 “Work and the Self.” In John H. Rohrer and M. Sherif (eds.), Social
Psychology at the Crossroads. New York: Harper & Brothers.
1958 Men and their Work. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press
1962 “Good People and Dirty Work.” Social Problems 10(1):3-11.
Humphreys, Laud |
1970 Tearoom Trade. Chicago: Aldine.
Hurst, J. Willard
1950 The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ianni, Francis
1972 A Family Business. New York: Russell Sage.
1974 Black Mafia. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ignatieff, Michael
1978 A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution,
1750-1850. New York: Pantheon.
1981 ‘State, Civil Society, and Total Institutions: A Critique of Recent Social
Histories of Punishment.” In Norval Morris and Michael Tonry (eds.), Crime and
Justice, vol. Il.
International Prison Commission
1904 Children’s Courts in the United States: Their Origin, Development and
Results. H.R. Doc. no. 701, 58th Cong., 2d sess.
Irwin, John
1970 The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Irwin, John, and Donald Cressey
1962 ‘‘Thieves, Convicts and the Inmate Culture.’ Social Problems 10:142-155.
Jackson, B.
1969 A Thief’s Primer. New York: Macmillan.
Jacobs, David
1980 ‘‘Marxism and the Critique of Empiricism: A Comment on Beirne.” Social
Problems 27:467-470.
Jacobs, James
1977 Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
1979 ‘Race Relations and the Prison Subculture.”’ In Norval Morris and Michael
Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice, vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Janowitz, Morris
1975 ‘Sociological Theory and Social Control.” American Journal of Sociology
81:82-108.
Jaspan, Norman, and Hillel Black
1960 The Thief in the White Collar. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Jeffrey, Clarence R.
1957 “The Development of Crime in Early English Society.” Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science 47(6):647-666.
Jensen, Gary
1969 ‘‘Crime Doesn’t Pay’: Correlates of Shared Misunderstanding. > Social
o

Problems 17:189-201.
336 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Jensen, G. F., M. L. Erickson, and J. P. Gibbs

1978 ‘Perceived Risk of Punishment and Self-Reported Delinquency.” Social
Forces 57:57-78.
Jensen, Gary, and Raymond Eve
1976 ‘Sex Differences in Delinquency: An Examination of Popular Sociological
Explanations.”’ Criminology 13:427-448.
Jensen, Gary, and B. Grant Stitt
1982 ‘Words and Misdeeds: Hypothetical Choices versus Past Behavior as
Measures of Deviance.” In John Hagan (ed.), Deterrence Reconsidered: Methodo-
logical Innovations. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Johnson, Alvin W.
1934 ‘Sunday Legislation.”” Kentucky Law Journal 23:131-166.
Johnson, R. E.
1980 ‘Social Class and Delinquent Behavior: A New Test.” Criminology
18:86-43.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss
1974 “Intimate Oppression.’’ Sociological Quarterly 15(2):302-314.
Katz, Jack
1979 ‘Legality and Equality: Plea Bargaining in the Prosecution of White-Collar
and Common Crimes.” Law and Society Review 13:431-460.
1980 “‘The Social Movement Against White-Collar Crime.” In Egon Bittner and
Sheldon Messinger (eds.), Criminology Review Yearbook, Vol. 2. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage.
Kelly, Delos
1976 ‘Track Position, School Misconduct, and Youth Deviance.’ Urban Educa-
tion 10:379-388.
Kelly, D. H., and W. T. Pink
1975 “Status Origins, Youth Rebellion and Delinquency: A Reexamination of the
Class Issue.”” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 4:339-347.
Kirkham, George L.
1974 ‘What a Professor Learned When He Became a ‘Cop.’”’ U.S. News and
World Report 76:70-72.
Kitsuse, John, and Aaron Cicourel
1963 “A Note on the Uses of Official Statistics.”” Social Problems 11:131-139.
Kitsuse, John, and David Dietrick
1959 “Delinquent Boys: A Critique.’’ American Sociological Review 24:208—
OHNE
Kleck, Gary
1981 “Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the
Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty.” American Sociological
Review 46:783-805.
Klein, Malcolm, and L. Y. Crawford
1967 “Groups, Gangs and Cohesiveness.’”’ Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 4:63-75.
Kobler, Arthur
1980 “Police Homicide in a Democracy.” In Richard Lundman (ed.), Police
Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 337

Kobrin, Solomon
1951 “The Conflicts of Values in Delinquency Areas.” American Sociological
Review 16:657-662.
1959 “The Chicago Area Project—A 25-Year Assessment.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 322:19-29.
Kornhauser, Ruth
1978 Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kratcoski, Peter, and J. Kratcoski
1975 “Changing Patterns in the Delinquent Activities of Boys and Girls: A Self
Reported Delinquency Analysis.” Adolescence 10:83-91.
Kraut, R. E.
1976 “Deterrent and Definitional Influences on Shoplifting.” Social Problems
23:358-368.
Krisberg, Barry
1972 Review of Tearoom Trade. Issues of Criminology 7:126-127.
Lacey, Forrest W.
1953. “Vagrancy and Other Crimes of Personal Condition.” Harvard Law Review
66:1203-1226.
LaFree, Gary
1980 “The Effect of Sexual Stratification by Race on Official Reactions to Rape.”
American Sociological Review 45:842-854.
Lander, Bernard
1954 Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Columbia.
Lane, Roger
1968 “Crime and Criminal Statistics in Nineteenth Century Massachusetts.’
Journal of Social History 2:156-163.
1974 “Crime and the Industrial Revolution: British and American Views.”
Journal of Social History 7:287-303.
1980 “Urban Police and Crime in Nineteenth-Century America.” Crime and
Justice 2:1-44.
Lemert, Edwin
1951 Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
1962 ‘Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion.” Sociometry 25:2-20.
1967 Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1970 Social Action and Legal Change: Revolution Within the Juvenile Court.
Chicago: Aldine.
Leon, Jeffrey
1975 Drug Related Deaths in Metropolitan Toronto. Toronto: Addiction Research
Foundation.
Lerman, Paul
1968 ‘Evaluative Studies in Institutions for Delinquency: Implications for Re-
search and Social Policy.” Social Work 13:55-64.
1975 Community Treatment and Social Control. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Letkemann, Peter
1973 Crime as Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
338 © MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Levin, Martin A.
1977. Urban Politics and the Criminal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Levy, Leonard W.
1963 Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American Hisar Legacy of
Suppression. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewis, Abram
1888 A Critical History of Sunday Legislation from 321 to 1888 A.D. New York:
Appleton.
Liebow, Elliot
1967 Tally’s Corner. Boston: Little, Brown
Linden, Eric
1976 ‘‘Religiosity and Drug Use: A Test of Social Control Theory.” Paper
presented at Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association meetings, Quebec
City, May.
Linden, Eric, and James Hackler
1973 ‘Affective Ties and Delinquency.” Pacific Sociological Review 16:27-46.
Lindesmith, Alfred R.
1947 Opiate Addiction. Bloomington, Ind.: Principia Press.
1957 “The British System of Narcotics Control.”” Law and Contemporary Prob-
lems 5:138.
1959 “Federal Law and Drug Addiction.’ Social Problems 7:48—57.
1967 The Addict and the Law. New York: Vintage Books.
1968 Addiction and Opiates. Chicago: Aldine.
Lindesmith A., and Y. Levin
1937 “The Lombrosian Myth in Criminology.” American Journal of Sociology
42:653-671.
Lizotte, Alan J.
1978 ‘‘Extra-Legal Factors in Chicago’s Criminal Courts: Testing the Conflict
Model of Criminal Justice.”’ Social Problems 25:564-580.
Lizotte, Alan, and David Bordua
1980 “Firearms Ownership for Sport and Protection: Two Divergent Models.”
American Sociological Review 45:229-244.
Lofland, John
1977 The Dramaturgy of State Executions. Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith.
Lombroso, Cesare
1911 Criminal Man, According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso. Summa-
rized by Gina Lombroso-Ferrero. New York: Putnam’s.
1918 Crime, Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little, Brown.
Lorber, J.
1975 “Beyond Equality of the Sexes: The Question of the Children.” Family
Coordinator 24:465472.
Lou, Herbert H.
1927 Juvenile Courts in the United States. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 339

Lubove, Roy
1962 ‘The Progressives and the Prostitute.’ Historian 24:308-330.
Lucas, Netley
1926 Crook Janes: A Study of the Women Criminals in the World Over. London:
Stanley Paul.
McCall, George, and J. L. Simmons
1969 Issues in Participant Observation: A Text and Reader. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
McCleary, R., B. C. Nienstedt, and J. M. Erven
1982 ‘Uniform Crime Reports as Organizational Outcomes: Three Time Series
Quasi-Experiments.” Social Problems 29:361-372. McClure Magazine.
McCord, Joan
1978 “A Thirty-Year Follow-Up of Treatment Effects.”” American Psychologist
33:284-289.
McCord, J. and W. McCord
1959 ‘‘A Follow Up Report on the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study.” Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 322:89-96.
McCord, William, Joan McCord, with Irving Zola
1959 Origins of Crime. New York: Columbia.
McDonald, Lyn
1976 The Sociology of Law and Order. London: Faber & Faber.
McEachern, A. W., and Riva Bauzer
1967 ‘Factors Related to Disposition in Juvenile Police Contacts.” In Malcolm
W. Klein (ed.), Juvenile Gangs in Context: Research, Theory and Action. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
McFarlane, George C.
1966 The Development of Probation Services in Ontario. Toronto: Queen’s
Printer.
McGaghy, Charles H., and Serge Denisoff
1973 ‘Pirates and Politics: An Analysis of Interest Group Conflict.” In R. Serge
Denisoff and Charles H. McGaghy (eds.), Deviance, Conflict and Criminality.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Madley, John
1965 “Probation.” In W. T. McGrath (ed.), Crime and Its Treatment in Canada.
Toronto: Macmillan.
Maine, (Sir) Henry James Sumner
1960 Ancient Law. London: Dent.
Mann, Kenneth, Stanton Wheeler, and Austin Sarat
1980 ‘Sentencing the White Collar Offender.”’ American Criminal Law Review
17(4):479.
Mannheim, H., and L. T. Wilkins
1955 Prediction Methods in Relation to Borstal Training. London: H. M. Station-
ery Office.
Martinson, Robert
1974 “What Works?—Questions and Answers About Prison Reform.” The
Public Interest 35:22-54.
340 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Marx, Karl
1853 “Capital Punishment.” New York Daily Tribune, reprinted in T.B.
Bottomure and M. Rubel (eds.), Karl Marx; Selected Writings in Sociology and
Social Philosophy. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Mather, Lynn
1973 ‘Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making
by Public Defenders in Los Angeles.”’ Law and Society Review 8:187-216.
1979 Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition.
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Matza, David
1964 Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley.
Mayhew, Henry
1862 London Labor and the London Poor. London: Griffin, Bohn.
Mead, George Herbert
1918 “The Psychology of Punitive Justice.” American Journal of Sociology
23:577-602.
Mennel, Robert M.
1973. Thorns and Thistles: Juvenile Delinquents in the United States, 1825-1940.
Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England.
Merton, Robert
1938 “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review 3:672-682.
1957 Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
1959 “Social Conformity, Deviation, and Opportunity Structures: A Comment
on the Contributions of Dubin and Cloward.” American Sociological Review
24:177-189.
Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan
1979 “‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremo-
ny.”’ American Journal of Sociology 83:340-363.
Mill, John Stuart
1859 “On Liberty.” In Max Lerner (ed.), Essential Works of John Stuart Mill.
New York: Bantam Books, 1961.
Miller, Walter
1958 “Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency.”
Journal of Social Issues 14(3):5-19.
1962 “The Impact of a ‘Total Community’ Delinquency Control Project.’ Social
Problems 10:168-191.
1973 “The Molls.”” Society 11:32-35.
Miller, Wilbur
1975 *‘Police Authority in London and New York City 1830-1870.” Journal of
Social History 8:81-101.
Millman, M.
1975 “She Did It All for Love: A Feminist View of the Sociology of Deviance.”
In M. Millman and R. M. Kanter (eds.), Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on
Social Life and Social Science. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press.
Mills, C. Wright
1943. “The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists.’ American Journal of
Sociology 49:165-180.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 341

1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Milton, Catherine H.
1972 Women in Policing. Washington: Police Foundation.
Moley, Raymond
1928 “The Vanishing Jury.” Southern California Law Review 2:97.
Monachesi, Elio
1960 “Cesare Beccaria.” In H. Mannheim (ed.), Pioneers in Criminology.
London: Stevens.
Monkkonen, Eric
1975 The Dangerous Class: Crime and Poverty in Columbus, Ohio, 1860-1920.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
1981 Police in Urban America, 1860-1920. New York: Cambridge.
Morris, Norval, and Gordon Hawkins
1969 The Honest Politician’s Guide to Crime Control. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Morris, Richard B.
1959 Studies in the History of American Law. Philadelphia: Mitchell.
Moynihan, Daniel P.
1969 Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. New York: Free Press.
Mueller, Gerhard O. W.
1961 Legal Regulation of Sexual Conduct. New York: Oceana.
Murray, Charles A., and Louis A. Cox
1979 Beyond Probation: Juvenile Corrections and the Chronic Delinquent. Bever-
ly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Musto, David F.
1973. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New Haven: Yale.
Myers, Martha
1979 “Offended Parties and Official Reactions: Victims and the Sentencing of
Criminal Defendants.” Sociological Quarterly 20:529-540.
Myers, Martha, and John Hagan
1979 ‘Private and Public Trouble: Prosecutors and the Allocation of Court
Resources.’ Social Problems 26:439-451.
Nagel, Ilene, and John Hagan
1983 ‘Gender and Crime: Offense Patterns and Criminal Court Sanctions.”
Crime and Justice: Annual Review of Research 4:91-144.
National Research Council
1976 Surveying Crime. Panel for the Evaluation of Crime Surveys. Washington:
National Academy of Sciences.
Nelson, Harold L.
1959 “Seditious Libel in Colonial America.’ American Journal of Legal History
3:160-172.
Nelson, William E.
1967 ‘Emerging Notions of Modern Criminal Law in the Revolutionary Era: An
Historical Perspective.”’ New York University Law Review 42:450-482.
Nettler, Gwynn
1974 “Embezzlement Without Problems.” British Journal of Criminology
14(1):70-77.
342 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

1978 Explaining Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1979 ‘Criminal Justice.” Annual Review of Sociology 5:27-52.
Neubauer, David
1974 Criminal Justice in Middle America. Morristown, N.J.:,General Learning
Press.
Newman, Donald J.
1956 ‘Pleading Guilty for Considerations: A Study of Bargain Justice.” Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 46:780-790.
1966 Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence without Trial. Boston:
American Bar Association.
Newman, Gramae
1976 Comparative Deviance. New York: Elsevier.
Noblet, George, and Janie Burcart
1976 ‘Women and Crime: 1960-70.” Social Science Quarterly 56:650-657.
Normandeau, A.
1966 “The Measurement of Delinquency in Montreal.” Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology and Police Science 57:172-177.
Nye, F. Ivan
1958 Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Nye, F. I., and J. F. Short
1957 “Scaling Delinquent Behavior.’ American Sociological Review 22:326-
3315
O’Connor, James R.
1973 The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Odegard, Peter H.
1928 Pressure Politics. New York: Columbia.
Packer, Herbert
1968 The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Palmer, Ted
1975 ‘“‘Martinson Revisited.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
12(2):133-152.
1978 Correctional Intervention and Research. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Panel on Research in Rehabilitive Techniques
1979 National Research Council. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Park, R.
1915 “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the City
Environment.” American Journal of Sociology 20:577-612.
1921 Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Parmelee, Maurice
1918 Criminology. New York: Macmillan.
Parker, Graham
1976a “The Juvenile Court Movement.’ University of Toronto Law Journal
26:140-172.
1976b “The Juvenile Court Movement: The Illinois Experience.” University of
Toronto Law Journal 26:253-306.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 343

Parsons, Talcott
1951 The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
1966 Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Paternoster, R., L. E. Saltzman, G. P. Waldo, and T. G. Chiricos
1982 ‘Estimating Perceptual Stability and Deterrent Effects: The Role of Per-
ceived Legal Punishment in the Inhibition of Criminal Involvement.” Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 74(1):270-297.
Peterson, Ruth, and John Hagan
1984 “Changing Conceptions of Race: Towards an Account of Anomalous
Findings of Sentencing Research.”’ American Sociological Review. 49:56-71.
Piliavin, Irving, and Scott Briar
1964 ‘Police Encounters with Juveniles.’ American Journal of Sociology 70:206-
214.
Pivar, David J.
1973 Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social Control, 1868-1900. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Platt, Anthony M.
1969 The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1974 ‘‘The Triumph of Benevolence: The Origins of the Juvenile Justice System
in the United States.” In Richard Quinney (ed.), Criminal Justice in America.
Boston: Little, Brown.
1975 “Prospects for a Radical Criminology in the U.S.A.” In Ian Taylor, Paul
Walton, and Jock Young (eds.), Critical Criminology. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Ploscowe, Morris
1960 “Sex Offenses: The American Legal Context.”’ Law and Contemporary
Problems 25:217-224.
Polk, Kenneth
1957-58 “Juvenile Delinquency and Social Areas.”’ Social Problems 5:214-217.
1983 “Curriculum Tracking and Delinquency: Some Observations.”’ American
Sociological Review 48:282-284.
Polk, Kenneth, and Walter Schafer
1972 Schools and Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Pollak, Otto
1961 The Criminality of Women. New York: A.S. Barnes.
Polsky, Ned
1969 Hustlers, Beats and Others. New York: Anchor Books.
Porter, John
1965 The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Porterfield, Austin
1943 ‘Delinquency and Its Outcome in Court and College.” American Journal of
Sociology 49:199-208.
1946 Youth in Trouble. Fort Worth, Tex.: Leo Potisham Foundation.
344 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Posner, Richard A.
1980 ‘Optimal Sentences for White Collar Criminals.”” American Criminal Law
Review 409-418.
Pound, Roscoe
1930 Criminal Justice in America. New York: Henry Holt.
1943. “A Survey of Social Interests.” Harvard Law Review 57:1-39.
Powers, Edwin
1966 Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts. Boston: Beacon Press.
Powers, Edwin, and Helen Witmer
1951 An Experiment in the Prevention of Delinquency. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Presidential Transcripts
1974 The White House Transcripts. New York: Viking Press.
Enices Jae.
1966 “A Test of the Accuracy of Crime Statistics.” Social Problems 14:214—
221;
Priestly, Phillip, Denise Fears, and Roger Fuller
1977 Justice for Juveniles: The 1969 Children and Young Persons Act: London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Quetelet, Adolphe
1842 A Treatise on Man. A facsimile reproduction of English translation of 1842
by Solomon Diamond. Gainesville, Fla.: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints,
1969.
Quinney, Richard
1964 ‘Crime, Delinquency, and Social Areas.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 1:149-154.
1969 Crime and Justice in Society. Boston: Little, Brown.
1970 The Social Reality of Crime. New York: Little, Brown.
1974 Critique of Legal Order. Boston: Little, Brown.
1975a “Crime Control in Capitalist Society: A Critical Philosophy.” In Ian
Taylor, Paul Walton, and Jock Young (eds.), Critical Criminology. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
1975b Criminology. Boston: Little, Brown.
Radelet, Michael
1981 ‘Racial Characteristics and the Imposition of the Deu Penalty.”’ American
Sociological Review 46:918-927.
Radzinowicz, Leon
1937 “Variability of the Sex Ratio of Criminality.” Sociological Review 29:76-
102.
1948 A History of English Criminal Law and Its Administration from 1750.
London: Stevens.
Rainwater, Lee
1970 Behind Ghetto Walls: Black Families in a Federal Slum. Chicago: Aldine.
Rawls, J.
1971 A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 345

Reasons, Charles
1974 “The Politics of Drugs: An Inquiry in the Sociology of Social Problems.”
Sociological Quarterly 15:381-404.
Reckless, Walter C.
1961 “A New Theory of Delinquency and Crime.” Federal Probation 25:42-46.
1973. The Crime Problem. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Reiss, Albert J.
1951 “Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.” American Journal of Sociology 57:115-
120.
1968 “How Common Is Police Brutality?” Transaction July/August 10-19.
197la “Systematic Observation of Natural Social Phenomena.” In Herbert
Costner (ed.), Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19716 The Police and the Public. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1974 “Discretionary Justice.”’ In Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of Criminology.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
1975 “Inappropriate Theories and Inadequate Methods as Policy Plagues: Self-
Reported Delinquency and the Law.” In N. J. Demerath III et al. (eds.), Social
Policy and Sociology. New York: Academic Press.
1981 ‘Foreword: Towards a Revitalization of Theory and Research on Victimiza-
tion by Crime.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72:704-713.
Reiss, Albert, and Albert Biderman
1980 Data Sources on White Collar Law Breaking. Washington: National Institute
of Justice.
Reiss, Albert, and David Bordua
1967 “Organization and Environment: A Perspective on the Municipal Police.”
In David J. Bordua (ed.), The Police: Six Sociological Essays. New York:
Wiley.
Reiss, Albert, and Albert Rhodes
>
1967 “The Distribution of Juvenile Delinquency in the Social Class Structure.
American Sociological Review 26:720-732.
Reitman, B.
1937 Sister of the Road: The Autobiography of Box-Car Bertha. New York:
Macaulay.
Rhodes, William
1978 Plea Bargaining: Who Gains? Who Loses? Promis Research Project No. 14.
Washington, D.C.: Institute for Law and Social Research.
Richardson, James
1970 The New York Police: Colonial Times to 1901. New York: Oxford University
Press.
1974 Urban Police in the United States. Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat
Press.
Roby, Pamela A.
1969 ‘Politics and Criminal Law: Revision of the New York State Penal Law on
Prostitution.” Social Problems 17:83-109.
1972 “Politics and Prostitution: A Case Study of the Revision, Enforcement and
346 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Administration of the New York State Penal Laws on Prostitution.” Criminology

9:425-447.
Ross, E. A.
1901 Social Control New York: Macmillan.
1907 Sin and Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ross, H. Laurence
1982 “Interrupted Time Series Studies of Deterrence of Drinking and Driving.”
In John Hagan (ed.), Deterrence Reconsidered: Methodological Innovations.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Ross, H., R. McCleary, and T. Epperlein
1982 “Deterrence of Drinking and Driving in France: An Evaluation of the Law
of July 12, 1978." Law and Society Review 16:345-374.
Rossi, Peter, Emily Waite, Christine Bose, and Richard Berk
1974 ‘The Seriousness of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differenc-
es.” American Sociological Review 39:224—-237.
Rothman, David
1971 The Discovery of the Asylum. Boston: Little, Brown.
1980 Conscience and Convenience: The Asylum and Its Alternatives in Progressive
America. Boston: Little, Brown. 2
Rubinstein, Michael, and Teresa White
1979 ‘Alaska’s Ban on Plea Bargaining.” Law and Society Review 13:367-383.
Rusche, Georg, and Otto Kirchheimer
1939 Punishment and Social Structure. New York: Columbia.
Sagarin, Edward
1973 “‘The Research Setting and the Right Not to Be Researched.” Social
Problems 21(1):52-64.
Savitz, L.
1958 “A Study in Capital Punishment.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology
and Police Science 49:338-341.
Schater, Stephen
1977 Victimology: The Victim and His Criminal. Reston, Va.: Reston.
Schauffler, Richard
1974 “Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression.” Crime and
Social Justice 1:58-61.
Schauffler, Richard, and Michael Hannigan
1974 “Criminology at Berkeley: Resisting Academic Repression, Part 2.” Crime
and Social Justice 2:42-47.
Schlapp, Max, and E. H. Smith
1928 The New Criminology. New York: Boni & Liveright.
Schlegel, Henry
1979 ‘American Legal Realism and Empirical Social Science: From the Yale
Experience.” Buffalo Law Review 28:459-.
Schlossman, Steven
1977 Love and the American Delinquent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schlossman, Steven, and Michael Sedlak
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 347

1983. The Chicago Area Project Revisited. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.
Schmeiser, Douglas
1972 “Indians, Eskimos and the Law.”’ Unpublished manuscript, Saskatoon:
University of Saskatoon.
Schmid, C. F.
1960a “Urban Crime Areas: Part I.” American Sociological Review 25:527-
542.
19605 “Urban Crime Areas Part I.’ American Sociological Review 25:655—
678.
Schrager, Laura S., and James F. Short
1978 “Toward a Sociology of Organizational Crime.” Social Problems 25(4):407-
419.
Schuessler, K. F.
1952 ‘‘The Deterrent Influence of the Death Penalty.”” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 284:54-62.
Schultz, J. L.
1973 “The Cycle of Juvenile Court History.” Crime and Delinquency 19:457-
476.
Schur, Edwin M.
1962 Narcotic Addiction in Britain and America: The Impact of Public Policy.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
1965 Crimes Without Victims. Englewood Clitfs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Schwartz, R. D., and S. Orleans
1967 ‘On Legal Sanctions.” University of Chicago Law Review 34:274-300.
Schwartz, Richard, and Jerome Skolnick
1964 ‘Two Studies of Legal Stigma.’’ In Howard Becker (ed.), The Other Side:
Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free Press.
Schwendinger, Herman, and Julia Schwendinger
1967 ‘Delinquent Stereotypes of Probable Victims.”” In M. W. Klein and B.
Meyerhoff (eds.), Juvenile Gangs in Context. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall.
1974 The Sociologists of the Chair. New York: Basic Books.
Scott, P. D.
1975 “Defenders of Order or Guardians of Human Rights?” In I. Taylor, P.
Walton, and J. Young (eds.), Critical Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
1956 ‘Gangs and Delinquent Groups in London.” British Journal of Delinquency
7:4-26.
Scull, Andrew
1976 “Madness and Segregative Controls: The Rise of the Insane Asylum.”
Social Problems 24(3):337-351.
1977 Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant—A Radical View.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Seagle, William
1941 The Quest for Law. New York: Knopf.
348 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Seidman, D.
1975 “The Urban Arms Race: A Quantitative Analysis of Private Arming.”
Ph.D. thesis, Yale University.
Seidman, David and Michael Couzens ,
1974 “Getting the Crime Rate Down: Political Pressure and Grine Reporting.”
Law and Society Review 8:457-493.
Sellin, Thorsten
1937. Research Memorandum on Crime in the Depression. New York: Social
Science Research Council, Bulletin 27.
1938 Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.
1960 “Enrico Ferri.”’ In H. Mannheim (ed.), Pioneers in Criminology. London:
Stevens.
1967 Capital Punishment. New York: Harper & Row.
1976 Slavery and the Penal System. New York: Elsevier.
Sellin, Thorsten, and Marvin Wolfgang
1964 The Measurement of Delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Shallo, J. P.
1933 Private Police. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social
Science.
Shapiro, Susan
1980 “Thinking About White-Collar Crime: Matters of Conceptualization and
Research.” In Research on White Collar Crime. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Justice.
Shaw, Clifford
1929 Delinquency Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1930 The Jack-Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1938 Brothers in Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shaw, C., and H. McKay
1931 Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency. National Commission of Law
Observance and Enforcement. Washington.
1942 Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
1969 Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Shaw, C., and Moore, M. E.
1931 Natural History of a Delinquent Career. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Shearing, Clifford, and Philip Stenning
1983 ‘Private Security: Implications for Social Control.’ Social Problems
30(S):493-S06.
Sherry, Arthur
1960 ‘“Vagrants, Rogues and Vagabonds—Old Concepts in Need of Revision.”
California Law Review 48:557-573.
Short, James, Ramona Rivera, and Ray Tennyson
1965 ‘Perceived Opportunities, Gang Membership, and Delinquency.” Ameri-
can Sociological Review February:56-67.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 349

Short, James, and Fred Strodtbeck

1965 Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Silberman, M.
1976 “Toward a Theory of Criminal Deterrence.” American Sociological Review
41:442-461.
Silver, A.
1967 “The Demand for Order in Civil Society: A Review of Some Themes in the
History of Urban Crime, Police, and Riot.” In David Bordua (ed.), The Police: Six
Sociological Essays. New York: Wiley.
Sinclair, Andrew
1962 Prohibition: The Era of Excess. Boston, Little, Brown.
Simmel, Georg
1950 ‘‘Quantitative Aspects of the Group.” In Kurt H. Wolff (ed.), The Sociology
of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Simon, David, and D. Stanley Eitzen
1982 Elite Deviance. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Simon, Rita
1975 Women and Crime. Lexington, Mass.:
1976 ‘“‘American Women and Crime.”’ Annals AAPSS 423:31-46.
Skogan, Wesley
1975 *‘Measurement Problems in Official and Survey Crime Rates.”’ Journal of
Criminal Justice 3:17-32.
Skolnick, Jerome
1975 Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York:
Wiley.
Smart, C.
1976 Women, Crime and Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Smicel, EO rand He I) Ross
1970 Crimes Against Bureaucracy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Smith, Douglas, and Christy Visher
1980 ‘Sex and Involvement in Deviance/Crime: A Quantitative Review of the
Empirical Literature.”” American Sociological Review 45(4):691—701.
1982 ‘Street Level Justice: Situational Determinants of Police Arrest Decisions.”
Social Problems 29:167-177.
Spector, Malcolm
1976 “Labeling Theory in Social Problems: A Young Journal Launches a New
Theory.” Social Problems 24:69-75.
Spitzer, Steven
1975 ‘Toward a Marxian Theory of Deviance.” Social Problems 22:638-651.
Spitzer, Steven, and Andrew Scull
1977. “Privatization and Capitalist Development: The Case of the Private Police.
Social Problems 25(1):18-29.
Stanko, Elizabeth
1977 “These Are the Cases That Try Themselves.” Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Graduate School, City University of New York.
350 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Stapleton, Vaughn, David Aday, and Jeanne Ito

1982 “An Empirical Typology of American Metropolitan Juvenile Courts.”
American Journal of Sociology 88:549-564.
Stark, R.
1979 ‘‘Whose Status Counts? Comment on Tittle, Villemez and Smith.” Ameri-
can Sociological Review 44:668-669.
Steffensmeier, D.
1978 ‘Crime and the Contemporary Woman: An Analysis of Changing Levels of
Female Property Crime, 1969-75.” Social Forces 57:566-584.
1980 ‘Sex Differences in Patterns of Adult Crimes, 1965-77: A Review and
Assessment.” Social Forces 58:1080—1108.
Stephen, James Fitzjames
1883 A History of the Criminal Law of England. London.
Stinchombe, Arthur
1963 “Institutions of Privacy in the Determination of Police Administrative
Practice.’’ American Journal of Sociology 69:150-160.
1964 Rebellion in a High School. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
Stone, Christopher
1975 Where the Law Ends: The Social Control of Corporate Behavior. New York:
Harper & Row.
Stone, Julius
1950 The Province and Function of Law. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
Styron, William
1967 The Confessions of Nat Turner. New York: Random.
Suchman, Edward
1968 ‘The Hang-Loose Ethic and the Spirit of Drug Use.” Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 9(2):146-155.
Sudnow, David
1965 ‘‘Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public
Defender Office.”’ Social Problems Winter:255—276.
Sumner, W. G.
1960 Folkways. New York: Mentor.
(1906)
Sutherland, Edwin
1924 Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
1940 ‘“White-Collar Criminality.”” American Sociological Review 5:1-12.
1945 “Is “White Collar Crime’ Crime?” American Sociological Review 10:132-
139,
1949 White Collar Crime. New York: Dryden.
1950 “The Sexual Psychopath Laws.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science 40:543-554.
1951 “The Diffusion of Sexual Psychopath Laws.” American Journal of Sociology
56:142-148.
Sutherland, Edwin, and Donald Cressey
1966 Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Suttles, Gerald
1968 Social Order of the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 351

Swanson, Alan H.
1960 “Sexual Psychopath Statutes: Summary and Analysis.” Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science 51:215-227.
Swartz, Joel
1975 “Silent Killers at Work.” Crime and Social Justice. 3:15—20.
Swigert, Victoria Lynn, and Ronald A. Farrell
1978 “Normal Homicides and the Law.” American Sociological Review 42:16-
SA:
1980 ‘‘Corporate Homicide: Definitional Processes in the Creation of Deviance.”
Law and Society Review 15(1):161-182.
Sykes, Gresham
1958 The Society of Captives. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Sykes, Gresham, and John Clark
1975 “A Theory of Deference Exchange in Police-Civilian Encounters.” Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology 81(3):584—600.
Sykes, Gresham, and David Matza
1957 ‘“Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” American
Sociological Review 22:664-670.
1961 ‘Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values.” American Sociological
Review 26:712-719.
Sykes, Gresham, and Sheldon Messinger
1960 “The Inmate Social System” In Richard Cloward (ed.), Theoretical Studies
in the Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research
Grant.
Sylvester, Sawyer
1972 The Heritage of Modern Criminology. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.
Tannenbaum, Franklin
1938 Crime and the Community. Boston: Ginn.
Tappan, Paul W.
1947 “Who Is the Criminal?” American Sociological Review 12:96-102.
1950 ‘‘Sexual Offender Laws and Their Administration.”’ Federal Probation 33.
1960 Crime, Justice and Corrections. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young
1973 The New Criminology: Fora Social Theory of Deviance. London, Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
1975 Critical Criminology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Teevan, J.
1976a ‘Subjective Perception of Deterrence (Continued).”’ Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 13:155-164.
1976b ‘Deterrent Effects of Punishment: Subjective Measures (Continued).”’
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections 18:152-160.
Terry, Robert M.
1965 “The Screening of Juvenile Offenders: A Study in the Societal Response to
Deviant Behavior.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin.
Thayer, James Bradley
1898 A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law. Boston: Little,
Brown.
352 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Thomas, Charles, Robin Cage, and Samuel Foster

1976 ‘Public Opinion on Criminal Law and Legal Sanctions: An Examination of
Two Conceptual Models.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67:110-
116.
Thomas, W. I.
1909 Source Book for Social Origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1967 The Unadjusted Girl. New York: Harper & Row Torchbooks.
(1923)
Thompson, Edward Palmer
1975 Whigs and Hunters. London: Allen Lane.
Thompson, Hunter
1967 Heli’s Angels. New York: Ballantine.
Thornberry, Terrence, and Margaret Farnworth
1982 ‘Social Correlates of Criminal Involvement: Further Evidence on the
Relationship Between Social Status and Criminal Behavior.’ American Sociologi-
cal Review 47:505-S18.
Thrasher, Frederick M.
1937 The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tutti Warn yale:
1979 ‘The Coming Redefinitions of Crime: An Anarchist Perspective.”
Social Problems 26:392-402.
Timasheff, N. S.
1941a One Hundred Years of Probation: 1841-1941. New York: Fordham Univer-
sity Press.
1941b ‘Probation in Contemporary Law.” New York University Law Quarterly
Review 18:498-532.
Timberlake, James H.
1963 Prohibition and the Progressive Movement: 1900-1920. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard.
little Cx Re
1977 “Sanction Fear and the Maintenance of Social Order.” Social Forces
55:579-596.
1980 Sanctions and Social Deviance. New York: Praeger.
stittle: @ SRerandiCsHeleocan
1973 “Sanctions and Deviance: Evidence and Remaining Questions.’ Law and
Society Review 7:371-392.
Tittle, Charles, and A. R. Rowe
1973. “Moral Appeal, Sanction Threat and Deviance: An Experimental Test.”
Social Problems 20:488-498.
Tittle, C. R. and W. J. Villemez
1978 “Social Class and Criminality.”’ Social Forces 56:474—-502.
Tittle, C.R., W.J. Villemez and D. Smith ‘
1978 “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the
Empirical Evidence.”’ American Sociological Review 43:643-656.
Toby, Jackson
1957a_ “Social Disorganization and Stake in Conformity: Complementary Factors
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 353

in the Predatory Behavior of Young Hoodlums” Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology and Police Science 48:12-17.
1957b “The Differential Impact of Family Disorganization.” American Sociologi-
cal Review 22:505-512.
Towle, Charlotte
1973 Common Human Needs. London: Allen & Unwin.
tral EDs
1899 Social England. New York: Putnam & Sons.
Train, Arthur
1924 The Prisoner at the Bar. New York: Scribner’s.
Trasler, Gordon
1962 The Explanation of Criminality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Turk, Austin
1969 Criminality and the Legal Order. Chicago: Rand McNally.
1975 **Prospects and Pitfalls for Radical Criminalogy: A Critical Response to
Platt.”’ Crime and Social Justice 4:41-42.
1976a ‘‘Law as a Weapon in Social Conflict.’”’ Social Problems 23:276-291.
1976b “Law, Conflict, and Order: From Theorizing Toward Theories.”’ Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology 13(3):282-294.
Turner, George Kibbe
1907 “The City of Chicago: A Study of Great Immoralities.”” McClure’s Magazine
April 575.
Udry, J. R.
1974 The Social Context of Marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Uhlman, Thomas and Darlene Walker
1979 “A Plea is no Bargain: The Impact of Case Disposition on Sentencing.”
Social Science Quarterly 60:218-224.
1980 ‘He Takes Some of My Time; I take some of, His: An Analysis of Judicial
Sentencing Patterns in Jury Cases.’ Law and Society: Review 14:323-341.
U.S. Department of Justice
1975 Criminal Victimization Surveys in 13 American Cities. U.S. Goverment
Printing Office.
Vallee, F. G.
1962 Kabloona and Eskimo in the Central Keewatin. Ottawa: Northern Coordina-
tion and Research Centre, Department of Northern Affairs and National Re-
sources.
Vaz, Edward
1962 ‘Juvenile Gang Delinquency in Paris.” Social Problems 10:23-31.
1965 ‘‘Middle-Class Adolescents: Self-Reported Delinquency and Youth Culture
Activities.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 2(1):52-70.
1966 “Self Reported Delinquency and Socio-Economic Status.” Canadian Jour-
nal of Criminology and Corrections 8:20-27.
1967 Middle Class Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Harper & Row.
Veblen, Thorsten
1967 The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Viking Press.
(1899)
354 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

Velez-Diaz, A., and E. I. Megargee

1970 “An Investigation of Differences in Value Judgements Between Youthful
Offenders and Non-Offenders in Puerto Rico.” Journal of Criminal Law, Crimi-
nology and Police Science 61:549-553.
Vold, George
1958 Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Von Hoffman, Nicholas
1970 ‘Sociological Snoopers.”’ Transaction 7(7):4.
Wahl, Albert, and Daniel Glaser
1963 ‘Pilot Time Study of the Federal Probation Officer’s Job.”’ Federal Proba-
tion 27:20-25.
Waldo, Gordon P., and T. G. Chiricos
1972 ‘Perceived Penal Sanction and Self-Reported Criminality: A Neglected
Approach to Deterrence Research.” Social Problems 19:522-540.
Wallace, John
1974 “Probation Administration.” In Daniel Glaser (ed.), Handbook of Crimi-
nology, Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wallerstein, J. S., and C. J. Wyle
1947 “Our Law-Abiding Law-Breakers.”’ Probation 25:107-112.
Ward, David, Maurice Jackson, and Renee Ward
1969 Crimes of Violence by Women. Crimes of Violence V.3, Appendix 17.
Washington: President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice.
Waterman, Willoughby
1932 Prostitution and Its Repression in New York City, 1900-1931. New York:
Columbia.
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
1959 Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam.
Weeks, H. Ashley
1958 Youthful Offenders at Highfields. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Weick, K.
1976 ‘Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative
Science Quarterly 21:1-18.
Weinberg, Martin, and Colin Williams
1975 “Gay Baths and tha Social Organization of Impersonal Sex.’’ Social
Problems 23:124-136.
Wellford Charles
1975 “Labelling Theory and Criminology: An Assessment.” Social Problems
22:332-345.
Westin, Allan F.
1962 “Bookies and ‘Bugs’ in California.” In Allan Westin (ed.), The Uses of
Power: Seven Case Studies in American Politics. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Westley, William
1953 “Violence and the Police.” American Journal of Sociology 59:34-41.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 355

1970 Violence and the Police: A Sociological Study of Law, Custom, and
Morality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wheeler, Stanton
1968 Controlling Delinquents. New York: Wiley.
1976 “Trends and Problems in the Sociological Study of Crime.” Social Problems
23:525-534.
Wheeler, Stanton, Edna Bonacich, Richard Cramer, and irving K. Zola
1968 “Agents of Delinquency Control.” In Stanton Wheeler (ed.), Controlling
Delinquents. New York: Wiley.
Wheeler, Stanton, and Mitchell Lewis Rothman
1982 ‘The Organization as Weapon in White-Collar Crime.” Michigan Law
Review 80(7):1403-1426.
Wheeler, Stanton, David Weisbord, and Nancy Bode
1982 ‘Sentencing the White Collar Offender: Rhetoric and Reality.”” American
Sociological Review 47:641-659.
Whitelock, Dorothy
1952 The Beginnings of English Society. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Whyte, William F.
1955 Street Corner Society. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wiatrowski, Michael, David Griswold, and Mary Roberts
1981 ‘‘Social Control Theory and Delinquency.” American Sociological Review
46:525-541.
Wiatrowski, Michael, Stephen Hansell, Charles Massey, and David Wilson
1982 “Curriculum Tracking and Delinquency.” American Sociological Review
47:151-160.
Wilkins, Leslie
1964 Social Deviance. London: Tavistock.
Wilkinson, Karen
1974 “The Broken Family and Juvenile Delinquency: Scientific Explanation or
Ideology.”’ Social Problems 21(5):726-739.
Wilson, James Q.
1968a ‘“‘The Police and the Delinquent in Two Cities.” In Stanton Wheeler (ed.),
Controlling Delinquents. New York: Wiley.
1968b Varieties of Police Behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
1975 Thinking About Crime. New York: Basic Books.
1978 The Investigators. New York: Basic Books.
1980 ‘“‘What Works’ Revisited: New Findings on Criminal Rehabilitation.”
Public Interest 61:3-17.
Wise, Nancy
1967 “Juvenile Delinquency among Middle Class Girls.” In Edmund Vaz (ed.),
Middle Class Delinquency. New York: Harper & Row.
Wolfgang, Marvin
1958 Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
1960 “Cesare Lombroso.” In H. Mannheim (ed.), Pioneers in Criminology.
London: Stevens.
356 MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

1963 “Criminology and the Criminologist.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminolo-

gy and Police Science 54:155-162.
Wolfgang, Marvin, and Franco Ferracuti
1967 The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock.
Wolfgang, Marvin, and Mark Riedel
1973 “Race, Judicial Discretion, and the Death Penalty.” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science. 407:119.
Woodmansee, John
1975 The World of aGrant Corporation: A Report from the G.E. Project. Seattle:
North Country.
Wrong, D
1961 “The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology.”” American
Sociological Review 26:183-93.
Yablonsky, Lewis
1959 The Violent Gang. New York: Macmillan.
Yinger, J. M.
1960 ‘‘Contraculture and Subculture.”’ American Sociological Review 25:625-
635.
Young, Paul
1976 ‘A Sociological Analysis of the Early History of Probation.” British Journal
of Law and Society 3:44-58.
Zatz, Marjorie and John Hagan
1984 ‘Crime, Time and Punishment.’ In James Fox (ed.), Criminological
Research. New York: Plenum.
Zeisel, H.
1976 ‘“The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: Facts v. Faiths.”’ In P. Kurland
(ed.), The Supreme Court Review. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ziegenhagan, Eduard A.
1977 Victims, Crime and Social Control. New York: Praeger.
Znaniecki, Florian
1934 The Method of Sociology. New York: Rinehart.
NAME INDEX

Addams, Jane, 88 Blackstone, William, 12

Adler, Freda, 122, 129, 266, 274 Blau, Judith, 198-199
Ageton, S. S., 116, 120 Blau, Peter, 198-199
Akers, Ronald, 168-170 Block, Alan, 133
Akman, D. D., 53 Blum, Richard H., 122
Albonetti, Celesta, 196, 229, 265 Blumberg, Abraham S., 251-253,
Alinsky, Saul, 313 255
Allen, Francis, 22, 41 Blumstein, Alfred, 54,302—305
Almy, Frederick, 81 Bode, Nancy, 286
Alschuler, Albert, 247-250, 257, 259 Bodine, George E., 241
Alwin, Duane, 232, 261—262 Bohannan, Paul, 62
Anderson, Eric, 84, 87, 88 Bonacich, Edna, 259, 289
Arendt, Hannah, 288 Bonger, William, 113, 220
Arnold, Thurman, 262 Bonnie, Richard J., 68—71, 73, 74, 77
Arnold, W.R., 116 Bordua, David, 2, 28,47, 114, 152,
153, 196, 207, 237, 240-241,
271
Bachmann, G., 103 Bose, Christine, 53, 172, 182-183
Bailey, W. C., 308 Bottomly, A. K., 251
Balbus, lsaac, 224-226, 228, 263 Bowers, William J., 264, 290, 304
Balkin, Steven, 2 Bowring, Sir John, 17
Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J., 183 Boyd, Neil, 78
Banfield, Edward, 3, 179-182, 196 Brackman, Harold, 52,70
Barter, James, 122 Braithwaite, John, 114-115
Bartollas, C., 229 Brenner, B., 97
Baum, Barbara, 70 Brenner, S. N.,279
Baumhart, Raymond C., 279 Brereton, David, 255
Bauzer, Riva, 241 Briar, Scott, 239-240
Beattie, J. M., 110 Brody, S. R., 308
Beccaria, Cesare, 13—15 Bryant, Keith L., 79
Becker, Howard, 47, 70, 72, 204-205, 269 Buckner, H. Taylor, 238
Becker, Thecedore, 97 Buffalo Law Review, 247
Bell, Marjorie, 260 Bumiller, Kristen, 263
Bentham, Jeremy, 13-17 Burcart, Janie, 129
Berg, lvar, 286 Burgess, Ernest, 27, 311
Berk, Richard, 52, 53, 90, 172, 182-183 Burgess, Robert L., 168
Berkley, George, 243 Byrnes, Thomas, 133
Bernstein, Ilene Nagel, 61, 256-257, 262
Biderman, A. D., 99
Bierne, Piers, 226 Cage, Robin, 54
Birket-Smith, Kaj, 8 Cameron, Mary Owen, 97, 132
Black, Donald, 6, 49, 93, 237, 240-243, Campbell, D. T., 93, 96, 103
268-270 Carroll, Leo, 229
Black, Hillel, 97 Carter, Robert, 261

357
358 NAME INDEX

Carter, Timothy, 120 Edell, Laura, 236

Caspar, Jonathan, 255 Ehrlich, lsaac, 304
Casparis, J., 115, 116 Eisenstein, James, 232, 252, 255, 263
Cavan, Ruth, 7 Eitzen, D. Stanley, 281—282
Cernkovich, Stephen, 131 Elliot, D. S., 116, 120
Chambliss, William, 29,37, 63,65—-67, Elliott, Mabel,4, 26
120, 214, 219, 224, 254, 269 Emerson, Robert M.,:251
Chein, |., 256 Empey, LeMar, 307
Chilton, Ronald J., 114, 153 Ennis, P. H., 99, 100, 106
Chiricos, T. G., 304 Erickson, Maynard L., 94, 303-304,
Chowdrow, N., 271 307
Chute, Charles, 260 Ericson, Richard, 242—243
Cicourel, Aaron, 93, 205—206, 251, Erikson, Kai, 208—210
260 Erlanger, Howard, 183—186
Clairmont, Donald H., 7,38-—39 Ermann, M. David, 137,275
Clark, John P., 12, 103, 115, 116, 236—237, Erskine, H., 2
240 Erven, J. M., 93, 95-96
Clelland, Donald, 298 Eve, Raymond, 131
Clemmer, Donald, 298 Eysenck, Hans, 168
Clinard, Marshall, 26, 135-141, 266-267,
275, 277-278
Cloward, Richard, 194—196, 200, 269, 312, Farberman, Harvey A., 280
313 Farington, D.P., 103
Cloyd, Jerald W., 256 Farnsworth, Margaret, 120
Cohen, Albert, 187-189 Farrell, Ronald A., 162-163, 263
Cohen, Jacqueline, 54, 302-305 Feeley, Malcolm, 257—259
Cohen, Lawrence, 112-113 Feldman, Egal, 84, 87
Cohen, Stanley, 31 Felson, Marcus, 112-113 :
Coleman, James, 275 Ferdinand, Theodore, 107—108, 240, 241,
Cook, Beverly B., 61 247
Cook, Shirley, 69-71 Ferracuti, Franco, 181-182
Courtis, M., 2 Ferri, Enrica, 19, 23-26
Couzens, Michael, 92—93, 96 Feuerverger, A., 97
Cox, Louis A., 309 Feyerherm, William, 131, 132
Cox, Sarah, 251 Fienberg, Stephen, 308
Cramer, Richard, 259, 289 Filler, Louis, 85
Crawford, L. Y., 190 Fisher, Sethard, 207
Cressey, Donald, 39, 156, 158—161, 299 Fishman, Mark, 208, 210-211
Crime in Eight American Cities, 99 Fiske, D., 93
Critchley, Thomas, 234 Foster, Samuel, 54
Cumming, Elaine, 236 Foucault, Michel, 291, 292
Cummings, lan, 236 Fox, Sanford, 78, 80
Cummings, L. D., 271 Franklin, Alice, 132
Cuskey, Walter, 40 Friedman, Lawrence, 248, 259
Friedmann, Wolfgang, 36, 62
Davis, Arthur, 60, 160
Davis, Kingsley, 84, 87
deFleur, L. B., 190 Galliher, John F., 70, 73
Devlin, Patrick, 34,35, 37 Garfinkel, Harold, 205, 274
Diana, Lewis, 260 Garofalo, Raffaele, 19, 22—23, 29
Dickson, Donald T., 70 Geerken, Michael, 302
Dietrick, David, 202 Geis, Gilbert,4,15-17, 277
Dinitz, Simon, 170, 299 Gerard, D., 256
Downes, David, 4, 190, 196 Gibbons, Don, 4, 26, 27,32, 167
Dudley, Sandra, 133 Gibbs, Jack P., 94, 232, 268, 302,
Durkheim, Emile, 62, 149-150, 167, 174, 303-304
192, 209 Gillin, John L., 27
Duster, Troy, 69, 71, 72 Gillis, A. R., 131, 171, 272-273
 NAME INDEX 359

Giordano, Peggy, 131, 133 Hogarth, John, 289

Glaser, Daniel, 260 Holmes, Kay Ann, 84, 86-89
Glass, G. V., 96 Hood, Roger, 95, 308
Glueck, E.,3, 27 Hopkins, Andrew, 68
Glueck, S.,3, 27 Horning, Donald N.,45
Goffman, |., 205 Horowitz, Irving, 102
Goid, M., 115, 117 Huber, Joan, 269, 274
Goldman, Nathan, 241 Hughes, Everett, 260—261, 289
Gordon, Robert, 153 Hula, Richard, 110, 217
Gottman, J., 96 Humphreys, Laud, 101, 102
Gove, Walter, 206, 302
Grabowsky, Peter, 110, 217
Graham, Hugh Davis, 93, 106 lanni, Francis, 133, 197-198
Grambsch, Patricia, 308 Ignatieff, Michael, 292, 294-297
Grasmich, H. G., 304 Irwin, John, 299
Green, Edward, 241
Greenberg, David, 67, 120, 226, 271,
308 Jackson, B., 133
Griswold, David, 170 Jackson, Maurice, 129
Griswold, Manzer, 167 Jacob, Herbert, 232, 252, 255, 213
Gulliver, P.H., 251 Jacobs, David, 226
Gurr, Ted Robert, 93, 106, 110-112, Jacobs, James, 299-300
217-219, 226, 290 Janowitz, Morris, 268
Gusfield, Joseph R., 72,74, 89 Jaspan, Norman, 97
Guyot, D., 96 Jeffrey, Clarence R., 10-12, 25
Jensen, Gary F., 131, 170, 303—
304
Hackler, James, 161, 170, 308 Johnson, R.E., 120
Hagan, John, 45, 51, 54, 61, 78-81, 89, Johnston, J., 103
100, 131, 137, 170, 171, 196, 206, 219,
229, 232, 251, 254-257, 261-265,
271-273, 283, 284, 286, 300, 301, Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, 271
308 Katz, Jack, 256, 286
Halevy, Elie, 15 Kelly, Delos H., 117, 121, 208
Hall, Jerome, 62,64-65, 252 Kerbel, Sandra, 133
Haller, Mark, 81, 249—250 Kerstetter, Wayne, 258-259
Hannan, M., 114 Kick, Edward, 262
Hansell, Stephen, 207, 208 Kirchheimer, Otto, 220
Harding, Aian, 10, 11 Kirkham, George L., 236
Harring, Sidney, 235, 237 Kitsuse, John, 93, 202
Harris, Anthony R., 129, 132, 266 Kleck, Gary, 263, 264
Hart, H.L.A., 34,35 Klein, Malcolm, 190
Hartung, Frank E., 275 Kobler, Arthur, 239
Hawkins, Gordon, 3, 41—42 Kobrin, Solomon, 186—187, 195,
Healy, William, 26 311
Heinz, Anne, 258—259 Kornhauser, Ruth, 28, 153, 155
Heumann, Milton, 247, 258, 259 Kratcoski, J., 117, 131
Hewitt, John, 232, 261—262 Kratcoski, Peter, 117, 131
Heyl, Barbara, 133 Krisberg, Barry, 101
Hibbert, Christopher, 10
Hill, Gary D., 129, 132
Hills, S., 219 LaFree, Gary, 255, 263, 264
Hindelang, Michael J., 95, 97, 98, Land, Kenneth, 112-113
103-105, Lander, Bernard, 114, 153
114, 115, 121, 129, 131,170, 267 Lane, Roger, 109-112
Hirschi, Travis, 3, 98, 103-105, 114, 115, Lee, R., 256
117, 121, 131, 149, 161, 164-166, 170, Lemert, Edwin, 40, 78, 203-204, 269,
173, 196, 241, 264, 272 301
360 NAME INDEX

Leon, Jeffrey, 78, 80, 81, 89, 97 Millman, M., 271

Lerman, Paul, 307, 309 Mills, C. Wright, 4, 277
Lesser, Selma, 52, 70 Milton, Catherine H., 272
Letkemann, Peter, 99 Mizner, George, 122
Leung, Jan, 262 Molander, E. A., 279
Levin, Martin A., 263 Moley, Raymond, 247
Levin, Y., 21 Monachesi, Elio, 14
Liebow, Elliot, 156 Monkkonen, Eric, 109-110
Linden, Eric, 170 Morris, Norval, 3,41—42
Lindesmith, Alfred R., 21, 70, 72, 158 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 312—313
Lizotte, Alan J., 21, 263 Murray, Charles A., 309
Lofland, John, 291—292 Musto, David F., 69, 70, 72
Loftin, Colin, 258 Myers, Martha, 251, 261
Logan, C.H., 305
Lohman, Joseph, 311
Lombroso, Cesare, 19, 20—23, 26, 27, 32 Nagasawa, R. H., 120
Lorber, J.,274 Nagel, llene, 262, 272, 283, 286
Lou, Herbert H., 78 Nagin, Daniel, 302-305
Lubeck, Steven, 307 Nettler, Gwynn, 2, 98, 120, 161, 182,
Lubove, Roy, 84 229-231, 267
Lucas, Netley, 133 Neubauer, David, 252
Luchterhand, Elmer, 240, 241 Newman, Donald, 247, 252-254
Lundman, Richard J., 137,275 Newman, Greame, 53
Nienstedt, B. C., 93, 95-96
Noblet, George, 129
McCall, George, 101 Normandeau, A., 53
McCartney, James L., 70 Nye, F. lvan, 98, 131, 166-167, 170
McCleary, R., 93, 95-96
McCord, Joan, 307, 308
McCord, W., 307 O'Connor, James R., 223
McDonald, Lyn, 2, 14, 17, 117, 217-219, Odegard, Peter H., 69
226 Ohlin, Lloyd, 194-196, 200, 269, 312
McEachern, A. W., 241 O'Malley, P., 103
McFarlane, George C., 78 Orleans, S., 303
McKay, Henry, 28, 114, 152-153, 269,
313-314
Madley, John, 260 Packer, Herbert, 41
Maine, Henry James Sumner, 17 Palloni, Alberto, 286
Mann, Kenneth, 282—283 Palmer, Ted, 309
Mannheim, H., 3 Panel on Research on Rehabilitative
Martinson, Robert, 308 Techniques, 309
Marx, Karl, 17, 288 Park, Robert, 27, 269
Massey, Charles, 207, 208 Parker, Graham, 77,81
Mather, Lynn, 250-252 Parmelee, Maurice, 4, 27
Matza, David, 25, 60, 156, 158-160, 189, Parsons, Talcott, 62, 164
196 Paternoster, R., 304
Mayhew, Henry, 17, 19 Peterson, Ruth, 264
Mead, George Herbert, 40 Pierce, Glenn, 264, 290
Megargee, E. |., 53 Piliavin, Irving, 239-240
Merton, Robert, 150, 192-195, 198, 269 Pink, W. T., 117
Messinger, Sheldon, 251, 298 Pivar, David J.,84, 86-88
Meyer,J.W., 232 Platt, Anthony M., 63, 78-80,
Mill, John Stuart, 34, 35, 37 295
Miller, S., 299 Ploscowe, Morris, 83
Miller, Walter, 133, 177-179, 181, 182, Polk, Kenneth, 121, 153, 208
252, 311-312 Pollak, Otto, 122,272
Miller, Wilbur, 234—236 Polsky, Ned, 99, 105
Milligan, H., 304 Porter, John, 168
 NAME INDEX 361

Porterfield, Austin, 98, 114 Schmid, C. F., 114

Posner, Richard A., 283 Schrager, Laura S., 137,275
Pound, Roscoe, 62, 63, 250 Schuessler, K. F., 304
Powers, Edwin, 307 Schultz, Barbara, 262
Premkumer, T., 40 Schultz, J. L., 78,80, 82
Presidential Transcripts, 171-173 Schur, Edwin M.,41
Price, J. E., 97 Schwartz, Richard D., 59, 303
Schwendinger, Herman, 4, 29, 48,
160-161, 269
Quételet, Adolphe Jacques, 17-19, 23, Schwendinger, Julia, 4,29, 48, 160—161,
122 269
Quinney, Richard, 27, 29,37, 63, 66, 153, Scott, P. D., 190
215-217, 219-220, 224, 264, 269 Scull, Andrew, 97, 222—224, 268, 270
Seagle, William, 36
Sedlack, Michael, 313-314
Radelet, Michael, 290 Seidman, D., 2, 92—93, 96
Radzinowicz, Leon, 15, 16, 122 Seidman, Robert, 29, 37, 214, 219, 251,
Rainwater, Lee, 102, 156 254, 269
Rawls, J., 229 Sellin, Thorsten, 21, 23,32, 45-46, 50, 53,
Reasons, Charles, 69, 70 290, 294, 304
Reckless, Walter C., 26, 164 Selvin, Hanan, 3
Reidell, Mark, 264 Shallo, J. P., 97
Reiss, Albert J.,3, 98, 100-102, 118, 170, Shapiro, Susan, 275
196, 231-232, 237-239, 241-243, Shaw, Clifford, 28, 114, 150, 152-154, 269,
246, 269,275 311, 313-314
Reitman, B., 133 Shearing, C., 97,270
Rhodes, Albert, 118, 196 Short, James F., 98, 131, 137, 188-190,
Rhodes, William, 255 196, 275
Richardson, James, 233-234, 243 Sigel, Lois, 40
Rivera, Ramon, 196 Silberman, M., 304
Roberts, Mary, 170 Silva, Edward, 54, 219
Roby, PamelaA., 85, 88 Silver, A., 235
Rosenfeld, E., 256 Simmel, Georg, 251
Ross, E.A., 27,269,274 Simmons, J. L., 101
Ross, H. Laurence, 95, 97, 305, 306 Simon, David, 281-282
Rossi, Peter, 53, 172, 182-183 Simon, Rita, 122,125-129, 272, 274
Rothman, David, 290, 292, 294, 295, Simpson, John, 54, 131, 170-171, 219,
301-302 272-273
Rothman, Mitchell Lewis, 275 Sinclair, Andrew, 69
Rowan, B., 232 Skogan, Wesley, 100
Rowe, A. R., 303 Skolnick, Jerome, 39, 238, 245-246,
Rubinstein, Michael, 258 269
Rusche, Georg, 220 Smart, C., 122
Smigel, E. O.,95
Smith, Douglas, 114, 132, 241, 243,
Sagarin, Edward, 102 274
Saltzman, L. E., 304 Smith, E. H., 31
Sarat, Austin, 282-283 Sparks, Richard, 95, 308
Savitz, L., 304 Spector, Malcolm, 206
Scarpitti, Frank R., 170 Spitzer, Steven, 97, 221—224, 270
Schafer, Stephen, 9, 11 Stanko, Elizabeth, 252
Schafer, Walter, 208 Stark, R., 121
Schauffler, Richard, 4, 30-31 Steffensmeier, D., 123-129, 133, 274
Schlapp, Max, 31 Stenning, Philip, 97,270
Schlegal, Henry, 315 Stephen, James Fitzjames, 34, 35
Schlossman, Steven, 78, 81,82, 313— Stinchcombe, Arthur, 196, 268
314 Stitt, B. Grant, 304
Schmeiser, Douglas, 9 Stone, Christopher, 277, 278, 280—281
362 NAME INDEX

Stone, Julius, 36 Wahl, Albert, 260

Strodtbeck, Fred, 188—190 Waite, Emily, 53, 172, 182-183
Styron, William, 213 Waldo, Gordon P., 304
Suchman, Edward, 122 Walker, Allyn, 70, 73
Sudnow, David, 253—254 Walker, Darlene, 255
Sumner, William, 37,39 Wallace, John, 260
Sutherland, Edwin, 27, 32, 39, 45, 50, 83, Wallerstein, J. S., 98:
84, 134-137, 156-159, 274-275 Walton, Paul, 31, 49
Suttles, Gerald, 154—156 Ward, David, 129
Swanson, Alan H., 83, 85 Ward, Renee, 129
Swartz, Joel, 282 Waterman, Willoughby, 84, 86
Swigert, Victoria Lynn, 162—163, 263 Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 6
Sykes, Gresham, 60, 156, 158-160, 240, Weeks, H. Ashley, 307
298 Weick, K., 232
Sykes, Richard, 236—237 Weinberg, Martin, 101
Sylvester, Sawyer, 13, 17 Weis, Joseph, 98, 103-105, 114, 115, 121,
131
Tannenbaum, Franklin, 202—203, Weisbord, David, 286
269 Wellford, Charles, 206
Tappan, Paul, 43—45, 83, 84 Wenninger, E. P., 115, 116
Taylor, lan, 4, 31, 49,63, 219-221, Werme, Paul, 122
269 Westley, William, 238
Teevan, J., 304 Wheeler, Stanton, 259, 266, 269, 275,
Tennyson, Ray, 196 284-286, 289
Terry, Robert M., 241 White, Teresa, 258
Thomas, Charles, 54, 172 Whitebread, Charles M., 68-72, 74,
Thomas, W. |., 27, 150-152, 269 Vis
Thompson, Hunter, 190-192 Whitelock, Dorothy, 11-12
Thornberry, Terrence, 120 Whyte, William F., 156
Thrasher, Frederick M., 28, 150, 152, 154, Wiatrowski, Michael, 170, 207, 208
190, 269 Wilkins, Leslie T., 3,46, 261
ifttsl 490s Wilkinson, Karen, 166, 269
Timasheff, N. S., 260, 300 Williams, Colin, 101
Timberlake, James H., 69, 74-79 Willson, V.L., 96
Tittle, C. R., 114, 303-305 Wilson, David, 207, 208
Toby, Jackson, 167, 168 Wilson, James O., 2, 244-245, 309
Towle, Charlotte, 260 Wise, Nancy, 131
Traill, H.D.,9 Witmer, Helen, 307
Trasler, Gordon, 168 Wolfgang, Marvin, 1, 20-22, 32, 53, 129,
Turk, Austin, 29, 37,49, 213-214, 216, 181-182, 264
251 Woodmansee, John, 277
Turner, George Kibbe, 85 Wrong, D., 273
Turner, S., 53 Wyle, C. J., 98

UdmnyaJaRea2zl Yablonsky, Lewis, 190

UhIman, Thomas, 255
Yeager, Peter, 135-141, 266-267, 275,
U.S. Department ofJustice, 137 277-278
Yinger, J. M., 177
Vallee, F.G.,7,8 Young, Jock, 31, 49, 63, 219-221, 269
Vaz, E. W., 115, 116, 118, 190 Young, Paul, 78
Veblen, Thorsten, 60, 160
Velez-Diaz, A., 53
Villemez, W. J., 114 Zatz, Marjorie, 255
Visher, Christy, 132, 274 Zeisel, H., 304
Vold, George, 212-213, 216 Ziegenhagan, Edward A., 10
Von Hoffman, Nicholas, 102 Znaniecki, Florian, 158
SNP

SUBJECT INDEX

“Academy of Fists,’’ 13 Black Muslim movement, prison race

Adaptation: relations and, 299
defensive, delinquency as, 187 British Governmental Committee
to failure, 193-194 on Homosexual Offences and
goais and means and, 193-194 Prostitution, 34
Africville, 38-39 Bureau of Narcotics, 72
Age, seriousness rankings and, 54 Bureau of Prohibition, 72
Alcohol laws, 68, (table) 69-70, 72, Business interests:
74-77, 301 influence of, on criminal law, 67-68
Altruism, social integration and, 149 Marxian theory and, 221—222
American criminology (see Criminol- prohibition and, 76
ogy)
American Institute of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 26 Cambridge Institute of Criminology, 31
American Society of Sanitary and Moral Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study,
Prophylaxis, 87 307, 308
“Analytic induction,” 158-159 Canadian Juvenile Delinquents Act, 80
Anger as motivation to study crime, 2 Capital punishment, 288
Anomie, 149-150 Bentham’s views on, 15—16
in opportunity theory, 192-194 decline of, 290—292
social regulation and, 150 deterrent effects of, 304-305
Antinomian controversy, 209 Carrier’s Case, 64-65
Antipandering statutes, 87-88 Center for Health Statistics (CHS) data,
Anxiety as motivation to study crime, 2 comparison of, with UCR data,
“Argot rules,” 298 106-107
Arrest rate: Chicago Area Project, 311, 313-314
gender differences in, 131 Chicago School, 27-28
among minority group juveniles, 240 “Child-guidance clinics,’ 26, 27
police professionalism and, 245 Child-saving movement, 79-80
Association, differential, 157-158 CHS (see Center for Health Statistics
Atavism, application of, to study of data)
crime, 20 Church:
Attachment as element of social bond, in early legal system, 10-11
165 separation of, from state, 12
“Autonomy” as preoccupation of lower- Cities, development of, crime related to,
class life, 178-179 27-28
Civil discontent, theoretical explanation
for, 218
Barrio gangs, class culture and, 183—186 CKP (“crimes known to the police’’), 94
Belief as element of social bond, 165-166 Class:
Berkeley School of Criminology, 30-31 conflict crimes and, 58
Bias: correlation of, with race, 121
in plea bargaining, 254—255 criminal behavior and, 113-115, (table)
of police, 240—243 116-119, 120-122

363
364 SUBJECT INDEX

Class (Cont. ): Convergent validity, 103

criminal-justice system and, 229-231 Corporal punishment, decline of,
definition of crime and, 213-214 290-292
delinquency rates and, 153, 155 Corporate crime, 134—135, (table) 136,
lawmaking and, 63-64 137, (table) 138-141, 140-141
measurement of, 120-121 increase in, 266—267
police bias and, 240—243 industrial disease as result of, 281—282
stake in conformity and, 168 neutralization and, 162—163
Class culture theories, 176 (See a/so White-collar crime)
of Banfield, 179-181 Corporations:
critical comments on, 182—183 formal legal controls and, 285—286
example of, 183—186 limited liability of, 281-282
of Miller, 177-179 social control and, 277-278
subculture of violence and, 181—182 as victims, 137, 140-141, (table)
Classical school, 13-17, 25-26 142-145, 284
Commitment as element of social bond, Corruption of police, 42
165 Costs:
Common law system, emergence of, 12 of institutionalization, 223
Community: of law enforcement, 42
conflict of police with, 238 Counterfeiting, gender differences in
social control and, 269 rate of, 128
Community Treatment Program, 309 Courts, 246
Compensation: decision to prosecute and, 251—252
early system of, 10 during feudal period, 11-12
as purpose of sanctions, 289 formal rationality and organizational
Condemnation of condemners, 160 maintenance as responses of,
Conflict: 225-226
crime as part of process of, 32 king's, 11
among criminologists, 29-32 plea bargaining in (see Plea bargain-
law and, 36, 37, 63-64, 90 ing)
of police with community, 238 role of defense counsel in, 252-254
of values, 186-189 role of judiciary in, 262—264
(See a/so Group conflict theory) role of probation officer in, 259-262
Conflict crimes, 54, 58—59, 61 (See a/so Sentencing)
theft as, 65-66 Crime(s):
Conflict criminology, 29-30, 49, 220-221 conflict (see Conflict crimes)
Conformity: b consensus (see Consensus crimes)
goals and means and, 193 as continuous variable with deviance,
stake in, 167—168 49-52
Consensus, law and, 36-37, 65-66 corporate (see Corporate crime;
Consensus crimes, 61 White-collar crime)
drug abuse as, 68, 70 creation of, law and morality and,
theft as, 65-66 40-41
Containment, “inner” and “‘outer,’’ 164 culture and, 6-9, 45—46, 183-186
Control(s): definition of, 33
federal, of marijuana, 72-74 culture and, 6-9, 45-46
“integrative” and “segregative” strat- grqup conflict theory and, 212-213
egies for, 222 human rights approach to, 47-49
internalized, indirect and direct, 167 labeling and, 47, 202
(See a/so Legal controls; Social legal-consensus approach to, 43—45
control) occurrence of criminal behaviors
Control theory, 148, 163-164 and, 215-216
conformity and, 167-168 overcontrol theories and, 201
critical comments on, 170-171 social class and, 213-214
elements of social bond and, 164-166 societal, 204-205
example of, 171-173 socio-legal approach to, 45
family relationships and, 166—167 statistical approach to, 46-47
social learning theory and, 168-170 utopian-anarchist approach to, 49
 SUBJECT INDEX 365

Crime(s) (Cont. ): Criminal-justice system (Cont. ):

as deviance (see Deviance, criminal (See a/so Courts; Plea bargaining;
forms of) Police; Sentencing)
explanation of, 4-5 “Criminal sociology,’’ 23-25
fear of, 2 Criminal subculture:
historical development of, 9-13 growth of, in response to criminal law,
as injury to society, 14 42
kinds of, 52 types of, 195
matching of punishmentto, 14, Criminalization, 201
229-231, 282-284 differential, 214
““natural,”’ 22 “Criminogenic market structure,” 280
organized, 40-41, 197-198 Criminologists:
“police,” 22 conflicts among, 29-32
reactions to, 4-5, 201-202, 288 definition of,1
size of police force and, 217-218 Criminology:
understanding social values and, 5 beginnings of, 26-27
victimless (see Victimless crimes) Berkeley School of, 30-31
white-collar (see Corporate crime; Cambridge Institute of, 31
White-collar crime) Chicago School of, 27-28
(See a/so specific crimes) Classical School of, 13-17, 25-26
“Crime clocks,” 106 definition of, 6
Crime prevention (see Prevention) (See a/so Critical criminology; New
Crime rate index, calculation of, 94-95 criminology)
Crime statistics, 92-94 Critical criminology, 29-30
behavioral, error, and response Culture:
components of, 93, 95—96 class, barrio gangs and, 183-186
Bentham’s views on, 17 definition of crime and, 7—9, 45—46
class differences and, 113-115, (table) (See a/so Subcultures)
116-119, 120-122
deficiencies of, 95
first-person accounts and, 97-99 Decarceration, 222—223, 309
gender and, 122, (table) 123-124, 125, Decriminalization of victimless crimes,
(table) 126-127, 128-129, (table) 42
130, 131-134 Defense counsel:
meaningful uses of, 102—105 public defender, 253
nonofficial, 96—97 role of, 252—254
observational data in, 100—102 Delinquency:
official, 94—96 causes of, 26
Quételet’s views on, 18 conflict of values and, 186-189
trends in, 106-112 development of laws on, 77, (table)
victimization surveys and, 99-100 78-79, 79-82
Crime waves, labeling theory and, ethnomethodology of juvenile justice
208-211 and, 205-206
“Crimes known to the police” (CKP), 94 as social deviation, 59
Criminal(s): Delinquency areas, 152—153
physical and mental characteristics of, Denial of injury, responsibility, and the
DA 2z. victim, 160
social factors producing, 23, 48 Deterrence, 309-310
Criminal behavior: as purpose of sanctions, 289, 302-305,
class and, 113-115, (table) 116-119, 309-310
120-122 (See also Prevention)
occurrence of, 215—216 Deviance:
Criminal code, federal, 45 in Africville, 38-39
Criminal-justice process, 231 crime and, as continuous variable,
Criminal-justice system, 231—232 49-52
discrimination in, 229-231 criminal forms of, 6—9, 52-53
labeling and, 205—206 conflict crimes as, 58-59
loose coupling in, 232—233 consensus crimes as, 53-54
366 SUBJECT INDEX

Deviance (Cont.): Family (Cont. ):

definition of: cross-cultural approach internalization of societal values by,
to, 45-46 164
human rights approach to, 47-49 need satisfaction and, 167
labeling approach to, 47 social bond and, 166—167
legal-consensus approach to, 43—45 social control and gender differences
socio-legal approach to, 45 in crime and, 268-274
statistical approach to, 46—47 Fatalism, social regulation and, 150
utopian-anarchist approach to, 49 “Fate” in lower-class life, 178
kinds of, 52 FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), 94
Marxian theory of, 221-222 Fear as motivation to study crime, 2
neutralization and, 159 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 94
noncriminal forms of, 59 “Felicity calculus,” 15
social deviations, 59-60 Field interviews as source of crime data,
social diversions, 60 98-99
primary and secondary, 203-204 Field observation as source of crime
Differential association, 157—158 data, 101-102
Differential opportunity, 194-196 Fine as sentence for white-collar crime,
Discriminant validity, 103 283
Draft resistance, 60-61 “Fleeing felon” rule, 239
Drugs, 71 Force, police use of, 235
consensus crime and; 68, 70 abuse and, 238-239
emergence of underworld and, 40—41 Ford Motor Company, corporate crime
enforcement techniques and, 39-40, and, 162—163
245-246 Forgery, gender differences in rate of,
laws concerning, 68, (table) 69-70, 128
70-74, 76-77 Formal rationality as court response to
marijuana (see Marijuana) riots, 225-226 :
victims of crimes related to, 255—256 Fraud, gender differences in rate of, 128
proactive mobilizations and, 237,
242-243, 245
Drunkenness: Gangs (see Street-corner gangs)
deterrence of, by sanctions, 305 Gender:
rate of arrest for, 109-110 arrest rate and, police and, 131
crime statistics and, 122, (table)
123-124, 125, (table) 126-127,
Education, seriousness rankings and, 54 128-129, (table) 130, 131-134
“Ego strength,” propensity to crime family influence and, 167
and, 180 homicide rate and, 181
Egoism, social integration and, 149 work and crime and. 267-274
Embezzlement (see White-collar crime) (See a/so Women)
Equality before the law, 229-231 Goals, means to achieve, anomie and,
numerical, proportional, and subjec- 192-194
tive, 230 Group conflict theory, 202, 211
white-collar crime and, 282—284 crime and legal order and, 213-214
Errors incrime statistics, 93, 95-96 critical comments on, 216-217
Ethical problems of observational differential criminalization and, 214
studies, 102 example of, 217-219
Evolution, application of, to study of social reality of crime and, 215-216
crime, 20 of Vold, 212-213
“Excitement” as preoccupation of Guilty plea, encouragement of, 253
lower-class life, 177-178

Harm as measure of seriousness, 50-51

Failure, adaptation to, 193-194 Harrison Act, 40, 72
Family: Hell’s Angels, status frustration theory
“female-based,” in lower-class and, 190-192
communities, 179 Highfields experiment, 307
 SUBJECT INDEX 367

Home Office Research Unit, 31 Judiciary, role of, 262—264

Homicide: Juvenile(s):
capital punishment as deterrent to, demeanor of, police response and,
304-305 240
gender differences and, 181 ethnomethodology of criminal-justice
in Inuit culture, 7 system and, 205-206
subculture and, 181-182 police bias and, 241
theoretical explanation for, 218 Juvenile delinquency (see Delinquency)
Homosexual activities:
British Governmental Committee on,
34
King’s courts, 11
participant observation studies of, 101
King’s peace, 11
Human rights, definition of crime and,
47-49

Labeling of crime and deviance, 47

Imprisonment: Labeling theory, 201, 202
alternatives to, 223 critical comments on, 206—208
decarceration as, 222-223, 309 “dramatization of evil” and, 202—203
Bentham’s views on, 16 ethnomethodology of juvenile justice
delinquency laws and, 80 and, 205-206
effect of probation and parole on, example of, 208-211
301-302 “outsiders” and, 204-205
shift to, 292-295 primary and secondary deviance and,
Incapacitation as purpose of sanctions, 203-204
288 Larceny (see Theft)
Incapacitory function of punishment, 23 Law(s):
Incentive, proneness to crime and, 180 on alcohol, 68, (table) 69-70, 72,
Individual liberty, private morality and, 35 74-77, 301
Individual responsibility, 220 antipandering, 87-88
Industrial disease as result of corporate common, 12
crime, 281—282 conflict and, 36, 37,63—64, 90
Injunction and Abatement Act, 87 consensus and, 36-37, 65-66
Injury: cost of enforcement of, 42
denial of, 160 creation of crime and, 42
to society, crime as, 14 as ‘crime tariff,’ 41
willingness to inflict, propensity to on delinquency, development of, 77,
crime and, 181 (table) 78-79, 79-82
“Inmate code,” 298 on drugs, 68, (table) 69—70, 70-74,
“Innovation,” goals and means and, 193 76-77
Institute for Juvenile Research, 27 early, 10
Institutionalization: effectiveness of, in punishing
“double,” 62 corporate crime, 137
(See a/so Imprisonment) equality before (see Equality before
Instrument-object relationship, assign- the law)
ment of females to, 271 federal criminal code, 45
Insurance premiums as measure of as form of‘double institution-
property crime rates, 96-97 alization,” 62
“Integrative strategy,’ 222 limits of, 41-43
Interest groups, conflict crimes and, 58 private morality and, 33—36
Interpersonal associations, occurrence creation of crime and, 40—41
of criminal behaviors and, 215 ineffectiveness of law as instrument
Inuit cutture, crime in, 7—9 of, 39-40
Involvement as element of social bond, on probation, development of, 77,
165 (table) 78-79, 80
on prostitution, development of,
Journal of Criminal Law and 82-83, (table) 84-85, 85-88
Criminology, 26 protective function of, 62
 368 SUBJECT INDEX

Law(s) (Cont. ): Morality (Cont. ):

on sexual psychopaths, development laws and creation of crime and, 40—41
of, 82-83, (table) 84-85, 85 link between law and, 33-36
on theft, origins of, 64-66 preconventional, conventional, and
on vagrancy, origins of, 66-68 postconventional, 180
“Law officers,” 245 public interest and, 38-39
(See a/so Police) Mortality records as nonofficial crime
Learning experiences, occurrence of measure, 97
criminal behaviors and, 215
Legal controls:
corporations and, 285-286 Narcotics:
federal, of marijuana, 72-74 in patent medicines, 71
informal social controls and, 270 (See a/so Drugs)
[See a/so Law(s)] Narcotics officers, investigative
Legal problems of observational techniques of, 39—40, 245—
studies, 102 246
Liability, limited, of corporations, National Conference of Criminal Law
281-282 and Criminology, 26
Liberty, individual, private morality and, National Crime Surveys, gender
35 differences illustrated by,
129
National Deviance Conference, 31
Machismo, class culture and, 183-186 National Police Academy, police
Mafia, 197-198 professionalism and, 243
Mann Act, 87 “Natural crime,” 22
Marijuana: Need satisfaction, family’s role in, 167
class differences in use of, 121-122 Neutralization theory, 148, 156-157
federal role in control of, 72-74 critical comments on, 160—162
Marxist theories, 202, 219-226 differential association and, 157-158
new criminology, 49, 220-221 example of, 162—163, 171-173
Media: techniques of neutralization and,
alcohol prohibition and, 76 159-160
legislative reform efforts and, 90 white-collar crime and, 158-159
Midcity Youth Project, 311-312 New criminology, 29-30, 220-221
Minority groups: definition of crime and deviance in, 49
black ghetto riots and, 224—226 Nonshareable problems, neutralization
correlation of class with, 121 and, 158-159
criminal justice and, 229-231 Norms:
juvenile arrest rate among, 240 definition of crime and, 44—46
narcotics legislation as expression of dominance and deference, 213-214
of attitudes toward, 70 neutralization of, 156—157
in organized crime, 197-198 Numerical equality, 230
plea bargaining and, 254-255
police bias and, 241-243
police professionalism and, 244 Observational data in crime cou nts,
probation officers and, 261 100-102
self-reporting differences and, 105 Opportunities for Youth Project, 308
sentencing and, 264 Opportunity structures:
seriousness rankings and, 54 occurrence of criminal behaviors and,
social organization of prisons and, 215
299-300 violence and, 195
Mobilization for Youth Project, 312-313 Opportunity theories, 176, 192
Moral affirmation as purpose of Critical comments on, 196—198
sanctions, 289 differential opportunity and, 194-196
“Moral entrepreneurs,” 72 example of, 197-198
Morality: social structure and anomie and,
ineffectiveness of law as instrument 192-194
of, 39-40 “Ordered segmentation,” 154
 SUBJECT INDEX 369

Organizational maintenance as court Prevention (Cont.):

response to riots, 225 through reform, 3—4, 310-314
Organized crime (see Underworld) (See a/so Deterrence)
Overcontrol theories: Prison(s):
group conflict theory, 211-219 “panopticon,” 16
labeling theory, 202-211 perceptions of, 289
Marxist, 219-226 social organization of, 298-300
reactions to crime and, 201-202 (See a/so Imprisonment)
“Prisonization,’”’ 298
Proactive mobilization, 237, 242-243,
“Panopticon prison,” 16 245
Paranoia as secondary deviation, 204 Probation:
Parole: development of laws on, 77, (table)
effectiveness of, 309 78-79, 80
rise of, 301-302 effectiveness of, 309
Parole officer, role of, 259-262 rise of, 300-301
Participant observation studies in crime Probation officer, role of, 259-262
counts, 101 Professionalism of police work, 243—
Patent medicines, narcotic-containing, 245
71 Progressive era, 26—27
“Peace officers,” 245 Prohibition:
Plea bargaining: Bureau of, 72
bias in, 254—255 business interests and, 76
causes and consequences of, 259 rise of probation and, 301
definition of, 247 Propensity to crime, 180
experiments with, 257—259 Property crimes:
historical roots of, 247-251 gender differences in rate of, 128
“implicit,” 247 insurance premiums as measure of
public defenders and, 253 rate of, 96—97
social organization of, 255—257 Proportional equality, 230
“Plea getter,” 249 Prosecution, decision to pursue,
Police, 233-234, 245 251-252
class bias and, 240-243 Prostitution:
delinquent stereotypes held by, 206 British Governmental Committee on,
encounter of, with citizens, 237—238 34
gender differences in arrest rate and, development oflaws on, 82-83,
131 (table) 84-85, 85-88
historical development of, 234—236 social control and, 151
political corruption of, 42 Protective function of law, 62
private, as source of nonofficial crime Provo Project, 307
data, 97 Psychosocial disturbances as social
professionalism of, 243—245 deviation, 59
size of force, crime rate and, 217-218 Public defenders, plea bargaining and,
suspect demeanor and, 239-240 253
use and abuse offorce by, 235, Public interest, private morality and,
238-239 38-39
“Police crime,’ 22 Punishment:
Police work, 236—237 corporal, decline of, 290—292
narcotics investigations, techniques deterrent effects of, 289, 302—305,
for, 39—40, 245-246 309-310
social organization of, 243-246 incapacitory function of, 23
Positivist school, 19—26 in Inuit culture,8
Predatory crimes, fear of, 2 matching of, to crime, 14, 229-231,
Prediction, attempt to control crime 282-284
through, 2-3 purposes of, 288-290
Prediction tables, 3 relationship of, to crime, equality
Prevention, 306 principles and, 230
Bentham’s views on, 15 in social learning theory, 169-170
370 SUBJECT INDEX

Punishment (Cont. ): Sentencing:

(See a/so Capital punishment; judges’ responsibility for, 262
Imprisonment; Sentencing) probation officers and, 260—262
Pure Food and Drug Acct, 71 social context and, 263—264
structural context and, 263-264
for white-collar crime, 282—284
Quaker persecutions, 209-210 (See a/so Imprisonment; Plea
bargaining)
Seriousness:
Reactive mobilization, 237, 242—243 determination of, 52
Rebellion, goals and means and, 193, measures of, 50—51
194 ranking of, 53—54, (table) 55-58
“Red Light Abatement Act,” 87 age and, 54
Reform: class and, 121-122
legislative, media and, 90 gender differences in, 132
prevention of crime through, 3—4, minority groups and, 54
310-314 variables influencing, 262—263
as purpose of sanctions, 289 Sexual psychopath laws, development
Rehabilitation as purpose of sanctions, of, 82-83, (tabies) 84-85, 85
289 Shoplifting, gender differences in, 132
Reliability of crime counts, 102—103 Silverlake Experiment, 307-308
Responsibility: “Smartness” as preoccupation of lower-
denial of, 160 class life, 177
individual, 220 Social bond:
Restitution as purpose of sanctions, 289 control theory and, 164
Restraint as purpose of sanctions, 288 elements of, 164—166
Retreatism, goals and means and, 194 family relationships and, 166-167
Retribution as purpose of sanctions, 289 Social class (see Class)
Rewards in social learning theory, Social context, sentencing and, 263—
169-170 264
Riots in black ghettos, Marxian theory Social control:
and, 224—226 corporations and, 276-287
Risk, taste for, propensity to crime and, gender differences in crime and,
180-181 268-274
Ritualism, goals and means and, prostitution and, 151
193-194 street-corner gangs and, 152
Rule-breaking behavior, 205 [See a/so Control(s)]
Social deviations, 59-60
Social disorganization theory, 148, 150
Saiem witch-hunt, 210 critical comments On, 153, 155-156
Sanctions (see Capital punishment; delinquency areas and, 152-153
Punishment) example of, 154-155
Scientific approach, 17-19 Thomas's views on, 151-152
“Segregative strategy,’ 222 Thrasher’s views on, 152
Selective Service Act, enforcement of, Social diversions, 60
60-61 “Social dynamite,” 222
Self-concept: Social factors producing criminals, 23,
of delinquent, 203 48
occurrence of criminal behaviors and, “Social hygiene movement,”
215 prostitution and, 86
Self-report measures: Social injustice, deviance as attempt to
class differences and, 114-115, protest, 49
120-121 Social integration, altrusim and egoism
gender differences in, 131 and, 149
racial differences in, 105 “Social junk,’’ 222
surveys, as source of crime data, Social learning theory, 168—170
97-99 Social reform, prevention through, 3—4,
validity of, 103—105 310-314
 SUBJECT INDEX 371

Social regulation, anomie and fatalism UCR (see Uniform Crime Reports)
and, 150 Undercontrol theories, 148-149
Social response as measure of control theory, 163-171
seriousness, 50 Durkheim’s concept of anomie and,
Society: 149-150
crime as injury to, 14 neutralization theory, 148, 156-163,
definition of crime and, 204—205 171-173
stratified, laws in, 37 social disorganization theory, 148,
values of (see Values, societal) 150-156
Stable criminal pattern, 195 Underworld:
State, separation of, from church, 12 emergence of, 40-41
Statistics (see Crime statistics) ethnic involvement in, 197-198
Status deprivation, 188-189 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), 94-96,
Status frustration theories, 176 106
conflict of values and, 186-187 comparison of, with other statistics,
criticism of, 189-190 106-107
example of, 190-192 gender differences illustrated by, 129,
status deprivation and, 188-189 131
Stereotypes of delinquents, police and, police professionalism and, 243
06
Street-corner gangs:
class culture theories and, 183-186 Vagrancy laws, origins of, 66—68
“ordered segmentation” and, 154 Validity:
role of femalesin, 133 convergent and discriminant, 103
social control and, 152 of crime counts, 102-105
“Strong-cases typification,”” 252-253 Values, societal:
Structural context, sentencing and, conflict of, 186-189
263-264 neutralization of, 156-157
Subcultures: role of, inlegislative process, 36, 37,
criminal: growth of, in response to 90
criminal law, 42 subterranean, 60, 160
types, of 195 Verbalizations, neutralization and, 159
meanings of, 176—177 Victim(s):
of police, 239 credibility of, 252
of violence, 181-182 denial of, 160
Subjective equality, 230 of drug offenders, 255-256
of white-collar crime, 255-256
Subterranean values, 60, 160
Victimization:
Suicide, anomie and, 149-150
of commercial establishments, 137,
Suspect demeanor, police and, 239-240
140-141, (table) 142-145, 284
degree of, 51
Temperance movement, 74 Victimization surveys in crime counts,
Theft: 99-100
as conflict crime, 65—66 Victimless crimes, 255-256
as consensus crime, 65—66 Bentham’s views on, 16—17
limits of law and, 41—43
gender differences in rate of, 125, 128,
132-133 plea bargaining and, 250
in Inuit culture, 8 proactive mobilizations and, 237,
origins of laws on, 64-66 242-243, 245
“Time horizon,” propensity to crime Violence:
and, 180 gender differences in rate of, 129
“Toughness” as preoccupation of opportunity structures and, 195
subculture of, 181-182
lower-class life, 177
Treatment, 306
effectiveness of, 309-310
individual, 306-309 Watergate crimes, 171-173
“Trouble” as preoccupation of lower- White-collar crime, 45, 274 —287
class life, 177 equality before the law and, 282-284
372 SUBJECT INDEX

White-collar crime (Cont. ): Women (Cont. ):

gender differences in rate of, 128, 129 patterns of violence among, 129,
neutralization and, 157-159 131
victims of, 255-256 rise incrime among, 266
(See a/so Corporate crime) in street-corner gangs, 133
Witness, credibility of, 252 (See also Gender)
Wolfenden Committee, 34 Work: .
Women: gender differences in crime and,
assignment of, to instrument-object 267-274
relationship, 271 (See a/so White-collar crime)
ISBN 0-0?-O0254S50-8