MODERN CRIMINOLOGY

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 studiest of crime and deviance point out that unethically but noncrimenal business practices are often morally more serious than rapes, robberies, or even murders of individuals. they argue, for example, that unethical multinational business arrangements can create conditions of poverty, inhumanity, degradation, and famine . the role of the Nestle 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 s 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. Berket al. (1977) have made this point in a unique why 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” were taken into account, with particular attention given to whether the net effect was to bring more or less bahavior 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. Perhaps the most important finding apperent 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 characterized such acts of deviance as mala en se- “ wrong in themselves”. However, model sociologist 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 easly listed of these offenses are premeditated murder, forcible rape, and kidnapping for rancom.

The pioneering work this kind was done by  sellin and wolfgang (1964). Using samples of judges, police, and college students in philadelphia, they obtained ratings of the seriousness of  141 offenses. A subgroup of fifteen offenses was then selectedfrom the larger list and supplemented with descriptions of the consequences to victims of the criminal acts. A set of fifteen descriptions of these criminal acts and scale scores for each resulted, along with tho major conclusions. The first conclusion was that respondents were able to complete the rating tasks rather easily, sugessting 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.

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 adult there is  very substantial agreement on the relative seriousness of 140 0ffenses, including various kinds of white – collar as well as more conventional crimes. The seriousness rankings are reproduced in table 2-1. The first is that education and youth are correlated with the overall sample means. That is the,  more  highly educated and the younger the respondent, 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.

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 proportion 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 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 where attitudes are related more widely and more strongly to status group memberships. 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. 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 some behaviors have been consensually defined as crimes for successive generations makes them of primary interest to some criminologists.

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 noexhaustive 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 conspiracy ), 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 why of saying that we lack societal consensus on the dimensions of public disorder, use of comforting chemical, permisible politic, 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 ussualy are lesr 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 adress this question. These theories can be helpful in explainig the status of the noncriminal forms of deviance we consider brefly 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 non criminal deviance are not. In 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 form of noncriminal deviance constitute a pool of behaviors that in the past may have been, or in the future may become, criminal, they noncriminal forms of deviance also are an important source of concern for criminologists. Two types of noncriminal deviance concern as : what we call the “social deviations” and the “social diversions”.

The social deviations

Although social deviations are sometimes threated 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 the consequent to processing by agensies of crime control. Noncriminal agencies typically attempt to minimize their stimatizing effects. Juvenile courts “treat” rather than convict  “deliquents” ; professional bodies “suspend” and “expel” occipational “violators” ; 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 professional 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 included 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” . they latter point has been made in a number of intereseting 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 comformity producing values as security, routinization, and stability (see also Davis, 1944; veblin, 1967). A result is that the lines drawn between crime, deviance and divertion in our society are uncertain and subject to change. It is to the prospect of change that that we turn last.

The comings and goings of crime

In this chapter we have cinsidered 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 devience, 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 meansuring 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 introdused at the beginning of the chapter may help to confirm this point.

During the early 1960’s, as the vietnamese war gradually became an american war, enforcement of the selective service act became an increasingly important responsibility of the federal distric courts. During this early period, there was widespread acceptance of the selective service act 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 imrisonment, were required for effective enforcement. However, by 1969, thee mood of the nation had changed, and support of the act had so diminished that violation of the statute now took 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-resistence effort was focused, Hagan and Bernstein (1979) report that from 1963 through 1968 the use of 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. Duringthe latter period, the most common disposition was probation. By the end of the vietnamese war, almost alt draft offenders were receiving probation.t

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 circumstance demand. The approach to the definition of crime and deviance presented in this chapter allows us ti 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 consideredcincsome 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 las 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. 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.

*From : Jhon Hagan, Modern Criminology, Crime, Criminal Behavior, and its Control, University of Toronto, McGraw-Hill Book Company.