Showing papers in "Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology in 1979"

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Abstract: 'The book is of value to those involved in the teaching and practive of criminology and to those in the fields of genetics, psychology, learning theory, environmental psychology, and urban design. It should be considered a must for any criminal justice library.' -- Choice, May 1978

Measuring Homicide by Police Officers

Abstract: of agreement between the Uniform Crime Reports andc the Vital Statistics of the United States,2 and the monitoring function of coroners in recording homicide events all support the view that official statistics provide a highly accurate measure of homicide. The excellence of this official measurement, however, is confined to citizens killing other citizens. The official measurement of officials killing citizens falls far short of excellence. The widespread American belief that official killings do not constitute violence" is reflected by the complete absence of su h killings from the Uniform Crime Reports,4 most police departments' annual reports, and the limited summary treatment they receive in the Vital Statistics, where no figures are published below the state level.

Parental Support, Delinquent Friends, and Delinquency: A Test of Interaction Effects

Abstract: A central focus of control theories of delinquency is the relationship between a youngster's attachment to his parents and his delinquent involvement. Of particular interest is the notion of sensitivity to parents' wishes or opinions. Simply, the greater the sensitivity, the more likely the child is to consider the wishes and opinions of his parents when contemplating a deviant act. Consequently, major developments of these theories have explored the significance of family relationships in generating a bond to society or stake in conformity.' These theories assume that delinquent behavior results when an individual's bond to society is weak or broken. Thus, lack of family support is viewed as conducive to delinquency. This weak or broken bond ostensibly minimizes one's sensitivity to the opinions or expectations (i.e., norms) of others, freeing the individual to deviate.2 Conversely, the presence of control via parental support is seen as inhibiting delinquency. According to many theorists and researchers,3 a significant effect of a weak bond to parents is the enhanced importance of delinquent friends. Hirschi,4 for example, reported that boys with a low stake in conformity were more susceptible to delinquent peer influences, while boys with a high stake in conformity were relatively immune to these influences. In other words, the greater the stake in conformity, the less the impact of delinquent companions. Stanfield5 presented data consistent with this interaction hypothesis. He found that frequent peer activity was more strongly associated with delinquent behavior among those boys whose fathers' discipline was erratic or low than where it was consistent. Stanfield suggested that lack of consistent or supportive discipline (i.e., control) made boys more vulnerable to the influence of delinquent friends.6 Although both Hirschi and Stanfield demonstrated that family relationships condition the impact of delinquent friends, recent efforts to test propositions derived from control theory have neglected this interaction hypothesis.7 For example, Hepburn8 attempted to assess the empirical consistency of a control theory model of delinquency based upon Hirschi's formulation of the causal structure of the relationships between parental support, delinquent associates, delinquent definitions, and delinquent behavior. However, he failed to incorporate Hirschi's qualifying condition that the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency is contingent upon the level of family support.9 Such an * Assistant Professor of Sociology at Western Carolina University. Professor Poole received his Ph.D. in Sociology at Washington State University (1976). ** Assistant Professor of Sociology at Texas Christian University. Professor Regoli received his Ph.D. in Sociology at Washington State University (1975). 1 See T. HIRSCHI, CAUSES OF DELINQUENCY (1969); F. NYE, FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR (1958); Toby, The Differential Impact of Family Disorganization, 22 AM. Soc. REv. 505 (1957). 2 Hirschi contends that the essence of internalization of norms lies not in one's "conscience" but in the bond of the individual to others. T. HIRSCHI, supra note 1, at 1819.

Unemployment and Imprisonment

Abstract: In recent congressional testimony, Professor M. Harvey Brenner referred to a number of studies which attempted to gauge the relationship between prison admissions and the economy.' Specifically, between 1967 and 1974, Cox and Carr observed that the Georgia prison population fluctuated with changes in the unemployment rate.2 Similarly, Brenner and Jankovic found that admissions to state prisons correlated positively with the unemployment rate.3 Indeed, Brenner testified that for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, state prison admissions rose by 3,340 inmates, even after controlling for the effects of time, the percent of males in the population, per capita income, and inflation. However, Brenner and other researchers have failed to control for sentencing practices which could explain the variation in prison admissions. This note examines whether sentencing practices, rather than unemployment, explain these fluctuations in prison population. In an effort to test the "sentencing" thesis, this note replicated an internal staff study by Colin Frank, a former employee of the Bureau of Prisons.4 Frank's study indicated that the quarterly unemployment rate of males age twenty and over explained 59 percent of the variation in the federal prison population sentenced between 1952 and 1974.5 However, Frank's study failed to introduce sentencing variables into the analysis. Data from the Administrative Office of the

Delinquency, Opportunity, and Gender

Abstract: The role of blocked or limited opportunity has commanded considerable attention in the sociological analysis of juvenile delinquency. The typical stance taken is that many juveniles are "pushed" into delinquency because they lack access to those opportunities which are defined as legitimate avenues for the realization of a relatively universal set of success goals. Those who are denied the opportunity to implement these socially approved means often turn to delinquency as an alternative or more expedient way of reaching desired goals or as a means of striking back at what is defined as an unfair system.' For the most part, the importance of adolescent aspirations and expectations, as well as the relative availability of the institutionalized means for realizing personal goals, has been developed mainly with reference to their etiological role in male delinquency. The potential utility of such variables in accounting for female misbehavior, by contrast, has been largely ignored. Primarily, this appears to be a function of the view that the aspirations and expectations of adolescent females, in comparison to those of their male counterparts, are quite circumscribed, not only in quantity, but also in content. That is, while males are conceived as "status strivers," preoccupied with short and long-term status and economic success, the female adolescent is more often viewed as possessing no such aspirations and, instead, is satisfied to occupy a role dependent to the male, basking in whatever attendant status her partner's relative success confers. Coleman2 presented the most popular and classic conception of this with his contention that the greatest status enhancement for girls is in dating the "right boys." The implication is that while boys have a variety of actual and potential roles as sources of achievement and status, girls have relatively little in the way of alternatives to the "popularity with the opposite sex" role.3 As a result, and to the extent that female aspirations and expectations have been examined at all in connection with

Sentencing Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System

Abstract: One of the central issues of contemporary criminology is the extent to which the social characteristics of offenders, principally race and socioeconomic status, affect the severity of sentences. The implications that would flow from a finding that social characteristics do affect the type and severity of dispositions received by offenders are far-reaching. For example, such a finding would raise questions about the ability of the American criminal justice system to dispense fair and equitable justice for all. In turn, that unfairness would raise questions about the ability of correctional institutions to rehabilitate offenders who doubt the legitimacy of the system because of its perceived bias.' A finding of differential handling of offenders would also cast doubt on the validity of official data on offender characteristics and of many research findings based on such data. It would also raise questions about the value of theoretical models that are

The Caseload Controversy and the Study of Criminal Courts

Abstract: In the past several years there has been a growing controversy over the impact of caseload pressure upon the processing of criminal defendants. In traditional criminal justice research, pervasive "dysfunctioning" in the criminal courts system has been attributed largely to caseload pressure. Some criminal justice scholars, however, have recently questioned the central role accorded caseload pressure and have supported their arguments with empirical evidence. While these recent studies suffer from certain shortcomings, the questions which they raise are extremely important and timely. Furthermore, these studies have significant implications for both theory and policy. The demise of caseload pressure as a central concept in the study of criminal courts would leave a large gap in our theoretical understanding of how these units function. If caseload pressures do not account for high dismissal rates, pervasive plea bargaining, and the weakening of the adversary system, what does? The policy implications of this controversy are just as significant. If increasing court resources-which decrease caseload pressures-will not significantly improve the operations of criminal courts, what will?

Parole Board Decision Making: A Study of Disparity Reduction and the Implact of Institutional Behavior

Abstract: Few aspects of criminal justice are currently undergoing more critical appraisal than the incarceration process.' Nearly every survey of the field undertaken in the last five years recommends major reform of current methods for determining which convicted persons to imprison and what length of confinement should be imposed. Most recommendations for reform recognize the interdependence of the parole and sentencing decisions. Consequently, proposals for reform typically affect both decisons. Nonetheless, much of the concern surrounding the incarceration process centers on the concept of parole and its contemporary correlate, the indeterminate term. Although there is a growing consensus about the necessity of either abolition or substantial modification of the parole function, there is no consistency in the basis for believing that such reform is required. In fact, proponents of change cannot agree on even the most fundamental effects of the parole process. We are told, for example, that on the one hand, parole leads to decreases in terms of confinement2 and, on the other, to increases in time served." A lack of rigorous research in the area encourages such antithetical claims.

Plea Bargaining: Its Effect on Sentencing and Convictions in the District of Columbia

Abstract: bargaining-the process by which the state grants sentencing and other concessions in exchange for guilty pleas in criminal cases-is frequently paramount in this concern for crime control and justice. Yet despite the general recognition of the importance of plea bargaining to American jurisprudence, disagreement persists about what plea bargaining should accomplish given prevailing norms of justice, what plea bargaining actually does accomplish given the reality of the judicial process, and how the existing practice could be modified (or preserved) through public policy. Research reported in this study addresses these concerns by posing and answering a broad question: Who gains and who loses from plea bargaining? Based on data contained in the Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) maintained by the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C., the analysis is essentially empirical, and the attempt to quantify observations and support conclusions statistically contrasts with an equally important existing body of research, which is more qualitative.

Scale of Sentence Severity

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to create an interval scale measuring the comparative severity of types of criminal sentences. It is assumed that the scale could be used as a methodological tool for studies in which comparisons are made by the degree of severity of the sentences. The problem addressed in the present study is that sentences contain disparate elements which cannot easily be compared and this in turn raises several important questions. For example, is ten years probation less severe than one month in jail? Or do the possible sorts of restrictions involved in probation or the character of the prison affect the severity of the sentence?

Delinquency Causation: A Typological Comparison of Path Models

Abstract: vance in explaining delinquency causation These attempts have often yielded relatively favorable results However, we still find ourselves at a stage where we have difficulty specifying the most important predictors of various forms of criminal behavior We are not too effective in extracting from our theoretical maze of knowledge the unique processes that are most vital in explaining delinquency production of a certain type Perhaps the lack of confidence that is often placed in the ability of current theories to explain delinquency is due to our enormous theoretical expectations It may be somewhat unrealistic to expect delinquency theories to explain all aspects and instances of a behavioral phenomenon Yet, critics frequently hinder the development process for various ideas by pointing out the particular cases in which a certain proposition does not fit empirically As Roebuck noted, "Criminologists appear to delight in the destruction of each others' theories"' The theoretical disputes encountered in the literature are both provocative and enlightening, but, in the final analysis, may be destructive because they may distract the scientific community from the important task of explaining certain behavioral forms

Patterns of Middle and Upper Class Homicide

Abstract: The study of crime has traditionally focused upon the conventional criminal behavior patterns of the lower classes. Not until Sutherland's seminal work on white-collar crime did researchers improve the representativeness of the subject matter of criminology by studying the crimes of the rich as well as those of the poor.' This development shows that predatory crime is not exclusively, necessarily, or even primarily a product of lower class character structure. It also proves that social class differences in the conditions of life give rise to different kinds of opportunities and methods for criminal gain. The investigation reported here initiates a similar effort in the area of criminal homicide. Because it occurs rarely, middle or upper-class homicide has largely eluded systematic analysis. Nevertheless, information on the circumstances of its occurrence is essential to the development of a comprehensive theory of homicide. This study, therefore, explores how patterns of criminal homicide in the middle and upper-class differ from those of the lower-class. The research literature displays relatively consistent findings regarding the circumstances of criminal homicide. The characteristics of offenders and their victims, the motives of the killers, the patterns of interaction between the offender and victim, the methods and techniques employed, and the accompanying temporal and spatial patterns all tend to remain somewhat constant. Collectively summarized, the leading American studies2 show that: 1. Black males from 15 to 30 years of age kill more frequently than any other racial age-sex cate-

Judicial Decisions and Sanction Patterns in Criminal Justice

Abstract: There is current controversy in criminal law which centers on the criminal sanction and the delineation of purposes for the sentencing process. The debate focuses on the priority of four goals: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Critics of the present indeterminate sentencing and parole system have argued that rehabilitation has not worked and that treatment does not offer a viable model for the criminal law.' As a result, such critics have contended that emphasis should be placed on goals which can be realized and which correspond to the norms of equity and justice.2 Proposals for fixed or determinate terms, guideline schemes, and presumptive sentences have been suggested as policy alternatives based on the need for deterrence, the primacy of public order, and the legitimacy of retribution. The question of goal priority is at the core of these policy proposals. This question has two aspects. The first questions what we should expect the criminal sanction to achieve. The second considers how we should order our priorities to fulfill society's need for stability and safety while recognizing and conforming to the unique demands that individual rights place on a democratic society. On the surface one would assume that sanction

Soviet Criminology after the Revolution

Abstract: Soviet Union during the 1920's. The Soviet scholarship of this period differed significantly from the psychoanalytical and sociocultural schools that were emerging in the United States. The diversity and level of sophistication of crime research conducted by early Soviet researchers has been duplicated on a mass scale in the West only in the postWorld War II period. Soviet research in the 1920's therefore is of interest not only to the specialist on Soviet society, but to all criminologists interested in the philosophical and historical development of their discipline. The predominate topic of research was the personality of the offender. Scholars also studied such diversified problems as crime causation, the fight against criminality, penology, typology of criminals, and the effect of social and economic conditions of criminality. The majority of the research was thorough and of a high intellectual caliber. Original research was conducted on movies and crime, commission of crime by females, and the geography of criminality. Innovative research methods were used in studying the psychology of prisoners and penitentiary methods. Diaries and other writings were used to analyze the prison experience, and several experimental prisons themselves were established by different criminological research institutes to study the effects of incarceration on the convict.

Delay, Documentation and the Speedy Trial Act

Abstract: Prompted by a desire to reduce criminal activity by persons released pending trial,' and by a wish to erect a fitting memorial to retiring Senator Sam Ervin,2 the Ninety-Third Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.3 The Act stems from the basic congressional assumption that the participants in the criminal justice system (i.e., the judges, prosecutors and defense counsel) cannot be trusted with the task of adequately protecting society's interests in the swift administration of justice.4 To date, however, the Act has been met with an unwelcome reception by the criminal justice system.5 This article suggests that the participants in the system may well take every opportunity to undermine the effect of the Act, and thereby defeat the goals it was intended to achieve. The Act requires, with certain exceptions, that a criminal defendant be tried within 100 days of arrest or service of summons.6 Consequently, one likely approach to subvert the intent of the Act will be for the defense to claim that the time limits of

Two Perspectives on Structuring Discretion: Justices Stewart and White on the Death Penalty

Abstract: In Furman v. Georgia,' both Justices Stewart and White joined the majority of the United States Supreme Court in holding discretionary death penalty statutes unconstitutional. In their separate concurring opinions, each Justice indicated that some methods of imposing the death penalty might be constitutional, even though discretionary imposition of the death penalty was not.2 After Furman, both Justices Stewart and White agreed that statutes providing for the imposition of the death penalty in accordance with certain "standards" were constitutional.3 They disagreed, however, over whether "mandatory" death penalty statutes were constitutional means of imposing death. Justice Stewart joined the Court's majority in declaring two slightly different mandatory death penalty statutes unconstitutional.4 But, Justice White dissented in each of these cases maintaining that mandatory death penalty statutes are constitutional.5 In essence, fundamental theoretical differences led each Justice to frame the issues differently in death penalty cases and accounted for the diverse outcomes. These fundamental differences are never fully articulated in the opinions, but nonetheless are of far ranging significance not only in capital cases, but in the criminal law in general. This article illustrates that Justice Stewart's "punishment" theory relies heavily upon procedural devices to individualize the decision of im-

Burdening the Fifth Amendment: Toward a Presumptive Barrier Theory

Abstract: Constitution1 has proven to be a difficult provision of the Bill of Rights to interpret.2 The language used by the framers establishing the privilege is both ambiguous3 and misleading,4 thereby making textual analysis unconvincing. Similarly, the historical background and intent of the framers are unclear,5 features which otherwise would assist in defining the proper scope of the privilege. Finally, the policies that the fifth amendment is designed to further6 are seriously disputed, leaving the privilege without an agreed upon rationale. One particularly troublesome problem which the Supreme Court has had to face in interpreting the privilege has been the need to set limits on the kind and intensity of pressure the state may bring to bear upon an individual to reveal what the state wishes to know. At one extreme, pressure in the form of physical coercion might be exerted by the state to obtain damaging information from a suspect. The Supreme Court, however, has had little difficulty classifying physical force as impermissible compulsion.' Similarly, the threat of the criminal contempt sanction has been held to violate the privilege against self-incrimination.8 Even many