Showing papers in "Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology in 1981"

The Fear of Crime: Causes and Consequences

Abstract: In a paper presented more than eight years ago, Furstenberg made an observation that has proven to be the understatement of the decade for researchers studying the fear of crime: "the relationship between crime and its consequences is neither obvious nor simple."' His observation is no less accurate today than it was eight years ago, despite the fact that our knowledge about the causes and consequences of the fear of crime has increased steadily during the period. Every advance that is made-whether by refining concepts, by specifying and testing relationships, by obtaining more comprehensive data, or by some other meansseems to generate more questions than it answers. But that should be expected; part of the nature of complex social phenomena is that their complexity becomes more apparent as they are examined more closely.

On the Etiology of Criminal Victimization

Abstract: Two assertions that have never been particularly controversial among criminologists are, first, that the amount and kinds of victimization experienced by a group of people or by a class of objects depend on the exposure of the class to crime and second, that some people or kinds of objects are more exposed to crime than are others. The assertions are considered, at least implicitly, whenever a rate is altered so as to reflect a "population at risk." For years some criminologists have argued vigorously for the tabulation of crime data in ways that would be indicative of risk. For example, rather than norming each category of crime to the number of persons in the population, it has been argued that the base for the household burglary rate should be the number of households, the base for the rape rate should be the number of females, and the base for the automobile theft rate should be the number of automobiles.

Multiple Victimization: Evidence, Theory, and Future Research

Abstract: Without exception, victimization surveys over the past fifteen years have found that the great majority of the surveyed population report that none of the incidents they were asked about had happened to them during the period covered; a minority report that they experienced one incident; and successively smaller proportions generally report having experienced two, three . . . n incidents. This last group has been referred to, rather misleadingly,' as "multiple victims;" it is this group, and their experiences, with which this article is concerned. The phenomenon of multiple victimization raises a number of problems. Some of these problems are methodological; in particular, multiple victims pose a host of problems for those interested in victimization surveys, especially those surveys, such as the National Crime Surveys now being carried out by the United States Census Bureau for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, which aim to measure the volume of certain crimes or victimization in the general population. Multiple victims also raise some important substantive issues. Why do some people become victims of crime whereas others do not? To what extent can people act in ways that minimize, if not eliminate, the risk of future victimization? What are the social, psychic, and economic costs of being the victim of a crime? The answers to these questions may be no different in the case of multiple victims than for those victimized only once; but even if that is so, those answers may be easier to see if we look at multiple or recurrent victimization rather than occasional, sporadic, or egregious events. This article will review briefly the available evidence on multiple

Kids, Groups and Crime: Some Implications of a Well-Known Secret

Abstract: Social and policy sciences, reflecting human nature, are rich in contradiction and are occasionally perverse. It is sometimes possible both to know something important and to ignore that knowledge. To do this is to generate the phenomenon of the well-known secret, an obvious fact we ignore. When Edgar Allen Poe suggested that the best location to hide something is the most obvious place, he was teaching applied law and social science.

Victim-Offender Dynamics in Violent Crime

Abstract: A long held axiom of criminology is that in most societies crime prevention is primarily the responsibility of the citizenry and not the police. The study of victim-offender dynamics in violent crime is research of events which result either from a failure to prevent crime or a willingness to precipitate or participate in a criminal event. When prevention has failed, the decision to resist and the method of defense become important determinants of both the decision to invoke the criminal justice process and the criminal processing system's decisions to react to the crime. Thus, the perspective of the victim is probably more important for understanding the violent criminal event than either that of the police or courts. The major responsibility for crime prevention has historically been with the community and citizen, not with the crime processing system. If the study of victims of crime is to have a major effect on rates of crime, it may come through the enhancement of the ability of citizens to prevent crime and react to criminal events in a way which minimizes the resultant damage and injury to the victim.

Sentence Decisionmaking: The Logic of Sentence Decisions and the Extent and Sources of Sentence Disparity

Abstract: The proposed Federal Criminal Code features several tnnovations aimed at the problem of disparate sentencrng. In keepitg with the Journal of Crmzinal Law and Crimntology's singular interdisczthlnary tradition, we present below two viewpotnts rarely encountered together. The first it a criminological evaluation of sentencing disparit'es based on empirical studies by a research group. In the second, Judge Tj7o;at provides a legal analysis of the same issue, drawing on his practical experience on the federal bench. They complement and supplement one another. THE EDITORS

Methodological Issues in Survey Research on the Inhibition of Crime

Abstract: In a recent article, Grasmick and Green' analyze the relationships they observe in their sample between scales for L = threat of legal punishment, S = threat of social disapproval, M = moral commitment to legal norms, I, = self-reported past involvement in illegal behavior, and If = estimated future involvement in illegal behavior. The authors interpret their data on the basis of an assumed underlying causal model in which L, S, and M each influence I, and If. Their findings are consistent with the proposition that each of the independent variables inhibits participation in crime.

Methodological Problems in Victim Surveys and Their Implications for Research in Victimology

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine several of the more serious methodological problems in victimization surveying, with particular attention to the implications of certain measurement problems for basic research in victimology. Most of the paper deals with three aspects of measurement error: the amount of error contained in survey-generated estimates of victimization; the net direction of that error; and the correlates of error. Errors in survey data concerning the identification of persons as victims will be the primary focus.

Distinction between Conflict and Radical Criminology

Abstract: Radical criminology has been the subject of considerable interest within American criminology in recent years. The term is associated with a number of theorists, including Richard Quinney, Herman Schwendinger, Tony Platt, William Chambliss, and Paul Takagi.' But the content of radical criminology is less familiar to nonradical criminologists, due in part to the extent of the divergence of radical criminology from other branches of the field. In particular, some confusion exists concerning the distinction between radical and conflict criminology, where conflict criminology is associated with the works of theorists such as George Vold and Austin Turk, as well as with earlier works of several theorists who later became radical criminologists, such as Quinney's The Social Reality of Crime and Chambliss and Seidman's Law, Order, and Power.2 The confusion between these two perspectives is related to the fact that most American radical criminologists considered themselves conflict criminologists about ten years ago. The confusion also results because the two perspectives partially share the same intellectual heritage in the works of Karl Marx, and that Marxism, to which radical

Assessing the Behavioral Context of Victimization

Abstract: occur. The routine activities of citizens are widely viewed as explaining in part who falls victim to crime. The relatively low rates of victimization reported by the elderly are commonly attributed to their generally circumspect behavior, which seems to grant them less exposure to risk. People also vary in the extent to which they take specific precautions, such as installing special locks or alarms, to avoid falling victim. Those encouraging community crime prevention efforts have acted on the presumption that these activities yield positive benefits. Yet a close reading of the research on victimization fails to support most of these assumptions. Most studies of crime-related behavior have been underconceptualized and have employed inadequate measures, hence have not yielded reliable findings with regard to the personal significance of what people do.

Prosecutor Constrained by His Environment: A New Look at Discretionary Justice in the United States

Abstract: The broad discretionary power of the American prosecutor subjects the office to criticism and enshrouds the prosecutorial function in controversy. However, the criticism usually is overbroad and lacks factual support. Is a first offender convicted of aggravated assault treated differently in Brooklyn, New York, than in New Orleans, Louisiana? Is a shoplifting suspect found with a gun in her purse treated the same in Boulder, Colorado, as in Detroit, Michigan? Such questions have gone unanswered and, indeed, unasked, by any comprehensive survey of prosecutorial discretion in America. This study examines the spectrum of state prosecutorial styles in America's urban areas. Our purpose is to identify those differences which affect the uniformity, the quality, and the equality of justice administered by local prosecutors. In order to examine and analyze policy and the dimensions of uniformity and consistency in prosecutorial decisionmaking, ten geographically dispersed and otherwise diverse, large urban prosecutors' offices participated in this study.' This Article outlines some findings and con-

Confidentiality in criminological research and other ethical issues

Abstract: volved in research in criminology and criminal justice. I will touch on related issues bearing on the teaching of those subjects as well, for many who face moral dilemmas in acquiring knowledge also face such dilemmas in attempting to impart knowledge. Criminology is the systematic, scientific study of crime, criminals, and society's reaction to both. The belief system of the canons of science inheres in my reference to research. The acquisition of knowledge, for its own sake or for some other utilitarian end, is achieved by means of relatively detached and dispassionate perspectives. I suppose that in Austin Turk's1 terms, this approach is predominantly empirical, although not necessarily devoid of or insensitive to the legal or polemical definitions of reality. Applied in its common sense to the actions of the professional researcher in criminology, the term "ethics" refers to the set of principles governing conduct. I am applying that term to the professional researcher in criminology. Some of the issues I shall raise are also issues in other disciplines of research and teaching; some are peculiarly specific to criminology; all, I am asserting, are ethical issues. But some observers may challenge their ethicality and claim instead that these

Crime and Punishment Reconsidered: Some Comments on Blumstein's Stability of Punishment Hypothesis

Abstract: In a series of articles, Alfred Blumstein has proposed and tested a homostatic model of punishment in society. Based on ideas found in Durkheim, Blumstein hypothesizes that, over stable historical periods, the level of punishment in a society will be stable as well. After analyzing time series of imprisonment rates for three countries, Blumstein finds support for his hypothesis. In this paper, I re-analyze one of Blumstein's time series and analyze several others, including data for California from 1853 to 1970. These analyses and re-analyses, of both imprisonment and prison admission rates, show no support for the stability of punishment hypothesis. As a consequence, I argue that doubts can be raised about the adequacy of Blumstein's empirical analyses, that the measure of punishment he uses-imprisonment rates-may not be as good a measure of punishment as prison admission rates, and that additional approaches should be explored in order to provide more compelling tests of the stability of punishment hypothesis. * This research was supported by the National Institute of Justice (Grant No. 78-NI-AX0093). Richard A. Berk, Sheldon L. Messinger, and Thomas P. Wilson provided helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks go to Pat Gibson and Trina Marks Miller for typing various drafts, and to Kathy Stathopoulos for helping prepare the data. ** Ph.D. candidate, Dep't of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara; Senior Programmer, Social Process Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Sources of Data for Victimology

Abstract: Data as I will use the term are records of a systematic sort about phenomena. I am concerned only with data from which statistics can be generated: hence records must exist for a reasonably large number of phenomena of the same class. Data depend upon selective abstracting, symbolizing, and recording of activities by those who make the records. Few records used in victimology are records from direct observation by the recorder of all the phenomena of interest. This is because victimology is concerned generally with phenomena, or sequelae of phenomena, that are imperfectly predictable with regard to place or time of occurrence. Recorders usually cannot readily position themselves to observe many instances of the same class.' The phenomena of interest to victimology are events (and their sequelae) in which persons, as individuals, or as groups (victims) have been affected by acts of other persons or groups (offenders) which some judger defines as wrongful (offenses), in terms of institutionalized criteria (law or less formal social norms). To qualify, the victim must be the subject of attempted or threatened harm, or be placed in special danger of harm as a result of an offense. While it is possible to define purely objective indicators for the normative components of this definition, such as victim, offense, and harm, these concepts remain nonetheless normative. Hence, there are extra-

Criminal Liability for Life-Endangering Corporate Conduct

Abstract: Business corporations supply modern society with the necessities and comforts of life Benefiting from the collective capital of many shareholders and laws favoring the artificial business entity, corpora tions are uniquely able to provide goods and services to the public Cor porations produce our transportation vehicles, process the food we eat, construct the buildings in which we live and work, and make a myriad of goods we use everyday The manufacturing process provides employ ment and also profoundly affects our environment Corporations are thus an essential element of modern life

The "Saturday night special": an assessment of alternative definitions from a policy perspective

Abstract: A major issue in the gun control policy debate concerns the feasibility of reducing the harmful consequences of gun availability without serious infringement on legitimate uses. For example, most states have adopted much more stringent regulation for concealed weapons than for possession under other circumstances, because of legislators' belief that carrying concealed weapons contributes a great deal to the violent crime problem but very little to the average gun owners' utility. A second example of the balance between utility and harm are federal and state laws that prohibit young people and those with felony records from owning guns. These laws spring from the belief that such people constitute only a small fraction of the population but commit a disproportionately large fraction of the violent crimes.' Similarly, the campaign to ban the "Saturday Night Special" is based upon the belief2 that the small, cheap handguns which are frequently used in crime are of little value to noncriminals. Therefore, proponents contend, a ban on such guns would have considerable benefit with little cost. This article summarizes the policy debate regarding Saturday Night Specials, and evalu-

On Testing the Stability of Punishment Hypothesis: A Reply

Abstract: We commend David Rauma' for his effort to challenge and to test empirically our theoretical work2 on the "stability of punishment," and we thank the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology for this opportunity to respond to his re-analysis and re-interpretation of our work Much too often in criminology, and in social science generally, theories tend to be pursued and tested only by their proposers, whose credibility is necessarily suspect Useful theory can only develop as a result of test, challenge, and modification by others It is in this spirit that we are pleased to have this opportunity to address Rauma's work First, we would like to clarify some aspects of the theory that were misstated by Rauma While our "stability of punishment" hypothesis was certainly stimulated by Durkheim's notions about a constant level of crime, we do not adopt his suggestion that the level of crime--defined as the totality of unlawful acts-is stable in society; in fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary Indeed, in modern societies, even the volume of reported crime is almost always much greater than the capacity to respond to all of it It is the recognition of the inability of society to

Foreword--The Morality of the Criminal Law: Rights of the Accused

Abstract: Recent developments in the criminal law have occurred against a background of mounting public anxiety about violent street crime. Leading politicians have proclaimed crime a priority rivaling even inflation and defense.' As the sense of urgency intensifies, the desperate search for answers quickens. Virtually every day, a politician, editorial writer, or criminal justice professional offers a new prescription for ending crime. I believe the discussion currently raging over criminal justice issues can best be understood by focusing upon a central question: Must we compromise the most basic values of our democratic society in our desperation to fight crime? I have elsewhere considered the implications of this question for issues of criminal responsibility and for policy choices in the administration ofjustice.2 In this article, I will examine the ways in which different answers to this fundamental question can affect the development of legal doctrine, particularly with respect to the constitutional rights of those accused of crime.