Crime, Inequality and the State

Mary Vogel

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000155358
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Politics & International Relations
• Thema: Genocide & War Crimes

Why has crime dropped while imprisonment grows? This well-edited volume of ground-breaking articles explores criminal justice policy in light of recent research on changing patterns of crime and criminal careers.

Highlighting the role of conservative social and political theory in giving rise to criminal justice policies, this innovative book focuses on such policies as 'three strikes (two in the UK) and you're out', mandatory sentencing and widespread incarceration of drug offenders. It highlights the costs - in both money and opportunity - of increased prison expansion and explores factors such as:

• 
  
  

• labour market dynamics
• the rise of a 'prison industry'
• the boost prisons provide to economies of underdeveloped regions
• the spreading political disenfranchisement of the disadvantaged it has produced.

Throughout this book, hard facts and figures are accompanied by the faces and voices of the individuals and families whose lives hang in the balance. This volume, an essential resource for students, policy makers and researchers of criminology, criminal justice, social policy and criminal law, uses a compelling inter-play of theoretical works and powerful empirical research to present vivid portraits of individual life experiences.

PART ONE Bringing inequality back in to crime, law and authority

WHEN THINKING ABOUT CRIME, it is all too easy to forget that it is socially constructed. This means that an act becomes crime because a people have collectively decided that doing it violates the law. In that process of political transformation, however, not all voices are heard equally. Inequality may arise not only from the law as enacted but also its interpretation and implementation. All laws are implemented in settings where scarce resources mean choices are made about what to enforce.

Equally important, law’s relation to diverse groups’ beliefs and norms of behavior may vary too. An urban inner city youth may find it hard to understand why in some places major financial crimes produce penalties less severe than possession of marijuana for personal use. Conversely, some parents may be mystified as to how hurling rocks through lighted windows can be considered by some youth just a lively night out.

Since it is often the norms of the powerful that are most clearly reflected in law, disadvantaged groups are more likely to view law as out of step with their interests and values. This challenge grows as societies become more ethnically and culturally diverse. Perceptions of such divergence of laws from norms may inspire challenges to the legitimacy of law and, in the extreme case, to political authority itself (Weber, 1978). Robert Putnam shows that a vital part is played by civic engagement and participation in making democracy work.

Because political authority in western democracies is so strongly anchored in law, anything that weakens law has the potential to undercut authority itself. A democratic regime that must have recourse to coercion to uphold order gives the lie to its claim to represent the will of all. Thus, the relation of law on the street to what local communities see as right or wrong is worth thinking about. Diversity makes this an especially difficult task. Interestingly, even where laws do not meet favor substantively, Tyler has shown that laws, which are seen as produced by a process that is procedurally fair, gain more certain acceptance than others.

This research highlights the importance of considering how laws and law enforcement relate to people’s norms and beliefs if coercive over-reliance on control, surveillance and policing are to be averted.

Chapter 1CRIME AND POLICY

Steven R. Donziger

From: Steven R. Donziger (1996), excerpts from ‘Crime and Policy’, in S. R. Donziger (ed.), The Real War on Crime. The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission, New York: Harper Perennial, pp. 1–44.

AMERICA IS A NATION both afraid of and obsessed with crime. Since the 1960s, hundreds of different crime bills have been passed by Congress and state legislatures. The country has fought a war on drugs. Annual expenditures on police have increased from $5 billion to $27 billion over die past two decades. Prisons have been built to lock up more people than in almost any other country in the world. The United States is the only country in the West to employ capital punishment and to use the death penalty against teenagers. Yet Americans in record numbers still report that they feel unsafe in their streets and in their homes.

We have leveled our supposedly strongest weapons at crime, to the tune of about $100 billion tax dollars per year.... Yet still there is the feeling that the criminal justice system is not doing enough.... While we continue to take tougher and tougher stances, the underlying problem remains: our criminal justice system is failing to control crime in a way that makes Americans feel safe.

A hoax is afoot. Politicians at every level – federal, state, and local – have measured our obsession, capitalized on our fears, campaigned on “get tough” platforms, and won.... Appearances are often deceiving. [. . .]

CRIME RATES: THE NUMBERS DO NOT TELL THE FULL STORY

There is a widespread perception in the United States that crime rates are rising. In most categories, however crime rates over the last two decades have remained remarkably stable. What has changed is the nature of criminal violence. Partly because of the prevalence of firearms, one category of the population—young males in the inner city – is at an extremely high risk of being killed. This danger sometimes spills over to the suburbs and rural areas, creating fear throughout the country. Violence in the inner city is one of the most pressing issues facing the American criminal justice system. [. . .]

Before delving into these issues, we must keep in mind some basic facts. First, crime rates are higher today than they were in the 1950s. This is largely because crime increased significantly in the 1960s. But since the early 1970s, crime rates have remained remarkably stable even though they sometimes go up or down from year to year.... Second, the serious violent crime rate for the United States stands 16 percent below its peak level of the mid-1970s. These statistics... should not be taken to mean that crime is not a major problem. Crime (particularly homicide) is widespread in this country, and among young people violent crime, after dropping in 1992, 1993 and 1994, increased in the late 1990s.

Two measures of crime

We have found that there is a huge difference between the public perception and the reality of crime in the United States.... Remember that most people perceive crime to have been rising when in reality it has remained remarkably stable for many years.

One major source of confusion about crime rates in the United States is that there are two major methods by which crime is measured, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). It may be startling that these two systems of measurement produce quite different numbers. The UCR is tabulated by the FBI, based on arrest information submitted annually by each of the 17,000 different police departments in the United States. Because it provides a state-by-state break-down of crime rates, the UCR is the measure most cited by the media (who see it as a good local story) and politicians (who talk about it with their constituencies).

However, most criminologists consider UCR figures inaccurate because they tend to exaggerate increases in crime – a fact that is at least partly responsible for the misperception that crime is rising.... First, computers have led to marked improvements in police reporting of crime. Thus, “increases” in crime reported by police are often the result of improved recordkeeping rather than criminal activity. [. . .]

The UCR also is flawed because of the way many police departments tabulate their statistics. If two persons are arrested for a single assault, police usually count the two arrests rather than the one assault. Thus, one crime suddenly turns into two. This practice creates the most severe distortions in juvenile crime because juveniles are often arrested in groups.

Moreover, budgetary decisions based on police reports create incentives for police departments to skew their figures upward. The 1994 Federal Crime Control Act, for example, allocates more funds to states with higher levels of crime as recorded by the police. [. . .]

Despite its flaws, the UCR does provide an accurate measure of the homicide rate. This is because murders are rare and serious events that citizens tend to report quickly and accurately to the police, who record them with precision. The UCR indicates that the incidence of murder per capita is lower today than it was in the 1930s, when the rate of incarceration was about one-fifth what it is today. The 1994 homicide rate of 9.3 per 100,000 population is nearly identical to the rate of 9:4 per 100,000 recorded in 1973.... Our national murder rate is not increasing nearly as fast as many might claim.

We believe – as do most criminologists’ – that the figures produced by the National Crime Victimization Survey are more accurate. To conduct the survey, staff at the Census Bureau telephone a representative sampling of households around the country to determine how many people were victimized by one of seven crimes in the preceding year. The seven crimes are rape, robbery, assault, personal theft, household theft, burglary, and motor vehicle theft. The NCVS generally is considered more reliable because it uses scientific polling techniques similar to those that determine the Nielson ratings in television. It does not measure murder because the victim cannot be interviewed. The NCVS does not break down crime data by area, thus making it less interesting to members of the news media who want to find a local angle on crime trends.

The threat of violent crime

It is important to distinguish between crime generally and violent crime specifically. Violent crimes are committed against people – murders, rapes, robberies, kidnappings, and assaults. Nonviolent crimes are usually committed against property – burglaries, auto thefts, embezzlement, check forgery, fraud, and trespassing. [. . .]

Offenses involving the sale or possession of drugs are also nonviolent, but obviously a violent act associated with the sale or possession of drugs (such as a shooting to protect a drug market) would be a violent, crime. Much violence in our society is not a violation of the criminal law. [. . .]

A violent crime is an act of violence that violates a criminal law passed by the Congress or a state legislature.

The vast majority of crime in America is not violent. One in ten arrests in the United States is for a violent crime. Only 3 in 100 arrests in the United States are for a violent crime resulting in injury. The distinction between violent and nonviolent crime is critical and helps us understand why the criminal justice system is not more effective at making Americans safe. When people think of locking up criminals, they usually have an image in mind of a violent offender – a murderer or a rapist. But the vast majority of people filling expensive new prisons are nonviolent property and drug offenders.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (July 1994), Criminal Victimization in the United States: 1973–92 Trends, p. 9.

Violent crime is a major problem in localized areas of the inner city. In those places, firearms violence – especially against young people— has increased dramatically. During the 1980s, teenage boys in all racial and ethnic groups became more likely to die from a bullet than from all natural causes combined. During the time period from 1985 to 1991, annual rates of homicide for males aged 15 to 19 years increased 154 percent. For African-American male youths, the homicide rate is eight times that of white male youths. If you live in the inner city and are young – particularly young and A...

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• INTRODUCTION: THE IRONY OF IMPRISONMENT: THE PUNITIVE PARADOX OFTHE CARCERALTURN AND THE "MICRO-DEATH" OF THE MATERIAL
• PART ONE Bringing inequality back in to crime, law and authority
• PART TWO Crime, violence and expanding imprisonment
• PART THREE Crime and the life course
• PART FOUR Social and spatial structure of community
• PART FIVE Race, class and gender in a deindustrializing society
• PART SIX Sentencing discretion and inequality in common law
• PART SEVEN Reimagining criminal justice
• PART EIGHT Governing through crime: coercion or consent?
• Epilogue