pic_14 Provided by University Library of Tübingen Transcribed with Tesseract

This work is protected by copyright or related property rights but available in Open Access. The right of use and especially the right to reproduction is only granted within the legal limits of copyright law or due to the consent of the copyright holder.

 The delinquent stereotype and stigmatisation Christie, Nils medunarodni kongres za kriminologiju congres international de criminologie international congress on criminology mexkgyHapogHoIlt cbe3q io kpumuronotuu Nils CHRISTIE (Norway) Rapport for the first section THE DELINQUENT STEREOTYPE AND STIGMATISATIOI?/ S / f/‘ BELGRADE, September 17—22, 1973 Izdaje: Organizacioni komitet VII medunarodnog kongresa za kriminologiju, Beograd, Gracanic¢ka 18. Oprema: FORUM — BEOGRAD, Nu3ic¢eva 16 Stampa: Grafi¢ki Skolski Centar, Otona Zupanci¢a 19 Nils CHRISTIE THE DELINQUENT STEREOTYPE AND STIGMATISATION* 1. Introduction Even a sociologist knows the basic principle of a projective test. The test brings to the surface important hidden traits or tendencies within the observer. But this is also the case with broad, general topisc given us as tasks for consideration during scientific meeting. I have been given the honour to introduce to you the topic »Delinquent stereotypes and stigmatisation«. In another communication these concepts were related to labelling and interactional theory. But neither of these concepts give me very precise guidance. I feel like a patient confronted with a Rorschach. And I have decided to act like one. I will define and delineate it as I find most fruitful. I will not attempt to give a representative coverage of the problem. Mine will be a partisan view. But that ought to be acceptable behaviour in the country of Yugoslavia. It 1s of some importance to me to underline this frec interpretation of the topic and particularly the non-representativeness in my coverage, since one major point in my presentation will be an attempt to reduce the importance of the phenomena which are most generally considered to be covered by the formulaiton of my topic. It is an important topic. It has given basic insight of great usefulness particularly in the field of correction. But I do hesitate in classifying it as central trend in the sociology of crime at present. At least, I think it ought not be allowed to represent that position any more. 2. The interactional approach The concepts »stereotypes« »stigmatisation« »labelling« and »interaction« do belong to a very impressive intellectual tradition focusing on how human beings are influenced by the way in which they are perceived by other human beings. Major founders of this tradition are Charles H. Cooley!) and George Herbert Mead?). For criminologists, Frank Tannenbaum3) and Edwin M. Lemert4) can be seen as the founders of this approach. Tannenbaum is most famous for his concept of nagging and tagging: »The process of making the criminal, therefore, is a process of tagging, defining identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious, it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoke the very traits that are complainec of. If the theory of relation of response to stimulus has any meaning, the entire process of dealing with the young delinquent is mischievous in so far as it identifies him to himself or to the environment as a delinquent person. The person becomes the thing he *) General introduction to section I, 7th International Congress on Criminology, Beograd 17th — 22 September 1973. is described as being. Nor does it seem t~» matter whether the valuation is made by those who would punish or by those who would reform. In either case the emphasis is upon the conduct that is disapproved of. The parents or the policeman, the older brother or the court, the probation officer or the juvenile institution, in so far as they rest upon the thing complained of, rest upon a false ground. Their very enthusiasm defeats their aim. The harder they work to reform the evil, the greater the evil grows under their hands. The persistent suggestion, with whatever good intentions, works mischief, because it leads to bringing out the bad behaviour that it would suppress. The way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil. The less said about it the better. The more said about something else, still better«. (pp. 19—20). Lemert introduced the concept of secondary deviation to describe much of the same phenomena: »wSecondary deviation refers to a special class of socially defined responses which people make to problems created by the societal reaction to their deviance. These problems are essentially moral problems which revolve around stigmatization, punishments, segregation, and social contol. Their general effect is to differentiate the symbolic and interactional environment to whilch the person responds, so that early or adult socialization is categori- cally affected. They become central facts of existence for those experiencing them, altering psychic structure, producing specialized organization of so- cial roles and selfregarding attitudes. Actions which have these roles and self attitudes as their referents make up secondary deviance. The secon- dary deviant, as opposed to his actions, is a person whose. life and iden- tity are organized around the facts of deviance«. (pp40—41). Howard Becker 5) integrated many of these many ideas and threads in his book on »Outsiders«. His major perspective is stated in the introduction: » social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an »offender«. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label«. (p. 9)... »Deviance is not a quality that lies in behavior itself, but in the interaction between the person who commits an act and those who respond to it«. (p. 14). From this point of departure, Becker carries out a perceptive analysis of how a person might manage to avoid the impact of conventional commitments by avoiding entangling alliances with conventio- nal society or by applying different techniques of neutralization as described first by Cressey®), later by Sykesand Matza 7). The person can see himself as lacking responsibility for his deviant actions, he can claim that no harm was done, that his act was not wrong in light of the circumstances, or he can escape through a condemnation of the condemners. The person might later develop deviant motives and interests, particularly if he has been caught and branded as deviant. The most important consequence according to Becker — and in full accordance with the inspiration from Tannenbaum and Lemert — is a drastic change in the individuals public identity. Committing the improper act and being publicly caught at it place him in a new status. He has been 4 revealed as a different kind of person from the kind he was supposed to be. He is labeled and treated accordingly. A final step in this career into becoming a deviant is a movement into an organized group. »When a person makes a definite move into an organized group — or when he realizes and accepts the fact that he has already done so — it has a powerful impact on his conception of himself«. (p. 37). This book, and these ideas represent a major cdntribution to the under- standing of human behaviour in general and to the understanding of the criminal in particular. This whole trend represents a basic line of thought in modern criminology. Specifically it transforms the criminal from being an outsider to becoming an insider. By emphasizing that deviance is a con- sequence of other peoples definitions, the interactional school has been able to take away many of the peculiarities in the deviant position, and thereby recognize the common elements in deviant cultures and all other cultures. It has also become plain that through becoming a deviant, a person follows the same paths as to all other statuses in society. The interactional approach 1s a tremendous help if you, as a scientist, want to enter the deviants position and understand that position — as the deviant himself experiences the si- tuation. 3. Limitations in the interactional approach. Still there are problems. The interactional approach clarifies the centrak dimensions in the microcosmos of crime. But it leaves out the macrocosmos. The interactional approach is essential in understanding the criminal, but is not equally helpful in understanding crime. Tt is, basically, a social-psychological approach to knowlege, and leaves us thereby empty-handed when we are confronted with some of the classical problems on crime and social structure. There are particularly three major problems. 3.1. The ;problem of morality. The interactional school stresses the similiarities between deviance and normality, between crime and non-crime. But we know better. These acts are not similar! The interactional shool presents a world where all activities are equally legitimate. Maybe this is natural for a theory conceived in Chicago. As Al Gouldner states in an equally remarkable book $): »Rooted in a corrupt and burgeoning Chicago, a corruption that in time came to be taken for granted while the »reformer« was soon recognized as a kind of hustler on the make in his own way, it became clear, at least to second-generation Chicagoans, that respectable society was implicated in protecting and condoning crime and deviance. Having no »illusions« about the present and no real »hope« for its fundamental change the Chicagoans did not believe in the moral superiority of the »respectables« and could view the »deviants« not as a periphery but as just one more boundaried social world. The pimp, so to speak, was just another Kind of salesman, So if the younger Chicago School did not react with moral indignation againts the corruption of respectable ? society, if theirs was a species of accommodation to the status quo, they could also immerse themselves without qualm, indeed with dedication, in the night world of the deviant. For the younger Chicagoans, the study of deviant worlds was a way of life, a way in which they might »drop out« of respectable society with its transparant hypocrisy. For them, the deviant world was an authentic dwelling place, even if not »home«. They could thus assimilate an understanding of deviant worlds, seeing them from the perspective of the deviant’s own experience«. (p. XIII). This background represents some of the basic strengths as well as weakness in the interactional approach. Crime is being understood from the inside. But being seen from the inside, we loose track of crime as a peculiar phenomena All societies are not Chicago, and even Chicago is most certainly not only Chicago most of the time... The interactional approach has, as one of its major strengths,a moral blindness. Conceived in a society of deviance, the world 1s seen and understood like that. This has been a liberating approach for criminologist in a rigid society with traditionally great emphasis on the differences between good and bad, or crime and non-crime. But there is a life liberation. We don’t escape the old problems. Some acts are evil acts within their particular societies. They ought to be under control. Crime can’t be modernized or understood away. We are helped by interactionalists to understand the criminal, and the nor- mality of the phenomena, but we are still left with crime that ought to be controlled. My understanding of the criminal do not take away my wish to control him. 3.2. The problem of variation. None are better than the interactionalists in the first crucial stage; de- scribing the phenomena of crime. Moral blindness creates perceptual openness; from Goffman to Genet is a line of perceptive description which other types of criminology could never exist without. Perceiving comes before counting. But counting comes after. If ideals of a society are to be compared to realities, these realities have te be quantified. Interactional criminology has not brought us far with regard to second crucial step in quantification. This also makes the interactional approach badly suited for understanding of variations or stabilities in crime. Why is it increasing, decreasing or changing in content? What is it within a particular society, that creates these changes, or stabilities, if that happens to be the case? Changes have to be explained by changes somewhere else. Stabilities have to be explained by certain types of balancing forces. Theories of stereotypes and stigma might have a conserving effect within a particular society by focusing on that type of problem which is of no relevance for changes in society itself. 3.3. The problem of level of analysis. This danger is accentuated by the analytical level of the interactionalists. Their basic unit is the dyadic relationship in interactions between ego and alter which shifts attention away from larger structures. Howard Becker 9) declares without hesitation that his basic loyalities are on the side of the under-dog, — the weak in society. But again, Al Gouldner has shown 6 the possible dangers in this position. The prisoner is the under-dog in a dyadic relationship. The prison-officer is the upper-dog, but in other relationships, the prison-officer is the underdog vis a vis the prison director. And the director is the underdog vis a vis the central administration. And the minister of Justice is the underdog vis a vis the minister of Finance. To weaken the position of the upper-dog in one relation is to strengthen another upperdog somewhere else. An intelligent strategy with regard to social action is de- pendent on an understanding of the total social system. Such an understan- ding is not given through interactionalism. 4. Criminological data as indicators on contemporary society In my opinion, criminology has very little interest in itself. It has somewhat greater interest when it comes to helping society to cope with crime. But even more important is the enormous potential criminology has for helping society to understand itself. Criminology has a major potential for telling society what sort of society it is, and thereby for influencing that society. But, to accomplish this, we have to broaden the interactional approach. We have to expand that type of analysis into the study of the interaction between crime and social structure. Criminological data are central indicators on social conditions. We have to use criminological data as a mirror to society. We have to give light to the mirror, clean it, make it clear, well defined so that society can get a view of itself — through crime and crime-controll. And then we have to ash if society accepts what it perceives, and if not, tell that same society that it will have to take the consequences of discrepa- ncies between the picture in the mirror and the picture in the books of social ideals. Criminology might thus be used to explicate to society what sort of society it is and thereby implement changes if society is not what society thought. Let me try to illustrate what I have in mind through som eextremely simple examples. My data will mostly be provincial. They have to be. I can’t interpret Yugoslavia on the basis of Norwegian data. I am engaged in the task of creating a mirror for my own society. But the principles behind the analysis are universal. 4.1 Indicators on degree of formality within the system Does crime increase? To start with an attempt to answer this question, will most certainly lead to defeat. How could we ever get to know, as long as there are no commonly accepted criteria for crime, for the seriousness of crime, for tecniques to measure the »total amount« of hidden crime, or for evaluating to what degree the officially registered crime represents the mythical figure of the total amount of crime. We must come to terms with our destiny; we dont know, and we will never find out. With regard to certain types of criminal behaviour, we will. But never with the totality, because there is no clarity with regard to what has to be included. But defeat might be turned to victory: Rescued from wasting energy in finding out if crime is on the increase or not, we can turn to more manageable questions, such as: Is there any change — increase or decrease — in formally 7 registered criminal acts in society. And likewise: Is there any change in the number of formally registered criminal persons in that society? The answers to these questions do not necessarily tell us anything about change in crime. But they do add to the general set of information concerning that particular society. Let me use Diagram 1 as an example. It is a diagram showing the relative number of persons (Pr. 100.000 inhabitants above the criminal age limit) officially designated as criminals from 1835 and up to the present. Two features of the diagram are remarkable. First, the stability. Except for the two world wars, then umber of officially stigmaticed persons in Norway have kept within surprisingly stable upper and lower limits. But, and that is the second remarkable feature of the diagram, the very last years indicate a change. From 1968, the relative number of officially classified sinners in my country has in a way, got out of control. It is approac- hing war conditions. Something has influenced the usual pattern. I cat say if crime is on the increase. But I can say that the number of those formally coped with is on the increase. That, according to my values, is in itself a bad thing. But more it is also an indicator in harmony with a whole lot of other indicators of a change in the basic structure of that society, it is one of the many indi- cators of a change away from major reliance on informal control of the ci- tizens, and over to major reliance on types of formal control. Again, according to my values, a bad move. It is an indicator of a type of society where the units have grown so big, and the living so segmented, thet people have lost track of each other. The major agents for crime-control are of course not police, courts or penal establishments. The major agents are wifes, husbandss children, parents, friends, neigbours, and co-workers. Jokes, ironic remark, against normative deviation, or love for appropriate behaviour, these are the most important sanctions in all social systems, non-industrialized as well as overindustrialized. The increased size of each unit — an arrangement claimed to reduce costs in industrialized societies — and increased segmenta- tion within them, means less time spent exclusively with a limited circle of people. Interaction is spread out between many partners, partners that in our society even can be easily substituted for other partners. And then as the fatal feature for primary control; these partners ar not linked up into a network with each other. We have split up our societies in hundreds of separated pieces. A role-player moves from segment to segment in new roles, with new role-partners and eventually also new audiences which do not need to know anything about his other roles, his other associates, or his earlier life. The husband has one life at the job, one in the suburb, one in the amateur- radio club, one at scientific congresses. It is all good — and very bad. It creates an escape from the totality in many forms of primary control. The existence where the night shades over into the day, and the day has consequences for the night, that existence can in highly industrialized societies only be found in the most totalitarian among them, or in total institutions as prisons and mental hospitals. This whole reasoning confronts us ultimately with one of the basic po- litical questions: How tight a society do we want to live in? What sort of a system for grading, for judging? What is the best balance between formal and informal control? And if this is related to size: What is the size of the best unit, the one best suited for the good life, what 1s the best solution — in size as well as in division of labour? Criminological indicators give us an insight into the good society. Their usefulness here is much more important than their usefullness in any direct fight against crime. With this, we come from an other angle back to the central problem of stigma. Maybe one characteristic of the good society might be this: It is a society where stigma matters! It is one where it is of importance to behave in ways that do not activate reactions which lead to strong stigmatization. Or, in the opposite formulation: Th_ bad society is one where stigma does not matter at all’ Out of this, T would suggest that there are two extreme types of societies, both impossible in the long run. The one is the type where stigma cant be applied — because you can always hide with strangers, or because nothing matters. The other is the type where all participants are graded, continually, and nobody ever gets away with anything. Neither of these are likable, or workable arrangements in societies with need of internal control, but always also 1in danger of complete rigidit. We have to look for better solutions somewhere in the middle. In this attempt, we are helped, not hurt, by reali- zing that some kinds of stigma are an unavoidable condition for a functioning society. This, however, does not necessarily mean stigma of the historical type, — branding on the forehead or cutting arms, fingers or tongues. Accepting the unavoidability of stigma in living societies, we might, instead of shying away from the phenomena, be able to give guidance with regard to forms that are acceptable in our societies. Let me, to illustrate my point, mention two criteria I find of importance in my society: Stigma ought to be the type that can be removed when time has elasped or action has proved that it is not deserved any more. A harsh public scolding directed to a persons specified bad acts takes better care of this criteria than a psychiatric examination leading into a diagnosis of »personality defects«. Bad acts can be compensated by good ones. But how can a personality defect ever be proved to be cured? When is a psychopath not a psychopath any more? What is the criteria, where is the ritual? Stigma ought also to be of the type that can be graded, split up in varying degrees of severity, in contrast to the dichotomized type of all or nothing. The label »criminal« is of the unsuitable dichotomy type, while »stole a car while drunk« is of the more useful graded type containing more information. But characteristically enough, this last type can only survive in small socie- ties where such grades can be remembered and correctly communicated to the relevant members. The paradoxical situation is, that with increased size of the system, it is easier to escape stigma, but the types applied will be of the more and more definite, not graded types. 4.2 Indicators on Unequality My society belongs to the large number of societies which claim that eguality is a sort of basic value. Wealth, power, participation, social services, pleasures, — it all ought to be spred rather evenly between all the members of the nation. It was a source of comfort to us that our primeminister who 9 survived longest in office after the second world war lived in a very ordinary apartement in the East-End of Oslo without any status-symbols destroying his resemblance to most other people. The King is considered to be so much of an anachronism that there is no real need for changing the situation, and most rich people are trying to hide their regrettable deviance from the common denominator. Still, we know this is not quite true. Let me again turn to criminological indicators. We have a very small prison population, only Netherland has, to our deep an lasting envy, been able to get their prison population further down than our 37 pr. 100 000 inhabitants. Compared to the five to ten times higher prison-populations in countries like USA and Poland and many others, we feel rather happy. Evaluated on the basis of the relative number of the population behind walls, we have a good society, one with a considerable amount of equality in not being behind bars: But when we consider the few who are there behind the bars, our joy fades. They are extremely far from being our equals. Or the equals to those apprehended for crime. Or the equals to those known as criminals from studies of self-reported crime. Somewhere along the line a selection takes place which means that our prisons are clogged with poor, handicapped and suffering human beings. Evaluated on the basis of our prison-population, crime is a poormans activity. It cant be true. It is not true. But the prison population does probably give a very true picture of some basic inequalities in ny society, inequalities very much in contrast with the official mythology. Other criminological indicators point in the same direction. Officially registered criminals are males. They have always been so. Diagram 2 gives a picture of relative participation of females in the crime picture back to 1860. Women have never been represented in the total crime picture with more than 23 percent of the total number of the declared sinners. Furthermore: Their participation has decreased. Up to 1884 they participated with slightly more than 20 percent of all persons found guilty. In 1958, that figure was down to four percent. This is a diagram showing crime among women. But it is at the same time a mirror of womens participation in the Norwegian society. In 1958 this participation hit the bottom. The first and second world war as well as the very last years represent deviations. In absolute numbers, more than five times as many women were punished by the state in 1970 as in 1958. Women are outsiders, particularly with regard to paid work. The upper line in the diagram illustrates the relative number of women workers. The recent peak in womens crime coincides beautifully with her general parti- cipation in work. Very seldom do we meet a diagram that so clearly illustrate how low participation in crime might be a reflection of social conditions which at least according to some values are bad conditions. If equallity in participation between the two sexes is seen as an important goal, one will probably appreciate an increase in the relative frequency of womens crime! Registrered criminals are males. And they are extremely young males. Diagram 3 shows persons apprehended by the police distributed on different age groups. There is a mountain of youngsters at 15. Women are as usual lagging far behind, but also they have a maximum in the very early years. And again, the phenomena of age has changed over time. Police-statistics 10 for 1870 showed no peak for teen-agers. They did not exist at that time. A hund- red years ago, the peak was somewhere in the middle twenties and with a slow decrease in criminal activity among the older groups. Apprehended criminals have changed, — from mature men to children and youth. This, however, is a change in the most beaut:ful accordance with the general change of the position of youth in highly industrial:zes society. When all the simple tasks in life were not yet mechanized away, when animals had to be guarded by attentive children, when the fire needed small pieces of wood picked up by small hands out in the forest, when the lamps had to be filled with oil, when the snow had to be removed by any hands available when socks had to be knitted and dirt washed away — again by young hands — then there was a life with heavy obligations, may be even abuse of children and young persons, but at the same time a life of full participation in what that particular society defined as vital tasks. With mechanization in urban societies, these tasks are all taken away. An honest evaluation of the situation would lead to a creeping suspicion that may be the situation is one where children and young people actually are not very important any more. They are not important for the major functio- ning of society until they are grown up. The steady increase in number of years spent in schools within all industrialized nations is maybe not only because of the need for learning, but because of the need for getting children and young persons out of the mainstream of society. Since they are of no use, we better keep them in school until they have matured into usual adults. But on this point, we can use our insights from the sociology of prisons. We know that those stored away, are the most difficult to control. The more you have lost, the less there is to be taken away as means of punishment. And the less you are integrated in the major activities of the social system, the more difficulties there are in operating with rewards worth striving for. And again we are back to equality, and also to relevance, which I will soon turn to. Sex, age and colour are useful categories for dividing up a population. Those nations lacking colour differences make the utmost use of the other two vairiables. In my interpretation, Diagram 3 is a clear reflection of unequal distribution of important forms of participation in our society. It is a clear reflecion of our success in keeping young people outside of the main-stream of society, even though we have — and this in contrast to the case of the women — given the young males a maximum of motivation for becomming insiders, participants in the major activities. 4.3 Indicators of irrelevance Take the phenomena of overwhelming abundance of poor people in prisons. Add the phenomena of children and youth being the most often apprehended persons. Compare this to the major problems a modern society 1s faced with. I think many will agree that it is a grave case of the machinery of justice geared to the less important questions. Crime control in rapidly industrialized societies seems everywhere to work according to the old model of fighting individuals who have sinned against customs that were highly relevant in the little society long since di- sappeared. This is the easy way out, both because it is the traditional way, 11 and also because it leaves the system of sanction with the largest it can most easily hit, the most rewarding ones, and the least dangerous ones: Young, lower class, urban males preferably with an earlier criminal stigma. What could be more suitable — less controversial? Compare this to what I consider to be the real problems: There are the very same phenomena which create the decrease in possibilities for informal control; it is the huge units with a high degree of devision of labour; The gigant-factory, the cartell, the huge hospital, the bureaucracy to run all this, do create completely new and mostly unsolved problems for agencies of control. Two major ones can be pointed out. First the control of individuals within these new organizations. This 1s the problem of crime againts the organizations, or crime carried out through them. But there i1s also a second and greater problem: Units have a life above the individuals. Don Cressey has pointed to this in his analysis of organized crime. But the problem is a general one. All organizations, like all human beings, have possibilities for committing crime. There is an organizational behaviour — as with individuals — no clear difference between white and black, between criminal and non-criminal. It is more a question of shades of grey. There are norms to govern the behaviour of these organisations, but thereby also possibilities for breaking of the laws. And then to our pro- blems: What sort of controls are built up to find the new crime? What sort of police are trained, what sort of attorneys, with what sort of powers. Se- veral of the directives to the large organizations are of a rather general type. In many laws for the general school-systems of countries, it is specified what sort of human being the system is expected to turn out. But what about the many cases where it is clear and obvious that this does not happen? Most social welfare laws in industrialized societies specify certain minimum stan- dards for service. What about municipalities that do not provide even minimum service? Many constitutions guarantee work for all inhabitants. What about cases of non fulfillment? Most prisonregulations guarantee some minimum rights. Realities are often somewhat different. Who takes care? Where are the organizations strong enough, and with sufficient independence, to police the prison, or even more absurd (in our recent set up), where are those to police the police? 5. Possibilities for reform On this general background, we are hopefully able to give some insight into possibilities as well as impossibilities for reform. Let me first turn to the question of conventional crime. 5.1 Control of conventional crime Most of what needs saying, has already been said. If crime is a reflection of social conditions, it is to these conditions that we must turn our attention if we wish to transform the original scene. But therepon we run straight into all the obstacles found in the path of criminal reform. It just is not true that evil creates evil, or that crime is the product of the night-side of society. Crime 1s also a reflection of conditions that many regard as good. We are back to the phenomena of large units, internal differentiation, freedom from con- 12 straint. Crime 1s also a reflection of conditions that many regard as good. Offences against the law are to a great extent to be reckoned as part of the price we have to pay for the way in which we organize our total social systems. And we do not so organize ourselves without having our reasons for doing so. There are some, at any rate, who find the pattern adopted suitable. This is probably a main cause for the expenditure of so much energy on discussions of symptoms in the crime reform debate. If offences against the law could be checked by checking the offenders we should be able to kill two birds with one stone. Then we should be able to retain our basic social structure, and at the same time avoid paying the price for our arrangements. This is an especially attractive course of action because the price to be paid by only treating the symptoms must be borne by social groups which are rather remote from most of us. As criminologists, we do however know that there is no hope of achieving diminished criminality by concentrating our attention on apprehended cri- minals. The huge number of studies of the effects of different types of sanctions have produced one basic principle; it makes very little difference what one does with offenders. Their return — or non-peturn — to new crimes is governed by other factors than the measures intended to reform them. The criminal can perform an important function as an indicator of problems croated by a certain social structure. But there is no reason whatever to suppose that we can, to any important extent, influence criminality within our type of society by doing anything specially clever with the criminal. The important choices are those dealing with the general social organi- sation of society. Parliament can exercise greater influence on the future pat- tern of violence when 1t makes decisions on industrialization, than on develop- ment of police and prisons. Political decisions that cause people to flock to the cites have more effect on the incidence of violence than lavish granting of funds to repair damage already caused by other decisions. Crimes com- mitted by youth are much more efficiently fought by diminishing the segmen- tation of youth from ordinary life than by creating more special institutions for them — from schools to youth prisons. Participation is better than cure, best of all would be to abolish both the phenomena and concept of youth and treat people of that age as usual human beings. But that would be to the disadventage of both industry and grown ups, — so we are in the usual mess where real reforms would bring costs to those privileged with power not have to pay. It 1s within these fields that the vital choices are to be made. It is here, with reference to the basic organization and structure of our societies, that the vital debate on criminal policy must be conducted. The amount and type of crime is a political question. Criminal politics is much more a question of »real« politics than we, the so called »experts« like to think. There is no particular reason to expect that a society where private capital decides major trends of development will have any possibilities for changing recent patterns in crime. But there i1s on the other hand no particular reason to believe that other political systems that also apply these major organizational patterns — large size, highly developed division of labour, lack of total visibility, under- lining of the utmost importance in material belongings combined with une- 13 quality in the reward-system — that these other systems will be any better off. An exception might be created if one could glue the wholde system to- gether with an unusually strong common and uniting ideology. But then the next question that creeps up is, can any such common ideology survive the above mentioned major characteristica? Within both types of systems there will be strong spokesmen for a continuation of recent developments of un- imaginative industrialization. — With the furter developments in the amount of officially registered crime as one of the calculated or uncalculated costs. And I repeat, because this point is always misapprehended; the discussion about what is to be done with those who have already committed offences, is only a detail in relation to this whole question. 5.2 Control of the large units. The basic dilemma here is, that to control the large and powerful units in society — from factories to police systems — we need to be large and powerful ourselves. But accepting this need for size in such a new system of control, we tend at the same time to encourage the very same trends and forces in society that create many forms of conventional crime. A large control organization is in itself a growth-factor pushing towards size, specialization and segmentation. By encouraging growth in the system of control, the area for primary-control is further reduced. A huge and efficient organization for crime control might easily remove the remnants of primary control. There is probably no easy way out, only rough ones, covered with stum- bling stones, such as the old democratic way, with power given back to ordi- nary people. That means, in our framework, a push away from centralized forms of social control, and into experimentation with de-centralized ones. It means less reliance on professionals, and more on general contact with local values. It means greater reliance on local mores concerning right and wrong, good and bad. It means greater reliance on neighbourhood-police and local courts. This, however, does not help us vis a vis the really large units. General Motors, Skoda, The president of X or the Prime-Minister of Y cant be con- trolled by local courts and police. Centralized organizations demand centra- lized control. But then we have to keep them limited to deal only with crime reaching out of the local communty, organized farreaching crime, mobile crime, and most of all, crime within such big units as private firms, factories, or state and municipal bureaucracies. It is not forensic medicine and ballistics which are most needed by this type of police, but qualifications in auditing and business law. It is a police system with sufficient self-confidence and knowhow to dare to investigate the complexities of complex societies, that T have in mind. But the dangers are obvious. The dangers of even higger organizations growing like cancer within democratic institutions. The danger of even less room for local control. The danger of creating a society where all important decisions are taken by somebody hidden somewhere else. Therefore, the ul- timate answer to these problems is probably not te be found in the creation of new organizations, but in building down the old ones. The ultimate answer is probably to reshape our institutions into a size and complexity that can be operated — which also means controlled — by ordinary human beings. 14 6. The criminologist in interaction with his society This perspective might open help to clarify the role of the criminologist in society. He has the possibilities — within a very sensitive area in all socie- ties — to function as a sort of professional mirror. He can interact most meaningfully with his society by describing how that very society does look, seen from his angle. He can compare ideals with realities as found within his own territory of interest, and he can ask if society accepts the degree of discrepancy. This is not a very rewarding role. Discrepancies exist within all systems, those pointing them out are seldom decorated for heroism. The temptation will always be to play the music most popular with the emperors. This makes it particularly important for the criminologist to clarify his role and to main- tain contact with a community of equals who can help him carrying out a task which in the long run might represent a very tiny contribution towards the creation of the good society. 15 0o 00 I (LY} e” (PN l". a® 200 ““' 'l ; ‘.‘ 100 | L 1835 1918 1944 1968 1870 Diagram 1. Number of persons above the criminal age limit pr. 100 000 inhabitants limi officially designated as criminals in Norway. Dotted line represents young people guilty of crime, but referred to Child Welfare. 397, 38 37 36 E 35 34 33 32 WORKERS 3 30 29 28 27 ; 26 i 25 24 23 Diagram 2. Number of women officially designated as criminals in Norway in percentage 22 of total number from 1860. 21 : Upper line: Percentage of registered women workers. 20 19 18 - 17 16 15 14 13 12 CRIMINALS pon ; 1;% 65 70 i T— 73 80 85 95 05 10 15 20 25 33 40 43 S0 85 65 1970 1860 1900 pr. 1000 ohabitants 26 T TS emn e L AU Cwn gy e e em— 22+ 18— 14 MALES 10— b H— SN FEPRALES 21— - '.,’ "‘\'— o~ e —~ L—-‘(q st A G S I 63 [ 25 3:) 40 ) 60 YEARS 24 33 49 53 — -_— e e —— og over Diagram 3. Persons apprehended by the police in 1970 according to age and sex pr. 1000 inhabitants. Number of males 10 582 Number of females 1365 From »Kriminalstatistikk I«, Forbr. etterforsket av politiet 1970, (Tab. 19. p, 35) BIBLIOGRAPHIE 1) Human Nature and the Social Order. N. Y. 1902. 2) Mind Self and Society. Chicago 1967. 3) Crime and the Community, Boston 1938. 4) Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. New Jersey 1967. 5) Outsiders studies in the Sociology and Deviance. London 1963. 8) Other peoples Money, III 1953. 7) Techniques of neutralisation. A theory of delinquency. Am. Soc. Rev 1957, 22, 66470. 8) Jan Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young: The New Criminology. For a Social Theory of Deviance. With a foreword by Alvin W. Gouldner. London 1973. 9) Howard Becker: Whose side are we on? Social Problems 1967, 14, pp 239—247. 10) Alvin W. Gouldner: The Sociologist as Partisan. Sociology and the Welfare state The am. Sociologist 1968, 3, pp 103—116. o >t m—— &