pic_14
author: 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——

&