Below are the passages I quoted in class this morning (Thurs., 9/22), all of which are critical of both deterrence and rational choice theory.
First, from a book entitled, "The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice" (4th edition):
In a section entitled, "General Deterrence": "A simple test of deterrence is whether states or countries with the death penalty have lower homicide rates than those who don't. There is no evidence to indicate that this is true. The United States is the only Western democracy that retains capital punishment; it is also the country with the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Comparative analyses of regions within the U.S. reveal the same pattern. Southern states account for about 80 percent of all executions, and the South is the only region with a homicide rate above the national average. The homicide rate in states that have retained the death penalty is 6.6; the rate for non-death penalty states is 3.5." (p. 335)
And a more general comment about "get tough" policies that have prevailed in our criminal justice system for the past 30 years or so: "Longer sentences for repeat offenders continue to be a political panacea for crime. It is an easy solution to sell because it seems logical. According to popular folk wisdom, severe punishment and the certainty of prison will deter crime. That may be commonsense logic, but it is wrong. The simple fact is that prison does not deter crime, and severe sanctions probably increase the amount of crime in society. If prison terms deterred further criminality, we would expect that people who go to prison would be among those least likely to return there. However, the fact is that within 3 years of release from prison 47 percent were reconvicted for a new crime."
"So the commonsense logic of deterrence is neither logical nor sensible. It is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of both criminals and crime. For deterrence to work, the offender must be a logical actor who understands the consequences of criminal behavior, knows the penalties, and weighs the costs of the crime against the benefits of crime. Logic and calm reflection are simply not parts of the crime equation. In addition, a sizable number of offenders are people without hope, living in desperate circumstances. They are the poor, the unemployed, the uneducated, the socially alienated. Fear of prison is a relatively minor consideration when stacked up against the hopelessness of their day-to-day existence. Yet, police and politicians continue to pledge eradication of mythical crime problems through more law and order and more punishment." (pp. 362-363)
Then, from Ronald Akers on rational choice theory:
"Does an offender choose to commit a crime with full knowledge and free will, taking into account only a carefully reasoned...set of costs and benefits? If it is this kind of pure rationality that rational choice theory assumes, then the theory has virtually no empirical validity. The purely rational calculation of the probable consequences of an action is a rarity even among the general conforming public." (p. 24)
Finally -- referring to a study of repeat offenders: "...their actions and assessment of risks were unrealistic, even to some extent irrational. They were unable to make reasonable assessments of the risk of arrest, did little planning for the crime, were uninformed about the legal penalties in the state where the crime was committed." (p. 25)
(a) And it was in this context that we brought out a few examples of criminals' ineptitude, which is much more common than careful planning.
That's all for now. I will be posting some more lecture notes on the blog over the weekend, so check them out. See you next week.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
First Family Activity: "Crime Types' Chapter Reports
As I mentioned in class yesterday (Tues., 9/20), we are going to be dividing the class up into five groups (or families) tomorrow (Thurs., 9/22). In addition to dividing the class up into groups, I will also be assigning each group a chapter in "Crime Types" that you will be responsible for reporting on to the rest of the class. Each group will, then, read and prepare an oral report on your assigned chapter. Plan on taking roughly 30 minutes to cover each chapter and make sure that each group member contributes to this oral report. More specifically, in these oral reports I want you to address the following:
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. You might have each group member take a piece of this: for example, one or two of you focus on the introduction and then have other group members focus on each of the selected articles. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on key points and a few supporting examples and statistics. You need to exercise some selectivity here.
(2) Draw out at least a couple connections to the theories of criminal behavior that I am currently presenting in class lecture. And by "connections" I mean not only points which support a particular theory, but also points which may go against or contradict a theory.
(3) Identify implications of what you have learned about your crime type which may have some use in developing strategies for controlling or reducing that type of criminal behavior.
(4) Finally, I want each group to submit to me in writing (or via email) THREE SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS), which I may use on either the midterm exam (or the final exam, if we cover that chapter after the midterm exam).
Below is the list of groups and the chapter that each group will be responsible for:
GREEN FAMILY: CHAPTER 2: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT
BLUE FAMILY: CHAPTER 3: VIOLENT SEX CRIMES
RED FAMILY: CHAPTER 4: ROBBERY
BLACK FAMILY: CHAPTER 5: BURGLARY
YELLOW FAMILY: CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC ORDER CRIME
In a couple weeks, I will post a schedule of dates when each group will be expected to give its presentation. At this point, my guess is that we will begin these presentations around Oct. 6th or the 11th. LET ME ALSO STRESS, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING ALL OF "CRIME TYPES," NOT JUST THE CHAPTER YOUR GROUP IS REPORTING ON. I will be reporting on the other chapters in the book. This activity is worth 8 points for all PARTICIPATING group members.
(1) A general overview of the chapter, including the selected articles. You might have each group member take a piece of this: for example, one or two of you focus on the introduction and then have other group members focus on each of the selected articles. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING because that would take too long. Focus on key points and a few supporting examples and statistics. You need to exercise some selectivity here.
(2) Draw out at least a couple connections to the theories of criminal behavior that I am currently presenting in class lecture. And by "connections" I mean not only points which support a particular theory, but also points which may go against or contradict a theory.
(3) Identify implications of what you have learned about your crime type which may have some use in developing strategies for controlling or reducing that type of criminal behavior.
(4) Finally, I want each group to submit to me in writing (or via email) THREE SHORT-ANSWER EXAM QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS), which I may use on either the midterm exam (or the final exam, if we cover that chapter after the midterm exam).
Below is the list of groups and the chapter that each group will be responsible for:
GREEN FAMILY: CHAPTER 2: HOMICIDE AND ASSAULT
BLUE FAMILY: CHAPTER 3: VIOLENT SEX CRIMES
RED FAMILY: CHAPTER 4: ROBBERY
BLACK FAMILY: CHAPTER 5: BURGLARY
YELLOW FAMILY: CHAPTER 7: PUBLIC ORDER CRIME
In a couple weeks, I will post a schedule of dates when each group will be expected to give its presentation. At this point, my guess is that we will begin these presentations around Oct. 6th or the 11th. LET ME ALSO STRESS, HOWEVER, THAT EVERYONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR READING ALL OF "CRIME TYPES," NOT JUST THE CHAPTER YOUR GROUP IS REPORTING ON. I will be reporting on the other chapters in the book. This activity is worth 8 points for all PARTICIPATING group members.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Loose Ends from Thursday's (9/15) Class & Some Lecture Notes
Let me follow up on a few things I tried to bring out in yesterday's class. I did not feel terribly good about my performance and hopefully I can make amends on this blog for some things that may not have come across clearly. Also, I am going to post a few lecture notes which I did not get to, so we don't get too far behind. Finally, by the end of next week, I will give you a desription of just what I plan to do with our first book, "Crime Types."
I trust all of you are reasonably clear about the pitfalls of crime statistics, which is not to say, of course, that we should just forget about such statistics. As Joel Best stressed, statistics are important as a basis for various social policies; we just need to be careful how we interpret them and we need to ask some questions about them.
As you recall, I quoted a brief passage from that article from the Spartanburg Herald Journal from last year (Sept. 14, 2010), "FBI ranks SC third in violent crime," which noted that despite being third in violent crime, SC had also experienced a significant decline in all categories of crime in 2009. At the very end, the article quoted James Alan Fox, a well-known criminologist who "...said that while the downward trend is encouraging, the economy 'could come back to haunt us' because of a nearly 10 percent drop per capita in police budgets in the past few years."
"'There is a connection between the economy and crime rates, but it's not that when the economy is bad, people go out and commit crime,' Fox said. 'When the economy is bad, there are budget cuts. Less is spent on youth crime prevention and crime control in the street.'"
a.) Actually, in that last paragraph, Fox seems to be suggesting that we should not be surprised if we see a RISE in crime in the future, and not just because of a bad economy but how that bad economy affects programs in crime prevention. Also, as some of you observed in your comments on the recent decline in crime rates, budget cuts for police departments may mean fewer reports, hence an apparent decline in crime.
Toward the end of class, I made some general comments about theory and specifically criminological theories. Recall, I distinguished between MACRO and MICRO theories. Let me go over that again here, and then post a few new lecture notes.
1. MACRO theories -- focus on the question of why there are variations in group rates of crime and deviance. For example, explaining why the United States has such a high violent crime rate compared to other developed countries. These theories are more STRUCTURAL, dealing with groups, classes, communities, whole societies.
2. MICRO theories -- why do some individuals commit criminal acts and others don't. More PROCESSURAL -- focus on the process by which an individual comes to engage in this behavior, or what is it about an individual, his or her particular experiences, which leads them to commit crimes.
3. On balance, we'll see that most theories, including the sociological ones, are MICRO-level theories, although there are a couple with a distinctively MACRO focus. (I would insist that these two levels are always intertwined.)
C. Finally, it should be noted that criminological theories draw on various disciplines -- from biology and psychology to sociology, history, economics, etc. The fact that many theories reflect these different disciplines and levels (of reality) is really a testatment to the complexity of human beings.
Regarding the xerox handout of Orlando Patterson's commentary, "The Lost Distinction Between 'Explain" and 'Justify'," I trust you all got the basic point, which I insist is especially important to keep in mind in this class. Although Patterson aims his analysis at conservatives who attacked Mrs. Clinton, he is also careful to point out that liberals are guilty of falling into the opposite trap, an oversocialized view of the individual which denies individual responsibility. I may come back to this briefly, but next Tuesday I plan to begin talking about the major theories of crime.
I trust all of you are reasonably clear about the pitfalls of crime statistics, which is not to say, of course, that we should just forget about such statistics. As Joel Best stressed, statistics are important as a basis for various social policies; we just need to be careful how we interpret them and we need to ask some questions about them.
As you recall, I quoted a brief passage from that article from the Spartanburg Herald Journal from last year (Sept. 14, 2010), "FBI ranks SC third in violent crime," which noted that despite being third in violent crime, SC had also experienced a significant decline in all categories of crime in 2009. At the very end, the article quoted James Alan Fox, a well-known criminologist who "...said that while the downward trend is encouraging, the economy 'could come back to haunt us' because of a nearly 10 percent drop per capita in police budgets in the past few years."
"'There is a connection between the economy and crime rates, but it's not that when the economy is bad, people go out and commit crime,' Fox said. 'When the economy is bad, there are budget cuts. Less is spent on youth crime prevention and crime control in the street.'"
a.) Actually, in that last paragraph, Fox seems to be suggesting that we should not be surprised if we see a RISE in crime in the future, and not just because of a bad economy but how that bad economy affects programs in crime prevention. Also, as some of you observed in your comments on the recent decline in crime rates, budget cuts for police departments may mean fewer reports, hence an apparent decline in crime.
Toward the end of class, I made some general comments about theory and specifically criminological theories. Recall, I distinguished between MACRO and MICRO theories. Let me go over that again here, and then post a few new lecture notes.
1. MACRO theories -- focus on the question of why there are variations in group rates of crime and deviance. For example, explaining why the United States has such a high violent crime rate compared to other developed countries. These theories are more STRUCTURAL, dealing with groups, classes, communities, whole societies.
2. MICRO theories -- why do some individuals commit criminal acts and others don't. More PROCESSURAL -- focus on the process by which an individual comes to engage in this behavior, or what is it about an individual, his or her particular experiences, which leads them to commit crimes.
3. On balance, we'll see that most theories, including the sociological ones, are MICRO-level theories, although there are a couple with a distinctively MACRO focus. (I would insist that these two levels are always intertwined.)
C. Finally, it should be noted that criminological theories draw on various disciplines -- from biology and psychology to sociology, history, economics, etc. The fact that many theories reflect these different disciplines and levels (of reality) is really a testatment to the complexity of human beings.
Regarding the xerox handout of Orlando Patterson's commentary, "The Lost Distinction Between 'Explain" and 'Justify'," I trust you all got the basic point, which I insist is especially important to keep in mind in this class. Although Patterson aims his analysis at conservatives who attacked Mrs. Clinton, he is also careful to point out that liberals are guilty of falling into the opposite trap, an oversocialized view of the individual which denies individual responsibility. I may come back to this briefly, but next Tuesday I plan to begin talking about the major theories of crime.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Follow-up to Thursday's Lecture & Notes and Reminders
NOTES AND REMINDERS:
It is early Sunday afternoon and it appears that only 7 of you have posted your comment on those FBI crime figure trends. I'd like to see all of you post your comments by tomorrow (Monday, 9/12). As I mentioned in class, I'd like to use some of your responses as we get into the topic of crime statistics on Tuesday. I will be making a few additional comments about the issue of defining deviance and crime, and then get into crime statistics. I will also have a couple handouts for you on Tuesday.
I may not be in my office tomorrow (Monday, 9/12) until late in the day because I am having some work done on my house and I will have to be home for at least part of the day. I hope I'll be able to get in by late afternoon (3 or 4PM).
After venturing into the topic of the Kennedy Assassination at the end of class last Thursday, I mentioned that I've written a few papers on the subject which you are welcome to read. One of these papers is on my much-neglected faculty website. If you go there and click on the assassination of JFK, it will take you to a 40-page paper I wrote on "Time" magazine's coverage of this event from 1963-1999. That is the only paper, I believe, that is accessible online. I have hard copies of others in my office.
FOLLOW-UP TO THURSDAY'S LECTURE:
I trust that my getting off on a bit of a tangent with the Kennedy assassination did not confuse you as to the point I was trying to make about defining deviance. Recall, that after I basically rejected Matza's completely relativistic definition of deviance, in which almost anything might be considered deviant, I presented Goode's definition, which is better. But Goode's definition still hinges on peoples' attitudes and opinions, which I was arguing may be (and quite often are) based on myths, prejudice and certainly not fact. Ultimately, I believe we should seek a basis IN FACT for labeling behavior as deviant and punishing or condemning people because of it. This point is even more important when we talk about CRIME, because in the case of crime, the state or government gets involved in punishing or condemning people for engaging in these acts. And in the case of JFK, or some aspects of "business as usual," you have examples of deviant and criminal behavior which in fact deserve condemnation but isn't because people are confused or ignorant of the facts.
I will come back to this again, briefly, next Tuesday (9/13).
Finally, remember to weigh in on that first individual exercise, which is described in the previous blog post.
It is early Sunday afternoon and it appears that only 7 of you have posted your comment on those FBI crime figure trends. I'd like to see all of you post your comments by tomorrow (Monday, 9/12). As I mentioned in class, I'd like to use some of your responses as we get into the topic of crime statistics on Tuesday. I will be making a few additional comments about the issue of defining deviance and crime, and then get into crime statistics. I will also have a couple handouts for you on Tuesday.
I may not be in my office tomorrow (Monday, 9/12) until late in the day because I am having some work done on my house and I will have to be home for at least part of the day. I hope I'll be able to get in by late afternoon (3 or 4PM).
After venturing into the topic of the Kennedy Assassination at the end of class last Thursday, I mentioned that I've written a few papers on the subject which you are welcome to read. One of these papers is on my much-neglected faculty website. If you go there and click on the assassination of JFK, it will take you to a 40-page paper I wrote on "Time" magazine's coverage of this event from 1963-1999. That is the only paper, I believe, that is accessible online. I have hard copies of others in my office.
FOLLOW-UP TO THURSDAY'S LECTURE:
I trust that my getting off on a bit of a tangent with the Kennedy assassination did not confuse you as to the point I was trying to make about defining deviance. Recall, that after I basically rejected Matza's completely relativistic definition of deviance, in which almost anything might be considered deviant, I presented Goode's definition, which is better. But Goode's definition still hinges on peoples' attitudes and opinions, which I was arguing may be (and quite often are) based on myths, prejudice and certainly not fact. Ultimately, I believe we should seek a basis IN FACT for labeling behavior as deviant and punishing or condemning people because of it. This point is even more important when we talk about CRIME, because in the case of crime, the state or government gets involved in punishing or condemning people for engaging in these acts. And in the case of JFK, or some aspects of "business as usual," you have examples of deviant and criminal behavior which in fact deserve condemnation but isn't because people are confused or ignorant of the facts.
I will come back to this again, briefly, next Tuesday (9/13).
Finally, remember to weigh in on that first individual exercise, which is described in the previous blog post.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Welcome & First Individual Exercise
Welcome to this blog which I have set up for this course, Soc. 220: Criminal and Deviant Behavior. We will be using this blog for a variety of activities this semester, which would include the following: (1) For what I call "activities and exercises" in the syllabus, such as the one described below. I may ask you to comment on some video program I show in class, or on something in the assigned reading, etc.. You will be called upon to contribute questions for both the midterm and final exams, which will be posted on this blog. I may also use this blog to post descriptions of some of the short essays you'll be writing during the semester. (2)I may use this blog on occasion to post lecture notes, if I get behind in class, and I will post passages from other sources which I may quote in class. Perhaps most frequently, I will use this blog to follow-up on a class lecture or discussion, or answer a question I was not able to answer satisfactorily in class. (BUT PLEASE DO NOT EXPECT THAT I WILL BE POSTING EVERYTHING I COVER IN CLASS ON THIS BLOG.)
(3) I may offer you some extra credit opportunities during the semester, which will usually involve your posting a comment on this blog. (4) Finally, you are, of course, welcome to use this blog to comment on or ask questions about anything we cover in class or the assigned reading.
When I do post a description of an exercise or anything else, I will always be sure to mention it in class and remind you to check the blog. Nonetheless, I would suggest that you get in the habit of checking this blog once or twice a week anyway.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: For the past two years the FBI's "Uniform Crime Reports" has been reporting fairly substantial DECLINES in the crime rate nationally. For example, between 2008 and 2009, violent crime dropped 5.3%, robbery dropped 8%, and property crime dropped 4.6%. Between 2009 and 2010, the FBI reports similar declines: violent crime dropped 5.5%, robbery dropped 9.5%, property crime dropped 2.8%. So, my question is, what gives? Does this surprise you? And could you offer some thoughts or explanation on this trend, especially in light of the fact that these years have obviously been difficult ones economically in our country, with high unemployment rates?
Please respond to the above questions by posting a comment on this blog. All I am looking for is a paragraph or two. There is no "right" answer or answer I am looking for. I am as mystified by these numbers as you may be. Please post your comment NO LATER THAN MONDAY, SEPT. 12TH. This exercise is worth 5 activity points.
(3) I may offer you some extra credit opportunities during the semester, which will usually involve your posting a comment on this blog. (4) Finally, you are, of course, welcome to use this blog to comment on or ask questions about anything we cover in class or the assigned reading.
When I do post a description of an exercise or anything else, I will always be sure to mention it in class and remind you to check the blog. Nonetheless, I would suggest that you get in the habit of checking this blog once or twice a week anyway.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE: For the past two years the FBI's "Uniform Crime Reports" has been reporting fairly substantial DECLINES in the crime rate nationally. For example, between 2008 and 2009, violent crime dropped 5.3%, robbery dropped 8%, and property crime dropped 4.6%. Between 2009 and 2010, the FBI reports similar declines: violent crime dropped 5.5%, robbery dropped 9.5%, property crime dropped 2.8%. So, my question is, what gives? Does this surprise you? And could you offer some thoughts or explanation on this trend, especially in light of the fact that these years have obviously been difficult ones economically in our country, with high unemployment rates?
Please respond to the above questions by posting a comment on this blog. All I am looking for is a paragraph or two. There is no "right" answer or answer I am looking for. I am as mystified by these numbers as you may be. Please post your comment NO LATER THAN MONDAY, SEPT. 12TH. This exercise is worth 5 activity points.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
FAMILY QUESTIONS FOR FINAL EXAM
Below are the questions I accepted from the families for the final exam. You'll note I did some editing.
BLACK FAMILY (Meggan, Katie, Allie, Alex, Sterling) earn 8 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Identify any TWO things in Tom Coleman's background that should have disqualified him to be an undercover narcotics officer. (2)
ANSWER: Any TWO of the following: (a) he was openly racist, (b) was a pathological liar, (c) had an arrest warrant for theft and abuse of offical property from a previous job in law enforcement, (d) he walked away from debts, one of them over $6,900.
2. In "Gang Leader for a Day," identify any ONE thing that makes J.T. different from the stereotype of a typical gang leader.(1)
ANSWER: Any ONE of the following: (a) he had a college degree, (b) he had a corporate job which he quit to become a gang leader, (c) required his gang members to have a high school diploma and vote.
3. What is a "fence," and what crime type are fences involved with? (2)
ANSWER: A fence is a person who buys and sells stolen goods. Without fences, burglars (the crime type) would have a hard time converting stolen goods into cash.
RED FAMILY (Sami, Kirsten, Taylor) earn 8 points.
1. Common property crimes make up about what proportion of all crimes, and why? (2)
ANSWER: They make up TWO-THIRDS of all crimes because they require very little skill and offer instant gratification.
2. Gary Gardner was especially troubled by what specific headline in the "Tulia Herald," and why? (2)
ANSWER: "Tulia's Streets Cleared of Garbage," because this headline suggested that the accused defendants were guilty.
BLUE FAMILY (Lauren W., Brecken, Caroline, Hannah) earn 8 points.
1. What is the primary motivation of crimes within complex organizations? (1)
ANSWER: Instrumental motives such as greed and the desire for power/status.
2. Why are public order crimes rarely reported and hard to police? (2)
ANSWER: Because they are considered victimless crimes and are usually consensual. "Victims" of these crimes, like drug addicts, aren't likely to report this activity to the police because they want to maintain those relationships.
GREEN FAMILY (Michaela, Lauren A., Sarah, David) earn 8 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Identify ONE of the specific types of Sykes and Matza's "techniques of neutralization" that professional hitmen employ to rationalize their behavior. (1)
ANSWER: Any ONE of the following: (a) denial of victim, (b) denial of injury, (c) denial of responsibility.
2. In Chapter 7 of "Crime Types," Public Order Crime, what Latin term does Dabney use to categorize these types of crimes, and what does it mean? (2)
ANSWER: "Malum prohibitum" offenses -- offenses defined by law but not necessarily recognized as inherently evil.
3. Why is civil court, instead of criminal court, used more often to prosecute cases of crimes within complex organizations? (1)
ANSWER: Because it is difficult to clearly identify the guilty individual or individuals. This type of crime is more complex and institutional in nature.
YELLOW FAMILY (Frances, Cynthia, Anna, Patrick) earn 8 points.
1. When Gary Gardner wrote letters to the Tulia defendants, what sound legal recommendations did he make? (2)
ANSWER: Investigate Tom Coleman's background, and move the trial out of Tulia.
2. EXTRA CREDIT (1) Who is the French architect associated with modernism and the architectural faults of the Robert Taylor Homes in "Gang Leader for a Day?"
ANSWER: Le Corbusier
_________________________________
That's it. See you Monday afternoon.
BLACK FAMILY (Meggan, Katie, Allie, Alex, Sterling) earn 8 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Identify any TWO things in Tom Coleman's background that should have disqualified him to be an undercover narcotics officer. (2)
ANSWER: Any TWO of the following: (a) he was openly racist, (b) was a pathological liar, (c) had an arrest warrant for theft and abuse of offical property from a previous job in law enforcement, (d) he walked away from debts, one of them over $6,900.
2. In "Gang Leader for a Day," identify any ONE thing that makes J.T. different from the stereotype of a typical gang leader.(1)
ANSWER: Any ONE of the following: (a) he had a college degree, (b) he had a corporate job which he quit to become a gang leader, (c) required his gang members to have a high school diploma and vote.
3. What is a "fence," and what crime type are fences involved with? (2)
ANSWER: A fence is a person who buys and sells stolen goods. Without fences, burglars (the crime type) would have a hard time converting stolen goods into cash.
RED FAMILY (Sami, Kirsten, Taylor) earn 8 points.
1. Common property crimes make up about what proportion of all crimes, and why? (2)
ANSWER: They make up TWO-THIRDS of all crimes because they require very little skill and offer instant gratification.
2. Gary Gardner was especially troubled by what specific headline in the "Tulia Herald," and why? (2)
ANSWER: "Tulia's Streets Cleared of Garbage," because this headline suggested that the accused defendants were guilty.
BLUE FAMILY (Lauren W., Brecken, Caroline, Hannah) earn 8 points.
1. What is the primary motivation of crimes within complex organizations? (1)
ANSWER: Instrumental motives such as greed and the desire for power/status.
2. Why are public order crimes rarely reported and hard to police? (2)
ANSWER: Because they are considered victimless crimes and are usually consensual. "Victims" of these crimes, like drug addicts, aren't likely to report this activity to the police because they want to maintain those relationships.
GREEN FAMILY (Michaela, Lauren A., Sarah, David) earn 8 points, plus one bonus point.
1. Identify ONE of the specific types of Sykes and Matza's "techniques of neutralization" that professional hitmen employ to rationalize their behavior. (1)
ANSWER: Any ONE of the following: (a) denial of victim, (b) denial of injury, (c) denial of responsibility.
2. In Chapter 7 of "Crime Types," Public Order Crime, what Latin term does Dabney use to categorize these types of crimes, and what does it mean? (2)
ANSWER: "Malum prohibitum" offenses -- offenses defined by law but not necessarily recognized as inherently evil.
3. Why is civil court, instead of criminal court, used more often to prosecute cases of crimes within complex organizations? (1)
ANSWER: Because it is difficult to clearly identify the guilty individual or individuals. This type of crime is more complex and institutional in nature.
YELLOW FAMILY (Frances, Cynthia, Anna, Patrick) earn 8 points.
1. When Gary Gardner wrote letters to the Tulia defendants, what sound legal recommendations did he make? (2)
ANSWER: Investigate Tom Coleman's background, and move the trial out of Tulia.
2. EXTRA CREDIT (1) Who is the French architect associated with modernism and the architectural faults of the Robert Taylor Homes in "Gang Leader for a Day?"
ANSWER: Le Corbusier
_________________________________
That's it. See you Monday afternoon.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Some Lecture Notes on "Tulia"
In order for me to be able to wrap up class lectures on our last book, "Tulia," by the end of this week, I am going to post some lecture notes. These are quite abbreviated. Nonetheless, as usual this is all that you will be responsible for knowing from these chapters for the final exam.
___________________
CHAPTER 7: DONNIE SMITH
A. Just to re-cap, Donnie had had problems with crack cocaine before, and it was probably a mistake to call him to testify because he had to admit his previous crack cocaine use, which McEachern used effectively against him.
1. McEachern also portrayed the defense as attacking law enforcement, and so appealed to "Swisher County common sense" to convict Donnie Smith. (I guess that "common sense" did not include paying attention to the facts.)
CHAPTER 8: FREDDIE BROOKINS, JR.
A. Freddie had a lot of family support, particularly from his father (who you will see interviewed during the video documentary we'll see). And they actually hired an attorney who did not do a much better job than the court-appointed public defenders.
B. His attorney was able to question Coleman WITHOUT THE JURY PRESENT. But he failed to make a proper case to the judge as to why Coleman should have been questioned with the jury present.
C. McEachern used a "low-blow" to cast suspicion on Freddie -- what I would call "playing the race card" -- that is when McEachern questioned Freddie about an interracial relationship he had, which was irrelevant but cast him in an unfavorable light to the jury. See, pp. 156-157.
CHAPTER 9: ONE RIOT, ONE RANGER
A. We pick back up with Gary Gardner, who along with a retired minister, founded "Friends of Justice" in support of the Tulia defendants. Gardner collected every scrap of paper he could about Coleman's investigation -- "He meticulously recorded every case made by Coleman in Swisher Co.", which later becomes the basis for the "Dream Team's" counterattack.
B. Gardner and the "Friends of Justice" were responsible for interesting Blakeslee and "The Texas Observer" to do a long investigative journalist piece, which caught the attention of the national media.
1. There was a local backlash to this, for example, note the "letter to the editor" allegedly written by Coleman himself in which he indulged in some more fantasizing: "In the letters column, the "Herald" ran a bizarre screed about the bust, supposedly authored by Coleman himself, in which he described witnessing crack babies and automatic weapons in the homes of Tulia defendants. 'Have you ever seen a little girl having to perform oral sex to get drugs?' the letter read in part. (As if he had witnessed such a thing in Tulia.) 'Have you ever stood in the driveway of a drug dealer's house listening to him brag about his new boat or fancy truck he bought on the misery of these children?' The notion of Joe Moore or Donnie Smith buying a nice truck, much less a boat, brought some laughs from the defendants' advocates. The letter made Tulia sound like South Central Los Angeles." (p. 164)
PART THREE
CHAPTER 10: BLACK CARDS AND WHITE CARDS
A. Blakeslee deals with the racial divide in Tulia (which the video documentary brings out well). Notes how white Tulians responded to being characterized as racists by "circling the wagons" (that is, becoming defensive). Black folks saw this case as, in part, a reaction against race mixing in Tulia -- many of the defendants, such as Freddie Brookins, had been involved in interracial relationships. Blakeslee describes a couple of court cases where interracial contact was an issue.
________________________________
That brings us to Chapter 11: Jump Out Boys, which I will pick up with on Thursday, 12/9, and go through to the end. You should be well into the book, if not finished, already. Tomorrow (Tues., 12/7) we will see the video documentary, and then I will let the families discuss what questions they plan to submit for the final exam. REMEMBER, THOSE FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS ARE DUE BY 1PM THIS WEDNESDAY, 12/8.
___________________
CHAPTER 7: DONNIE SMITH
A. Just to re-cap, Donnie had had problems with crack cocaine before, and it was probably a mistake to call him to testify because he had to admit his previous crack cocaine use, which McEachern used effectively against him.
1. McEachern also portrayed the defense as attacking law enforcement, and so appealed to "Swisher County common sense" to convict Donnie Smith. (I guess that "common sense" did not include paying attention to the facts.)
CHAPTER 8: FREDDIE BROOKINS, JR.
A. Freddie had a lot of family support, particularly from his father (who you will see interviewed during the video documentary we'll see). And they actually hired an attorney who did not do a much better job than the court-appointed public defenders.
B. His attorney was able to question Coleman WITHOUT THE JURY PRESENT. But he failed to make a proper case to the judge as to why Coleman should have been questioned with the jury present.
C. McEachern used a "low-blow" to cast suspicion on Freddie -- what I would call "playing the race card" -- that is when McEachern questioned Freddie about an interracial relationship he had, which was irrelevant but cast him in an unfavorable light to the jury. See, pp. 156-157.
CHAPTER 9: ONE RIOT, ONE RANGER
A. We pick back up with Gary Gardner, who along with a retired minister, founded "Friends of Justice" in support of the Tulia defendants. Gardner collected every scrap of paper he could about Coleman's investigation -- "He meticulously recorded every case made by Coleman in Swisher Co.", which later becomes the basis for the "Dream Team's" counterattack.
B. Gardner and the "Friends of Justice" were responsible for interesting Blakeslee and "The Texas Observer" to do a long investigative journalist piece, which caught the attention of the national media.
1. There was a local backlash to this, for example, note the "letter to the editor" allegedly written by Coleman himself in which he indulged in some more fantasizing: "In the letters column, the "Herald" ran a bizarre screed about the bust, supposedly authored by Coleman himself, in which he described witnessing crack babies and automatic weapons in the homes of Tulia defendants. 'Have you ever seen a little girl having to perform oral sex to get drugs?' the letter read in part. (As if he had witnessed such a thing in Tulia.) 'Have you ever stood in the driveway of a drug dealer's house listening to him brag about his new boat or fancy truck he bought on the misery of these children?' The notion of Joe Moore or Donnie Smith buying a nice truck, much less a boat, brought some laughs from the defendants' advocates. The letter made Tulia sound like South Central Los Angeles." (p. 164)
PART THREE
CHAPTER 10: BLACK CARDS AND WHITE CARDS
A. Blakeslee deals with the racial divide in Tulia (which the video documentary brings out well). Notes how white Tulians responded to being characterized as racists by "circling the wagons" (that is, becoming defensive). Black folks saw this case as, in part, a reaction against race mixing in Tulia -- many of the defendants, such as Freddie Brookins, had been involved in interracial relationships. Blakeslee describes a couple of court cases where interracial contact was an issue.
________________________________
That brings us to Chapter 11: Jump Out Boys, which I will pick up with on Thursday, 12/9, and go through to the end. You should be well into the book, if not finished, already. Tomorrow (Tues., 12/7) we will see the video documentary, and then I will let the families discuss what questions they plan to submit for the final exam. REMEMBER, THOSE FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS ARE DUE BY 1PM THIS WEDNESDAY, 12/8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)