1. The absolute ability to identify all law violators.

2. The absolute ability to apprehend all law violators.

3. The absolute ability to punish all law violators.

4. The absolute ability to identify the intent of all law violators.

1. Murder of a police officer – 2:3 (67%)2. Murder in general – 1:2 (50%)3. Aggravated Assault – 1:10 (10%)4. Robbery – 1:15 (7%)5. Burglary – 1:35 (3%)6. Felony Larceny 1:110 (.9%)7. White Collar Fraud – 1:2 million8. Computer Fraud – 1:120 million

Absolute justice demands that all violators

be punished or no violators be punished. It

is inequitable to the law abridgers who are

punished to allow another law abridger to roam free and unpunished.

It is inequitable to the law abiders of society

if known law abridgers are allowed to roam

free and unpunished.

1. Innocent are punished.2. Guilty escape punishment.3. Guilty are punished more severely

than they should be.4. Guilty are punished less severely than

they should be.

There is a general socio-economic clustering of the four classic justice delivery errors, with the general convergence of error as follows:A. Poor: 1. Innocent being punished; and 2. Being punished more severely than they should be.

B. Wealthy:1. Escaping punishment when guilty; and

2. Being punished less severely than they should be.

Justice is the interest of the stronger

vs.

Justice should be, the equitable access and

applicability of rights, privileges andopportunities

All governments that have flourished since

the beginning of time have been nothing more than a conspiracy of the rich to perpetuate themselves under the guise of Statecraft.

Thomas More(circa 1530)

Who is not a criminal? Those who have not been caught. Those who possess a high socio-economic,

political, legal efficacy coefficient.

Who are the criminals? Those who have been caught Those who have a low socio-economic,

political, legal efficacy coefficient.

1. Substantive dimension (legislative component, executive orders, court precedents)

2. Procedural dimension (line level police decision, local police, prosecutorial

and judicial department policy and

practice; local legal culture)

Unfounding – Systematically ignoring crimes known to exist (Atlanta vs. St. Louis, Chicago).

Founding – Systematically reporting crimes that otherwise would have not been reported (Portland).

De-founding – systematically adjusting the severity of offenses that are known to exist (Washington, D.C.).

Deviance – acts Deviants – people

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

1. Deviance is a two-edged sword of equivalent positive and negative

values.

2. “Deviant” tends to be an all- encompassing label, but no one is deviant in all aspects of their lives.

3. The definition of “deviant” is contextual. It is the quintessential relativity. We are deviant when we are in a group that is different from us. Deviance and deviants depends upon who you ask and in what setting or context you are in. We are all “the deviants” in someone else’s eyes.

4. While there is some consensus at the extremes, there is little consensus beyond

those edges. Definitions depend upon values, culture, perspectives, and experience. Definitions of deviance

are a relative, normative phenomenon.

What is deviance and who are the deviants depends upon who you ask, and when you ask it and in what context. We are all the deviants in someone else’s eyes.

Multiple perceptions of deviance are held by different people with different backgrounds and experiences, and these perceptions are subject to continual change over time. These varying and fluid perceptions co-exist and compete for prominence in society, and if you have the power, you can elevate your perception to a position of prominence and have it serve as the society’s socio-legal definition of deviance, and it will stay that way until you are out of power and then someone else’s definition will emerge supreme. The definition of deviants and deviance is the ultimate, the quintessential examples of relativity.

5. Were all deviants (and their deviance) to be eliminated, new definitions of deviance would emerge and punishment would be meted out accordingly. What was marginal deviance before would now be in the unacceptable category. Deviance cannot be eliminated. The extent of deviance is constant (the constancy dictum). What changes is the definition of the nature of deviance. As societies evolve, as the interests of the powerful change, the definitions of deviance change, but the extent does not.

6. Crime is bound by social class. The poor

are more criminal than the rich because the

laws are both written and enforced for the

benefit of the rich and powerful.

Deviance is also bound by social class, not in terms of extent, but in terms of nature. In other words, the prevalence or extent of deviance is similar from one social class to another, but the types of offenses committed, the nature of deviance, differs from one

social class to another (ie., the rich steal in ways available to them and the poor do likewise).

The rich are less criminal than the poor simply because they have the power to define crime so as to legitimize their illicit Behaviors, and have the law enforced to their liking, but they are no less deviant in terms of the extent of their involvement in illicit behaviors. The nature of their involvement is different (the rich can steal in ways the rest of us can’t), but the

extent of their involvement is the same.

7. There is a value to deviance. Remember, it is a two-edged sword with both positive and negative components (yin and yang). On the positive side, deviance: a. Serves as a catalyst for change and progress. b. Provides the raw materials for social change. c. Forces a re-examination and modification of values and behaviors in the context of new environments. d. Redistributes opportunities for leadership.

e. It forces the opposition to better prepare its case and thus in this adversarial context, refines the truth.

f. Responses to deviance inculcate into members of society, just what

society expects.g. Draws people together in mutual

condemnation, thus promoting community cohesion.

h. Removes bureaucratic red-tape and thus provides quicker responses.

Without deviance, we would be a society of clones with “hemophiliacic” minds, incapable of dealing with the variation around us. Deviance and diversity are mandatory to confront and survive in the tumultuous world in which we live. But, how much and what types? There is no “answer.” It is the quintessential, eternally un-resolvable query. It depends on who you ask and when you ask and who is in power and who is out of power, and even then, the answer will be different tomorrow than it was today.

1. Yes, by having the legislative bodies fail to function (substantively)

2. Yes, by have the police fail to function and report (procedurally).

So yes, but, that is not the point.

1. No, we cannot eliminate deviance anymore than a physician can eliminate death. It is always with us.

2. We can, however, change the nature of deviance - we can reduce the severity of the nature of deviance.

A. Gun/knife example (extent constant, nature changed)B. Medical analogy (reduce seriousness of disease)C. Financial planner analogy (enhance individually unique portfolios)D. Local legal culture concept in the medical and financial planner analogy

3. It is our job as criminologists to find ways to reduce the severity of the nature of crime/deviance.

$275 B – Crime suppression$2 T – Crime perpetration

$2.3 T – Total, or roughly 13% of the GDP

The Great Crime Policy Question – Where can we best send the $275 B to

most effectively reduce the $2 T perpetration costs?

Crime Control Model Due Process ModelAggravates long-term stability Aggravates short term contingenciesApprehend the guilty Protect the innocentAssumes deviance and explains conformity Assumes conformity and explains devianceAuthoritarian, trained police Social service, educated policeBurden of proof on defense to demonstrate Burden of proof on prosecutor to demonstrate innocence at beyond reasonable doubt guilt at reasonable doubtClosed bureaucratic justice structures Open, linking-pin justice structures Corporal punishment Non-interventionist treatmentCriminal intent of little concern Criminal intent of an overriding concernDiscretionary power to police and prosecutorial Discretionary power to judicial and correctional officials officialsEmphasis on efficiency Emphasis on effectivenessEmphasis on training Emphasis on educationFew confession extraction guidelines Completely voluntary confessions Few search and seizure rules Strict search and seizure rulesFrequent use of the death penalty Abolition of the death penaltyHarm, frighten, scare, intimidate Encourage, help, aid, assistHarms innocent persons Allows known guilty to go freeHarsh sentences Lenient sentencesHigh certainty of apprehension/justice system Low certainty of apprehension/justice system processing processingLarge, demeaning prisons Community-based corrections

Crime Control Model Due Process ModelLarge private sector police force Small private sector police forceLegal counsel provided on rare occasions Legal counsel provided as a right at all stagesMaintain the status quo Respond to social inequitiesMandatory, determinate sentencing Indeterminate sentencingMany law enforcement officers Few law enforcement officersMany penalties Few penaltiesMaximize level of offender intrusion into system Minimize level of offender intrusion into systemNational, centrally organized police force Local, autonomous, decentralized police forceNo pretrial discovery for defense Unlimited pretrial discovery for defensePlea bargaining emphasis Complete adjudicationPresumption of guilt Presumption of innocencePreventive deterrence policy Curative rehabilitation policyProtect society from evolutionary change Protect society from revolutionary changeProtect society in the short run Protect society in the long runPunish the guilty Protect the innocentPunishment fits the crime Punishment fits the criminalQuick, informal justice Formalized, individualized justiceRational, economic man theory Crime a psycho-sociological entitySocial order Individual libertySupervision of offenders Advocate of offendersSwift, certain punishment Treatment, but only when needed

Premise #1 - When liberty is permitted to grow without limits, it is at the expense of justice and order.

Premise #2 - The greatest threat to our republic comes from those, who in

attempt to preserve order, would destroy liberty.

Justice will be realized only when the

body politic are internally willingto obey the unenforceable.

What types of protections, freedoms and rights should be given to what groups of people? How extensive should they be? When does the exercise of these protections and freedoms begin to flaunt the law? When does governmental control become excessive intervention? How much liberty is to be afforded to members of society and how much order should the state seek to maintain?

www.unl.edu/eskridge/cj101liberty.html

The real test of life is to be able to hold two

opposing ideas in mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One must recognize that things are hopeless,

but be determined to make them otherwise.

It is on this premise that we must continue.