Criminology (Myke's) thread!

pittpizza

pittpizza

CAGiversary!
Instead of scatter-posting your info all over other threads, I figured I'd go ahead and ask a bunch of criminology questions in the same thread because I'm curious about a few things:

1. What percentage of defendants are adjudicated guilty and how does that percentage break down between pleas and verdicts?

2. What percentage of defendants are adjudicated not-guilty? I suppose these are all going to be verdicts or dismissals.

3. If there is a gap between the above two percentages (they don't equal 100%) is it because of no contest pleas, or is there some other factor?

4. I was half joking in the other thread, but I'll buy the seemingly generally accepted theory that deterrence doesn't work. I want to know WHY, b/c it seems that this does not jive with the common sense logic that punishment deters crime. Why does deterrence not work?

5. Are there consistent, disparate outcomes between private criminal defense representation and public defenders? If so, is this attributable to the quality of representation, the credibility/appearance/communication skills of the defendant?

6. How are these issues studied, and by whom?

7. What is it exactly that you study Myke, crime, race, both or something else?

8. What nations have the best CJ systems in place? What are they and why do they work better than ours?
 
Interested to see Myke's take on these as well. As a fellow criminologist, I'll only offer my comment on 4 as the sentencing stuff isn't my area of interest and expertise (that would be policing and crim theory).

There are many takes on why deterrence doesn't work. The one I've heard/read most is simply that criminals aren't very rational. They have low self control, and have a present orientation and thus don't weigh long-term costs against the short term gains from committing crime. Arguments are more nuanced than that, but I don't have the interest to go into much detail here.

Guess I can comment briefly on 8 as well, though I'm not as well schooled their--myke seems to be a corrections guy so his take will be much better. The general take from corrections people I've taken classes with etc. is that better cj systems are ones that focus more on rehabilitation and/or re-integration/restorative justice (Japan is the main example for the latter). We focus to much on being punitive, using mass incarceration etc.--and these things have been shown pretty convincingly to increase recidivism and thus backfire in the long run to some degree.
 
dmaul hit the nail on the head regarding the common reasoning why deterrence is ineffective in the US (I'm not familiar with other countries). I once did an undergrad internship at a juvenile center and was shocked by some of the ideas these kids had.

I had one literally tell that it is okay for them to break into the neighbor's house and take stuff if he really wanted it. But only if he really, really wanted it. When I asked him further he was referring to things like a loaf of bread, he said it applied to more things like a Playstation.

It's strange to understand how someone thinks like that, but he completely believed it. And since some really believe in that sort of logic, the common sense logic of "punishment deters crime" goes right out the window.
 
*whew*

I'm going to take the weekend off of thinking after such a long and arduous week (and, for fuck's sake, I still haven't even finished my concluding dissertation chapter!).

But I do want to tell you all that I got a job offer today, so I'm going to go watch some minor league hockey tonight and get thoroughly drunk on $1 beers.
 
Myke is like that professor who takes weeks to answer emails. Only in this case it was a couple of years.;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Interested to see Myke's take on these as well. As a fellow criminologist, I'll only offer my comment on 4 as the sentencing stuff isn't my area of interest and expertise (that would be policing and crim theory).

There are many takes on why deterrence doesn't work. The one I've heard/read most is simply that criminals aren't very rational. They have low self control, and have a present orientation and thus don't weigh long-term costs against the short term gains from committing crime. Arguments are more nuanced than that, but I don't have the interest to go into much detail here.

Guess I can comment briefly on 8 as well, though I'm not as well schooled their--myke seems to be a corrections guy so his take will be much better. The general take from corrections people I've taken classes with etc. is that better cj systems are ones that focus more on rehabilitation and/or re-integration/restorative justice (Japan is the main example for the latter). We focus to much on being punitive, using mass incarceration etc.--and these things have been shown pretty convincingly to increase recidivism and thus backfire in the long run to some degree.[/QUOTE]

Isnt it impossible to prove that deterrence doesn't work? All of the people that decide not to commit crimes because of a fear of punishment are not available for study.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Instead of scatter-posting your info all over other threads, I figured I'd go ahead and ask a bunch of criminology questions in the same thread because I'm curious about a few things:

1. What percentage of defendants are adjudicated guilty and how does that percentage break down between pleas and verdicts?

2. What percentage of defendants are adjudicated not-guilty? I suppose these are all going to be verdicts or dismissals.

3. If there is a gap between the above two percentages (they don't equal 100%) is it because of no contest pleas, or is there some other factor?

4. I was half joking in the other thread, but I'll buy the seemingly generally accepted theory that deterrence doesn't work. I want to know WHY, b/c it seems that this does not jive with the common sense logic that punishment deters crime. Why does deterrence not work?

5. Are there consistent, disparate outcomes between private criminal defense representation and public defenders? If so, is this attributable to the quality of representation, the credibility/appearance/communication skills of the defendant?

6. How are these issues studied, and by whom?

7. What is it exactly that you study Myke, crime, race, both or something else?

8. What nations have the best CJ systems in place? What are they and why do they work better than ours?[/QUOTE]

Do you have a criminal justice class and these are questions in it or what? I got my two year degree in criminal justice, so I am just curious where you are going with this.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Isnt it impossible to prove that deterrence doesn't work? All of the people that decide not to commit crimes because of a fear of punishment are not available for study.[/QUOTE]

There is of course some deterrent impact. But the argument is a large chunk of those deterred wouldn't offend anyway because of morals, values etc.

The bigger point is there seems to be diminishing returns in deterrence. Yes there would of course probably be more crime if there were no laws etc.

But there doesn't seem to be much added deterrent impact in having very, very long/harsh prison sentences vs. shorter ones, death penalty vs. life in prison etc. as a lot of crimes (especially serious violent crimes) are crimes of passion or crimes committed by very desperate people. AKA people who aren't thinking rationally about the costs and benefits before acting.

Also on that front--research on perceptual deterrence (asking people how likely they think they'll be caught, what they think the punishment would be etc.--then asking how likely they would commit various crimes etc.) finds it's the certainty of punishment that has the most impact, not the severity.
 
Glad you're interested Doyle.

@Jabrim, I'm a criminal defense attorney in my office's trial division in pittsburgh, and mykevermin IIRC is a criminologist. I deal with the stuff in the courtroom, and was interested in his view from his ivory tower.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But there doesn't seem to be much added deterrent impact in having very, very long/harsh prison sentences vs. shorter ones, death penalty vs. life in prison etc. as a lot of crimes (especially serious violent crimes) are crimes of passion or crimes committed by very desperate people. AKA people who aren't thinking rationally about the costs and benefits before acting.[/QUOTE]

That's the crux of the argument that deterrence doesn't work. I certainly wouldn't argue for *no* laws, but the point is, over the past 40 years, policies have become far harsher w/r/t sentence lengths, mandatory minimums, three strikes policies. The sorts of things that would reduce crime rates if deterrence was supported. But our overall CJ population (not just incarcerated, but probation, parole, etc.) has increased exponentially (like b/w 3-7x over). Pew Research Center reports currently have our incarceration rate at 1 out of every 99.1 adults (by far the highest of any industrialized nation) and those in the CJ system in some form (again, adding probation and parole) at in 1 in 33.

So incidents of crime are increasing year-over-year in spite of laws making sentences harsher, suggesting deterrence-based policies are ineffective - politicians wringing hands over sentence lengths are missing the point, and costing the taxpayers money.

So dmaul's point about certainty mattering, and severity, not so much - that's a point well made. Policymakers tend to be overly concerned with severity, and it's something that voters can sink their teeth into (especially when packaged in cute little metaphors like "three-strikes," since we can relate our knowledge about baseball to the corrections system - and we know the concept! it's like we're policy wonks, and not just baseball fans!).

The economy is typically a far better indicator of crime rates than sentencing, convictions, or any other CJ indicator. When it does well, crime declines; when it does not, it increases. This was close to gospel truth until 2007 - year-over-year, crime rates declined from 2007-2009, in spite of the state of the economy we're in. It's so counterintuitive to everything we know, it's difficult to explain. From my side of things, that is. Unless we're suddenly to believe that Americans are not reckless hedonists, but, rather, sympathetic countrymen-and-women who refused to victimize other people out of a sense of solidarity for their fellow citizens' economic plight. Yeah, I didn't think so, either.
 
Interesting thread.

And lol at intentionally misspelled names to add "flava"

Some examples of other people I know

Kyle - Kiel
Jason - Jasen
Rick - Ryk
Mike - Myke

I wish there was a way I could intentionally misspell my name to look cool.
I'll have to settle with "Byg" instead of Big lol
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Glad you're interested Doyle.

@Jabrim, I'm a criminal defense attorney in my office's trial division in pittsburgh, and mykevermin IIRC is a criminologist. I deal with the stuff in the courtroom, and was interested in his view from his ivory tower.[/QUOTE]
What's your opinion on public defenders and the environment they work in?
 
[quote name='dohdough']What's your opinion on public defenders and the environment they work in?[/QUOTE]

Are you asking me?
 
[quote name='dohdough']What's your opinion on public defenders and the environment they work in?[/QUOTE]


I'm only 29 so I don't have too extensive of a base of experience to draw from. I've only been an attorney for 3 years and the first year was spent in a judicial clerkship.

From 2 years practicing in criminal justice, I can say that it is tough to generalize PD's. In the Pittsburgh office there are about 80 PDs, some are very good, others are very bad.

I will say this: they are ALL overworked and underpaid. Some private defense attorneys are overpaid and underworked. People who could get ARD, aka: Alternative Rehabilitative Disposition: (a slap on the wrist where you pay some fines, stay out of trouble, take a class on how not to drink and drive, and then the charge is dropped) no matter who their lawyer is sometimes pay up to $5,000 dollars to get the exact same result that ANY PD could have gotten them. I feel sorry for these people.

Really savvy criminal defendants will shop PD's. I see it all the time. They'll see what kind of a plea bargain is offered, and if it is something they can live with they'll take it without paying a dime in legal fees. If not, they'll ask for a first postponement (which EVERY judge grants) to look into getting private counsel.

The conversation goes something like this "My PD got the DA to offer me this, can you get me better if I hire you?"

Often times people ask me if they should get a "paid lawyer." I can definitely say that most of the time the end result won't be any different, but you will (or should) get more individualized attention. Your private attorney isn't going to have 9 other clients that he needs to deal with on the day of your trial. BTW, the DA's are JUST as overworked and underpaid.

An advantage the PD's have over private attorneys is knowledge. You get more trial experience, and get to know the DA's and the judges sooooo fast as a PD. Many times I've seen private attorneys go up to the PD to get the localized knowledge that only a PD or very experienced attorney could know. Things like whether the DA makes good offers, will the judge drug test my client, can you go non-jury in this courtroom or does the judge just not know how to say Not Guilty?

At the end of the day, if I got pulled over for drunk driving, I could get myself into ARD. If I was in some serious shit and looking at state time, I would definitely hire a private attorney just for the more individualized attention and concomitant peace of mind.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What's your opinion on public defenders and the environment they work in?[/QUOTE]

I've had the opportunity to escort several high-risk inmates to and from court and had the chance to talk to several of the public defenders and even the paid attorney's from time to time. The public defenders usually seem overworked and underpaid or at least that is what I general gather from watching them work and how they present themselves, this could just be our county though of course. The inmates in the jail I work at usually call the public defenders public "pretenders" because the inmates are never happy with the outcome of their cases unless they get found not guilty or get off with basically no real consequence for their case. I have seen some inmates outright try and fire their public defender but, because of the inmate's behavior and having other public defender's fired/removed before the sitting judge refused to let the inmate have a new lawyer, this is really interesting when it happens.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the crux of the argument that deterrence doesn't work. I certainly wouldn't argue for *no* laws, but the point is, over the past 40 years, policies have become far harsher w/r/t sentence lengths, mandatory minimums, three strikes policies. The sorts of things that would reduce crime rates if deterrence was supported. But our overall CJ population (not just incarcerated, but probation, parole, etc.) has increased exponentially (like b/w 3-7x over). Pew Research Center reports currently have our incarceration rate at 1 out of every 99.1 adults (by far the highest of any industrialized nation) and those in the CJ system in some form (again, adding probation and parole) at in 1 in 33.

So incidents of crime are increasing year-over-year in spite of laws making sentences harsher, suggesting deterrence-based policies are ineffective - politicians wringing hands over sentence lengths are missing the point, and costing the taxpayers money.

So dmaul's point about certainty mattering, and severity, not so much - that's a point well made. Policymakers tend to be overly concerned with severity, and it's something that voters can sink their teeth into (especially when packaged in cute little metaphors like "three-strikes," since we can relate our knowledge about baseball to the corrections system - and we know the concept! it's like we're policy wonks, and not just baseball fans!).

The economy is typically a far better indicator of crime rates than sentencing, convictions, or any other CJ indicator. When it does well, crime declines; when it does not, it increases. This was close to gospel truth until 2007 - year-over-year, crime rates declined from 2007-2009, in spite of the state of the economy we're in. It's so counterintuitive to everything we know, it's difficult to explain. From my side of things, that is. Unless we're suddenly to believe that Americans are not reckless hedonists, but, rather, sympathetic countrymen-and-women who refused to victimize other people out of a sense of solidarity for their fellow citizens' economic plight. Yeah, I didn't think so, either.[/QUOTE]
Do you think It may be a delayed reaction due to unemployment benefits being extended?
 
That seems somewhat sound. Lacking that safety net, you'd likely see a helluva lot more desperate people who are willing to desperate, impulsive things.

That said, we've had unemployment benefits for decades, yet economic downturns correspond to increases in crime. So even if it's related now, it hasn't necessarily been that way historically.

Though...if there was a lag in crime rates (i.e., they didn't rise until X weeks following the beginning of an economic downturn), then perhaps the expiration of unemployment benefits could be shown to have some impact on increasing crime.

But it's not like unemployment benefits are that posh, so I can't imagine people are too comfortable on the income provided by those benefits.

And interesting question for sure though.
 
Have we discussed the incident in Florida where the husband of a teacher came to a school board meeting and started shooting? I know they were laying off his wife I believe, he seemed pretty desperate. I think he had a blog or something that contained a lot of ranting about their situation and the economy etc..
 
I don't necessarily agree with Myke that the connection between economy and crime has every be straightforward.

It's not my area of expertise, but from my reading of that literature in grad school etc. it always seemed pretty mixed.

Also just keeping in mind that crime rates were in continual increase from the 60s to mid to late 90s and there were a variety of economic upturns and downturns over that period--and crime kept going up during both.

And again, at least for "street crimes"--robbery's, burglaries, drug market related crime etc., keep in mind that the bulk of that happens in the poorest areas of the country where unemployment rates etc. are always very high.

Where I'd expect to see more of increase in crimes during a down turn are things like domestic violence, shoplifting etc. as working people react to getting laid off. Most of those folk aren't going to start selling dope or shooting up the hood or committing armed robberies etc., but may beat their wives, steal food and clothes to make ends meat etc. And to the best of my knowledge those crimes haven't spiked during this down turn.
 
long-term it's pretty straightforward. I'll actually have to go back to some books to back that up, but the declines in crime rates in the 1990's corresponded with record lows in unemployment rates. I'm certainly not arguing 100% correlation or causation, but the patterns throughout the 20th century are fairly clear - unless you consider short recessions, like the one HW Bush inherited from Reagan in 1989. Longitudinal trends didn't really react to that, perhaps because they didn't have an opportunity to.

Let me add one caveat, just to be clear: I'm not arguing for crime 'boom and bust' periods, as trends change year over year, but I can't recall a time where crime rates were astonishingly higher than the previous year.

And dmaul, for the most part the poor inner city community->drug economy->violence connection didn't really emerge until the late 1960's/early 1970's, and really ramped up w/ the Reagan War on Drugs. Drug sales have always been around, but were comparatively nonviolent until crack emerged.

On another front entirely, some frightening implications (that we all fear occurs everywhere) about the collection of crime statistics in NYC: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/nyregion/06crime.html?hp
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']Isnt it impossible to prove that deterrence doesn't work? All of the people that decide not to commit crimes because of a fear of punishment are not available for study.[/QUOTE]

myke's pointed to the rise in crime rates since the 70's and 1990s with an emphasis on small crimes. however why not look at earlier times with bigger crimes.....
http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html (part 1. Pg. 414 directs one to the bigger pdf in a couple places)

Murder rates in the US had been going down for decades in the first half of the century and by 1961, murder rates were less than half of what they were in 1933. However, the down trend was soon reversed through the expansion of criminal's legal rights which "undermined the effectiveness of law enforcement." By 1974, the murder rate was double what it was in 1961.

And I don't think its just economics, as myke suggested, because although there have been economic booms and recessions since the 60's (including a sever recession from 74-75) the US has seemingly always faced booms and recessions. Before the 1960's polices which undermined law enforcement, we had a depression from 1929-'40, then WWII, another recession 1949, then the korean war, and more recessions in 54, 57-58, 60-61 and 69-70 with the vietnam war during a lot of that. Perhaps one can claim that during difficult times, people are more willing to take risks and stray into unlawful activities of shoplifting (and then claim that deterrence practices don't work) but really, one should look at serious crimes like murder or rape to better examine the facts and see how stricter punishments, more combative law enforcement, and therefore greater deterrence effects criminal's behaviors and repeat offenders.


P.S. how old are you myke? thirty-something
 
Jabrim, It is quite a show when a Judge wont let an inmate fire their lawyer, PD or otherwise. Sometimes they're so desperate, even if just to put off the inevitable just for a little while, they will use any dilatory tactic they can. It isn't fun telling someone that years of their life are going to be spent in prison, or sitting next to them when a Judge or Jury Foreman tells them so. It's moments like these that make me glad I get along really well with the sheriff's that stand behind them.

It's unclear to me, the relationship of poverty to crime. If pushed I'd say there is a strong corrolation. Drugs and thier use also suggest this because I think drug use goes up in economic downturns. I think it does, despite everyone having even less money.
 
From what I see in the jail where I work, drug use, the economy, crimes of passion, seem to make up the majority of crimes in total. I can't see how the fall of our economy isn't making crimes worse? What about the huge rise in copper thefts that use to be a rarity and now they seem to be an every-day thing.
 
Sounds odd to say, but I don't think the value of a single item/commodity is the same as full-on economic indicators. the price of copper has gone up consistently year-over-year, making it more appealing to steal, certainly.

on the other hand, ipods/mp3 players, which were so popular to steal a mere 7-8 years ago that the white earbuds were mocked as "mug-me headphones," are now quite pervasive and, frankly, mundane. They still get stolen, certainly, but I can't imagine the proportion of all ipods stolen is that high. everything plays mp3s these days, that's all. but that's happened while the economy has declined - the value of one commodity has increased, and another has not.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sounds odd to say, but I don't think the value of a single item/commodity is the same as full-on economic indicators. the price of copper has gone up consistently year-over-year, making it more appealing to steal, certainly[/QUOTE]

You could take the fact that there are a ton of unfinished (unsold) homes sitting on the market due to failed wanna-be Donald Trumps. This results in easy opportunity for the unemployed realtors, mortgage reps and construction workers to strip them of their copper wiring.

The value of copper may not be a big enough economic indicator, but the amount of unsold and incomplete real estate is. It's the bursting of the housing bubble that's boosting the instances of cooper wire theft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']l

And dmaul, for the most part the poor inner city community->drug economy->violence connection didn't really emerge until the late 1960's/early 1970's, and really ramped up w/ the Reagan War on Drugs. Drug sales have always been around, but were comparatively nonviolent until crack emerged.
[/QUOTE]

Drug related stuff, yes. But poor inner city areas being highest in crime dates back to the 1910s-1920s with the industrial revolution and immigrant ghettos that led to all the social disorganization work from the Chicago School.

But again, not my area of expertise in any case. It's just never seemed to me that street crime would be much impacted by the economy as the average joe getting laid off isn't going to start committing armed robberies and burglaries. The losers doing that crap tend not to have jobs even when times are good.

I'd expect to see more impact again in domestic violence (strain), shop lifting (out of necessity) and maybe even white collar crime in cases where a two income family is reduced to one when one spouse is laid off etc.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']You could take the fact that there are a ton of unfinished (unsold) homes sitting on the market due to failed wanna-be Donald Trumps. This results in easy opportunity for the unemployed realtors, mortgage reps and construction workers to strip them of their copper wiring.

The value of copper may not be a big enough economic indicator, but the amount of unsold and incomplete real estate is. It's the bursting of the housing bubble that's boosting the instances of cooper wire theft.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's a big part of it. In talking with police I do research with, the copper theft is mainly from empty houses in new developments, foreclosures etc.

That said, it's not people stealing because they got laid off. It's mainly drug addicts stealing it to get cash to support their habits according to the cops experiences.

So the economy in this case isn't providing motivation for crime (copper prices had been rising for years), but rather providing more opportunities for crime through more vacant houses to steal copper from.
 
And the reason that many of the houses on unoccupied is because of the economy and also why there are so many foreclosures as well.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Drug related stuff, yes. But poor inner city areas being highest in crime dates back to the 1910s-1920s with the industrial revolution and immigrant ghettos that led to all the social disorganization work from the Chicago School.[/QUOTE]

duhhhhhh. of course. my mistake, that is correct. i could try to hedge my bets by saying I specifically meant drug-related violence, but that's kosher. you're right.

forgive me, park and burgess!
 
[quote name='Jabrim']And the reason that many of the houses on unoccupied is because of the economy and also why there are so many foreclosures as well.[/QUOTE]

For sure. I was just saying that the impacts of the economy aren't always those assumed--that people are unemployed and desperate and turn to crime. Sometimes its just a matter of leading to more opportunities for crime and not just a matter of more motivated offenders from layoffs etc when it comes to crimes like burglary as Joe Six Pack isn't going to go steal copper or commit armed robberies when he gets laid off from the bank or whatever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes, that's a big part of it. In talking with police I do research with, the copper theft is mainly from empty houses in new developments, foreclosures etc.

That said, it's not people stealing because they got laid off. It's mainly drug addicts stealing it to get cash to support their habits according to the cops experiences.

So the economy in this case isn't providing motivation for crime (copper prices had been rising for years), but rather providing more opportunities for crime through more vacant houses to steal copper from.[/QUOTE]

interesting. I guess overvaluing real estate and tacking on junk fees are more the style of the bankers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top