2. What is Social Control?
Defined
Control
Denotes restriction and supervision or regulation and
restraint
Primary function of law is to establish and maintain social
control
Why is social control necessary?
Peaceful coexistence
Predictable coexistence
3. A Typology of Social Control
Social control classified along two dimensions:
Direct versus indirect
Formal versus informal
Direct
Coercive
Indirect
Persuasive and voluntary
Better than direct control
Two forms are not mutually exclusive
Each supports and reinforces the other
4. A Typology of Social Control
Formal
Structured impersonal control exercised by state via the law
Informal
Begins with socialization process
Internalization of rules of proper conduct
5. The Law as a Social Control
Mechanism
Donald Black (1976)
“Law varies inversely with other forms of social control”
As informal social controls weaken, increased reliance
placed on formal legal controls
Law is measure of failure/success of other forms of social
control
Two dichotomies create four separate social mechanisms
6. The Law as a Social Control
Mechanism
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter
Direct/formal
Direct/informal
Indirect/formal
Indirect/informal
7. Punishment and Deterrence
When people violate rules of acceptable behavior they
usually feel guilty
In proportion to level of disapproval attached to violation
Internal restraints not always enough
Always been considered wise to augment internalized
rules with tangible experience of punishment
8. Punishment and Deterrence
Punishment expresses social condemnation
Deterrence is a function of punishment
Specific
Defined
Contrast effect
General
Defined
Some insist our moral conscience keeps us from
committing crimes
9. Punishment and Deterrence
Plato’s Gyges in Lydia
City frees us from social controls exercised by close-knit
communities of yesteryear
Failure of informal social controls can be roughly gauged
by comparing size of legal profession in United States
with those of other countries
10. Other Philosophies of Punishment
Philosophy of punishment involves justifying imposition of
painful burden on unwilling subjects
Retribution
Exemplified by “eye for an eye” concept
Just desserts model
Is constrained revenge
Incapacitation
Inability of incarcerated criminals to victimize people outside
prison walls
James Q. Wilson (1975)
11. Other Philosophies of Punishment
Rehabilitation
To restore or return to constructive or healthy activity
Based on medical model
Views criminality in terms of “faulty thinking”
Criminals need “programming”
Reintegration
Use the time offenders are under supervision to prepare
them to reenter free community as well-equipped as
possible
12. Black’s Styles of Social Control
Penal
Subject to formal punishment
Assigns blame to individuals
Assumes individuals engage in cost/benefit analysis
Law must tip scale against crime to deter would-be criminals
Therapeutic
Person considered sick
Subject to formal treatment
Remedial
Crime is result of environmental factors
13. Black’s Styles of Social Control
Compensatory
Involves some breach of obligation resulting in accused
debtor and alleged victim
Conciliatory
Usually involves breach in harmonious relationship between
two people who are disputants
No necessary consideration of who is right or wrong
14. Social Control and the Criminal
Justice System
Criminal justice system is mechanism set up for enforcing
legal social control
Conservatives and liberals agree it does not accomplish
this well, but for different reasons:
Conservatives
System is too soft on crime
Liberals
System does not focus enough on rehabilitation
15. Is the United States Soft on
Crime?
Belief is pervasive, but is it accurate?
Only Russia comes close to touching U.S. rate
Closest modern Western nation is England and Wales
Rate is five times lower than that of the United States
Rate per 100,000 citizens incarcerated is not same as
rate per 100,000 criminals incarcerated
Compared to other democracies, United States is
probably hard on crime
Softer than authoritarian countries such as China or Saudi
Arabia
16. Is the United States Soft on
Crime?
Source: The Sentencing Project (2005).
Reproduced with permission.
Comparing International
Incarceration Rates Mid-Year 2004
17. Plea Bargaining
About 90 percent of all felony suspects plead guilty
Conservatives
Believe practice provides unwarranted leniency
Liberals
Believe it coerces suspects into surrendering Fifth and Sixth
Amendment rights
Prosecutorial caseloads encourage use
Bordenkircher v. Hayes (1978)
Appears to be penalties attached to “non-cooperation”
18. The Death Penalty Debate
Penalty subject to intense scrutiny over past three
decades
Remains highly popular in U.S. today
Retained by federal government and 37 states
63 percent of American public favor
Support waxes and wanes with crime rate
Legal opposition has revolved around Eighth Amendment
Very few challenges arose until 1960s
19. The Death Penalty Debate
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Court decided death penalty per se was not unconstitutional
per se
Arbitrary and discriminatory way it was imposed did violate
Eighth Amendment
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Court upheld constitutionality of bifurcated hearing process
20. The Death Penalty Debate: Other
Cases
Coker v. Georgia (1976)
Penry v. Lynaugh (1989)
Stanford v. Kentucky (1989)
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Baze and Bowling v. Rees (2008)
21. The Death Penalty Debate
Penalty is rarely carried out in United States today
2014
3,035 prisoners under sentence of death
35 executed
43 percent white
42 percent black
13 percent Hispanic
2 percent other
Only 1.6% were women
22. Arguments against the Death Penalty
Barbaric anachronism
Only Western democracy that executed anyone in 2014
No evidence is serves as a deterrent
The “brutalization effect”
Existence of which has not been satisfactorily demonstrated
More costly than life sentences
Possibility of executing the innocent
Human life is sacred
23. Arguments Favoring the Death
Penalty
Deterrent effect would exist if it were imposed more
certainly and frequently
Cost/benefit assessment
Costly only by reason of appeals process
Coleman v. Thompson (1991)
Physical equivalent acts are not morally equivalent
Misdistribution is not reflection of racial bias
McClesky v. Kemp (1987)
Likelihood of executing innocents is less apparent today
than in past
24. The Law and Social Control of
Political Dissent
Government’s need to control extremes of political
dissent is even more important than its need to control
crime
Authoritarian governments
Expect conformity without political participation
Divide public and private life
Totalitarian governments
Expect conformity and political participation
Do not distinguish between public and private life
25. The Law and Social Control of
Political Dissent
Democratic governments
Distinguish between public and private life by allowing
political pluralism and encouraging political participation
Political dissent may be combated via
Force of arms
Physical harassment
Public opinion
Election laws that limit participation
26. The Law and Social Control of
Political Dissent
Espionage Act of 1917
Smith Act of 1940
Internal Security Act of 1950
Communist Control Act of 1954
USA Patriot Act of 2001
27. The Law and Social Control of
Political Dissent
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
Scales v. United States (1961)
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
(1961)
28. Therapeutic Social Control: Law and
Psychiatry
Psychiatric hospital among institutions devoted to social
control
Parens patriae
Mental illness versus mental abnormality
Former Soviet Union practices versus American practices
Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)
Upheld civil commitment for sex offenders
29. “No Taxation Without
Representation!”: A Case of
Judicial Social Control
Most in United States feel use of power to enforce rules
is legitimate because law itself is seen as legitimate
Missouri v. Jenkins (1990)
Judge Clarke ruled property tax could be raised to create
“magnet schools”
Lawyers argued actions violated:
Precepts of democratic control
Article III of federal constitution
Due process clauses
6-3 majority agreed with Clarke
30. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Had required desegregation
As local government had not complied with Brown, it was
judiciary’s obligation to enforce decision
Court issued writ of mandamus
Court order compelling public officials to do their duty
“No Taxation Without
Representation!”: A Case of
Judicial Social Control
31. Justice Kennedy dissented on grounds that
Represented federal bullying
Usurpation of power of legislative branch
Clear violation of due process
Insult to those who want best for their children and who work
for it
Missouri v. Jenkins (1995)
Program ended in 1999
“No Taxation Without
Representation!”: A Case of
Judicial Social Control
32. Case provides example of awesome power of law to
exert social control despite opposition of overwhelming
majority of citizens
Social control by number of means necessary in all
societies
Agents may sometimes overstep boundaries of legitimate
power
Societies that do not hold citizens to standards of
decency are in trouble
“No Taxation Without
Representation!”: A Case of
Judicial Social Control