Peacemaking Criminology

"Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice." 
    - Dr. Martin Luther King

The principles of peacemaking criminology looks to the community to resolve the social issues causing crime, and prefers restoration and restitution in a participatory process, over retribution and punishment by the criminal justice system.  This Peacemaking Criminology perspective seems predicated on the belief that peace is brought about by removing all social ills and social injustice.  Rather than the conflict-based legal system where there is always one winner and one loser (either the criminal is convicted ((loser)) and state wins, or criminal is exonerated ((wins)) and the state loses), peacemaking criminology seeks to create a win-win system of criminology where agencies and criminals work together in order to address the social ills causing the crime and focusing on restoration and reparation.  This seems entirely based on the principle that the absence of conflict is the presence of peace.  

Harold E. Pepinsky and Richard Quinney advanced the theory of peacemaking criminology by advocating that society moves away from thinking that stopping crime is the answer to crime control, and that making peace between everyone, in particular, agencies of the criminal justice system and citizens.  The Peacekeeping Criminology theory advances principles of "commonsense" theories about crime, moving away from conflict based social policies based on classic methods of criminology, crime control as the enforcement and endorsement of human rights, the role of education in creating peace, and how community settings are utilized to address conflict resolution.

By ending human suffering via peacemaking and elimination of conflict, Quinney and Wilderman state that crime can be eliminated.  Instead of punishment, conflict resolution panels and alternative-dispute resolution is utilized to create participatory justice and focus on rehabilitation, repairing and restoration caused by crime, and that victims are centrally involved in the process of resolving crime.  Peacekeeping criminology presumes to advance social theories of criminology to the extent that both society and the criminal are presumed accountable for crime.

However, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously and correctly stated, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice."  A complete dictatorship where there is no conflict is not a system of peace, nor can there be peace without justice.   Critically, this theory seems incredibly naive, and you cannot solve crimes by providing a group hug.  What kind of reparation can you make for human suffering, loss of a limb/eye/mobility or death?  How will the destitute make reparations for thousands or even millions of dollars of damage from a crime?  The naive assumption that all crime can be blamed on society and societal problems, and that there is no personal accountability or psychology involved seems to have created a system that MIGHT operate effectively as arbitration for minor offenses, but seems ill-suited for violent crimes and felonies.

Indian reservations in the United States employ a number of alternative courts and dispute resolution processes, and many include restorative justice principles through alternative-dispute resolution.  As the article by Justin Peters published on Slate, Violent Crime on Indian Reservations Is Up, But Prosecutions Are Down demonstrates, violent crime on Indian reservations is more than 20 times the national average, and many estimate it to in fact be 200x more than the US.  The news article cites the reasons for this being ill-trained criminal justice systems, ineffective alternative-dispute resolution panels and general lack of quality in the agencies of criminal justice.  Violent crime cannot be resolved via dispute resolution, and drunken assaults are not going to be effected by the thought of going before a committee to explain your action.  Morning Star Brown, according to the article, had stabbed or threatened to stab her boyfriend's cousin, Jarret Two Bear, no fewer than 6 times in the 3 years of her relationship with her boyfriend.  She had been convicted of aggravated assault the year prior, but without effect.  Although it seems as though at least some of the courts adjudicating her various cases used classic retribution systems of incarceration, the overall lawlessness and prevalence of violent crime seems to have been caused by a lack of justice, not a lack of love and hugs by the community.  While the case could certainly be made that alcohol abuse was a substantive causative influence at the downfall of Morning Star Brown and the death of Jarret Two Bear. (Peters, Justin. 2013.)  

__

Peters, Justin. (2013).  Violent Crime on Indian Reservations Is Up, But Prosecutions Are Down. Slate, 8-Mar-2013. Retrieved 8-Mar-2013 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/08/morning_star_brown_violent_crime_on_indian_reservations_is_up_but_prosecutions.html 

Child Predation and IINI

Tools are passive, and morality free. A hammer can be used to build and create, yet the hammer is one of the most common weapons of assault and manslaughter in the US. Guns can defend lives or create them. The Internet is just a tool, and can be a powerful force for good, or for evil.

Along with the good that has come from the prevalence and ubiquity of the Internet, child predation and child pornography, aided by the Internet, have grown dramatically, and changed police work as a result.  In the decade ending 2009, child pornography in the United States has grown 330%.  According to the US Department of Justice, more than 9 million PCs in the United States had shared an image of child pornography in the year ending 10/2009, a figure that is alarming and revolting.  The FBI now handles more than 2500 new cases of child pornography and child sexual exploitation (CP/CSE) each year.  

"Before the Internet," reports U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride, "child pornography had been almost eradicated." (Oberst, 2011)  As of April 2012, the FBI has over 5600 CP/CSE cases pending, as the trend continues to increase.  Electronic communications and telecommunications (SMS/ "Sexting", social media, chat rooms, etc.) have now grown to be the primary conduit both of illicit images of children, and also as the primary means to lure children as victims.  Telecommunications has also served to connect a sub-culture of deviants with a predilection for child predation, serving to identify and validate that deviancy.  (FBI, 2013)

To combat child pornography and child predation, the FBI has created task forces and specialized training, and has installed a special prosecutor focusing on child exploitation in each federal district, as a part of "Project Safe Childhood".  The FBI has also created the national Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI) to provide centralized evidence collection and analysis. (Oberst, 2011)  As well, the FBI has IINI representatives in all 56 field offices, and collaborate with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies in both undercover operations, enforcement and investigations focusing on combating CP/CSE.

The FBI now monitors:

• Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File sharing
• Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels
• Websites hosting images of child pornography
• Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and other online forums
• Internet news groups
• Online groups and organizations (e.g. Yahoo Groups)
• Social networking sites   (FBI,2013)

Since the inception of the IINI in 2001, it has lead to 11,000 arrests and 11,400 convictions. (Ibid)

The FBI has also been coordinating with the NSA (National Security Agency) and NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) to provide for image processing of the Internet (The NRA & NRO capture a snapshot of the entire Internet each day) in order to provide for correlation of images.  Like photocopiers that will put a tiny dot in the same location of all pages photocopied, digital cameras have irregularities in manufacture that provide for traces in images for pixels that are slightly off in the precisely same location in each image.  These are caused by currents in the acid bath, breezes in the clean room in which they are manufactured, adhesion issues with the silicon medium, etc.  Although these traces cannot be observed with the naked eye, they are readily apparent with forensic analysis, and are able to provide evidence of the make and model of the camera, as well as a digital "fingerprint" of the camera ("Bob", 2005).  

By comparing (attributed) vacation photos from Flickr and Facebook to (anonymous) images captured from child pornography & predation sites, law enforcement has new tools to be able to correlate the actual production of child pornography, cutting to the supply rather than the distribution. (Ibid)  This is just one way in which law enforcement is changing their use of technology to meet emergent needs for different policing to adapt to new aspects of criminality.

Why the boom in child pornography?  I would conjecture that it's a combination of:

1. the feeling of anonymity (even though rarely true on the Internet)
2. easy access without perception of personal risk (don't have to physically enter a seedy dive of blackmarket porn), just as VHS caused an explosive in mainstream porn, as it could be viewed at home rather than driving to an adult theater, 
3. validation and normative bias of a sub-culture enabled through extensive and direct interaction within chat rooms, forums, etc.
4. electronic copies can be created without exposing the distributors to physical constraints of duplication - just as .MP3 files caused an explosion in music distribution that was not possible with cassette tapes, records and CDs.

I think there may be a (very) small fraction which is accidental.  There was an infamous case of a child who worked in the adult industry while a minor, but was undetected until years later... can't remember the name.  I'm not excusing the crime, just noting that the age of consent is 16 in almost all states and countries, but child pornography is under 18, which leaves a 2-year gap where someone could be perceived as adult and with mature secondary sexual characteristics, and permitted by law to have sex with adults, but is still a minor.

Regrettably, I once had to investigate a child pornography case, and this deviant had thousands of movies on his (work) computer, and there was nothing accidental about it.  Some involved children under 3.  Horrible horrible horrible horrible.  I had trouble sleeping for 2 years and had to get counseling.  I'm haunted by the fact that my employer at the time would not go to the police, destroyed the evidence and fired the guy, setting a monster loose on the world.  (this was before the law changed, compelling disclosure)

__

FBI (2013). Overview and History: Online Child Pornography/Child Sexual Exploitation Investigations, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Innocent Images. Retrieved 15-Feb-2013 from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/innocent-images-1

Oberst, Lindsay. (2011). US Child Pornography Cases Rise Dramatically. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, 12-Aug-2011. Retrieved 15-Feb-2013 from http://jjie.org/child-pornography-cases-rise-dramatically/20037

"Bob" (2009). As told to the author in the presentation of a peer-reviewed research paper by distinguished researchers, at the COSAC Information Security Conference 2005, Naas, Ireland.  Under Chatham House rule, I may not divulge who was present, while I may quote them anonymously.

Shocking Stats on Shoplifting

While a form of larceny/theft itself, shoplifting differs from other forms of theft in that the victim is an organization, the definition is constrained to retailers, and the crime is far more pervasive than other forms of theft from organizations (e.g. embezzlement, fraud, shipment diversion/transport crime, grand theft, bank robbery).

Whereas there is a strong gender divide in most other crimes, shoplifting has a relatively even split between genders.  Additional facts:

• 25% of shoplifters are teens, a disproportionate demographic
• 55% of shoplifters say they started in their teenaged years
• 89% of teenagers say they know other teens who shoplift, and 69% hang out with those known shoplifters
• Many shoplifters will steal and purchase goods in the same visit
• Typical theft is in the range between $2 and $200 per incident (admittedly a very broad range)
• Shoplifters report being caught 1/48 of the time, and are turned over to police once caught about 50% of the time
• Habitual shoplifters steal, on average, 1.6 times per week.
• Wal*Mart's loss prevention department reports an average of 1 million shoplifting incidents per year, and estimates the impact of these losses as $77million that are passed along to their customers.
• The FBI reports shoplifting as the fastest-growing larceny, at a CAGR of 20%
• The estimated cost to US taxpayers of shoplifting is more than $16Billion

(source: Compulsive No More Stop, compulsivenomorestop.com, http://compulsivenomorestop.com/Shoplifting_Facts.html)

If left unchecked, shoplifting will continue to be a substantial drain on the economy.  Further, I think unabated shoplifting is an example of the kind of social disorder event that the Broken Windows Theory of criminology (James Q. Wilson, George L. Kelling) was speaking to.  Unchecked shoplifting promotes lawlessness and breakdown of the social contract, and is a gateway crime to more serious societal issues that can cause millions per criminal.  Shoplifting deserves serious attention to stop the degradation it causes in our society.  Yet, it seems that shoplifting doesn't get the serious attention of law enforcement (See this example in Dallas: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2011/12/new-dallas-poli.html/ ).  To be effective at prevention, law enforcement, store owners and the community will need to work together to curb shoplifting and address this blight.

Big Brother is Watching, Without an ROI

Video evidence seems all the rage, particularly in Europe, but the video evidence rarely solves crimes.  In fact, the million cameras in London mostly solve crimes like setting trashcans out on the wrong day or neglecting to pick up dog scat when walking the dog.  Less than 3% of crimes are solved by CCTV videos, and it's been reported that there are so many police cameras in England (more than 5 million by some estimates) that CCTV no longer provides any kind of deterrent, as thieves consider them to not be working.  Based on the 3% conviction rate, they could be considered right, even if technically the video is being captured. (Johnston, 2011)  

Studies of the effect of CCTV use in the UK are inconclusive.  While some show a marked decline in burglary (down 50%) and car crime (down 87%) in the 5 years after CCTV was installed, they could not attribute it to CCTV use, and violent crime was up 300% in the same period.  Other studies have shown that CCTV use has had no demonstrable effect on crime, save a single camera in a parking garage. (Ibid)

Even when captured on film, conviction is rare.  In one month 269 robbers were suspected, yet only 8 were captured.  How many of those could actually be convicted will naturally be a smaller number.  Nationwide, the UK has spent more than $776Million on cameras, and are now captured 300 times a day, but some estimates, with an enormous invasion of privacy.  When police are challenged on the efficacy of CCTV as a crime-solving measure, they seem quick to close ranks and ask for more investment to make it all work. (BBC, 2009).  Yet, 80% of boroughs with police cameras in the London area show a below-average rate in solving crime, with no provable benefit to the cameras in either the overall solving of crimes nor reduction in criminality. (Davenport,  2007).

Consider that, by one estimate, the amount invested in just 11 communities in the UK responding to a corollary to the US Freedom of Information Act request showed over $500MM invested, which could have paid the salaries of 13,436 police instead.  New Orleans defunded their CCTV program after 7 years of operations and $10Million invested resulted in only 6 prosecutions -- 3 for crimes committed on camera, and 3 from bribes and kickbacks from camera vendors to City Hall (!!!) (Hamilton, 2010)

Researchers in San Francisco tested the impact from SFPD cameras, detailing 59,706 crimes committed within 1000 feet of a camera from 1-Jan-2005 to 28-Jan-2008, studying those crimes that had a police report, not the total number of crimes caught on camera or actually committed.  The researchers studied 7 crimes: murder, larceny, vehicle theft, burglary, assault, robbery and forcible sex offenses.  The only positive deterrent they were able to associate with the cameras was a reduction in larceny committed within 100 feet of the cameras, with no other crime rates having any discernible effect, except that murder was effected in an unforeseen way.  While murders went down within 250 feet of the camera, those murder rates were completely offset by murders occurring within 250-500 feet of the camera, indicating that the murderers knew of the camera and decided to just move down the block a ways before committing murder.  (Schneier, 2008)

__

BBC. (2009) 1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'. BBC News, 24-Aug-2009. Retrieved 16-Feb-2013 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm

Davenport, Justin. (2007). Tens of thousands of CCTV cameras, yet 80% of crime unsolved. London Evening Standard, 19-Sept-2007. Retrieved 16-Feb-2013 from http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tens-of-thousands-of-cctv-cameras-yet-80-of-crime-unsolved-6684359.html

Hamilton, Daniel. (2010) The Price is Wrong: The cost of CCTV surveilance in the United Kingdom. BigBrotherWatch.co.uk, pub. date unknown, copyright 2010. Retrieved 16-Feb-2013 from http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/nov/uk-cctv-big-brother-watch-report.pdf 

Johnston, Phillip. (2011). We're all spied upon, but to what purpose? The Telegraph, 22-Aug-2011.  Retrieved 16-Feb-2013 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8716058/Were-all-spied-upon-but-to-what-purpose.html

Schneier, Bruce. (2008) The Ineffectiveness of Security Cameras. Schneier on Security, 7-Apr-2008. Retrieved 16-Feb-2013 from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/04/the_ineffective.html

Victim Precipitation & Columbine

I think that there are substantial influences of victim precipitation on many violent crimes, in particular those involving alcohol.  When people lower their inhibitions and effect their judgement via alcohol, they may be more inclined to pick fights, stagger into others provoking a response to an imagined attack, or aggressively pursue an undesired romantic interest, all of which can precipitate assault and other forms of violent crime.  

Victim precipitation has often been blamed for the Columbine school massacre, playing on the beliefs that the killers had been taunted, and were lashing back at the victims.  However, I do not think that there was any victim precipitation in the attack on Columbine.  This seems one of the myths of Columbine created in the media circus following the event.  

In the CNN Article, Debunking the Myths of Columbine, 10 Years Later (CNN, 2009 - http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/index.html?_s=PM:CRIME ), author Stephanie Chen discusses many of the myths believed by the general public about Columbine.  Among these are that the killers were part of the Trench Coat Mafia (they weren't), that they had been harrassed or teased before (no more than typical high schoolers), were loners (in fact, they were popular with a tight circle of friends), and targeted jocks and blacks (which they did not).  

Another myth of Columbine was that the students created a hit list of intended targets.  However, the list had several joke entries (e.g. Tiger Woods), and nobody on the "hit list" was injured or killed in the event.  Rather than being outcasts, Harris and Klebold were reportedly far more accepted than most of their peers. (Sidebar, Slate Magazine, author & pub. date unknown http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2004/04/sidebar_3.html ).  If anything, the victims of Columbine seems to have been selected because the target was a known, familiar ground to the killers, much as the poor frequently prey on the poor in their neighborhood.  

According to Dave Cullen, in an article published 4/20/2004 in Slate, The Depressive and the Psychopath: At last we know why the Columbine killers did it (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html), FBI psychiatrists and psychologists have categorized Klebold as a depressive, suicidal and disturbed young man who blamed himself for his problems.  Harris however, has been classified as a psychopath by the FBI, a cold, calculating and homicidal killer, and not just a depressed loner.  

According to Cullen, who spent years meticulously researching Columbine, the students were not seeking a school shooting at all, and mocked the notion of a school shooting.  Their intent, rather, was a massive detonation of bombs both inside and outside the school, while providing strafing fire to gun down any who escaped the carnage.  They planned on a body count to inflict the "largest number of deaths in U.S. history," intent on topping the murders committed by the Oklahoma City Bombing.  Precipitation does not seem to have been a factor in the aggregate in the Columbine shooting.  Only at the micro level, as individual students chose to run, cower, hide, and other minute decisions did those precipitate their personal victim status -- if they chose wrong, they were injured or killed. This doesn't seem, however, to be victim precipitation, as a crime was already in progress, and it was just their response to it.

Feminist Criminology

Adler and Simon were some of the original proponents of feminist criminology, which explains the difference in crimes committed by women as a result of sociological causes rather than biological in nature.  Feminist criminology points to sexual and economic oppression, disenfranchisement of women, marginalization of women in the home and society and reduced socioeconomic opportunities in a patriarchal society.  Much as the conditions and treatments of African Americans have not completely recovered from slavery, the oppression of women as chattel still causes deep societal divisions.  In the perspective of feminist criminology, crimes committed by women can be explained through gender differentiation in society causes those behaviors.

The 19-Mar-2013 article in the WV Metro News, "Woman Sentenced for Shooting Husband in Hospital Bed"  (http://wvmetronews.com/woman-sentenced-for-shooting-husband-in-hospital-bed/) details the story of Rhonda Stewart, aged 54, who is alleged to have shot her husband in the Intensive Care Unit, in Charleston, WV.  Ms. Stewart claims to have no recollection of the shooting, and appears to have been the victim of systemic and long-term spousal abuse.  According to her daughter, "she has been imprisoned all her life".  Feminist criminology would point to the sexual and social dominance of the husband, and power-control, as described by John Hagan, as introduced through the family class structure creating inequity and struggle.  Gender relationships and differences, from the feminist criminology perspective, would be responsible for the domestic abuse that appears to have been the daily existence for Ms. Stewart, and that ultimately led to her lashing out against her oppressor.

While I believe that there is much we can learn from a feminist perspective of crime, and that social, sexual and power issues created by gender are a causative influence for criminality, I do find that some feminist perspective on crime go too far in demonization of men. However, there is much to be learned from considering the role that gender plays in society and crime.  

My wife is my queen, and I try to honor her, as I hope all men cherish, honor and care for their wife.  Still, I admit that our nuclear family has definite and distinct gender roles, ones which we acknowledge and embrace in some ways, and others we laugh about, when we catch ourselves in a rut.  We recognize that there are different perspectives and views of the world - as a man, I want to kill the bear and drag it back to the cave, so think that my daughters are sharing life events with me so I can "solve the problem", and I've had to realize that they're communicating with me as a therapeutic and healthy way of relating to me as their father.  The criminal justice system has been male-dominated for thousands of years, and only recently has provided for roles for women in criminal justice.  I can see that consideration of a world through a man's eyes, including the world of criminal justice, would tend to focus on solutions that resonate with the male perspective.

Seeing the rich and varied way that family relationships, gender differences and social mores play out across gender boundaries, I can see where a feminist perspective on criminality would provide for insights that were sorely lacking when much of the field of criminology was established.  As we continue to learn and expand the role that feminism plays in our society, I think we will continue to improve the role of women in our criminal justice system -- and hopefully address root causes of crime based on gender inequality.

Crash: Seen through conflict theories of criminology

I was challenged to watch the movie Crash and provide commentary.  If you have a Netflix account, you can watch it here.

The movie Crash was one I found very disturbing - the raw racism was painful enough I had to watch the movie in phases across several days. The backdrop of ethnically and culturally diverse Los Angeles is the setting for director Paul Harris' film, which follows several groups of people through 3 tense days of interaction, where their lives are unexpectedly intertwined. Along the way, each of the main characters acts out of ugly racism (with the notable exception of the locksmith, Daniel), and then has a revelation that changes their perspective on race.  This movie has many plots and subplots, and I do not think there is a single conflict theory to explain all behavior -- although Marxist class struggle does seem to be an overarching theme.  

Many conflict theories of criminality are presented in the movie, and these include:

Radical criminology (William Chambliss, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engles, etc.) Anthony and Peter are presented as the bourgeoisie who are down-trodden without opportunities or hope, and the shopkeeper Fahrad is likewise presented as a man who is pushed into criminality through hopelessness from feeling wronged by a corrupt system.  Chambliss' theory that the upper and middle-class often escape punishment is further highlighted in an angry exchange between Cameron, a successful movie director, and Tom Hansen.  Cameron, a successful black man in an expensive car is let go, even as Anthony huddles in the front seat - the impression being that, had Anthony been discovered, he would have been arrested and not gotten away with just a warning.

Feminist criminology (Adler & Simon) - Power-Control Theory (Hagan) - Christine reacts to being arrested with violent outbursts and vehement anger as she is controlled and dominated by the police, and is further stripped of dignity through molestation at the hands of the police.  She reacts with mild violence and scorn to her husband, Cameron, who she saw as not protecting her to save his own dignity.  Through Christine, we see strong gender issues, where she is subjugated to her husband's career, and reacts strongly to that when this results in her sexual assault.  Sandra Bullock's character, Jean, is likewise subordinate to the career of her husband, who is more concerned (as District Attorney) that he was robbed by black men, and how that will effect his political career, than with the trauma felt by his wife.

Instrumental Marxism ( Reiman) - Through the eyes of the poor in the movie (Anthony, Fahrad, Peter) we see how the poor are downtrodden and subjugated by the police.  Peter is shot by a policeman, who saw everyone else as racist, and then winds up shooting Peter due to his own prejudiced beliefs -- after first mocking Peter that he could enjoy country music, go ice skating or would like to be a hockey player.  We see the interaction of the police with the citizenry as corrupt, domineering, prejudiced, racist and driving the forces of law to manipulate public image and create prescribed outcomes regarding race perceptions and twisted justice.  The criminal justice system is portrayed as a tool to control the poor, rather than a tool to create justice, law and order.

Critical Criminology (Sykes) Jean, having been robbed at gunpoint, quickly jumps to assumptions regarding the tattoos and baggy clothes that Daniel has, and demands her locks be changed again.  She is the epitome of upper-class snobbery keeping the ruling class dominating the underprivileged, and she is broadly critical of the hired help, and turns every perceived slight into aspects of criminality.  

Left-realist Criminology (Curran, Renzetti, DeKeseredy, Young) - While not as strong a theme as other conflict theories, there is the general overall sense in the movie that most of the poor portrayed in the movie are committing crimes of desperation and deprivation, while the police and ruling elite are the "real criminals" who are corrupt - framing the innocent, committing coverups, killing, bribing using extortion and crimes of sexual deviancy.  

Labeling theory (Howard Saul Becker's & George Herbert Mead) - While not a conflict theory, Labeling theory is seen in how many of the players in the movie label themselves, including a several minute dialogue by Anthony and Peter.  In particular, Anthony sees the antagonism of society against him as entirely based on race, then they both play to type and steal a car and gun point.  Peter, despite having a brother who is a successful police detective, is a 3-strike felon who sees few ways of opportunity except by boosting cars, accepting society's label as a hoodlum.

Explaining the Inexplicable: Why did they do it?

When lawmakers and judicial authorities break the law, it’s big news.  

Diane Hathaway, a former Michigan SupremeCourt justice, plead guilty to charges of bank fraud on 29-January-2013, based on concealing assets in a settlement on a mortgage to escape foreclosure.  What appears to have happened, as reported by the Associated Press article “Ex-Mich. Supreme Court justice pleads guilty to bank fraud” published in the Toledo Blade 29-Jan-2013, is that Hathaway and her husband, Michael Kingsley, transferred a Florida home to a relative to hide assets and qualify for a short sale.  In a short sale, assets are sold for less than the value of the debt, permitting the debtor to escape foreclosure to avoid “financial hardship”, and the lender writes off the remainder of the debt as uncollectable.  

Hathaway was able to present a false indicator of financial hardship by hiding of assets, and seems to have benefitted from a $600,000 write-off in the short sale, though records filed by the prosecutor seem to indicate that the actual loss by the bank may have been closer to $100,000.  The article seems to indicate that Ms. Hathaway stepped down from the judicial bench as a part of this prosecution, so the crime was committed while a Supreme Court Justice.  (AP, 29-Jan-13)

When an officer of the court commits fraud, this is naturally a very serious offense, and it seems likely Ms. Hathaway faces losing her license to practice law as well as her freedom.  Ironically, she has likely created a debt from legal costs and loss of her livelihood that will not just cost her more than the $100,000 written off in the short sale, but likely will cost her the vacation home as well.  

So, why did she do it?  That's the classic question of criminology, and one I'll attempt to answer.  I think Beccaria’s classical theory of law can provide for an understanding of her actions.  All three “legs” of Beccaria’s theory are present.  Ms. Hathaway had free will, a fundamental of Beccaria’s classical theory.  She doesn’t seem to have been under duress or coercion when she concealed the vacation home, or when she lied to the bank.  While her husband may have been a persuasive fellow, Ms. Hathaway had attained a very high level within the judicial system, and would not have been successful in her role as a judge had she been so readily swayed by arguments into committing a serious crime.  

Ms. Hathaway ostensibly and clearly had rationality, as irrationality would have precluded her career choice.  Finally, Ms. Hathaway would presume to be subject to manipulability, the third fundamental in Beccaria’s classical theory.  As a state Supreme Court justice, she would be aware of sentencing guidelines for her offense, and would know that she is held to a higher standard as an officer of the court.   With the free will to commit crime for the self-interest of $100,000, and with the rationality to understand the catastrophic punishment she faced, the decision Ms. Hathaway made would more subscribe to the neoclassical theory, as the rational choice theory (Cornish and Clarke) would explain that she must have thought her crime would go undetected, and therefore a rational choice, with the perceived benefit outweighing the perceived cost(s).  She stands to lose nearly everything from this crime, and has already sacrificed her integrity.  It seems unlikely she will be able to have any kind of job in the criminal justice system after this crime, so there will be a dramatic penalty in her life besides the potential for a prison sentence.  The thought of a Supreme Court justice committing fraud for $100,000 is disturbing, since it calls into question the integrity of the bench and her judgment on prior cases. 

The prosecution of the crime and plea bargaining is a further example of the neoclassical theory.  Ms. Hathaway is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a key tenant of our justice system which is owed to the neoclassical theory. (Barkan, 2012) Ms. Hathaway is afforded plea bargaining and a modified sentence sufficient to achieve specific deterrence, as well as to provide general deterrence that the criminal justice system works, and has found her out. These aspects of deterrence are elements of the neoclassical view. (Schmalleger, 2012)

A sadly more common crime was reported in The Muncie Star Press on 30-Jan-2013, of a woman who had been placed in a position of trust in a church, which she alleged to have abused to embezzle nearly $200,000.  Angela Renee Linder, 42, has been charged with felony wire fraud, in a plea deal reached with federal prosecutors.  She is subject to $250,000 in fines and up to a 20 year prison sentence for the federal offense.  Ms. Lindner had been placed in charge of payroll, tax filings and “other administrative duties” at the Union Chapel Methodist Church in a Muncie, Indiana, suburb.  Her duties included handling credit cards and payments of those cards, apparently with too little oversight and governance.  (Walker, 2012)

Ms. Lindner is accused of church credit cards under her control to purchase airline tickets, rental cars, meals at restaurants, home improvement projects, weight loss plans, and purchases at stores ranging from clothing and tire centers to wine stores.  She also is alleged to have paid herself unearned wages exceeding $54,000, by adding herself to the payroll of a community center of the church where she was not employed.  The audacity of Ms. Lindner’s crime went so far as to allegedly use $2500 of embezzled funds to establish a charitable fund "purportedly for the purpose of assisting children whose families were victims of fire-related disasters."  She appeared in a newspaper article as recently as November, praising her efforts. (Ms. Lindner had served, until recently, as a county firefighter and EMT).  The proposed plea agreement has been signed, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated Ms. Lindner "demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for her criminal conduct." (Ibid)

I think that the neoclassical theory of criminology is more closely related to this case than the classical view.  Ms. Lindner presumably had free will and rationality, and was able to decide for herself, repeatedly, clever ways to defraud the church of their funds, and to belie the trust they had placed in her.  By signing the plea deal, she has also demonstrated manipulability, all three qualities important to Beccaria’s classical theory of crime.  However, the strict yet reasonable punishment by the state seems to follow the neoclassical theory, as there were a number of other crimes for which Ms. Lindner could have been charged, yet a plea deal was reached for expediency of the state and with demonstrated contrition by the accused. 

The neoclassical perspective of rational-choice theory (Cornish & Clarke) provides perspective in that Ms. Lindner had made decisions believing the reward outweighed the risk, and seems to have acted in such as manner as she didn’t think she would be caught.  The Routine Activities Theory (Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson) further provides insight, that the offender was provided the opportunity in the absence of a capable guardian.  Without governance and oversight, the abuse of the church accountant went undetected.  A simple establishment of quarterly review of the church accounts by an audit committee of the church would have provided enough of a deterrent to stop the crime, as Ms. Lindner would have no longer believed her crimes would have gone undetected.  Presented with attractive targets (checkbook, payroll, credit cards) and opportunity (no segregation of duties / “toxic combination”), Ms. Lindner chose to commit crimes without the deterrent of a guardian.  (Barkan, 2012)

It seems that self-delusion played a significant role in both crimes above, as both Ms. Lindner and Ms. Hathaway seemed secure that their crime would go undiscovered, even though they both seem to have left a paper trail that would inarguably show the truth.  Particularly in the case of Ms. Lindner, a simple audit of the credit card statements or payroll would have disclosed the embezzlement. 

___

Sources:

Associated Press. (29-Jan-13). Ex-Mich. Supreme Court justice pleads guilty to bank fraud.  The Toledo Blade.  Retrieved on 29-Jan-13 from http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2013/01/29/Ex-Mich-justice-pleads-guilty-to-bank-fraud.html.

Barkan, Steven. (2012) Criminology: A Sociological Understanding. (5^th Ed.) Retrieved 29-Jan-13 from http://www.canyons.edu/faculty/wonserr/Intro%20to%20Criminology/Lesson%204%20-%20Classical%20and%20Neoclassical%20Perspectives.ppt

Schmalleger, Frank. (2012) Criminology Today: An Integrative Introduction. Prentice Hall: Boston.

Walker, Douglas. (30-Jan-2012) Woman accused of embezzling $200,000 from Muncie church. Muncie Star Press. Retrieved 30-Jan-2013 from http://www.indystar.com/article/20130130/NEWS02/301300318/Woman-accused-embezzling-200-000-from-Muncie-church?nclick_check=1

Comparing Cost of Crime to Cost of Incarceration

 Comparing the cost of corrections to the cost of crime had not occurred to me, so I found this to be an interesting challenge that would cause me to do some digging. 

According to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections website, at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Public/osp.htm the average cost per inmate is $164.06, with a total budget of $29.866 million for 458 prisoners.  The Franklin County budget for the office of sheriff is $99 million as submitted (see http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/12/02/sheriff-budget-falls-short.html ), and that article provides the statistic that the Franklin County jail maintains 1800 inmates in jail each day, a stunning number.  While I couldn't find a line item in the budget that provided a breakout of jail cost alone, the total cost for the Franklin County Sheriff function is $150.69 per prisoner they incarcerate - although that obviously includes patrol and administrative costs for law enforcement and crime prevention, as well as the strict operating costs for the jail.

From the Buckeye Institute report "Smart on Crime" issued November 2010 (see:http://buckeyeinstitute.org/uploads/files/buckeye-smart-on-crime(1).pdf ) the cost of corrections in Ohio has increased 5-fold since 1983, after adjusting for inflation.  Their number is starkly different from those posted by the department of corrections, at $1.79Billion annually for the total Ohio Department of Corrections figure, with $1.29Billion earmarked explicitly for prisons.  Ohio spends 7.3% of the state budget on corrections, more than the national average of 6.7%, with more than 50,000 inmates in the prison system.  The "Smart on Crime" report makes the assertion, one that I agree with, that the prison system in the United States has surpassed the point of diminishing returns.  The cost per resident of Ohio, using the Buckeye Institute report on crime, is $155.06 per Ohio resident.

The 2010 Rand report "Hidden in Plain Site" published at (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP279.pdf ) provides scholarly research on the cost of crime attributable to the cost and effectivity of policing.  From the report, the forecasted cost of crime in Toledo Ohio that was associated with a 12% reduction in police force ($20.97 per capita in savings) was estimated to yield an impact of $31.76 million, for a per-capita impact from that 12% reduction of $1160 per Toledo resident, or a net increase in costs to the citizens of Ohio of $1139, which far outstrips the $155.06 per resident cost of incarceration (and remember that the $1139 is just for a 12% reduction on policing, not answering the complete question of "what would the impact of crime be if there were zero law enforcement, as that number would be catastrophic).  While the diminishing returns from the prison system are certainly of concern, the cost of crime is dramatically larger than the cost of incarceration.

I don't think that all incarceration is cost effective, as there are many crimes that are "victimless crimes", as well as the issue of juvenile offenders.  You can't ignore the fact that there is model theory at work that will actually encourage delinquency when incarcerating a juvenile with other juvenile delinquents.  They stand a good chance of becoming bitter and embracing crime, rather than true and actual rehabilitation.  Additionally, since most criminals believe they will not be caught, the threat of punishment doesn't seem a real deterrent.  I think that crimes like small amounts of drug possession, DUI, administrative offenses are best resolved through community service, probation, counseling, rehabilitation, therapy and social programs.

Some thoughts on drug tests - and should cops have them?

Several random thoughts on drug testing...

Sweating Drug Tests & Performance Anxiety  

I think that 90% of the value of a drug test is the threat of the test itself.  I always got paranoid some years back when I had to take drug tests, even though I never (NEVER, even in college) tried illegal drugs, not even a joint.  So, why was I nervous?  Because I let my father (a physician) prescribe things for me.  About twice a year, I'd be at his house and have a symptom, and he'd toss a few pills at me and tell me to take those, and I'd get better.  Then, 3 months later, I'd be going in for a drug test and they'd ask me to list all medications.  Um, geez, they were yellow?  Yeah, that used to freak me right out, because what if the drug test showed something positive?  In particular, since my dad was an allergist, and I have had allergies, might he have given me a steroid or something with ephedrine that might look like a meth derivative?  Well, it never actually caused a problem, and all of my tests have been negative, and I've never abused drugs, so my conscience is clear... but it still didn't stop me from sweating bullets before a test.  Oh, and the worst was at Cincinnati Bell, where the matronly nurse stood there and watched me intently, and not from an angle that protected my privacy by any means.  The focus of her eyes were not on my face.  Talk about performance anxiety!!!  So, yeah, drug tests stink.

Costs of drug tests

In bulk, a mouth swab drug test is pretty cheap, under $1.  I know a Top-25 US bank uses those on employees who don't handle cash or guns, as their pre-employment screening (or, at least, they used to).  If it gives a positive, then they go for the more expensive urinalysis.

Should police be subject to random drug tests?

Definitely, police should be subject to random drug testing, for multiple reasons.  First, they are authorized to use deadly force and are armed.  Because of that responsibility, they should be tested to ensure that they are not impaired.  A random drug test, which could be administered at any time, should keep them clean and free of drugs.  Secondly, police operate motor vehicles, sometimes at high rates of speed.  In my own company, anyone who is paid to drive a commercial motor vehicle is subject to random drug tests, and I think that's a fair test when they are being paid to drive a vehicle, and the policy prohibits drug abuse.  Third, police utilize judgement and uphold the law. If they are addicted to drugs, they are corruptible, and lose partiality.  Fourth, they cannot utilize their judgement impartially and fairly if they are impaired.  Finally, and most importantly, police are in contact with drugs as part of their job, as well as large amounts of cash at times when performing a drug-related arrest.  Because of this, it is important for them to be ensured to be without corruption from this contact, and for the public to know that they are not being corrupted through this contact with drugs and cash.

On False Positives - should industry create a 0% False Positive Test?

I think having a 100% fail-safe drug test would be too expensive.  I'd be happy with a drug test that has a 0.5% false positive and 0.01% false negative... and anyone who tests positive is on administrative leave and immediately required to do a more elaborate test, with a second positive result leading to suspension pending further investigation.  Two mostly accurate tests, in my opinion, are better than the exceptionally high expense of a 100% fail-safe test.  If you know going in that, in a 1000 person police department, you're going to have, on average, 5 false positives, then you've removed the stigma of an initial positive result.  The odds of having a second false positive on the retest of those 5 is exceedingly small.

Broken Window Theory

I have been intrigued by the Broken Window Theory ever since hearing Malcolm Baldridge speak at the RSA Security Conference in 2010, and subsequently reading his book, The Tipping Point. I realize that he didn't come up with the theory, but he did explain it very well.  Since his book was the first time I'd been introduced to the Broken Window Theory, Prof. Baldridge is linked in my mind with that theory. :-)  

I feel there is a very strong corollary to my own chosen field of Information Security, itself an offshoot of criminology focusing on cybercrime and policy-based security models to prevent crime and loss. I think that the Broken Window Theory is valuable because it shows that small cues, psychologically, create an environment which can tell people that crime is tolerated, or not tolerated. While I'm not sure that you can expressly attribute the drop in crime in New York under Rudy Giuliani's program cracking down on quality-of-life offenses, it seems to be a very strong contributing factor. (However, crime overall dropped nationwide during the same time period, though not as precipitously as in New York City). I'm a fan of the broken window theory because I've seen it work in my own company, as a private security cybercrime initiative.

Because of this, I feel that there is definitely a strong case for the Broken Window Theory to apply to corporate crime.  I have experienced that showing popup alerts warning of potential policy violations, detection and response to minor offenses, including swift notification (e.g. warned web sites, password policy, warnings from desktop monitoring components detecting inserted USB drives, etc) shows a marked and pronounced reduction in criminal behavior within corporations, such as information disclosure and unauthorized access.  When adding warnings of policy to web pages, this was far more effective than a passive logging and blocking, and we noticed a dramatic drop in illicit and evasive web behavior (e.g. pr0n, DropBox or proxy avoidance sites).  PhishMe is a company that works in organizations to create Phishing programs to trick employees into falling for e-mail phishing scams, then trains them in that moment when the employee realizes they've messed up.  This is a great reinforcer that the little things matter, and we've seen a marked improvement in security awareness, policy compliance and in reporting of security issues - in essence, this is like our COP within our company. :-)

I recall reading in trade literature roughly 5 years ago that there is a definite tie between how the security guard looks, and embezzlement…although I was unable to find that article due to the very generic words that search contained.  The study showed that, if the corporate security guard at the front desk "looks like a police officer", then employees will commit less embezzlement and fraud, but where the security guard was in business attire, fraud increased.  They further showed that progressive steps towards making the security officers "look like cops" showed a significant correlation to criminal behavior by the employees.  

This research goes against the grain of the "kinder, gentler" office environments that have become popular over the last 30 years, where corporations seek to create a friendly face to security in the building - in my own organization, the primary face of the front security desk are frequently women that resemble grandmothers rather than the "look" of cops.  From the research, a white shirt with epaulettes, gold shield badge, gun, shirt patches and stripes, police-style duty belt, black tie, spit-shined shoes and radio handset clipped to the lapel were all psychological clues that the security force was alert and tied to law enforcement.  I think this is a logical extension of the same kind of social cues as The Broken Window theory, although really environmental.

Perhaps these provide us a lesson in changing corporate crime by merely "looking alert". I'm not a fan of security through obscurity, but cognition is a real force in human behavior, and effecting associate cognition through a little disinformation and camouflage seems a smart use of social science.