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.

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.

Insanity Defense- is it Rational?

The insanity defense continues to evolve and be shaped by our knowledge of cognition, mental health and effectivity of treatments and punishments, as well as cultural changes and response by the public to outcomes from the criminal justice system.

We have had immense gains in our understanding about mental illness since the M'Naghten Rule was established, although public sentiment continues to lag this knowledge.  If you consider the treatments that have included electric shock therapy, lobotomy and other practices considered barbaric today, how society has evolved in the understanding of mental illness, and the rights of the mentally ill, has also evolved.  Yet, when the criminal justice system has "gone too far", public outcry about guilty going unpunished results in a backlash that reverses the direction away from the rights of the accused towards authoritarian punishment. 

I have struggled with the notion of the insanity plea, as I can see both the need for protecting the mentally competent from acts they do not understand, and the need to mete out justice and protect society from violent offenders.

I find it interesting that there are three states (Utah, Montana and Utah) that do not allow the insanity defense.  This seems greatly unfair to me, as there are those who are clearly incapable of understanding their actions, or of subsequently understanding the trial.  This seems like shooting my dog unless it tells me, in flawless English, to "please don't shoot".  How can we hold persons who cannot understand their actions accountable under the law?  Still, I do understand the desire for justice and punishment, to the point of revenge, particularly for the families of victims.  The anguish of seeing someone "walk free" who has been proven guilty in the family's perspective would be a dagger in the mind that would cry out for revenge.

I've lived with the mentally ill, and that's included bipolar disorder, sensory integration disorder, autism, dementia, Altzheimer's and anorexia nervosa.  There's a big difference from being [neurotic, ADD, grumpy, getting your freak on, irrational, jerk, caffeine overdosed, drunk] and hearing voices, thinking bugs are moving under your skin or talking to your long-dead mother who you think is in the room.  You don't punish a baby for filling their diaper, or a deaf child for not responding when you talk to them.  It is a common misconception in education that "all children should be treated the same".  However, my autistic child needed more time and assistance at understanding the questions.  That's not cheating or creating a differing standard, any more than you'd hand a fill-in-the-blank quiz to a blind child, then give them an F when they failed to complete it.  When you're dealing with gaps in mental health where there is no recognition of actions, consequences and/or societal mores, to what end do you punish them?  You might as well punish a child because it rains.

The concept of not executing someone who had become insane after conviction of a capital crime had seemed wrong to me until I studied this topic more deeply.  Now I understand that their insanity would prevent them from mounting a credible defense for appeals, or at least, prevent them from understanding the appeals process.  Still, if they were found insane after being denied their final appeal, I think they should be executed.