SOC 2309: Law and Society ~ Exam 3: Part 1 - Law and Social Control

Exam 3: Part 1 - Chapter 9: Law and Social Control

A Central Function of the Law

Deterrence is an important function of the law. Based on the proposition that people are “rational actors” and will avoid behavior, however attractive, when the cost outweigh the benefits.

Means of Social Control (Informal Laws)

• Custom and Tradition

• Social Pressure

• Education

• Religion

• Family

Mechanical Solidarity

Small, tradition societies → repressive law; aims to punish offenders and reaffirm social cohesion through harsh penalties.

Organic Solidarity

Division of labor, different interest; interdependent roles → restitutive law; focuses on restoring the status quo by requiring the wrongdoer to compensate the victim, reflecting a more specialized division of labor and emphasis on individual rights. 

Forms of Social Control (and How it Has Changed in Society)

• Formal or Informal

• Manipulative of Coercive

• Internal or External

Manipulative or Coercive

Punishment's for violating the rules; the criminal justice system

Internal or External

Internal = Social control, and rules pf society

External = Law

Example of Formal, Coercive, and External Social Control

If you get a speeding ticket

Example of Informal, Manipulative, and Internal Social Control

If you give yourself a reward for doing something good

There are four reasons why people obey the law. What are they?

Self Interest, Sanctions, Social Influence, and Conscience

Legal Control: Self-Interest

Individuals obey laws that are in their self interest. Weighing the cost and the benefits. For example, driving the speed limit to avoid arrest or a collision.

Legal Control: Sanctions

People obey laws to avoid the consequences. For example, avoiding monetary fines, losing drivers license, or doing community service.

Legal Control: Social Influence

Obeying the law to avoid embarrassment or criticism. For example, the people around you—such as family, you would want them to be proud of you instead of facing ridicule.

Legal Control: Conscience

Individuals obey the law due to your internal sense about what is right and wrong. For example, you may feel guilty for doing something wrong.

Legal Control: Civil Law

In these type of cases their is a preponderance of the evidence, compensates individuals for injury

Legal Control: Criminal Law

Controls socially harmful activity, the standard proof in these type of cases is beyond a reasonable doubt.

What are the four functions of Criminal Punishment?

Retribution, Incapacitation, Deterrence, and Rehabilitation

Criminal Penalties

America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Has been declining, reached its peak in 2010, since then its been leveling off. Sends people to jail for “more crimes” that any other wester countries, and for longer periods of time.

Deterrence

The law should deter criminal behavior.

What are the Requirements for Deterrence?

Communication, Certainty, Severity, Speed, Stigma, and Procedural Justice

Deterrence: Communication

People have to know what their doing is against the law. The law, penalty, and enforcement must be communicated to the target audience of individuals who are expected to obey the law as well as to the individuals who are expected to enforce the law.

Deterrence: Certainty

Violating a rule will result in the imposition of a penalty.

Deterrence: Severity

The punishment has to be severe enough to outweigh the benefits of crime and deter individuals from engaging in criminal behavior.

Deterrence: Speed

The punishment must be inflicted without delay. This is measured by the time between arrest and sentencing. For example, catching your dog in the mist of doing a bad behavior. You would have to correct it right then and there.

Deterrence: Stigma

The public should buy into the idea that “this” is bad and wrong. The greater the shame attached to the act is, the more effective the deterrent effect of the law will be.

Deterrence: Capacity

Individuals must be in a position to obey the law.

Deterrence: Procedural Justice

The law must be viewed as moral and must be viewed as enforced in a fair and equal fashion.

General Deterrence (Everybody)

The idea that the threat of a penalty will cause individuals to refrain from committing the act. For example, of you see someone else getting punished, you will not commit the same act or crime.

Specific Deterrence (Just You)

The capacity of a law to deter an individual who already has been penalized for the prohibited behavior from repeating the prohibited behavior. For example, if you do something bad, such as speeding and that results in you getting a ticket, you’re likely not going to speed anymore.

Channeling Effect

When there is a change in behavior from the result in the law. For example, lower the speed limit = people slow down.

Absolute Deterrent Effect

The number of prohibited acts prevented by a law are weighed against the number of prohibited acts that otherwise would have occurred absent the law prohibiting the behavior.

For example, how fewer speeders are there on the road when you have a cop sitting there versus when a cop is not there.

Marginal Deterrent Effect

When you compare the effectiveness of one type of threat vs. the effectiveness of another type of threat.

For example, looking at speeding. Tickets are $120 then the price raised to $170, does the price raise have a marginal change in the effect of deterrence?

Example: The number of people who will avoid walking on the grass when a $25 fine is imposed or who will avoid walking on the grass if individuals violating the rules are prohibited from using the park for a month.

Partial Deterrence

The idea that the threat of an illegal penalty can result in a change of behavior, although the modified behavior can be illegal/unlawful. For example, speeding mostly has a partial deterrent effect. If the speed limit is 75 mph, the reality of that is most people drive 80 or 85 mph.

But that 75 mph speed limit is making sure people don’t drive 95 mph, although people are not going the exact speed limit. They’ll at least drive a little less fast.

Deterrence Curve

There is a diminishing rate of returns in regards of punishment. Moderate punishment's is more effective that harsh punishment, it deters enough.

General Deterrence: Objective Risk (Pessimist)

Refers to the actual probability of being caught and punished for a crime. For example, a specific crime has a 75% of getting caught, detected, and punished.

General Deterrence: Subjective Risk (Optimist)

Refers to the individuals perception of belief about that probability of a crime. For example, someone might believe that they have a low chance of getting caught speeding, even if the objective risk is high.

General Deterrence: Certainty, Swiftness, and Severity (Beccaria’s 3 C’s of Punishment)

Example: In California it cost 10 cents for a shopping bag, this results in people bringing their own bags (e.g., Aldi).

General Deterrence: Source of Bad Consequences

Formal vs. Informal Sanctions: Fearing going to prison because you risk not seeing your kids, enjoying your everyday life, losing your house, etc.

“Natural Deterrence”: Going rock climbing ≠ No ropes, Drinking ≠ Hangover.

General Deterrence: Psychic Organization

What people fear. Perceptual Ability: Some people are not able to weigh the cost and benefits of their actions (e.g., Taco Bell Shootout over 50 cent Increase). Morality: People have different degrees about moral feelings. For example, if eating people were a legal behavior and there was no associated punishment's, people would not go around eating people due to their moral compass. Its not morally right!

General Deterrence: Individual Attributes

Gender, Age, Social Class, and Personality

General Deterrence: Situational Factors

Seriousness of the Act, Group Influence, Role Models, Social Bonding, and Opportunities

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): “Aunt Jane’s Cold Remedy”

Fluctuations in crime might not have nothing to do with the government/law enforcement efforts to decrease crime. They may have gone down no matter what. It is hard to determine how much crime has changed as a result of a policy change.

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): Tiger Prevention

Officials may believe that they have stopped a wave of crime by passing a law, but there was never going to be a crime wave in the first place.

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): Fallacy of the Warden’s Survey

Sampling bias; if you only ask criminals of they were deterred that is not applicable. Might conclude that deterrence does not work.

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): Fallacy of Underreporting

Increased discussion might result in a increased reporting of that crime (e.g., #MeToo Movement).

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): Error of Diminishing Returns

Most individuals are already deterred from punishments, and the increased punishment may not be sever enough to deter individuals who continue to indulge in criminal behavior.

Example: If a city significantly increases its police presence and surveillance, initially leading to a noticeable drop in crime rates. However, after a certain point, adding even more officers and resources might yield smaller and smaller decreases in crime.

Evaluating General Deterrence (Critiques): Misattributed Deterrence/ Attributing Deterrence to Conviction Rather than Other Effects

Those formal social controls might not be making a difference, it might be something else like informal social controls. Shame or disapproval by friends and family is a more powerful deterrent than law.

Example: One study found that shame was a more powerful deterrent than law for tax offenses and drunk driving. Disapproval by friends and family is a more powerful deterrent than the imposition of criminal penalties.

Capital Punishment: Furman v. Georgia (1972)

The death penalty as administered in the U.S. violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Allowing complete discretion let to a the imposition in a freakish and unpredictable fashion. We weren't using it against the worst of the worst. It was mostly used against the poor and minorities. Was ruled unconstitutional.

Capital Punishment: Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Ended moratorium on death penalty with three requirements:

• Bifurcated hearing - jury first determines guilt or innocence, then considers sentence

• In sentencing phase, jury must consider aggravating and mitigating factors

• Automatic appeal to the state supreme court

Types of crimes and offenders subject to the death penalty

The Courts have slowly limited the types of crimes and the types of offenders subject to the death penalty.

Legal Changes: Roper vs. Simmons

Cruel and unusual to execute offender who was under age of 18 at time of offense

Legal Changes (Types of Offenders): Atkins vs. Virginia (2002)

Unconstitutional to execute individuals with an intellectual disability. Violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on unusual and cruel punishments.

Legal Changes: Ford vs. Wainwright

Cannot execute someone who is legally insane at the time of execution

Public Opinion of the Death Penalty

• Hovers around 50%

• Depends on how the question is asked

• Concerns about racial disparity

• Concern for mistakes and exonerations

Capital Punishment and Deterrence

No evidence suggest that death sentences are more of a deterrent than life in prions. Contradicting evidence of deterrence. Some evidence of brutalization effect; issuing the death penalty may increase homicide rates. The death penalty cost significantly more that life in prison most from the cost of the trail.