Culture of Control

Current culture Current trend in CJ - tougher laws, harsher punishment Garland (2001) states that this trend is the result of the late modernity culture.

Garland (2001) The public want safety => there are many options to respond them => politicians choose easy way to satisfy the public => harsher punishment => enhance social exclusion and “us” vs. “them”

Garland (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society (2001) The public demands: Something should be done about crimes Their property and persons should be protected Offenders should be adequately punished and controlled The CJ system should be operated reliably and effectively  These demands could be met in a variety of ways. Public attitudes about crime and control are ambivalent. They leave room for other resolutions =>Politicians take the easy route, to opt for segregation and punishment rather than try to embed social controls, regulate economic life, and develop policies that will enhance social inclusion and integration

In short, Garland (2001) The contemporary harsher punishment could be explained as the result of the public’s need to be safe and politicians’ easy response to it.

The characteristics of late-modern society, Kraska (2001) Economic globalization Dominance of free-market model Increasing cultural diversity Rise in bureaucratic surveillance Preoccupation with safety Changing conception of gender Rapid advancement of high technology An omnipresent media……

Key Themes Actuarial Justice The Socially Exclusive Society: us vs. them, gated community

Actuarial Justice This is the most common theme discussed in the late modern literature. New Penology Actuary

Things Changed From modern notions: equity, individualized justice, rights- based processes, and reacting to violations of law To Late modern emphasis: efficiency, minimizing risk, targeting hot-spots of potential danger, prevention “Growth orientation” also concerned itself with the rise of “actuarial justice”.

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Paradigm shifts in criminal justice Administration of Justice In the United States Social Welfarism RehabilitationJust Deserts Late Modernity IncapacitationActuarial Justice

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Standard Actuarial Tools Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R) Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R) Historical Clinical Risk Scheme (HCR-20) Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale (SIR) Salient Factor Score (SFS- 81) Base Expectancy Score (BES) Static 99

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University The Span of Actuarial Prediction in Criminal Justice Dangerousness prediction comes into play in a range of criminal justice decisions: –Pretrial release decisions –Juvenile transfers to adult court –Sentencing –Civil commitment –Correctional classification and management –Capital sentencing –Correctional treatment –Parole/offender reentry

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) – Versions and Offshoots

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University LSI-R Items and Scoring LSI-R is scored on a Point Scale:LSI-R is scored on a Point Scale: –41+ = high risk/need –34-40 = medium risk/n eed –24-33 = moderate risk /need –14-23 = low/moderate risk/need –0-13 = low risk/need. LSI-R ItemsLSI-R Items –Criminal History (10) –Education/Employment (10) –Financial (2) –Family/Marital (4) –Accomodation (3) –Leisure/Recreation (2) –Companions (5) –Alcohol/Drug Problems (9)

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University The PCL-R --Versions and Offshoots

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Psychopathy and Violence Psychopathy and violence are so inextricably linked that psychopathy has been described as a “mini theory of crime.” Psychopathy is of practical importance in the prediction of dangerousness because the association between psychopathy is so (statistically) large. Features of psychopathy that virtually ensure violence include: –Cognitive distortions and/or defect –Defect in affect –(Instrumental) Impulsivity

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University The PCL-R 20 Characteristics consisting of: –Factor 1 (Personality/Aggressive Narcissism) –Factor 2 (Behavior/ Antisocial Lifestyle) Recent studies using Item Response Theory suggests 3 factors: –Interpersonal –Affective –Lifestyle

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University The PCL-R Factors 1 & 2 Factor 1Factor 1 –Glibness/Superficial charm –Grandiose sense of self-wo rth –Pathological lying –Conning/manipulative –Lack of remorse or guilt –Shallow affect –Callous/lack of empathy –Failure to accept responsibi lity for own actions Factor 2Factor 2 –Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom –Parasitic lifestyle –Poor behavioral controls –Early behavior problem –Impulsivity –Irresponsibility –Juvenile delinquency –Revocation of conditional release

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Items not included in factors –Many short-term marital relationships –Criminal versatility –Promiscuous sexual behavior – Lack of realistic, long-term goals

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Administering and Scoring the PCL-R Each of the 20 items is scored on a 0 to 2 point scale based on interviews and case file information: –0 indicates the item does not apply, that the individual does not exhibit the characteristic or exhibits opposite characteristics –1 indicates that the item applies to a certain extent, but not to the degree necessary to score a 2 because of too many exceptions or doubts –2 indicates that the item applies and shows a good match in essential respects. –In cases where there is not enough information to confidently score a particular item, the item is omitted, and the total score prorated.

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University What do PCL-R scores mean? ≥ 30 = primary/“true” psychopath = secondary psychopath/APD < 20 = nonpsychopath

JB Helfgott, PhD/Dept of Criminal Justice/Seattle University Another way of looking at it... TRUE POSITIVE “Hit” FALSE POSITIVE “Miss” FALSE NEGATIVE “Miss” TRUE NEGATIVE “Hit” PREDICTED OUTCOME ACTUAL OUTCOME Violent Nonviolent “Safe” Low Risk “Dangerous” High Risk

Discussion What is the problem of Actuarial Justice? Do you support prediction punishment?