PART A
The criminal justice theory is a philosophical branch that deals with criminal justice in a particular punishment. It has a deep relationship with political philosophy and ethics. On the contrary, the criminological theory expounds the cruelty, oppression, and other evil acts on other people. The theory studies the behavior of individuals when behaving in certain situations. The criminal justice system is examined through eight theoretical perspectives in the book Theorizing Criminal Justice. They help lay the groundwork for a discourse that will broaden our perspectives on criminal justice and increase the worth of our work; by giving us a better grasp of difficult issues, they reveal the complexity and contradictions that are present in this complex subject.
Criminal Justice as a System
The criminal justice system is composed of the police, the courts, and the corrections. The main duties of the police are to selectively enforce the law, protect the public, imprison people who are suspected of committing crimes, and prevent crime. The courts determine whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty and are responsible for ensuring that criminal suspects have fair trials regardless of the social, political, and economic affiliation of the involved parties. The goal of the correctional subsystem is to change an offender’s behavior so that they become law-abiding and socially acceptable (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019). All three subsystems work toward reducing crime in the neighborhoods and society in general. Although there are several steps one must follow to start the criminal justice system, it is questionable if these processes accurately reflect the system’s ostensible unity of purpose. Employee roles and tasks within the courts, correctional, and police subsystems are evaluated based on the criminal justice theory. Some of the structures defined in the criminal justice theory include the considerations of court structure, judge choice, and the functions of juries, prosecutors, defense counsel, other court employees, and corrections, probation, and parole officers. In addition, the theory discusses the police agencies, their duties at crime scenes, their organizational structures, their chains of command, and their agency divisions (Feeley, 2020). There are graphs that outline the organizational framework of a municipal police force and the progression of criminal court cases.
Criminal Justice as Crime Control vs. Due Process
In the criminal justice system regardless of either crime control or due process, the value judgment must be made instead of determining which of these models is superior to the other. The crime control approach supports conservative beliefs, whereas the due process model promotes liberal ideals. The political trajectory at a given place and period determines which model is used to guide criminal justice policy at a given time (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). In the 1960s, when the liberal politics were dominant, due process principles and practices predominated the criminal judicial system. However, in the middle of the 1970s until the beginning of the twenty-first century, conservatism dominated political philosophy, and conservatives led to criminal justice systems that were based on crime control beliefs.
Herbert Packer of Stanford University was the mastermind of the due process model and the crime control model. Herbert Packer developed the model to represent the two conflicting sets of principles that was prevailing in the criminal justice system. The friction between the two is what leads to the disagreement and strife currently existent in the criminal justice system. The crime control model was based on various guidelines which made it relevant. Its primary duty was to suppress crime and create a prerequisite for a free society. Moro ever the model emphasizes on the need to uphold the rights of victims than on safeguarding those of defendants. Moreover, the model focuses on removing the Legal quirks that constrain the police and other enforcement agencies. The model ought to function like a conveyor belt on an assembly line, processing cases expeditiously to their conclusion (Shaffer & Aaronson, 2020). The police and prosecutors’ fact-finding should be assumed as trustworthy, and the accused should be taken to be guilty if the police make an arrest and a prosecution files criminal charges. The main objective of the criminal justice system should be to discover the truth or demonstrate the accused’s actual guilt.
On the contrary, the due process model proposed by Packer is an alternative to the crime control paradigm. In his defence, he claims that the main objective of criminal justice should be the provision of due process, or fundamental justice under the rule of law. Moreover, the criminal justice should prioritize defendants’ rights over those of victims since the Bill of Rights expressly protects defendants’ rights (Feeley, 2020). In addition, police use of powers should be limited to prevent state tyranny of an individual. Packer argues that police are given massive powers when it comes to enforcing the law which might sometimes be misuses leading to impunity to the criminal justice system thus limiting such powers will not only ensure that they are upholding the rule of law but also upholding the basic human rights.
The criminal justice system should encourage fairness and consistency. To achieve this milestone as an institution of defending people’s rights, the system must be held responsible for adhering to the rules, legal proceedings, and guidelines as stated by the law. It is important to note that the constitutional rights are more than just legalese. The criminal justice system should resemble a maze with several procedural safeguards acting as obstacles, safeguarding the factually innocent as much as convicting the factually guilty.
The authorities shouldn’t convict someone under the legal system based just on the facts supplied; a person should only be found guilty if the authorities followed lawful proceedings accurately when acquiring the material.
Criminal Justice as Politics
Politics have a huge influence on the criminal justice system. The common way that the democratic political system has affected the criminal justice is through the influence of politics on the laws that lawmakers pass. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, state legislators and members of the US Congress hurriedly drafted conservative, especially on severe sentencing laws. These regulations provide for more severe penalties and fewer or no opportunities for parole on convicts. According to a lawyer who was vital in the redrafting of federal drug laws in 1986 and its approval in 1988, the draconian sentence guidelines were the consequence of political whims and politicians competing with one another as drug-related news gained prominence just before elections (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019). According to attorney Eric Sterling, who drafted the law setting a standard obligatory terms for various types of drug related crimes. The committee intervening the issue argued that, “there was a level of hysteria that led to a complete breakdown of the legislative process.”
After 20 years since the intervention measures regarding drugs was drafted by the attorney, the number of prisoners has greatly increased. The cost of going to jail has also increased significantly. State governments’ allocation of funds has altered in favor of investing more in prisons and less in critical social services like education. Even if politics have no direct connection with the justice system, vital decisions made by police enforcers various responsibilities such as patrolling, the political atmosphere of a region has an impact on how law enforcement is performed and the sort of departmental policy implemented. The extent to which politics affect either, regional, national or international policing depends on the form of government (commissioner, mayor/council, city manager) (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). Politics permeates the application of force whenever necessary in cities with mayor/council-style governance. On the other hand, capable city authorities lessens the possibility of political meddling in law enforcement.
Political forces have a direct impact on prosecutors. Prosecutors are elected and actively involved in local politics in the majority of states. In the US, political parties choose attorneys at the federal level, and they are required to align their professional goals with those of their party objectives since they operate under the jurisdictions of the party. Prosecutors at the state and federal levels frequently use opportunities of their jobs as steppingstones to more influential political positions. The worst possible method that a dishonest prosecutor might abuse their position of power is by bringing criminal charges against political opponents out of political enmity. For instance, in the case of Kenneth Starr and President Clinton, one could contend that Kenneth Starr’s conservative philosophy influenced his investigations into President Clinton’s extramarital affairs in the late 1990s.
There is a lot of political pressure on judges regarding various issues thus affecting their professional approach. Judges are vulnerable to questionable political pressures while deciding on whether to apply the death penalty to a convict. It is not a coincidence that elected judges use the death penalty more frequently than appointed judges which raises a lot of criticism on their ethical conduct. The reason for this disparity is that elected judges are reluctant to appear soft toward crime. In the approaching election for judicial retention, a judge who does not impose the death penalty is more likely to face political harassment and have their decision used against them.
Corrections officers consider a variety of factors, including politics. Politics may have an impact on the release decisions made by a parole board. The governors who choose the members of the parole board could have an effect on them (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). Members always select their releases with consideration. For instance if parolees commit crimes, the governor of the region where the convict is facing his/hr prison terms may be held accountable by the media and other parties of interest.
Politicians that embrace opportunities to use criminal justice problems to increase their own popularity, electability, or power are said to have politicized the criminal justice system, which can have major consequences for both the public and the criminal justice system. Elections with a high emphasis on law and order are where political corruption is most obvious (Pickett, 2019). When criminal justice issues become too politicized, politicians are tempted to deploy demagoguery, appealing to people’s emotions, passions, and biases rather than their critical thinking. Political hysteria is the adversary of reasoned discussion of crime-related topics.
The judicial system can be severely hampered by needless political bickering over matters of criminal justice, which can occur when winning political battles becomes more important to leaders than reducing crime and enforcing the law. The first line of defence for democracy and the rule of law are the leaders of a particular region. One negative outcome is a pause in the administration of justice. For the case of the US, Republicans and Democrats were unable to agree on candidates for the seven positions on the U.S during the 1998 general election period. So there were no members in the sentencing Commission for the final three months of 1998. The major objective of this panel, which Congress established in 1984, is to establish standards for punishing people found guilty of federal offenses. It was developed to help create an efficient and effective criminal justice system and to lessen disparities in federal sentencing.
Criminal Justice as Socially Constructed Reality
Reality is socially produced; it is not predetermined. Through language, symbols, and interactions with other people, we learn and develop meanings and descriptions of situations that ultimately lead to our reality. These sorts of enquiry are encouraged by this orientation: Look at the misconceptions about crime and crime prevention (Kraska et al., 2020). Research the development and upkeep of workplace cultures. Examine the criteria used to classify specific actions and circumstances as crimes. Examine how public and private crime prevention strategies are created. This perspective is derived from the interpretative school, which holds that people actively construct systems of meaning through their interpretation of the environment.
According to the criminal justice theory, crime is socially constructed. This means that those in positions of authority construct it through dubious means depending on situations. There is nothing universal or objective about crime; rather, it fluctuates across time and among communities according to the laws that individuals create. As opposed to killing someone in the street as opposed to a battle. It is regarded as awful in some circumstances but necessary in war. A solider can kill the enemy in a war scenario but the same soldier can be convicted in the court of law if the killings happens in a streets on a citizen and with no specific command from the higher ranks.
Criminal Justice as Growth Complex
According to the growth complex point of view, the goal of the criminal justice system is to create a bureaucracy that is always expanding, and the means employed to do this are the administration of justice and crime control. Scientific methods are designed to build rules and regulations that will get everyone to fulfill their jobs in the same technically efficient and predictable manner in an effort to achieve organizational goals in the most effective way possible (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019). The rules and regulations take precedence over the result (doing the right thing), and performance is judged in accordance with them. Police departments can defend their enforcement methods by using statistics.
Many investors seek to make money from the privatization of some aspects of the criminal justice system. On the one hand, investors produce a lot of jobs. For instance, labor is required to construct jails, provide prison food and clothing, and offer medical care (Kraska et al., 2020). On the other hand, investors require clients or inmates, so there is a motivation to lock up individuals. The state successfully manages the surplus labor force that is produced in a capitalist society by locking individuals up in prison. So it seems like politicians are doing a good job of representing the people.
Criminal Justice as Oppression
According to the conflict model, conflict is what best describes society, and power struggles between competing groups and interests are what lead to criminal laws and how they are applied (Pickett, 2019). According to feminist studies, two things affect how the state defines crime and how women are treated by the CJ system as victims, offenders, and employees, stereotyped notions of masculinity and femininity, and a male-dominated hierarchical social structure.
Criminal Justice as Late Modernity
“Modernity” includes empirical science, contemporary medicine, industry, highly stratified large-scale society, cutting-edge technology, belief in the ability of the state to ensure the social welfare and security of its people, and human reason. Prior to the Enlightenment, a period known as “pre-modernity” is defined by belief systems centered on religion or nature, communities based on hunting and gathering or agriculture, autocratic rulers, and primitive technologies (Kraska et al., 2020). The current period in human history is known as Late Modernity.
Criminal Justice as Rational/Legalism
The rational choice theory of criminology holds that a person with an intellectual mind set weighs pros and cons, costs and advantages, and other aspects before making a decision. The idea of rational choice is based on behavioural decisions, like choosing to commit a crime while knowing or intending that the potential rewards will outweigh the risks.
Rationality in criminal justice was initially developed by economists who were on the verge of developing an equitable society that will create a balance in a struggling economy. The principle worked well in economics and in the late 1970s, criminology studies adopted it. The first institution to adopt the new curriculum was the classical school of criminology founded utilitarian philosophy under the supervision of Cesare Beccaria. This is where rational choice theory in criminology and deterring have their origins. Jeremy Bentham uses the utilitarian theoretical framework and the traditional school of criminology to examine the notion of the calculus of pleasure, which is commonly known as the hedonistic calculus. According to Jeremy Bentham, the hedonistic calculus states that people will choose their course of action based on how much pleasure the crime will provide them a contrasted opinion to how unpleasant the consequence would be.
For instance, the rational choice theory can best be used to explain white-collar crime. To illustrate this, an investment banker decides to steal cash from his customers’ accounts. He then conceals the theft through the shadows and protection of his position in the bank, and then uses the money for themselves to support a luxurious lifestyle. The banker is a white-collar criminal deliberated and weighed his or her choices before deciding that the value of robbing the money outweighed any risk of the theft being discovered. Another example to explain the phenomena would be a burglary act where two burglars agree to work together to plan a nighttime break-in while the family is gone. The burglars thought it is homing to an easy task where they could mint millions of dollars. They weighed the benefits and drawbacks, and ultimately decided to break the law despite the probable repercussions of getting caught by the authorities and being prosecuted in the court of law. In this case, the rational choice theory kicks into action since it asserts that criminals make thoughtful decisions and feel that committing the crime is preferable as it would make them very rich within a short time despite the consequences.
Conclusion
Through 8 perspectives, each of which contains a specific collection of meanings, concepts, and theoretical preferences, this book analyzes the CJ system. All practice involves theory. Each orientation can be thought of as a particular type of interpretive construct, which enables us to grasp a wide range of meanings and gives us the means to take wise decisions. Since cognition and action are intertwined, looking at the CJ system from a variety of perspectives gives us the chance to identify creative solutions, successful policies, and morally correct courses of action.
References
Feeley, M. M. (2020). Criminal justice as regulation. New Criminal Law Review, 23(1), 113-138.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (2019). Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
Kraska, P. B., Brent, J. J., & Neuman, W. L. (2020). Criminal justice and criminology research methods. Routledge.
Kurlychek, M. C., & Johnson, B. D. (2019). Cumulative disadvantage in the American criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 291-319.
Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 405-428.
Shaffer, G., & Aaronson, E. (Eds.). (2020). Transnational legal ordering of criminal justice. Cambridge University Press.
PART B
Control Theories and their history
The social management theory, formerly known as the social bond theory, is a subset of the social manner theory, which holds that people’s relationships with various institutions, organizations, and procedures within society are a factor in crime. More specifically, the social manipulator notion contends that when the bonds that tie society are frayed or broken, people become criminals. If the social fabric breaks down, everyone has the potential to become a criminal. Supporters of the social manipulation theory believe that because people are inherently flawed, they must be controlled in order to achieve good. In his book Causes of Delinquency, Travis Hirschi explains the modern social manipulation theory. Attachment, commitment, engagement, and beliefs are the four categories Hirschi used to group the social bonding variables. According to his self-report survey research, children who have a close bond with their parents are considerably less likely to engage in criminal activity (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). The social manage concept’s primary question is “Why do people follow the law?” According to Megan Ortiz, who wrote the essay The Social Control Theory, “social manage concept refers to a viewpoint which predicts that when social constraints on delinquent behavior are weakened or absent, delinquent conduct emerges.” In their conclusion, the likelihood that a person will engage in criminal activities rises when they lack the social ties or sense of community that would otherwise discourage such behavior.
The willpower theory, often known as the common notion of crime, was developed in 1990 with the help of Travis Hiraschi and Michael Gottfredson (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2019). This idea contends that a person’s level of self-control can be used to identify criminal behavior. It is predicated on the idea that people are neither born good nor bad. Parental effectiveness and mental fortitude play a role in whether or not a child develops into “good” or “bad”. The main idea is that there is a connection between criminal behavior and willpower. The risk that someone will commit a crime increases as their level of self-control decreases. According to the self-discipline idea, which places a lot of emphasis on parental upbringing, people who were ineffectively parented before the age of ten grow less willpower than people of similar age who were raised with better parenting, even though other people play an important role in the process of desirable or unfavorable socialization (Muraven, Pogarsky, and Shmueli, 2006). Overall, it appears that this principle has strong paternalistic overtones, and that effective socialization, especially in early life, is the key to developing willpower.
The social manipulation theory has both advantages and disadvantages. Understanding that a person’s attachment to their parents and commitment to traditional activities has proven to reduce crime is the essential energy. Personally, I acknowledge that this principle has more flaws than strengths. For instance, the effects of social link variables are only moderately powerful, and the supporting research concentrates on modest deviation within largely law-abiding communities. The social manipulation concept’s biggest flaw is that it overestimates the influence of peers who are criminal. The statement “other behavioral effects such as whether or not to participate in underage drinking, illicit drug use, and other delinquent behaviors are additionally influenced through faculty peers” (Hanyang University, n/d) is made in the article Peer Effects on Juvenile Delinquency. As a result, many parents have worked extremely hard to send their children to more elite schools, most likely by relocating to areas with expensive private universities or better public schools. The main strength of self-control is that it is one of the best predictors of crime and deviance. This idea has several flaws, just like the social manipulation theory.
Macro analysis is utilized to study it because the statistics were previously compiled from a variety of organizations. It is challenging to extrapolate the findings to a large population because the companies lacked range and random selection. This knowledge appears to be incongruous because society and other factors may potentially influence the different levels of self-management shown. The idea’s simplicity comes from its simplicity, which asserts that there is just one thing—self control—that connects parenting and delinquency. Instead of focusing on a single behavior, the principle describes delinquent behavior in general, hence the scope is broad. While mental toughness does help to link parental effectiveness to delinquent behavior, it is no longer the only factor that needs to be taken into account. Greater macro-level research must be done in order to develop a more definite hypothesis.
The behavioral path notion and the social mastery principle are two of the many hypotheses put forth to explain the reality of crime, as I mentioned above. I don’t believe the willpower principle undermines the social manipulation hypothesis because there don’t appear to be any inconsistencies between the two theories (Costello & Laub, 2020). Instead, it appears as a building component to help give a reason why more advanced humans might potentially commit crime. The two ideas are evaluated by authors Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew in their book Criminological Theory: Past to Present. In contrast to Hirishi’s social manipulation theory, which placed control in a person’s relationship to politeness, the willpower theory put the focus of control inside the individual, according to Cullen and Agnew’s 2011 study.
Merton’s strain theory
According to Andrew Agnew’s general strain theory, specific stressors or strains in a person’s life increase the likelihood that they would commit a crime. These internal stresses cause emotions like rage and irritation in the person experiencing them. These emotions put pressure on a person because they frequently have a tendency to correct the emotions in a person. An individual starts engaged in criminal activity as a result of an enhanced spike in these emotions and stress. People will engage in illegal activity in an effort to exact revenge on whatever may have caused the stress in their lives. A person could become a target of crime out of a desire to relieve or lessen the pressures. The explanation that a high magnitude of a strain increases the possibility of criminal behavior in a person is one of the general strain theory’s components that seems accurate.
According to this viewpoint, greater magnitude strains result in higher negative emotions that are challenging to successfully control using the coping mechanisms at hand (Agnew 53). With the existence of strong strains that trigger unpleasant emotions, cognitive impairment is imminent. High magnitude stresses frequently overwhelm people’s cognitive abilities, causing them to embrace unhelpful behaviors like drug and alcohol abuse. The idea that psychological problems in people arise with rising stress levels appears to be one aspect that is inaccurate. This statement is untrue since people with psychiatric issues do not typically experience the kind of negative feelings that lead to criminal behavior (Burton et al. 13). People don’t commit crimes as a result of psychological issues, but rather as a means of avoiding unpleasant feelings like fear.
Analysis
Travis Hirschi proposed a theory in the 1960s that connected criminal behavior to frayed or absent social ties. Hirschi’s method was different from that of other theorists since he concentrated on the reasons why most people refrain from engaging in illegal action. Hirschi argued that social connections are essential to human nature and that our desire to please those closest to us shapes how we behave (Costello & Laub, 2020). According to this hypothesis, the formation of these relationships depends on four important factors. Some of these factors as described by Hirschi are attachments, involvements, commitments, and beliefs. Attachments center on the person with whom the bond is formed, commitments center on the necessity of maintaining the bond, involvement describes the good deeds a person does that prevents them from committing crimes, and belief centers on the acceptance and application of the good deeds learned through the social bonds created. Hirschi’s social control hypothesis is illustrated by the case of a student who, although having grown up in a dubious neighborhood, he/she is very close to their family, attends church services, and spends after-school hours at the club (Britt & Gottfredson (Eds.). 2011). The student does not have time to engage in delinquent behavior and does not see the benefit of doing so because they are aware that doing so would jeopardize their important relationships with their hardworking family and the club’s positive influences.
According to the social learning hypothesis, people’s interactions have an impact on their behavior as they start to imitate the behaviors of the peers they interact with. According to this hypothesis, when a person observes particular behaviors among their peers, they become persuaded to engage in those activities because they believe the benefits exceed the risks of punishment (Agnew, 2017). This hypothesis is governed by four factors which are not limited to imitation, differential reinforcement, and differential association. Differential association is the interactions between a person and their peer group; the definitions concentrate on the attitudes that person and his or her peers have toward criminal behavior; differential reinforcement is the ratio of rewards to punishments for a particular behavior; and imitation concentrates on the observation of a behavior followed by participation in that observed behavior. If Jackson and his pals visited the mall, this would be an instance of the social learning theory in action (Britt & Gottfredson (Eds.). 2011). The pals feel it would be a good idea to steal many pricey sweaters and flee the store while they are in the mall. Jackson has occasionally observed this behavior but has never engaged in it. While there is no security at this mall and the personnel are unable to pursue them out, his pals have repeatedly warned him that the likelihood of their escaping is significant. Jackson doesn’t think twice about grabbing a few of the sweaters he wants and leaving the mall with his buddies because he likes these sweaters and he hasn’t seen any of his friends get in trouble for stealing yet. As Jackson was able to make friends with classmates who had no qualms about stealing from others and saw that the benefit outweighed the cost, he concluded that it would be safe and appropriate for him to imitate their behavior.
Robert Agnew developed general strain theory in an effort to highlight classical strain theory (Agnew, 2010). The general strain theory, or GST, focuses on, as its name implies, more generalized social conditions that put people under stress and may encourage them to commit crimes. According to this view, stress can be caused by three things: not achieving one’s goals, losing something important, or receiving unfavorable treatment from others (Agnew, 2010). A second division made by GST is between objective and subjective strains. Subjective strains are circumstances that a person experiencing them dislikes, while objective strains are unfavorable conditions that people, generally, detest. One feature that sets GST apart from other macro theories is its ability to explain criminal conduct in people who may not live in stressful circumstances, such as middle- and upper-class people (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 2017).
Let’s use Jane as an example, a sophomore at a famous university where her parents are shelling out top bucks to send her. Jane’s parents are unaware of her boyfriend’s abuse of her on an emotional and physical level, which has started to damage her academic performance. Jane’s parents are concerned about her declining grades and have threatened to cut off her financial support if she doesn’t do better in school. After some time passes and Jane’s grades remain the same, her parents cut her off and she is too terrified to stop the relationship, which forces her to drop out of school. Jane starts using drugs as a way to cope with her emotional and physical pain, and as a result of her drug use, she begins to steal to finance her habit. Jane turned to illegal conduct in an effort to feel better because she endured both subjective and objective stress, since most people dislike being the target of criticism and abuse, and because she felt she has been abandoned thus loneliness was dominating.
References
Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2010). Strain theories. The SAGE handbook of criminological theory, 96-13.
Agnew, R. (2017). Revitalizing Merton: General strain theory. In The origins of American criminology (pp. 137-158). Routledge.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. R. (2017). Control theory and the life-course perspective. In The Craft of Criminology (pp. 241-254). Routledge.
Costello, B. J., & Laub, J. H. (2020). Social control theory: The legacy of Travis Hirschi’s causes of delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 21-41.
Hirschi, T. (2017). A control theory of delinquency. In The craft of criminology (pp. 75-90). Routledge.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (2019). Modern control theory and the limits of criminal justice. Oxford University Press.
Britt, C. L., & Gottfredson, M. R. (Eds.). (2011). Control theories of crime and delinquency (Vol. 1). Transaction Publishers.
PART C
Quality of the article “Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex” By Max Dertke, Penner and Kathleen Ulrich
Max C. Dertke, Louis A. Penner, and Kathleen Ulrich’s Journal of Social Psychology article “Observer’s Reporting of Shoplifting as a Function of Thief’s Race and Sex” examines how race and gender affect an observer’s willingness to report shoplifting (Dertke et al., 1974). The study design involves a clear research topic, well-defined hypothesis, adequate measurement tools, and data collection processes. The study’s implementation and sample are limited.
Research Questions and Key Ideas
The study issue is straightforward, and the hypothesis follows logically. The authors expected that a store manager’s willingness to disclose a shoplifter’s ethnicity and gender would depend on the observer. The suspected shoplifter’s race and gender are independent factors, while the observer’s reporting behavior is dependent. Key ideas are also defined. The study hypothesizes that biases and stereotypes affect reporting behavior. This may discriminate against Black males, who are more likely to be reported as suspected shoplifters, according to the authors (Dertke et al., 1974). The authors intend to illuminate potential biases and find solutions to eliminate reporting discrimination by evaluating reporting behavior characteristics.
Measurement tools
This study used a scenario about a suspected shoplifter of a certain race and gender. The article manipulated the alleged thief’s race and gender. The authors then used a Likert scale to ask participants if they would report the incident to the store management (Dertke et al., 1974). The vignette can measure willingness to report, but it cannot fully reflect real-world behavior.
Sampling methods
Study constraints include sampling. 73 participants may not be representative of the population. The sample is also homogeneous because all participants were university students. The results may not be generalizable due to this lack of diversity.
Gathering data
The study’s implementation is limited, but data collecting is appropriate. The authors randomly allocated participants to one of four shoplifting vignettes using a distinct race and gender suspect. Random assignment ensures internal validity, but a limited sample size may restrict the study’s ability to discover significant group differences. The authors did not adjust for confounding variables like age or socioeconomic position. The study only comprised a small sample of undergraduate students, which may not represent the population (Dertke et al., 1974). The study’s limited sample size further restricts its generalizability. The study only included participants from one university and did not include ethnicity or culture. Lack of diversity may limit the findings’ applicability.
The study was conducted in a controlled setting, which may not reflect real-world shoplifting. Participants may have responded differently in a more realistic context. The study only explored how the thief’s ethnicity and sex affected an observer’s readiness to report theft. The observer’s personality and situation may also affect their reporting (Dertke et al., 1974). The study used a scenario-based method, which may not reflect real-life scenarios. Real-life situations may affect participants’ responses. Generally, the study design has clear research questions, hypotheses, and acceptable assessment methods, but the small, non-diverse sample size and constrained execution procedures may limit its generalizability and external validity. To improve validity, future research should use larger and more diverse samples and control for confounding variables.
Authors’ Research Discussion Evaluation
Max C. Dertke, Louis A. Penner, and Kathleen Ulrich’s “Observer’s Reporting of Shoplifting as a Function of Thief’s Race and Sex” studies how race and gender affect shoplifting reporting. The study uses an experimental design to see if thief gender and race affect observers’ shoplifting reporting (Dertke et al., 1974). This review will assess the research design and authors’ presentation of their findings.
Research Design Quality
The authors’ factorial design included three independent variables: thief race (white or black), sex (male or female), and observer gender. The dependent variable was observer shoplifting reporting. Few University of Michigan undergraduates were studied. Participants watched a shoplifting film with the thief’s race and sex modified (Dertke et al., 1974). After watching the movie, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their chance of reporting shoplifting.
The study’s research methodology is well-structured, and the factorial design allowed the authors to analyze the independent variables’ interaction effects. However, some research design flaws cast doubt on the conclusions. The sample size of 73 undergraduate students is limited, making it difficult to generalize the findings. The study used one video to modify the thief’s race and sex, which may restrict its external validity. Finally, the study does not include individuals’ race and ethnicity, which may affect shoplifting reporting.
Discussion on the Research Results
According to the authors’ findings, black, male, or both shoplifters are more likely to be reported. These findings support earlier research suggesting racial and gender stereotypes affect public conduct. However, their analytic results don’t support their conclusions. First, the study does not evaluate the authors’ assertion that racial and gender prejudices influenced observers’ reporting behavior. Their findings are limited by not measuring individuals’ racial or gender prejudices (Dertke et al., 1974). The study’s manipulation confounded race and gender, making it impossible to isolate their effects. Thus, the study’s race-gender manipulation may limit the authors’ conclusions.
Second, the authors cannot explain their research findings without alternative explanations for the observed impacts. The authors did not consider that observers may be more likely to report theft events if they regard the thief as a threat or feel responsible for protecting the store’s goods. Thus, race and gender preconceptions may influence the authors’ findings. Generally, “Observer’s Reporting of Shoplifting as a Function of Thief’s Race and Sex” by Max C. Dertke, Louis A. Penner, and Kathleen Ulrich employed a well-structured research design to evaluate how race and sex affect shoplifting reporting (Dertke et al., 1974). The study’s limitations cast doubt on its findings. The lack of alternate explanations for the observed impacts limits the authors’ presentation of their research findings.
The Overall Study Judgment
Research quality is crucial to determining validity and dependability. I’ll analyze Max C. Dertke, Louis A. Penner, and Kathleen Ulrich’s work “Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex” using solid research standards. Good research must measure what it seeks to measure (Dertke et al., 1974). This study examined if a shoplifter’s race and sex affected an observer’s report. Participants in the scenario-based study imagined themselves witnessing a retail thief. The study examines participants’ reporting behavior by thief race and sex. Since the researchers wanted to measure participant reporting behavior and replicate a shoplifting scenario, the study meets the validity requirement.
Good research must be consistent and stable, which is called reliability. This study does not assess outcomes dependability. Standardized instructions and scenarios may increase participation consistency. The study was well-structured and the instructions were clear, suggesting reliability (Dertke et al., 1974). Good research must also be generalizable. This study’s sample is mostly white, female college students, limiting its generalizability. Thus, the findings should not be generalized. The study’s limited sample size and non-random participant selection hinder generalizability. The study lacks generalizability.
Good research must also respect and protect participants’ rights. This study informed and debriefed participants on its goal. The study does not describe how participants were recruited, informed permission, or data protection. The study could have been more ethically honest. Applying the study’s findings to bystander intervention requires caution (Dertke et al., 1974). The study shows how individuals report thief race and sex. The study’s scenario-based approach may not mirror real-life events, limiting ecological validity. The study’s poor generalizability to other demographic groupings also restricts its relevance. The results should not be used to make bystander intervention decisions.
The study “Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex” meets some research requirements, such as validity and reliability, but not ecological validity, generalizability, or ethics. The study’s findings can illuminate bystander intervention, but they should not be generalized. This study’s limitations require more research to better comprehend bystander intervention. The study’s limitations should be considered when interpreting its findings.
The Ethical Research Raised in the Study
Dertke, Max C. Penner, Louis A. Ulrich, and Kathleen studied “Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex” in 1975. The researchers hired male and female actors to shoplift at stores and urged observers to report them (Dertke et al., 1974). White men shoplifted more than black men and women. The study provided significant insights but raised ethical concerns.
Deception of study volunteers is an ethical issue. The observers may have felt complicit in a crime because the researchers did not tell them the shoplifting was manufactured. Ethically, the researchers did not seek informed consent from the observers. Deception in research should be minimized and informed consent obtained. The study’s conclusions may hurt people. The study found a racial and gender bias in shoplifting reports, which may reinforce prejudices and discrimination (Dertke et al., 1974). This could hurt members of certain groups and unfairly disadvantage them. The study also ignored the possible harm of prosecuting shoplifters.
The study also questions generalization. The study was limited to one area. The sample size is modest, and the results may differ in other places. Due to ethical concerns expressed by the original study, an Institutional Review Board (IRB) would certainly reject a replication proposal today (Dertke et al., 1974). An IRB evaluates research ideas for ethics and legality. Deception, lack of informed consent, and potential harm to participants and society would alarm the IRB.
Addressing these ethical problems and proposing solutions would help support the research. The researchers could seek informed consent from participants, clarify the study’s goal, and make sure participants know the shoplifting events are manufactured. Researchers could also use surveys or interviews to get data on observer reporting behavior without deceit.
Researchers could also highlight the study’s positives. The study could promote legislation to reduce racial and gender biases in crime reporting. The study may lead to reporting bias interventions (Dertke et al., 1974). The study’s risks must also be considered. Researchers must guarantee the study does not harm participants or society. The researchers should also consider the legal ramifications of shoplifting in the study. The researchers should make sure shoplifters know the legal implications and can leave the study at any time. The study must be conducted with integrity, accuracy, and transparency. This requires rigorous research procedures, including suitable sample sizes, data analysis, and statistical metrics.
Researchers should evaluate how their work affects society. The study may affect policies and actions to reduce racial and gender biases in reporting. Thus, researchers must responsibly convey their findings to politicians, law enforcement, and the public. “Observer’s reporting of shoplifting as a function of thief’s race and sex” raises ethical concerns about participant deceit, lack of informed consent, potential harm to participants and society, and generalization of findings (Dertke et al., 1974). Due to ethical considerations, an IRB would likely reject a replication of this study today. If the researchers address these concerns and use robust research methods, the study could raise awareness of reporting biases and encourage efforts to decrease them. Finally, researchers must consider the potential advantages and costs of their research on individuals and society.
Reference
Dertke, M. C., Penner, L. A., & Ulrich, K. (1974). Observer’s Reporting of Shoplifting as a Function of Thief’s Race and Sex. The Journal of Social Psychology, 94(2), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1974.9923208
write