*What is justice?

*Can we be truly just?

*Is justice to be afforded to all members of

society as a right or a privilege?

*Do we desire to place all members of

society
under the umbrella of justice?

*What is the cost of justice?

* Absolute justice is a phantom entity, a pseudo
reality.

* It has fascinated politicians, philosophers,

scholars and patriots, but it does not nor

even can exist in the absolute.

•What would be needed to realize a state of
absolute justice?
1. The absolute ability to identify all law
violators.
2. The absolute ability to apprehend all
law violators.
3. The absolute ability to punish all law
violators.
4. The absolute ability to identify the
intent of all law violators.
1. Murder of a police officer – 2:3 (67%)
2. Murder in general – 1:2 (50%)
3. Aggravated Assault – 1:10 (10%)
4. Robbery – 1:15 (7%)
5. Burglary – 1:35 (3%)
6. Felony Larceny 1:110 (.9%)
7. White Collar Fraud – 1:2 million
8. Computer Fraud – 1:120 million

Need a 1:1 ratio, but closer to 1:250,000

Even if we could raise the probability of
identification, apprehension and
punishment to 1:1, we still could not
dispense absolute justice because we lack
the ability to identify intent (mens rea),
and that is a crucial component in the
achievement of societal justice.
Absolute justice demands that all
violators
be punished or no violators be punished.
It
is inequitable to the law abridgers who
are
punished to allow another law abridger to
roam free and unpunished.
It is inequitable to the law abiders of
society
if known law abridgers are allowed to
roam
free and unpunished.
1. Innocent are punished.
2. Guilty escape punishment.
3. Guilty are punished more severely
than they should be.
4. Guilty are punished less severely than
they should be.
There is a general socio-economic clustering of
the four classic justice delivery errors, with the
general convergence of error as follows:
A. Poor:
1. Innocent being punished; and
2. Being punished more severely than they
should be.

B. Wealthy:
1. Escaping punishment when guilty; and
2. Being punished less severely than they
should be.
Justice is the interest of the stronger
Socrates

* Justice is a concept used by the powerful to stay

in power. It is a label used to cloak the
unethical activities of the stronger in legitimacy
* Money and power are the defining elements in
our justice system
* Golden Rule – Whoever has the gold makes the
rules
* Efficacy – contacts, networks, charisma, money,
reputation; not just money alone
Justice should be, the equitable access and
applicability of rights, privileges and
opportunities.
Socrates
 Keep the rich, rich, and keep the poor,
poor; maintain the status quo
 Achieve some measure of equity, fairness
and justice in micro and macro
 Maintain social peace, order, and stability

Different goals yes, but no necessarily

mutually exclusive. In a one year snap
shot, there will be examples of each in
any given courtroom.
All governments that have flourished
since
the beginning of time have been nothing
more than a conspiracy of the rich to
perpetuate themselves under the guise of
Statecraft.
Thomas More
(circa 1530)
Wrong question. The question is
where is justice – where the people
demand it and stand up for it

Nebraska state motto – the salvation of

the state is watchfulness in the
citizen

Gravity analogy – natural state of

affairs is injustice, inequity, inequality
The most important political office is that
of private citizen. In discharging that
office, we citizens must never be mere
spectators who stand on the sidelines with
hands in our pockets and no convictions in
our souls.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Louis Brandeis
Who are the criminals?
 Those who have been caught
 Those who have a low socio-
economic, political, legal efficacy
coefficient.

Who is not a criminal?

 Those who have not been caught.
 Those who possess a high socio-
economic, political, legal efficacy
coefficient.
Substantive dimension:
•Legislative component
•Executive orders
•Court precedents
•Regulatory agency rules
Procedural dimension:
•Police Department policies
•Individual police officer daily practices
•Prosecutorial policies and practices
•Judicial decisions
•Local legal culture
Unfounding – Systematically ignoring
crimes known to exist (Atlanta vs. St.
Louis, Chicago).

Founding – Systematically reporting

crimes that otherwise would have not
been reported (Portland).

De-founding – systematically adjusting

the severity of offenses that are known
to exist (Washington, D.C.; my
experiences).

Local Legal Culture…again

 Deviance – acts
 Deviants – people

Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)

1. Deviance is a two-edged sword of
equivalent positive and negative
values,
with corresponding sanctions/rewards.
2. “Deviant” tends to be an all-
encompassing label, but no one is
deviant in all aspects of their lives.
3. The definition of “deviant” is
contextual. It is the quintessential
relativity. We are deviant when we
are in a group that is different from
us. Deviance and deviants depends
upon who you ask and in what
setting or context you are in. We
are all “the deviants” in someone
else’s eyes.
4. While there is some consensus at the
extremes, there is little consensus
beyond
those edges. Definitions of deviance
depend upon values, culture,
perspectives,
and experience. Definitions of
deviance
are a relative, normative, contextual
phenomena.
 Multiple perceptions of deviance are held by
different people with different backgrounds and
experiences, and these perceptions are subject to
continual change over time. These varying and fluid
perceptions co-exist and compete for prominence in
society, and if you have the power, you can elevate
your perception to a position of prominence and
have it serve as the society’s socio-legal definition
of deviance, and it will stay that way until you are
out of power and then someone else takes your
place and promote their perspective. The definition
of deviance is the ultimate, the quintessential,
relativity.

 What is deviance and who are the deviants depends

upon who you ask, when you ask it, and in what
context the matter is considered. We are all the
deviants in someone else’s eyes.
5. Were all deviants (and their deviance) to be
eliminated, new definitions of deviance would emerge
and punishment would be meted out accordingly.
What was marginal deviance before would now be in
the unacceptable category. Deviance cannot be
eliminated. The extent of deviance is constant (the
constancy dictum). What changes is the definition of
the nature of deviance. As societies evolve, as the
interests of the powerful change, the definitions of
deviance change, but the extent does not.
6. Crime is bound by social class. The
poor
are more criminal than the rich
because the
laws are both written and enforced for
the
benefit of the rich and powerful.
Deviance is also bound by social class, not
in terms of extent, but in terms of nature. In
other words, the prevalence or extent of
deviance is similar from one social class to
another, but the types of offenses
committed,
the nature of deviance, differs from one
social
class to another (ie., the rich steal in ways
available to them and the poor do likewise).
The rich are less criminal than the poor
because they have the power (the efficacy) to
define crime so as to legitimize their illicit
behaviors, and have the law enforced to their
Liking. They are no less deviant in terms of
the extent of their involvement in illicit
behaviors. The nature of their involvement is
different (the rich can steal in ways the rest of
us can’t and steal far, far more), but the
extent of their involvement is the same.
7. There is a value to deviance. Remember, it is a two-edged
sword with both negative and positive components (yin and
yang). Without deviance, we would be a society of clones
with “hemophiliacic” minds, incapable of dealing with the
variation around us. Deviance and diversity are mandatory
to confront and survive in the tumultuous world in which we
live. Draw the Durkheim curve without deviance! On the
positive side, deviance:
a. Serves as a catalyst for change and progress.
b. Provides the raw materials for social change.
c. Forces a re-examination and modification of
values and behaviors in the context of new
environments.
d. Redistributes opportunities for leadership.
e. It forces the opposition to better
prepare its case and thus in this
adversarial context, refines the truth.
f. Responses to deviance inculcate into
members of society, just what society
expects.
g. Draws people together in mutual
condemnation, thus promoting
community cohesion.
h. Removes bureaucratic red-tape and
thus provides quicker responses.
We would not want to live in a society without
deviance, BUT, how much, how extensive and
what
types? There is no definitive “answer.” It is the
quintessential, eternally un-resolvable query. It
depends on who you ask and when you ask and
who is
in power and who is out of power, and even
then, the
answer will be different tomorrow than it was
today.
1. Yes, if legislative bodies pass laws to
legalize everything (substantively)
2. Yes, if the police ignore all crimes/fail to
perform their duties (procedurally).

So yes, crime in a substantive and procedural

sense can be eliminated, and in that context
remember that crime is just a label given to
certain activities and that label can be and
historically has been altered as the interests of
the powerful change, but, that is not the point.
We cannot eliminate deviance anymore than a physician
can eliminate death. Deviance and death are
omnipresent. The extent of both is rather constant, the
nature changes (like death) Our job is to reduce the
severity of the nature of crime/deviance, and it can be
done

Gun/knife example - extent constant, seriousness

reduced

Medical analogy – reduce severity of illness and injury;

Done differently for different patients

Financial planner analogy – increase value of portfolio

and
done differently for different clients
We are crime managers, not crime/deviance eliminators.
It is our job as criminologists to find ways to reduce the
severity of the nature of crime/deviance in both
preventative and curative contexts. What can we do to
prevent crime to begin with and how should we respond
to correct the problem and reduce the severity of the
problem in the future, knowing that we will need to use
different means and methods in the many different
communities in our nation, in our world.

Scientific criminology and public criminology (Joseph

Goldberger, Ignaz Semmelweis)
$300 B – Crime suppression expenditures
$3.5 T – Crime perpetration costs
$3.8 T – Total (18% of the GDP)

The Great Crime Policy Question –

Where can we best spend the $300 B to

most effectively reduce the $3.5 T crime
perpetration costs?
Crime Control Model Due Process Model
Aggravates long-term stability Aggravates short term contingencies
Apprehend the guilty Protect the innocent
Assumes deviance and explains conformity Assumes conformity and explains deviance
Authoritarian, trained police Social service, educated police
Burden of proof on defense to demonstrate Burden of proof on prosecutor to
demonstrate
innocence at beyond reasonable doubt guilt at reasonable doubt
Closed bureaucratic justice structures Open, linking-pin justice structures

Corporal punishment Non-interventionist treatment

Criminal intent of little concern Criminal intent of an overriding concern
Discretionary power to police and prosecutorial Discretionary power to judicial and
correctional
officials officials
Emphasis on efficiency Emphasis on effectiveness
Emphasis on training Emphasis on education
Few confession extraction guidelines Completely voluntary confessions

Few search and seizure rules Strict search and seizure rules
Frequent use of the death penalty Abolition of the death penalty
Harm, frighten, scare, intimidate Encourage, help, aid, assist
Harms innocent persons Allows known guilty to go free
Harsh sentences Lenient sentences
High certainty of apprehension/justice system Low certainty of apprehension/justice
system
processing processing
Large, demeaning prisons Community-based corrections
Crime Control Model Due Process Model
Large private sector police force Small private sector police force
Legal counsel provided on rare occasions Legal counsel provided as a right at all
stages
Limited gun controls Significant gun controls
Maintain the status quo Respond to social inequities
Mandatory, determinate sentencing Indeterminate sentencing
Many law enforcement officers Few law enforcement officers
Many penalties Few penalties
Maximize level of offender intrusion into system Minimize level of offender intrusion into
system
National, centrally organized police force Local, autonomous, decentralized police
force
No pretrial discovery for defense Unlimited pretrial discovery for defense
Plea bargaining emphasis Complete adjudication
Presumption of guilt Presumption of innocence
Preventive deterrence policy Curative rehabilitation policy
Protect society from evolutionary change Protect society from revolutionary change
Protect society in the short run Protect society in the long run
Punish the guilty Protect the innocent
Punishment fits the crime Punishment fits the criminal
Quick, informal justice Formalized, individualized justice
Rational, economic man theory Crime a psycho-sociological entity
Social order Individual liberty
Supervision of offenders Advocate of offenders
The Crime Control model accentuates two of the four
errors of justice administration:
* Innocent are punished
* Guilty punished more severely than they should be

The Due Process model accentuates two of the four

errors of justice administration:
* Guilty escape punishment
* Guilty are punished less severely than they should be

The Crime Control model and the Due Process model

are
polar opposites, quintessential examples of yin and
yang.
Any level of law enforcement activity above
zero will result in an infringement upon some
number of the innocent.

The intrusion curve’s principle, as also noted by

Kant, is that it is pragmatically impossible to
achieve a state of absolute justice. There will
always be error in any kind of justice
delivery/justice administration effort.
Premise #1 - When liberty is permitted to
grow without limits, it is at the expense of
justice and order.

Premise #2 - The greatest threat to our

republic comes from those, who in
attempt
to preserve order, would destroy liberty.
Justice will be realized only when
the
body politic are internally willing
to obey the unenforceable.
 Slow down the cycle (maintain the status
quo/keep the rich, rich, and keep the
poor, poor)
 Achieve some measure of equity, fairness
and justice in micro and macro (and avoid
miscarriages of justice)
 Maintain social peace, order, security,
safety and stability
 Reduce the severity of the nature of crime and
deviance through preventative and curative
measures (manage/mitigate, not eliminate)
 Modify those preventative and curative
measures to effectively meet the unique
needs inherent in different communities and
different times (local legal culture)
 Medical analogy, again (local legal culture,
crime mitigation)

Remember - there will always be death, there

will always be crime
 We must internally contend with the
inescapable moral dilemmas inherent in
justice system work.
 See the movie, “Dirty Harry.” Are morally
dirty means ever justified to obtain morally
good ends?
 If so, what is an acceptable calculus? How
far on the morally dirty scale are we
permitted go to achieve a morally good end
of what level? Is a -4 action acceptable to
realize a +6; how about a -3 for a +2?
 Is there a universally accepted definition or
ranking system for morally dirty means
and/or a morally good end? Is a -4 activity
viewed as a -4 by all people? Is a +7 result
viewed as a +7 by all people?
 Keep the rich, rich, and keep the poor, poor;
maintain the status quo
 Achieve some measure of equity, fairness
and justice in micro and macro
 Maintain social peace, order, security, safety
and stability
In fulfilling this conflicting three-part function,
justice systems need to take on both a
preventative and a curative orientation.

What differentiates justice systems from one

country to another is the nature of the justice
process and the extent of the individual
protections granted in that process.
A consensus has yet to be reached as to the
nature
and scope of the personal protections to be
offered in the justice process. What types of
protections, freedoms and rights should be given
to what groups of people? How extensive should
they be? When does the exercise of these
protections and freedoms begin to flaunt the law?
When does governmental control become
excessive intervention? How much liberty is to be
afforded to members of society and how much
order should the state seek to maintain?

Read, Liberty v. Order

• The justice system can only reinforce social forces moving in the
same direction.
• The foundations of society are its churches, schools and families. A
justice system is only a temporary measure, a band aid designed to
buy time, to fill in the holes in the social fabric that appear as those
foundational entities of society shift and change, as they always
have and always will (see the works of Will and Ariel Durant).
• Little Dutch Boy analogy. Thank goodness he has his finger in the
dyke to prevent a flood, but, it is just a temporary fix.
• The justice system has all of its fingers and toes in the dyke, but it
is just temporary and more leaks are appearing, so we must
manage crime (where to most effectively put our fingers and
toes/our resources)
• Justice reforms as just different ways to hold our fingers in the
dyke.
• It is a tribute to those in the system, the dedicated, persistent
performing professionals, that the system works as well as it does.
It is not the critic who counts; not
the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where
the doer of deeds could have
done them better. The credit
belongs to the man who is
actually in the arena, whose face
is marred by dust and sweat and
blood; who strives valiantly…
The real test of life is to be able to hold
two
opposing ideas in mind at the same time,
and still retain the ability to function. One
must recognize that things are hopeless,
but
be determined to make them otherwise.

It is on this premise that we must

continue.
* The Nebraska state motto notes that our freedom,
the liberty of we the people, is preserved only by
our watchfulness. Justice is not a naturally
occurring phenomena. If we want justice where
we
live, we must do something about it. We cannot
stand idly by. If we wish to see an increase in the
communal justice coefficient, we must remove our
hands from our pockets and become engaged in
the
struggle.
* John Donne – do not ask for whom the bell tolls
* Solon – true justice will come only when those
who are not hurt are just as indignant as those
who are.
ceskridge@[Link]