Providing a Balance – the Conservative View of Crime and Criminal Justice

For as long as I can remember both students and non-students have criticized me for my “leftist” views and charge me with the failure to provide a “balanced” perspective.  In other words, I do not give “the other side” or the conservative view. My argument has always been that the “balance” (i.e., the “other side” is provided 24 hours a day in the mainstream media, especially Fox News).  Nevertheless, I have decided to respond to my critics.   Therefore, here is the “other side.” 

The conservative view of crime and criminal justice can be summarized very simply.  People commit crime because they think they can get away with it, largely because the pleasure they get from committing the crime is greater than the potential pain they would receive if caught and punished.  This is, of course, the popular “deterrence” perspective.  From this perspective people refrain from committing crime mostly because of fear of getting caught and punished.  In order to reduce crime, the pain must be increased so that it is greater than the pleasure received from committing the crime.  In other words, to reduce crime we should increase the odds of getting caught and the severity of punishment.  This way potential criminals will think twice before committing the crime.  To use a popular phrase, “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” 

Students of criminal justice may recognize this argument as being part of the “classical school” of criminology. This school of thought makes these assumptions: (1) All people are by their nature self-seeking and therefore liable to commit crime. (2) In order to live in harmony and avoid a “war of all against all,” people agree to give up certain freedoms in order to be protected by a strong state. (3) Punishment is necessary to deter crime, and the state has the prerogative to administer it. (4) Punishment should fit the crime and not be used to rehabilitate the offender. (5) Each individual is responsible for his or her actions, and thus mitigating circumstances or excuses are inadmissible. 

Part of the difference between conservative and liberal views on crime and criminal justice can be summarized by citing two contrasting models of the criminal justice system: crime control and due process. 

The crime control model is based on the assumption that the fundamental goal of the criminal justice system is the repression of crime through aggressive law enforcement and harsh punishments, including the death penalty. From this point of view, protecting citizens from crime is more important than protecting the civil liberties of citizens. Supporters of this model would prefer that few criminals be set free on so-called technicalities, even at the expense of depriving innocent persons of their constitutional rights.  

The due process model stresses the importance of individual rights and supports the general belief that it is better to let several criminals go free than to falsely imprison an innocent person. This model is based on the assumption that the criminal justice process is plagued by human error and that at each stage individual rights need to be safeguarded. The accused should be accorded legal counsel and equitable treatment, and the discretion of criminal justice personnel, especially the police, should be limited.

 It is obvious that there are people who commit serious crimes.  Therefore, we obviously need to identify the perpetrators and make it so they will not harm others. No one wants serial rapists or murderers wandering around the streets – even “leftists” like me want something done!  Just as obvious no one wants their homes burglarized, their cars stolen, their purses snatched, etc.  

On the other hand, there is a lot left unsaid in the conservative argument.  The most important omission is the question of “why do people commit crime in the first place?”  Is it only the fear of getting caught and punished that keeps us from doing harm to others?  How do conservatives explain the consistently high rates of crime in America – especially violent crime – compared to most other countries?  They cannot claim that we are not tough enough since our punishments are the most severe and we are among a few in the world that use the death penalty.  Quite often conservatives describe crime as if it is simply a choice one makes, not unlike the choices we make of the food we eat.  Why is crime consistently highest within the poorest communities?  Is it because poor people make “bad choices” or is there something else going on?  Why is it that researchers have pointed out for more than 100 years the high correlation between crime rates and various social conditions like poverty and inequality?   

I will provide more detailed answers to these and related questions in subsequent columns.