Crime, Punishment and Inequality

Crime, Punishment and Inequality Dr Carlie Goldsmith Aims of the workshop Introduce you to academic debates on social inequality. Examine rates of income and wealth inequality in Britain and comparatively. Examine evidence that shows how the size of the gaps in income affects social life, and in particular the prevalence of social problems. Explore why this issue is of interest to people who write and research on issues of crime and justice. Framework through which to understand things that actually dont make much sense.

For example, why would a young person get stabbed because allegedly looked at someone in a funny way?

Why would bankers, who earn considerable sums of money already, defraud the markets to earn more? 2What is inequality?disparities between individuals, groups and nations in access to resources, opportunities, assets and income (Ridge and Wright 2008 p4)

Income is only one form of inequality.there are many others.

National Equality Panel 201096% of all employees earn less than 46,500 PA. Gap between bottom and top earners is very large e.g care worker 12,500 PA, CEO of bank upwards of 1.2 million PA (exc. Bonuses and other payments in kind e.g shares)Wealth inequality larger than income inequality: richest 10% own 100x more wealth than poorest 10%Median wealth for routine occupations 72,000, higher managerial 450,000

See photocopy

Who are the highest earners?

Men were just over half of all taxpayers in 2004-05, but five-sixths of the top 1 percent and more than nine-tenths of the top 0.1 per cent.

Those aged 45-54 were just under a fifth of all taxpayers were, but they were a thirdof the top 1 per cent and half of the top 0.1 per cent.

Those living in London were an eighth of all taxpayers, but a quarter of the top 1 percent and more than a third of the top 0.1 per cent.

White

With a mortgage

The lowest earners...

11 million people living on 60% of the median income 2007/08

4

Income gapsHow many times richer are the richest fifth than the poorest fifth?Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level

www.equalitytrust.org.ukInequality...How much richer are the richest 20% in each country than the poorest 20%?5Who cares? New developments in inequalityThe implications of those for the futureThe impact of inequality on society and quality of social relationsAre we happy to let income and wealth gaps grow bigger? What are the future consequences of this? Concentration of power and influecne.

The Spirit LevelProfessor Richard Wilkinson, Epidemiologist and Professor Kate Pickett, Epidemiologist, University of York

Interest in public health and the wider social determinants of health in rich societies. Extensive record of academic publication on the impact of inequality on health and health outcomes.

7The Methodology Secondary analysis of existing quantitative data sets. Such as? United Nations Human Development Report, World Bank data, World Health Organisation, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation etc. etc. Statistical analysis of the prevalence of factors that impact on health. Statistical analysis of the prevalence of a range of other social problems/harms.Combined with levels of income inequality within a society. Measurement used: 20.20 ratio 50 States of the United States and 23 industrialised nations Quantitative statistical analysis of over 200 reports, studies and research from legitimate sources in developed industrialised nations and 52 states of the US

Statistical analysis of the prevalence of the factors which impact upon health within societiesStatistical analysis of the prevalence of a range of other social problems/harms within societiesCombining this with data on levels of INCOME inequality within society remember this is not rates of poverty but the difference between the poorest and wealthiest within society/state

Measurement of inequality they used was the 20:20 ratio - is to compare how much richer the top 20% of people are, compared to the bottom 20%.

8

Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit LevelIndex of: Life expectancyMath & Literacy Infant mortalityHomicidesImprisonmentTeenage births TrustObesityMental illness incl. drug & alcohol addictionSocial mobility

www.equalitytrust.org.ukHealth and social problems are worse in more unequal countriesIndex of health and social problems9

Wilkinson & Pickett, The Spirit Level

www.equalitytrust.org.ukPeople in more unequal countries trust each other less

11Wilkinson argues that some of the strongest evidence for the quality of social relations and its relationship to income inequality are studies of violent crime and homicide.

Wilkinson examined over fifty different studies that show a relationship between rates of violence and income inequality and which conclude that there is a positive association between income inequality and homicides.

Discuss Finland.

He takes this analysis one stage further by arguing that more unequal places do not necessarily have more individuals who are willing to murder others but that on the whole social relationships within those countries are more conflictual overall so it is not just higher homicide rates but more violent crime, less trust and less involvement in community life.

This he suggests shows that income inequality seems to shift the whole distribution of social relationships from the most affectionate end towards the more conflictual end so we might expect to see that people generally treat people worse less likely to help strangers, less considerate to new employees, more conflict in school playgrounds and perhaps more violence in the home and more prejudice towards disadvantaged groups.

12The stats for this analysis were taken from the UN survey on crime trends and operation of criminal justice systems the more equal a society the lower the prison numbers. This analysis was also true for the 52 American states where it was also found that the most equal states were also more likely to have abolished the death penalty.

Social Harms13More dominance and subordination, superiority and inferiority, snobbery and downward discrimination, hierarchical and authoritarian values. Greater income inequalityIncreased social distances between income groups, less sense of common identityMore them and us Increased status competition, shift into more anti-socialvalues, emphasis on self interest and material success,carelessness of others welfare, aggressive exploitation of societyfor individual gain. Others as rivals: poorer quality of social relations

14Wilkinson argues that income differences represent social class differences within a society. Looking at the scale of income inequality within a society gives us a measure of the social class differences in a society, how hierarchical the social structure within a society is, a rough measurement of the social distances between groups and how much people are ranked in terms of social superiority or inferiority.

That more unequal countries are also more violent countries cannot be explained by an increase in violence between the rich and the poor in extreme cases such as revolution this might happen but violence tends to be disproportionately concentrated in poor sections of the population

Wilkinson argues that studies show that violence is closely related to feelings of shame, humiliation or loss of face respect. In very unequal societies more people at the bottom are deprived of money, jobs, housing, cars and all the things that serve as markers of status and command respect. Without them you are more likely to experience others looking down at you, more likely to become sensitive to be regarded as inferior and increasingly locked into a battle to defend your pride and dignity.

The struggle for respect Wilkinson argues is about the struggle against being put down by others, the struggle against being a social non-entity, socially inferior. Linked closely to this are feelings of shame about not having the markers of success or not be able to read/write. The social structure is then experienced in a highly negative way, one in which people are aware of their social inferiority.

Bigger income differences seem to solidify the social structure and decrease the chances of social mobility. In effect, equal opportunity is a more distant prospect where there are greater inequalities of outcome.

Individuals are shaped by the social environment1. Functionalist model: SI is essential part of society as long as recruitment is based on merit and rewards are fairly distributed. Meritocracy.CONSERVATIVE CORPRATIST STATES e.g. Germany, France, Italy, Spain.

2. Libertarian model: social change a product of individual hard work, effort and motivation. Idleness is bad for society. Rewards are not based on notions of desert but freedom. NEOLIBERAL STATES e.g. USA, UK, Australia, NZ, South Africa. 3. Egalitarian model: SIs not a reflection of effort but accumulated disadvantages. Equality should be goal of society and political efforts directed at achieving this. SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC STATES e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland. See Cavadino and Dignan (2006) 15Up until this point we have explored how inequalities are caused. In this section we will explore different theories that address the purpose and function of inequalities in society.

FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVEThe functionalist perspective is primarily derived from Durkheims analysis of the division of labour, the functionalist model argues that social inequality is an essential part of modern society so long as recruitment is based on merit and rewards are fairly distributed. If this can be achieved then society will be socially cohesive because the majority will see that rewards are distributed to those who fairly deserve them and that they perform task with a high social value. To some extent this is similar to the idea that society will structure itself spontaneously (like the libertarian view we will discuss in a minute) but this also includes a moral dimension because its reference to fairness, merit and consensus. 4. The moral component of Durkeims analysis has been further developed by Talcott Parsond and Davis and Moore. 5. It is argued that the skills that are valued by society and the jobs that result from that should be open to all and awarded on merit. 6. So as long as people have legal and political equality meritocracy incentivizes everyone to work hard because everyone has an equal opportunity to get the biggest rewards and that no further effort should be made to promote other forms of equality.

LIBERTARIAN MODEL This model which draws a lot from the notion of natural and individual differences emphasizes the importance of an open and free market for talents and abilities so that those with the most marketable skills are awarded for their ability and motivated to work hard to compete with others for the biggest rewards. Some economists have argued that unequal reward encourages self interest and competition, which in turn sponser personal initiative and technological innovation. Capitalism is seen as a dynamic system which gets the best out of people by rewarding hard work and penalizing feckless and idle people. As a result we all benefit from the inspiration of creative individuals and harnessing the power of their ideas and effort. According to writers like Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hyek and Robert Nozick any attempt to tamper with the spontaneous order generated by capitalist reward structures serves only to drain the social energy produced by inequality. What is missing from this perspective is any notion that the marketplace should ensure that the system is fair or that people are being rewarded justly because it is considered fundamentally wrong to impede the freedom of people to do what they like with their talents and money. Whether people deserve what they get or not does not enter the argument the rights of the individual are more important than how society functions.

EGALITARIAN MODELThis model fundamentally rejects the principle of unequal reward and the notion of natural differences on which it is founded. According to egalitarian principles the so-called natural differences between people are created by the social privileges and disadvantages inherent in an unequal society and reinforced by a local of equality of opportunity. Therefore the wide differences in reward are not a fair reflection of natural differences in ability or effort but rather a manipulation of those in positions of power to reward themselves at the expense of others. Egalitarians believe that there are no jobs that are inherently more important than others because societies need people with a whole range of skills to do a range of jobs. Cleaners, cooks etc. Inequality of reward promotes a dysfunctional world where the upper and middle classes revel and protect their superiority and the poor resent their failure. Systems that promote stratification encourages self perpetuating elites who pass their privilege through inherited wealth, private education and inter-marriage. Unequal societies are not meritocratic but instead places where status is ascribed rather than achieved. Even when egalitarians conceed that there are natural differences between people sports people for example - they see this as no reason to accept that this should lead to rewarding people differently because this is mostly luck or chance and not a consequence of the hard work of the individual. Politically egalitarians argue that the State or governments should work to ensure equality in unequal societies and that this can be done within a capitalist system where policies of taxation and redistribution are used purposefully to create more equal societies.

Question Why might criminologists be interested in this? The new punitiveness and the rise in inequality

Change in popular attitudes and understandings of crime and the criminal justice system. Individuals have become more punitive and more likely to support harsh criminal justice policies particularly in countries where inequality has risen significantly. Crime a political issue.Politicians and policy makers more likely to respond to popular opinion about crime issues and seek to gain electoral advantage by being tough. This is distinctly different from the consensus on crime that existed between 1945-1979 (Loader, 2001)Exclusion and Stigmatisation Social distance and territorial stigmatisation (Wacquant, 1999) Hyper mobility, immobility and territoriality (Kintrea, 2009)Respect, disrespect and hierarchySocial control of excluded populations. Not excluded from cultural norms of contemporary society, but opportunity to gain these. Consumption

Purpose and Scope of the CJS What is the purpose of punishment? Deter, rehabilitate, restore, punish, incapacitate (Ashworth, 2005)

What does this have to do with inequality?

US Incarceration Rates 1925-2006(per 100,000)

1971 176 per 100,000 inhabitants doubled by 1985 and doubled again by 2000

To give you some idea of the scale between 1985 and 1995 the US amassed nearly one million more inmates 1,631 people every week, imprisoning the whole prison population of France every six months. 21Mass imprisonmentGarland (2001 p1) defines mass imprisonment:

...a rate of imprisonment...that is markedly above the historical or comparative norm for societies of this type.....[imprisonment] ceases to be the incarceration of individual offenders and becomes the systematic imprisonment of whole groups of the population. three parts to this definition both of which must be fulfilled if the phenomena is to be named mass imprisonment

Examine the first part next and then look more closely at the second.

Russia has high prison rates but this has been the case throughout its history it is not a new development. 22Prison used as a mechanism to control economically redundant populationsIncapacitation and not punishment or rehabilitation. Characteristics of the prison population: education, employment, mental health issues. Prison regime: architecture of the penal estate, availability of rehabilitation programmes, use of segregation, engagement between the staff and prisoners. Who owns punishment? Public bodies or private companies? 23Scope of the CJS Not just interested in detecting and punishing criminal acts. Pre-crime and anti-social behaviour managementIntolerance New Labour Crime and Disorder Act 1998Developed a range of enforcement tools and tactics to manage.Problem youth, problem parents, problem families, broken society?

But if it is broke, who broke it?

Treatment of offenders and former offenders OtheringRehabilitation Reintegration

Or Exclusion Control Ongoing punishment

Source: Home Office. 2009. Crimes in England and Wales 2008-2009. London: HOIncidents of victimisation are not evenly distributed across all social groups. Become more concentrated

Living in poverty whether thats through unemployment or through earning a low income increase the likelihood of being a crime victim across all offence categories theft, murder, violence

As does your ethnicity, gender and neighbourhood and lifestyle.

These risks compound one another so for example you have a heightened risk of being a victim of a violent crime if you are a student, but that risk increases if you go out to nightclubs and are male.

When people are made to feel worthless then there are more fights, more brawls, more scuffles, more bottles smashed and more knives brandished and more young men die. The lives of young men have polarised and this inequality has curtailed opportunities; hopelessness appears to have bred fear, violence and murder (Dorling et al,2005) Follow Up Thomas Piketty slides http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/lectures and lecture on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zytqTSh3oGwLoic Wacquant website http://loicwacquant.net/The new penology Feeley and Simon (1992) articlehttp://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=facpubs&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.co.uk%2Fscholar%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dfeeley%2Band%2Bsimon%26btnG%3D%26as_sdt%3D1%252C5%26as_sdtp%3D#search=%22feeley%20simon%22Downes and Hansen the welfare state and punishment: a comparative perspective http://cls.ioe.ac.uk/library-media%5Cdocuments%5CWelfare%20and%20Punishment%20in%20Comparative%20Context.pdf

Chart1119144164206147164179143220312458595686742

Series 1

Sheet1Series 1Series 2Series 319251192.4219281444.4219341641.8319392062.851945147195016419601791970143198022019853121990458199559520006862005742

Chart13.27.57.67.68.612.413.2

% Victims once or moreRisk of being a victim of violent crime 2008/09

Sheet1All Adults3.2Mixed Ethnicity7.5Single People7.6Unemployed7.6Full-Time Student8.6Visit nightclub more than once in last month12.4Men aged 16-2413.2

Sheet1

% Victims once or moreRisk of being a victim of violent crime 2008/09

Sheet2

Sheet3