America S High Crime Rate

Chapter One

Regardless of fluctuations in the crime rate, Reiman’s thesis has been validated through six editions of the book and after more than 20 years in print: the rich continue to get richer and there is an expanding number of poor people in prison. Chapter 1 starts the investigation by 1) discussing America’s high crime rate, 2) reviewing the ‘excuses’ we make for the crime rate 3) introducing sources of crime, and 4) outlining the pyrrhic defeat theory to explain the continued failure of policies to reduce crime.

America’s high crime rate

Although crime has declined in recent years, the US still has a substantially higher rate of crime than other Western industrial democracies. More specifically, the US has a much higher rate of lethal violence in the form of homicide compared to European countries (some of which have high levels of theft and property crime). Reiman argues that even though violent crime has declined, little of it has to do with government policies such as ‘get tough on crime’ laws that incarcerate more people for longer periods of time or because of community policing. The evidence is that many states or cities that did not implement these changes also experienced declines in crime. In addition, Canada has also experienced decreases in crime without adopting similar policies, which suggests that the decline has to do with the economy, changing markets for crack cocaine, and demographics (the number of young people).

The ‘imprisonment binge’ in the United States might have accounted for some small changes in crime, but there are also fears from criminologists that the ‘war on crime’ has eroded the rights of citizens (especially minorities – see the discussion of driving while black in Chapter 3). It has also spawned a criminal justice – industrial complex that makes policy more on the basis of profit than public safety (this is also discussed more in Chapter 3’s Narrative and Exercises).

Excuses for High Crime Rates

Reiman next reviews what he calls ‘excuses’ for the high rate of crime and violence in the US. He explains the excuse, but he ultimately argues against the validity of these excuses; in other words, he thinks they are false reasons for our high crime rate.

A. We’re too soft. The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Even when our higher crime rate is figured in, we are at least as likely as other countries to impose a prison sentence, and it is not likely to be more lenient than other countries. The last 30 years has seen increased use of mandatory sentence and increasingly harsher sentences.

B. Modern life. Other highly industrialized countries in the world have lower crime rates. There are also striking differences within the U.S. with respect to the amount of crime and violence. This variation does not depend on the size of the city or the population density (population per square mile).

C. Youth. Young people are more likely to commit crimes, especially violent ones, and a well-known phenomenon in criminology is the maturation effect (people ‘age out’ of crime). But changes in the amount of crime are not only dependent on the size of the youth population.

D. We don’t know. Criminologists know that that the criminal justice system can do little to impact crime rates. It responds to crime after it occurs, and most criminals do not believe they will be caught, so harsher sentences have little impact. Research points to a wide variety of factors that produce crime (including the sources of crime discussed below) and a number of important interventions (but few concern the police, courts or prisons).

Sources' of Crime

In the Rich Get Richer, Reiman prefers to discuss ‘sources’ rather than ‘causes’ of crime. The ‘source’ is less specific than an immediate ‘cause,’ but Reiman feels that the following ‘sources’ are important in producing crime, even if the exact mechanisms are not known:

A. Inequality (including unemployment and poverty).

The concept underlying many ideas Reiman discusses in this section is relative deprivation, which is the difference between the rich and the poor. Books on theories of crime contain a section on strain theory, which hypothesizes that crime is the result of an overemphasis on material success and too few legitimate opportunities to achieve it. The idea of Crime and the American Dream is that the ideas of success depicted in the mass media encourage ever-greater levels of consumption (there’s always something bigger, better or newer), which can be a source of crime for both poor and the wealthy.

B. The conditions of prison and our overuse of it.

Putting people in overcrowded warehouse-style prisons does not encourage pro-social behavior. Prisons have few programs to help inmates become better people when they have completed their sentence or give them skills/opportunities to avoid returning to a life of crime. The overuse of prison hurts communities and families from which these minor offenders come.

C. Guns (especially handguns).

The current stock of 200 million guns and the relative ease of obtaining one adds to the high level of lethal violence.

D. Current drug policy.

The effects of drugs on crime can be broken down into several categories: 1) the pharmacological effect is the effect of the drug that reduces inhibitions or stimulates other activity; (2) economic crime is stimulated by the need for money to buy drugs, so the higher the price of the drug, the greater the incentive to commit the crime or engage in exchanges like prostitution and (3) systemic crime is violence caused by the lack of access to the civil system for dispute resolution and corruption of police because of the big money involved in the drug trade.

Pyrrhic defeat

The idea of a pyrrhic victory comes from a military campaign that achieves its objective (say, taking a certain bit of land), but does so at such a high cost (lives and supplies) that the campaign should be considered a failure. Reiman turns this around and uses the notion of a pyrrhic defeat to describe a situation where vast resources are spent to secure an objective (reducing crime), but this failure is really a success. The failure results in a persistent high level of street crime, which is a ‘victory’ for the wealthy and for corporate America who are not seen as being part of the ‘crime problem’; they remain free to keep perpetrating a variety of harms on people. (The nature and extent of these crimes are discussed in Chapter 2; the explanation of why this is not a conspiracy theory is in Chapter 4).

The pyrrhic defeat theory is built upon the work of several theorists: (A) Durkheim noted that all communities have deviance, and that deviants were functional in promoting social solidarity by providing an out group that helped form an in group. (B) Erickson built on Durkheim by suggesting that if deviance is functional, then perhaps communities encourage, promote and recruit deviance. Reiman acknowledges his debt to their insight that society can promote behavior it also desires to eliminate. He goes further, however, by questioning their consensus assumptions about what constitutes ‘normal,’ ‘deviant,’ and ‘criminal’ behavior. In Chapter Two, Reiman argues that our notions of ‘crime’ are socially constructed and explores Richard Quinney’s theories about the social reality of crime. His argument is that what we think of as ‘crime’ does not include the worst harms that might befall us (and wrongdoing by the wealthy is generally excluded from definitions of crime). Reiman also borrows insights from Marx about ideology to examine further the belief that what we call crime is a direct reflection of the worst threats to our safety and well being.

Chapter Two

Reiman examines a variety of ways Americans are harmed to assess the greatest dangers to our well-being. Not all of these harmful acts are crimes, but Reiman argues these analogous social harms share many elements of criminal conduct. He examines how what we see as ‘dangerous crime’ is socially created. The criminal Justice system acts as a carnival mirror that magnifies the threat of street crime while minimizing the harms from occupational hazards, health care, chemicals, and poverty.

In answering the question, ‘What’s In A Name?’ Reiman first analyzes the ‘typical criminal’ to show that criminal justice is a ‘creative art’; it creates the social reality of crime in a way resembling the distortions of a carnival mirror and second he responds to the Defender of the Present Legal Order about why the actions of the powerful are rightly serious crimes. Finally, Reiman reviews evidence about the extent and seriousness of many different harms.

The Carnival Mirror and the Reality of Crime

Criminologist Richard Quinney (among others) has noted that crime is produced by a behavior and a law subjecting said behavior to punishment. The criminal law is thus an appropriate topic for investigation because it is the result of human decisions (and a political process) rather than reflecting an objective reality. Reiman believes that there are real harms, so the criminal law does not create crime from nothing. Instead, he argues that the criminal law does not provide an adequate ‘mirror’ of injurious acts, and that it seriously distorts the relationship between crime and harm the way a carnival mirror in a fun house distorts the image of people standing in front of it.

With this background, Reiman questions the notion that the ‘typical criminal’ is young, urban, poor, and minority. He also argues that people in the criminal justice system create this image through a series of decisions and it is these decisions that serve to filter or create the reality of crime we see. More specifically, the social reality of crime is created by the decisions of (a) legislators about what to define as crime; (b) police and prosecutors about whom to arrest and charge; (c) judges and juries in conviction; (d) sentencing judges about the appropriate punishment; (e) the media in what to report as a ‘crime’ and an ‘accident’ and (f) all these decisions taken together.

Objections by the Defender of the Present Legal Order

Reiman’s argument is based on the idea that some of the most injurious acts are not included in the criminal law. He recognizes others might feel that the criminal law does reflect the worst social harms and that corporate violence does not rise to the same level because: (a) executives do not purposely try to harm people, (b) that indirect harm is not as bad as direct harm, (c) injuries occurring in the course of legitimate productive activity are not as bad as injuries from criminal acts and (d) people freely consent to many hazards, such as occupational exposure. Please note that Reiman does not believe these statements – he is laying out what someone else (the defender) would likely see as the objection to his argument. Reiman argues against all of these propositions for the reasons below.

A. Intent. The behavior of executives does not fall into the category of premeditated murder, but many actions are done with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, the harms that might follow. Even in cases where the executives acted negligently, Reiman feels the act still falls within the scope of the criminal law rather than a regulatory offense.

B. Face to face crime might be worse because it inflicts more terror, but the basic issue is the injury done – for example, that someone died. There is a difference between the way the two harms are inflicted, but not enough to make one a felony and the other a regulatory offense.

C. Legitimate productive activity ensures that some risks are inherent in legitimate productive activity, but society can protect people from unnecessary or excessive risk; it can protect workers from being beaten to make them work faster and it can protect children from exploitation involved in 'legitimate productive activity'. An executive who ignores these laws set up to protect innocent people commits a crime, even if he is engaged in legitimate productive activity.

D. Free Consent questions whether many people are aware of the hazards in a workplace to freely consent to the dangers. There is also not equal power to negotiate, so the ‘free’ consent is problematic. The job market has barriers, glass ceilings and in some places, there are few employment opportunities, further escalating the coercion to take a job.

Crimes By Any Other Name

In the remainder of the chapter, Reiman provides evidence on the extent and seriousness of many harms that are more likely to befall the average American more than street crime. When comparing these to street crime, please keep in mind that many people have a distorted perception of crime from media coverage that gives disproportionate attention to the worst and the most unusual crimes. Even further, most crime is minor property crime and most ‘violent crime’ takes the form of simple assaults involving bruises (frequently perpetrated by people who know each other, getting drunk together and then starting a fight).

Occupational Hazards -- This category includes work-related deaths and illnesses (cancer, black lung, etc). Many of the figures Reiman is forced to use underestimate the amount of illness and death because insurance and liability factors shape the reporting environment for industry. One of the fastest growing categories is repetitive motion injury such as carpal tunnel syndrome.

Health Care -- Included here are injuries and deaths from improper medical care, unnecessary surgery, reactions to prescription drugs or their interactions. Although Reiman does not include it, many would also add into this category harms done by the denial of care by Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs).