Critical Analysis of Reading by Walter Miller - Term Paper Example

MILLER INTRODUCTION Globalization has created a global community that thrives on the recognition and respect of existing differences, of the plurality prevalent among each and every individual person. This truism affirms the reality that for most contemporary society’s dissimilarity is perceived as the pivotal point for affirming commonality. As such, human persons and institutions are faced with the challenge of creating an arena, a public sphere wherein divergence is accepted, sustained and cherished. In lieu with this, one institution stands out as the ‘classic example’ of the challenge – the criminal justice system. The multifaceted aspects of the criminal justice system create no one single approach in its understanding. As such, this paper will not attempt to present a complete perspective of its multidimensionality. Rather, this paper will deal only with the apparent connection of ideology and the criminal justice; primarily focusing our analysis on the landmark article of Walter B. Miller Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy: Some Current Issues. THE ARTICLE: A SUMMARY The focal point of Walter B. Miller’s (1976) article Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy: Some Current Issues is the underlying power of ideology in the criminal justice system. The paper intends to present the idea that “ideology and its consequences exert a powerful influence on the policies and procedures of those who conduct the enterprise of criminal justice, and that the degree and kinds of influence go largely unnoticed.” (142) Miller has used conceptual analysis of the various positions and theories in order to attain the purpose of the paper. Miller divided the various positions into ‘left’ and ‘right’ for simplicity and “neutrality” (142). He gave the crusading issues and general assumptions of both the leftist and the rightist. According to Miller, the crusading issues of the rightists are: excessive leniency toward lawbreakers, favoring the welfare of the lawbreakers over the welfare and rights of the victims, law enforcement officials and the law abiding citizens, erosion of discipline and respect for constituted authority, the cost of crime and excessive permissiveness. These crusading issues are buttress by underlying major general assumptions which includes the following: first, the individual is responsible for his own behavior. Second, is defining a healthy and well-ordered society within the context of a “strong moral order which is explicit, well-defined and widely adhered to” (144). Third, is security within both the private and public sphere of the individual person as both spheres mark the arena for the person’s activities. Fourth, is the recognition of the validity of the authority as exercise by governing bodies and fifth is the ordering of the human relations in terms of different categories such as race, religion, national background, gender, and social position. On the other hand, the leftist crusading issues are overcriminalization, labeling and stigmatization, overinstitutionalization, overcentralization and discriminatory bias. And just like the rightist, the leftist’ issues are supported by major general assumptions. These are: first, criminal behavior is a result of the conditions of the social order and is not just an individual responsibility. Second, the social and political order is “deficient in meeting the fundamental needs of its members” (Miller 1976, p 145). Third is that within the criminal justice system itself, the inequitable and unjust distribution of power, privilege and resources pervades. Fourth, it recognizes societal categorization as a defect in the system. Fifth, it recognizes the integral role of the official agents of the agencies within the criminal justice system. And sixth is the claim that “the total range of human behavior currently included under the system of criminal sanction is excessively too broad” (Miller 1976 p 146) With the theories laid down, Miller set out to highlight that the existing differences between the left and right approach is not only in theory but that these differences actually influence the very policies and actions undertaken by the official agents of the criminal justice system. He cited four agencies namely the academic criminologists, police, judiciary and corrections. According to Miller, the ideological and social background of the individual agents in each particular agency influenced their actions and motivations for actions. With this scenario, he then presented the consequences of ideology. He maintains that as ideology evokes strong, emotional partisan allegiance it leads to the phenomenon of ideological intensification which in lay man’s term is the transformation of the reasoned advocate into an implacable zealot. As such, the consequences of ideology which are polarization, reverse projection, ideologized selectivity, informational constriction, and distortion of opposing positions should be constantly watched out. In the end, he asserts that as human beings cannot completely free themselves from the power of ideology, the challenge is to be constantly on guard against becoming an ardent, ironclad, implacable zealot who knows and accepts no other truth except the one that he holds. ANALYSIS Miller’s article has several positive points. These are: First, it provides the reader with an easy access on the vast literature and discussion that permeates the field of criminology, criminal justice system and the ideology behind it by giving a concise summary of the various assumptions that underlie each position. And the summary is made clearer when he applied it on various issues and some agencies involve in the criminal justice system. Second, the clarity of Miller’s presentation guides the readers regarding the rudiments of the discourse that scholars themselves are talking about. This is important as it gives neophytes the framework with which they can start understanding the various academic discussion that is happening within the field. Third, the very simplistic approach that Walter has used in the presentation of the theories allow the reader to readily see his/her position, to comprehend the ideologies behind his/her position, to know the arguments which supports the stand of the person in the spectrum of ideology and criminal justice and to articulate the counter- arguments which has been raised in the course of the extrapolation as presented in the article. These positive points or aspects of Miller’s work are undeniable and laudable. It lays down to us the various criminological perspectives that are being utilized. However, though much merit is gained from the article there are several limitations that are quite perceptible in the article. And these are: First, although Miller (1976) himself has recognized that there are many important points which have been missed and not discussed in the attempt to present a simple articulation of the ongoing dynamic discussions regarding the connection between ideology and criminal justice policy (146), he has failed to present the vast, numerous and in-depth exchange of ideas which is transpiring among the stakeholders in the field. The simplistic categorization of the ideologies behind the criminal justice system seems to downplay the numerous efforts given in understanding the ideologies itself. (Parsloe 1976) This failure is significant since he has hidden the real extent of the actual articulations which is necessary in the understanding of the nature of the connection of ideology and the criminal justice system. A neophyte in the field might get the impression that the actual discourse maybe simply divided into three camps, which is in fact not the actual case. Second, since the methodology that he employed in the analysis is conceptual analysis, it would have been better if he briefly discussed the nature of criminal system to enable the reader to understand why there are divergent positions in the field and at the same time to comprehend the idea or the reasons behind the plausibility of the connection between ideology and the criminal system. This is important since according to Garland (2003) stated that the nature of contemporary crime is different from that of the traditional conception of crime and punishment. He claims that in the past concept of crime and justice is rooted on the idea that the individual is a rational being who has deviated from the normal thus; he/she can be differentiated and corrected from the rest. On the other hand, the modern conception of crime and justice is anchored on “economic rationality” (Garland 2003). By economic rationality it means “(i) the ‘increasing reliance upon an analytical language of risks and rewards, rationality, choice, probability, targeting, and the demand and supply of opportunities – a language that translates ‘economic’ forms of reasoning and calculation into the criminological field; (ii) the increasing importance of objectives such as compensation, cost-control, harm-reduction, economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and (iii) the increasing resort to technologies such as audit, fiscal control, market competition and devolved management to control penal decision-making.” (Garland 2003, p 245) This difference in the perception of the nature of crime or criminology will give the reader a framework with which to understand the presentation of the current issues on crime and justice. Third, by presenting the positions in a spectrum, he has created two possible images of the discussion. First is the image of a continuum which somehow raises the notion of the possibility of moving along the spectrum of ideas. A possibility indeed but let us be reminded that we are dealing with ideologies which have the power to shape our own world view so the possibility of movement is a little bit dubious. Thus, giving the reader the second image – the image of opposing camps. There are two extreme camps – leftist and rightist – and the third camp is the centrist. From reading the article, especially the appendix, we have seen the opposing positions of the these two on the following issues; locus of responsibility, policies with respect to offenders and policies with respect to criminal justice agencies. But the centrist position is not given in the discussion, although he stated that he will not be discussing the centrist position (Miller 1976), and the reader is informed about the non-discussion, still it would have been better if the reader is given an idea as to what are the possible positions of the centrist regarding the issues that he discussed. Being such, the reader is now lost as to what is the position of the centrist. Is the centrist a fence sitter? What motivates the centrist to take the middle position? Are we not all centrist as he himself claims there is no pure rightist or pure leftist? (Miller 1976, p 147) Fourth, Miller (1976) claims that “ideological basis of criminal justice commands strong, emotional, partisan allegiance” (p 142, 151). However, in the article no evidence or support is given regarding why and how the ideological basis of criminal justice evokes ‘strong, emotional, partisan allegiance. It is important that evidence for this claim be presented in the article itself since this particular claim is what he intends to prove in the article. And to simply present the consequences of the strong emotions that we attach to the ideologies that prompt our action is simply to assume that ideologies evokes strong emotions in us. MY POSITION In my opinion, the article has succeeded in highlighting the integral role of ideology in the criminal justice system. However, I think it failed to take into account certain factors that are necessary in the understanding of the connection between ideology and the criminal justice system. These factors are: First, the criminal justice system, just like any other enterprise in the contemporary period, is an “empirically based enterprise” (Epstein et al 1989, p 825) and as such a systematic explanation and prediction of individual and institutional behavior is possible and feasible. Second, as ideologies are important in the criminal justice system, it should be made clearer that it is not just that. “Changes in modern culture have made the procedures and manners of criminal justice officials far more important”. (Sherman 2002, p 30) in regaining the confidence and trust of the public. Third, the unmediated power of ideology perceptible through its effects in social practices and social institutions (Schwartz 1994) should be hindered by the idea that any alternatives should be an “advance in humane change” (Clear 2004, p 71) CONCLUSION Miller’s article has shown us that the power of ideology in our lives is undeniable, it permeates institution itself and to be totally free from its influences is impossible. However, we should not be petrified by the fact that ideology is integral in our lives and that it permeates in our action. Rather, what we should bear in mind is that there are other factors that drive individuals and society. Thus, together with Sherman (2002) we affirm that aside from looking into the important role of ideology in the criminal justice system, we should also focus on 1. The conduct and practices of the criminal justice system. 2. The changing values and expectations of the culture the system serves. 3. The images of the system presented in electronic media. Source: Sherman 2002 Being such, the call for individuals and social institutions to be always on guard against the phenomenon of ideological intensification which is detrimental to human flourishing should be given serious and ample consideration in the creation of a more humane criminal justice system . REFERENCE: Clear, Todd. (2004). “Thoughts about action and ideology in criminal justice reform”, Contemporary Justice Review, Vol. 7, No 1, pp 69 – 73. Epstein, Lee, Walker, Thomas G., & Dixon, William J. (1989). “The Supreme Court and criminal justice disputes: A neo-institutional perspective”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No 4, pp 825 – 841. Garland, David. (2003). “Government and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology” in Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings 2nd Edition. Ed by Eugene Mclaughlin, John Munice & Gordon Hughes. London: Sage Publication. Miller, Walter B. (1973). “Ideology and criminal justice policy: Some current issues”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 64, No 2, pp 141 – 162. Parsloe, Phyllida. (1976). “Social work & the justice model”, British Journal of Social Work, 6:1. Pp 71 – 81. Schwartz, Bary. (1994). “On morals and markets”, Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 13, issue 1. Sherman, Lawrence W. (2002). “Trust & confidence in criminal justice”, NIJ Journal, No. 248, pp 22 – 32. Read More