Kids for Cash presents a variety of stories of young adults who were wronged by the criminal justice system in Lurenze County, due to the actions of Judge Ciavarella. However, both cultural and structural theorists would be able to utilize their beliefs in regards to the cause of crime to determine the root origin of their behavior. The stories of these kids and the crimes that they committed match up with the cultural and structural theories on a variety of levels, and even illustrate the notion of disintegrative shaming, labeling, primary and secondary deviance in the result of their sentencing.
Cultural theorist would draw on the idea that individuals act on their subgroup learned values, beliefs, goals, and norms in the situation and because of conflicting subgroups, deviance occurs. Because we all belong to different, and at time conflicting, subgroups, our behavior can come across as deviant as we act in accordance with our own group. Our group’s beliefs may deviate from the majority views and be classified as deviant. Cultural theorists would state that all of the Kids for Cash children’s deviant actions were the result of the socially learned beliefs from the kids’ families or cultural subgroups which drove their behavior. Cultural theorists would drive home the idea that all of these children’s actions go far beyond animalistic impulses, as through socialization humans lose their animalistic nature. However, we do pick up the values and ideas of a group, no matter how irrational those ideals may seem because to the members of the subgroup, these actions are completely normal. Cultural theorists would also explain that the reason for the deviant behavior of these children is due to the conflicting subgroup norms that occur, as what one subgroup might view as an action as a norm but in fact for another group it violates their code of ethics. For these kids, their subgroup lost out in the long run and their actions were in turn seen as deviant by the majority population, or in this case by Judge Ciavarella. For Amanda, a young girl who got in trouble for fighting in school and was subsequently charged with fighting as well as assault, cultural theorists would state that she did not fight out of animalistic impulse but instead because she ‘learned’ through her family subgroup or whatever subgroup that she is a part of, that fighting is the answer to her issues. She responded in a manner that was congruent with the group she belongs to, but not the law itself, which resulted in her punishment. Amanda may have felt that her actions were rational and justified, but for the majority subgroup/Judge Ciavarella, those actions results in prison time. As for Charlie, a young boy arrested for possession of a stolen scooter (which was actually gifted to him by his parents who bought it from a family member), cultural theorists would describe his actions as the result of learned behavior from his family subgroup, similar to Amanda. Because he was given the scooter by his mother and father, who didn’t have the money to have too many material possessions, he was taught that it was ok to have. Charlie saw the scooter as a rational piece of property to have. In this instance, Charlie learned that he could be in possession of gifted items without worrying about their potential stolen status. For Justin, a boy who was arrested following an altercation at the bus stop with a mother which occured while walking his younger brother, his actions would be seen by cultural theorist as the result of what he has learned based on morals. His actions reflect his learned behavior of obscene language and its tolerance within his family, which ultimately lead to the charges of terroristic threats being placed on him. Due to the fact that Justin learned that in his subgroup he could continually use this obscene and offensive language, he continued to implement it into his life and this eventually caught up with him as Judge Ciavarella did not condone the behavior. Finally, cultural theorist would view Edward, a high school boy arrested for possession and consumption of alcohol, and his deviant act as the result of being a part of the ‘party crowd’ subgroup. Ed ‘learned’ the beliefs, ideals and norms of his partying friends and adopted their mentality. Due to the fact that he was influenced and accepted these friends ideals, he began to deviate from the law and participate in underage drinking. Ed subsequently got arrested and charged due to the fact that his beliefs deviated from the majority norms of the United States of America and because his father decided to do something about it, as well as Judge Ciavarella with Ed’s sentence.
These assumptions on the cause of crime by cultural theorists contrasts the beliefs of structural theorist, who would draw on the idea that the human is deeply self interested and complex, with only one real goal in mind – serving one’s own self-interest. Structural theorists believe that as humans, we are motivated solely by our animalistic impulses and the self. In addition, the cultural theorists would deem all of these children’s actions as rational, due to the fact that they were acting in a manner that can be understood from a single-minded, personal standpoint. In Amanda’s case it was in her best self-interest to fight the girl that wronged her, so in order to maximize her self interest and minimize her pain, she needed to punch and assault her supposed attacker. Amanda was also acting upon her animalistic impulses when she fought the girl, as she did not think of anyone but herself and her own rage. As for Justin, he acted on his untamed animalistic impulses when he had the altercation with the mother at the bus stop. He did not hold back and instead let his inner ‘animal’ come to the surface as he protected himself and his brother. His obscene language was the result of rage and a protective standpoint. Charlie’s situation would be seen by structural theorists as maximizing self-interest and minimizing pain type situations as he came from a household that had very few materialistic items. So, in an effort to minimize the pain of being without tools (aka pleasure and fun), he maximized his self-interest and used the stolen scooter, despite the fact that it was stolen and he didn’t even know it. Structural theorists might even argue that even if Charlie knew the scooter was stolen, that he would still have used it because having it maximized his pleasure and minimized his pain. Finally, Ed would be seen by cultural theorists as a high school boy acting on a self-interest basis. He was trying to fit in with his friends and make his life the best that it could be for himself. Ed enjoyed drinking enough to continue to partake in it because of its pleasurable nature, so he broke the law in order to boost himself up and hangout with his friends.
Charlie and Edward’s stories most prominently line up with the concepts of disintegrative shaming and Edwin Lemert’s labeling theory in regards to primary and secondary deviance. For both boys, they committed primary acts of deviance, which are small and can result from a diverse situations (from bad up brings, to anger, to not having lunch). Primary acts of deviance are the much lesser of the deviant act and tend to not result in a deviant label being placed on the individual. For example, Ed had been previously underage drinking with his friends before he got caught by his father. However, neither him, nor Charlie, prior to or after their acts of primary deviance had adopted the stigma of being a criminal quiet yet. It was not until both boys committed other acts of deviance, or secondary deviance, and were subsequently arrested, booked, charged and spent time in juvenile detention facilities that they gained the label as a deviant. Edwin Lemert defines his labeling theory as when an authorities intervention, in this case it is the police force of the County of Luzerne and Judge Ciavarella, causes secondary deviance and the continuation of the deviant stigma. For both of these boys, it was their first major offence against the law where they got caught. Typically, they were kind, wholesome boys with a few family issues or developmental issues. Their first, and relatively minor, secondary act of deviance resulted in the extremely harsh and degrading punishments that they received by Judge Ciavarella. But, due to the actions of Judge Ciavarella and his intervention into the case, the boys prematurely adopted these extreme stigmas of deviant labels by spending extended amounts of time in prison. Through the adoption of the deviant label and the inability to lose said deviant label, they were habitually confined to the boundaries that the label placed on them and in turn resorted to a life of crime. Both boys faced disintegrative shaming for their actions not only right when the crime was committed but also by Judge Ciavarella in court and everyday after that due to the structure of the American justice System. Disintegrative shaming separates offenders from the community and treats them as outcasts, in addition to stigmatizes them for their actions, which has been proven to be counterproductive and tends to lead to further criminality due to isolation. For Charlie, despite seeming hopeful about being able to turn his life around after his release from jail, he ended up back in prison for using his grandparents’ stolen credit cards. He claims that maybe if he had received help for all of his untamed demons which he gathers in prison and potentially assistance in combating the wrong that was done to him at such an early age, that he would not have ended up in the never ending cycle of the criminal justice system with a “deviant” label. As for Edward, he was unable to break away from the stigma that the secondary act of deviance and the deviant label gave him. He continued into a life of crime and an unquenchable sadness that arose because of the predicament that he was in. He was also on edge and had the potential to be re-arrested for minor probation offenses, something he could never escape. As a result, he ended up committing suicide as he was not only extremely depressed and hopeless but unable to find a way to turn his life around.
2. How does Kids for Cash align with aspects of the Anomie/Strain paradigm, especially Messner and Rosenfeld’s point that the way we respond to crime mirrors the economically driven cultural immaturity that underlies crime in the first place? Drawing on both Kids for Cash and the 13th, cite examples showing how economic domination affects justice in the United States.
The entire story of Kids for Cash aligns with Anomie/Strain paradigm, especially Messner and Rosenfeld’s belief that the United States’ current economic climate/mindset drives our criminal justice system. Anomie/Strain paradigm centers around the general idea that most people in the world have the same general set of values and that basically their belief system is comprised of the same core ingredients. However, the differences between offenders and conformists arise in the proportional mixture of these values, as well as the appropriateness of the values. The major factor that Messner and Rosenfeld argue is that in the United States, we have this preconceived notion of the American Dream and achieving the American Dream by any means necessary, which is imbedded into the foundation of our lives. It is embedded so much so that the economic portion of our society dominates everything. Messner and Rosenfeld have no problem with our country or any other country having a capitalist economy, but instead what they are against is a capitalist society, which is a major issue in America. This capitalist society, by any means necessary to achieve the American Dream mentality is the backbone the Kids for Cash storyline, starting with Judge Ciavarella. Judge Ciavarella and the scandal that he created centered around him receiving a “finders bonus” from the contractors of a new private juvenile detention facility for Lurenze County. This over 2 million dollar bonus that he received went undocumented from everyone. Ciavarella kept the fact that he was sentencing an extremely high number of these juveniles, with a “zero tolerance policy mentality,” to the facility which he helped to create and received money from a secret to the people of Luzerne County. Taking the money and keeping its donors a secret is an ethical violation at the core, as well as a judicial one, yet Ciavarella is quoted in the film stating that he took the money for the betterment of his life and for his kids, as he used the money to pay off his house, pay for his kids to attend expensive colleges debt free, and more. This motivation lines up with basic anomie/strain theory beliefs that we all prescribe to the same values, which in this case is family and economic gain, however it is the combination of believes and the mixture of them which results in crime. Ciavarella, like almost every American, values his family so much that he is willing to do anything for them. However, what resulted in this crime is a poor mixture of wanting to help himself, help his family, and make a lot of money to support them BUT not go about making the money in the correct manner. Plus to top it all off, he then lied to people he took an oath to serve justly.
Another way in which our response to crime mirrors the economically driven culture that underlies crime is that the United States has a fetishism for money. The way in which our society is set up in the present day an age, money is awarded special priority above any other social institution. Money has been consecrated as a value in itself, over and above expenditure for daily life or its use for the enhancement of power. The pressure to accumulate more and more money is therefore relentless, which entices people to pursue their monetary goals by any means necessary. This by any means necessary additude translates directly into the way in which crime is handled in the United States as well as how crime is handled in Kids for Cash. The idea that the buck stops nowhere, and that we as a society are willing to do literally anything to make more and more money poses a major issue. For Judge Ciavarella, he let his fetishism for money taint not only his judgement, but his overall decision making and the judicial system of the United States. Ciavarella made a fool of the court system as he allowed his own economic agenda to promote unfair sentencing of minors in order to give business to the private juvenile facility he helped develop. The bucks stopped no where for him, as Ciavarella was willing to ruin children’s lives for relatively minor acts of disobedience in order to pad his own pockets.
Economic domination is another issue plaguing the United States and is highlighted in both Kids for Cash as well as 13th. According to Merton, there are three ways in which economic domination manifests itself: devaluation, accommodation, and penetration. Devaluation has to do with when American society devalues non-economic goals, positions and roles relative to the ends and means of economic activity. In Kids for Cash, devaluation takes place in the sense that each time that Judge Ciavarella makes a decision, a kids childhood, their future, their mental health, their family, basically their everything was devalued and took a backseat to money, because in the eyes of Ciavarella money means more to him than justice. Ciavarella didn’t take a single mitigating circumstance into consideration into when sentencing. Many of the parents and the children spoke of the 1 to 3 minutes they got in front of Ciavarella before they were immediately, harshly sentenced. All to put more money into his pocket. In 13th, devaluation came during the post Civil War and pre Jim Crow era, as African Americans had their family institution, their education institution and their safety and personal freedoms ripped from them as a result of the changing economic climate in the south post Civil War. The glimmer of hope that was once there for African Americans to start a new life, without slavery, was ripped away from them as they began to be incarcerated in large quantities in compliance with the new “vagrancy laws” and other pieces of legislation that were put in place to essentially keep them prisoners to the South in an effort to benefit the economy. Accommodation is the modification of the wants and needs of other institutions when economic needs ‘wants’ something and there is a potential conflict – in the end, economic almost always wins. In Kids for Cash, penetration also goes back to Judge Ciavarella in regards to the fact that justice and the criminal justice institution made an ‘accommodation’ to the economy. For Ciavarella, there was a conflict between justice, in telling the people of Lurenze County the the truth, and economic gain, in keeping the money as well as its provider a secret. Ciavarella choose the economic option. He did not let anyone know, he let the money sway his decision making and in turn the judicial system took a hit because the conflict of interest money won out. In 13th, accommodation is indirectly discussed in regards to the transition from slavery to the Jim Crow era. After the civil war, African Americans were imprisoned in extremely large numbers in order to rebuild the South’s economy. Despite the fact that slavery was technically over, a loophole allowing criminals to not be free made it so individuals rights could be exploited – which is exactly what happened here. At the start of the Jim Crow era, personal justice made accommodations for the economic institution once again. Economics won out, as individual freedoms and personal autonomy took a back seat to the needs of the South’s economy to grow once again. Finally, penetration is when economic norms starts to spread and permeate into non-economic institutions, or when non-economic institutions start to look like and act like economic institutions in their functioning. Penetration is the largest way in which economic domination occurs in Kids for Cash, as the judicial system in Lurenze County began to act and operate like an economic institution. Once Ciavarella took that finders bonus and did not report it, the juvenile court system was no longer about justice. Instead, it showed that money and bribes could be used to persuade decision making abilities – almost like individuals could dump money into the court system to sentence, send and manipulate these offenders lives in a way that satisfied their own personal, economic gains. As for 13th, the justice system of today has been penetrated by economic opportunity, specifically through ALEC’s involvement in the lawmaking process. ALEC is a major conference which puts big name corporations and politicians, as well as other law making personnel, around the same table and to create laws together. This gives big corporations the ability to directly influence the lawmaking process by not only proposing laws that benefit them, but also through waving endorsements and backings in front of these politicians if they support these big corporation’s policies. This has allowed for bills and laws to be proposed as well as passed that are not necessarily what the American people need, but what these large companies want and need instead. This has taken the traditional, wholesome nature of lawmaking out of the equation and proceeded to make the entire process more about economic gains instead. The law-making procedure now works more as a economic industry as the highest bidders with the most money have their ideas win out in the end.
3. How do the arguments and data presented in the 13th match up to the various theories in the Critical paradigm (e.g. Chambliss’s emphasis on the economic component of Marx’s definition of law, Quinney’s Social Reality of Crime, and Wacquant’s Peculiar Institutions)?
The arguments and the data presented in 13th not only matches up with various theories in the Critical paradigm, like Marx’s view on the Control theory, Chambliss’s emphasis on economic components and Austin Turk’s Theory of the Probability of Criminalization of Lower Class Behavior, but they enhance the information being brought forward through the timeline style of its delivery.
One of the first arguments and set of data that matches up with 13th comes from Marx and his ideas about the definition of law. Marx breaks down the definition of law into two components: economic and ideological. From an economic standpoint laws are created to benefit the economic interest of the ruling elite. From an ideological standpoint, the law is a setup to hide the fact that it’s all about benefiting the ruling elite and all of the laws that do exist, exist in order to propagate a false sense of equality and to help to create the myth of ‘americocracity.’ 13th presents the argument that the criminal justice system has been shaped by the rich and the powerful elite, both governmental and non-governmental, in an effort to benefit their power. Through the creation of never ending laws and legal procedures, the ruling elite has had the ability to keep the rich both rich and in power. The information presented in 13th lines up more directly with Marx’s economic view of the law, as it has been proven that politicians have not been shy in the past about the fact that laws are created to continually benefit them, while keeping the oppressed downtrodden. This goes back as far as the creation of the supposed 13th Amendment which brought about the ‘end of slavery.’ The loophole which allowed for the continuation of slavery for criminals showcases that. The power to re-enslave individuals was given back to the ruling elite in a carefully disguised manner which continued to perpetuate their power. 13th continues to bring up key examples of laws being created to benefit the ruling elite and keep the ruling elite in power. Another example brought up is the entire crack vs. cocaine dilemma that causes poor, primarily African Americans, who use crack to receive prison sentences almost 5x more severe than those who use cocaine – despite the fact that it is technically the same drug. This is because of the stigma behind the drugs themselves, as cocaine is seen as the ‘classier’ and ‘more high end’ of the two drugs, so its punishments line up with the ruling elites agenda. This also connects with the ideas of Chambliss.
13th continues to line up with the views of Chambliss, who is an extension of Marx’s economic theory of crime, as he believes that if the evolution of law is examined it can be found that the laws follow the ideals of the ruling elite. Time and time again it is found that the laws of society benefit those that are in power. As seen in just the two examples above, it is the laws of those in power which continue to strengthen their power. The 13th Amendment was crafted by politicians at the time, who many were current or former slave owners at the time. Similarly, crack vs. cocaine laws were created by elite politicians, many of whom could have known individuals of status who used cocaine but chose to exploit the crack users.
In addition, 13th also reinforces the ideas brought forward in Quinney’s Social Reality of Crime, a self reinforcing system designed by Richard Quinney. Quinney and his research partner Turk believed in the basic idea that people’s inability to recognize systematic oppression of law leads to even more inequality and oppression. This concept is indirectly discussed within the film in the sense that the entire purpose of the film to inform individuals of the unjust mass incarceration that is occuring within the United States, as well as how a disproportionate amount of minorities are placed into the system. The film attempts to bring to light and make people recognize the systematic oppression of the system in an attempt to change it. More specifically in regards to 13th, the idea that the United States inability to cognize the systematic oppression which has been placed on African Americans in the criminal justice system since the Richard Nixon era and the supposed “War on Crime” as well as “War on Drugs,” then the cycle will only continue to be perpetuated. This in turn also lead to the development of Quinney’s Social Reality of Crime, which illustrates the ways in which this oppression has been created and continued by society in a way that follows a four step cycle: 1) elites make the laws to selectively favor their interests, 2) elites use police to selectively enforce laws against the poor, 3) the poor respond to oppression with crime and violence and 4) the popular ideology of crime suggests that middle class should fear the poor and ignore the rich. The popular ideology of crime is that the true threat to America’s well being is the poor, so ignore all bonds with the poor and turn a blind eye to the gross inequality by the ruling elite. This never ending cycle between 1 and 4 came into large effect in the post civil war, Jim Crow and Civil Rights era. The previously described cycle can be applied to almost any of the situations previously described. For example, in regards to the modern crack vs. cocaine legal issue. The elite made laws that favored their interest in incarcerating the African Americans that primarily used crack, so they constructed laws against crack and cocaine. The police then enforced the laws, but in a selective manner that favored the incarceration of crack users. The poor then responded to these injustices in a manner that became public through news outlets and televised encounters. This in turn scared the middle class American and caused them to fear the poor, crack user and neglect the misuse of power by the ruling elite as they continue to use this method in order to gain more support.
Finally, the arguments and data from 13th line up with that of Austin Turk’s Theory of the Probability of Criminalization of Lower Class Behavior, yet another theory which evolved out of the critical paradigm. Turk’s Theory of the Probability of Criminalization of Lower Class Behavior has to do with this idea that it is crucial to the ruling elite to have the complicit approval of the middle class, so because of this the ruling elite has to do things that do not disturb the middle class in a manner that would cause them to side with the poor. So, in order to do so, the ruling elite cannot use brute force to subdue the lower class, or in the case of the film the African American/minority population, but instead to act in a way that is ‘fair and just’ and have the poor act in a way that isolates and is barbaric so no sympathy will be created. This tactic was utilized during the the Civil Rights era as well as “War on Drugs” and “War on Crime” era, as the poor, primarily African American, offender was disproportionally showcased on television programs, such as the local news or Cops, in a way that incited fear. During the Civil Rights era, activists were portrayed by news outlets as criminals. They were shown in such a negative light to the average middle class American that it became a fear to be labeled in such a way. Also, during the “War on Drugs” and “War on Crime” era, poor, primarily African Americans, were portrayed as crazy crackheads and violent individuals on the local news and on nationwide television programs like Cops. This furthered the stigma in a way that incites complicit approval of the middle class as they did not want the country to become overrun by these individuals, who actually turned out to be a gross example of a truly small percentage of the population.