The Moral Vigilante and Her Cousins in the Shadows

November 2013 National:

Abstract:
By definition, vigilantes cannot be legally justified – if they satisfied a justification defense, for example, they would not be law-breakers – but they may well be morally justified, if their aim is to provide the order and justice that the criminal justice system has failed to provide in a breach of the social contract. Yet, even moral vigilantism is detrimental to society and ought to be avoided, ideally not by prosecuting moral vigilantism but by avoiding the creation of situations that would call for it. Unfortunately, the U.S. criminal justice system has adopted a wide range of criminal law rules and procedures that regularly and intentionally produce gross failures of justice.

These doctrines of disillusionment may provoke vigilante acts, but not in numbers that make it a serious practical problem. More damaging is their tendency to provoke what might be called "shadow vigilantism," in which ordinary people manipulate and subvert the criminal justice system to compel it to impose the justice that they see it as reluctant to impose. Unfortunately, shadow vigilantism can be widespread and impossible to effectively prosecute, leaving the system's justness seriously distorted. This, in turn, can provoke a damaging anti-system response, as in the Stop Snitching movement, that further degrades the system's reputation for doing justice, producing a downward spiral of lost credibility and deference. We would all be better off – citizens and offenders alike – if this dirty war had never started.

What is needed is a re-examination of all of the doctrines of disillusionment, with an eye toward reformulating them to promote the interests they protect in ways that avoid gross failures of justice. ..Source.. by Paul H. Robinson, University of Pennsylvania Law School

How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes?

January 2008:

In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”

But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “There is no research support for that view, period.” Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”

Yet incorporating convicted sex offenders’ undetected crimes can lead to higher numbers, such as one controversial Canadian study that found long-term recidivism could be as high as 88.3%. (It was debated in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2006.) Critics say that rate was artificially increased by the study’s design.

This isn’t just an academic exercise. The conventional wisdom on sex-crime recidivism, coupled with high-profile sex crimes against children, has helped spur the spate of registry and neighbor-notification laws, even before they could be properly studied for their impact on recidivism rates. Several researchers, including Dr. Doren, say that residency-restriction laws may be counterproductive. Such a constraint “drives them out of their community, and leads to a lack of stability,” said Karen J. Terry, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York. “Those are some of the underlying conditions that caused them to abuse in the first place.” A consensus on how to measure recidivism, and determine its baseline rate, would help evaluate such laws.

This research is expensive and long-term follow-ups are, by definition, slow to produce results. Even if we were to know whether rates have declined in recent years, it would be difficult to isolate the cause. Dr. Doren proposes several alternate explanations for his perception that rates have declined in recent years, including better and more frequent treatment, and closer monitoring.

Meanwhile, the existing research raises tough questions about the relative danger child molesters pose to society. Their likelihood of being convicted for a crime after release is much lower than average for all criminals released from prison, and even for all sex offenders, at least in the short term, as measured by a Bureau of Justice Statistics study and others. Yet their crimes, when they do repeat child abuse, are unusually harmful, and their victims particularly vulnerable. Does that justify the closer monitoring of child molesters after release, compared with other criminals? Dr. Doren isn’t sure, pointing out, for example, that convicted rapists are more likely to re-offend in the years immediately after release, and more likely to commit other violent crimes. “If we’re concerned about violence generically, it’s rapists we should be concerned about” in the short term, he said.

What do you think? What is the best way to measure recidivism rates, and what should be measured? Do the numbers justify registries and neighbor notification? Please let me know in the comments.

Further reading: Other newspapers previously have pointed out that measured recidivism rates appear to contradict conventional wisdom. Some states are attempting to fine-tune their post-release plans for sex offenders based on differing rates of recividism; here’s an article about the plan in Texas. Illustrating the difficulty of measuring the effect of interventions on recidivism rates, a Canadian study found that sex offenders who completed treatment were far less likely to re-offend — but that may not mean the treatment itself was successful. Instead, it might just demonstrate that a willingness to complete treatment is an indicator of other factors that diminish the likelihood of repeating a sexual crime. ..Source.. by Carl Bialik, Wall Street Journal

Mental Health Professionals' Perspectives on Sex Offender Registry Web Sites

1998:

Abstract:
In an attempt to reduce the occurrence of childhood sexual abuse, some state governments have passed legislation allowing the public access to sex offender registries. One of the ways this access is granted is through the world wide web (web). There is, however, limited research on the impact this type of community notification has on actual rates of child sexual abuse. This study investigates the opinions of 133 mental health professionals who work with sex offenders regarding the implications of public sex offender registry web sites. Over 80% of the participants in this study do not believe that sex offender registry sites will affect the number of children who are sexually abused each year. Seventy percent of the respondents also believe that a listing of sex offenders on the web will create a false sense of security for parents, and over 60% of the respondents believe that sex offenders who are listed on these sites will become targets of vigilantism in their community. Implications for future research are provided.

Key Words: sex offender - registry - world wide web - child - sexual abuse ..more.. by Alvin Malesky and Jeanmarie Keim, 100 Ball Education, Counseling, Educational Psychology and Research, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee, 38152

Vigilantism as community social control: Developing a quantitative criminological model

1998:

Abstract:
This paper presents the first systematic quantitative examination of participation in vigilante behavior. Data collected as part of a larger study of Jewish settler violence in the Israeli-controlled West Bank region are used to analyze the factors that lead members of a community to become involved in vigilante violence. Using logistic regression techniques it is found that settlers who fulfill requirements of the vigilante role and those located in outposts where the demand for vigilantes is greatest are most likely to be involved in vigilante activities. In conclusion, it is argued that these findings provide strong support for a criminological model of vigilante behavior that emphasizes the role of the vigilante as an agent of community social control.

Key words vigilantism - criminal social control - social control - logit regression - West Bank Jewish settlers ..more.. by David Weisburd, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University, 07102 Newark, New Jersey

Countermovement vigilantism and human rights

1996:

Abstract:
Vigilante groups designed to counter dissident movements are common across the world. Although these groups systematically violate the rights of citizens, little theoretical work has examined the phenomenon. The paper develops a theory and set of corresponding propositions on the origins, behaviors, and consequences of counter-dissident vigilantism. The implications for promoting international human rights are then discussed.

Groups of private citizens designed to counter dissident movements have become a major concern of human rights organizations. Not only are counter-dissident vigilantes responsible for violations of rights in a wide variety of settings, but rights workers are often themselves the victims of their attacks. The paper develops a theory and set of propositions about counterdissident vigilantism and concludes with strategic implications for rights organizations. ..more.. by David Kowalewski, Division of Social Sciences, Alfred University, 14802 Alfred, NY, USA

Criminal Law Beyond the State: Popular Trials on the Frontier

2006:

Abstract:
Before the civil war, “lynching” signified all forms of group-inflicted punishments, including vigilantism and mob killings. By this definition, lynchings happen in every country. Only in America, however, was lynching widespread and socially accepted. Scholars say this shows that the American commitment to due process often succumbed to “vigilante values,” that is, the desire for speedy, certain and severe penalties. They contend that vigilante values triumphed over due process on the frontier, where courts were weak and vigilance committees strong. This article demonstrates that this view must be substantially qualified because due process was of great concern to Americans on the frontier, especially with respect to members of their own communities.

The core of the article is a comprehensive study of law in the California gold rush. The thousands of publications on lynching have simply missed this critical chapter in American legal history. Hundreds of accounts of lynchings or “trials” (the miners used the terms interchangeably) indicate that most suspects were tried before a judge and an impartial jury, and some were acquitted. Lynchings or trials in the gold mines thus often resembled those on the overland trail studied by John Reid. This article further suggests that similar trials were common on the frontier. Scholars have failed to distinguish these rather poorly documented proceedings from the activities of vigilance committees, thereby omitting an important factor in their studies of the American legal experience. The importance of due process to Americans, even in crowds, and even beyond the reach of the courts, must now be reassessed. ..more.. by ANDREA MCDOWELL, Seton Hall Law School

VIGILANTISM REVISITED: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE LAW OF EXTRAJUDICIAL SELF-HELP OR WHY CAN’T DICK SHOOT HENRY FOR STEALING JANE’S TRUCK?

1998 National:

INTRODUCTION
In a small town in Texas, citizens band together to confront and harass drug dealers, ultimately driving the dealers from their neighborhood. The local police praise the community for organizing “a legalized vigilante movement.”1 In Oakland, California, housing complex residents use threats of civil law suits to prompt building owners to evict criminals. The residents’ leader describes the process as “cheap, safe and fast justice.”2 In Dallas, Texas, a group of mall security guards whip four youths with belts and canes after the youths admit to stealing from a mall store.3 A grand jury refuses to indict the guards for their actions.4 In each case, citizens chose to supplement established legal norms by administering their own brand of criminal justice. In each instance, many in the community applauded the “vigilante” action.

Then why would the legal system treat these situations so differently— praising the two former but bringing judicial process to bear in the latter? The mantra “violence is bad” is surely too simplistic; our criminal justice system regularly countenances the use of force to maintain and encourage legal compliance.5 Moreover, the law does not limit this express approval to governmental actors. Within strictly specified bounds, private citizens may use force to protect themselves, 6 their property,7 and others8 from unlawful intrusion. American society does not merely tolerate violent self-help, it promotes it as necessary and beneficial conduct.9

Why does vigilantism occur? Why does the law prohibit certain “vigilante” activities while allowing others? Does the current level of prohibition make sense? This essay utilizes a social wealth maximization model in an attempt to answer these questions and to rationalize the apparent disparity between vigilantism and legally justified selfhelp. Part I addresses the definition and historical roots of vigilantism, Part II develops a framework for analyzing extra-judicial selfhelp, and Part III applies this framework to the questions at hand. ..more.. by KELLY D. HINE