Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Crime
and Social Justice.
http://www.jstor.org
Social
Policy
Criminology in the 1980s:
Progressive Alternatives
to "Law and Order"
Tony Platt
Introduction
From its beginning some ten years ago, "radical criminology" has
matured into a serious and complex academic specialization, an entrenched
participant in the social sciences. No longer can itbe said that there is a single
"radical" tendency. Instead there are several tendencies, and there are even
lively debates takingplace amongMarxists, radicals, and progressive liberals.
In this paper, I want to address an importantdebate that is occurring on
both sides of theAtlantic about how progressives should respond to the right
wing "law and order" campaigns. I will first summarize the important
elements of thisdebate, thenoffer some critical comments, and conclude with
some propositions about the future.
The ideas in this paper represent some of the discussions taking place at
the Institute for the Study ofMilitarism and Economic Crisis (ISMEC) inSan
Francisco, and inCrime and Social Justice. As these ideas are still formative
theDirector of ISMEC.
PLATT
is a staffmember of the Institute for the Study ofMilitarism and Economic Crisis
San Francisco, Editor of Crime and Social Justice, and Professor of Social Work,
State University, Sacramento. This paper was prepared for the Ninth International
1983. It is part of the ongoing research program
Congress on Criminology, Vienna, Sept. 25-30,
TONY
(ISMEC),
California
in criminology of ISMEC,
2701 Folsom
CRIME
AND
SOCIAL
California
94110.
JUSTICE No.
21-22
191
192
Platt
Progressive Alternatives
to "Law
and Order''
The rise of theRight with itspolitics of 4iaw and order" has been widely
noted and commented upon inNorth America, England, and Australia. Much
has been written, mostly in the form of exposes, about its specific national
forms and its relationship to the global crisis of capitalism. In theUnited
States, we are quite familiar with the various manifestations of "law and
order": rising prison population, return of capital punishment, mandatory
sentences, "get tough" legislation, and "deregulation" of theCIA and FBI.
The growth and successes of theRight have generated considerable debate
in theLeft and in progressive circles about the nature of theRight and what
can be done to oppose this trend. The failure of theLeft to seriously address
4
'street'' crime and todevelop progressive alternatives to4 4lawand order'' has
become a controversial topic. For important examples of this debate in
Crime and Social Justice 17 with the publication of Bertram Gross's "Some
Anticrime Proposals for Progressives" and continued in the next two issues
of the journal in 1982 and 1983.
Before moving to our critique of these leftapproaches to crime control, it
will be useful to briefly summarize the major arguments and points of
controversy.
Bertram Gross (1982) criticizes theLeft for not taking crime seriously and
for not generating progressive alternatives to "law and order." All con?
tributors agree on this point, though with different points of emphasis. The
"abstentionism" of theLeft, notes Ian Taylor (1982), has allowed theRight
to capitalize on people's genuine fears and concerns about crime. We need to
"take law and order seriously," says Alan Hunt (1982). "Thinking of new
forms of Left politics and taking popular anxieties seriously" are 4'vital in the
current political movement," concurs Taylor (1982).
The responsibility for this failure is evenly distributed among liberals,
radicals, and Marxists. 4'Liberals and radicals have failed to offer politically
Francis
persuasive programs to combat violent crime," says Gross (1982).
4
Cullen and JohnWozniak, writing from a liberal perspective and 4withsome
.
trepidation that. .our liberal perspective would be quickly discounted by
theLeft for focusing on long-term structural changes in the
criticize
radicals,''
to
the neglect of short-term reforms. Finally, we (Platt,
political economy
193
in the 1980s
1982) argue that theNew Left's approach to crime was politically immature
and strategically confused, reflecting itspetty bourgeois worldview and class
base: 'The 'radical' critique of criminal justice was generally moralistic,
atheoretical,
and
Utopian."
2. Ideological Combat
Several contributors point out the necessity for the Left (I am using this
termvery broadly to include all progressive liberals) both to counter themisin?
formation of theRight and to engage theRight in ideological combat. Cullen
andWozniak (1982), for example, emphasize thatwe need some equivalent
of "truth squads" to "show people that 'get tough' policies are not utilitarian:
they will not lessen crime, make communities safer, nor provide real
assistance to victims; moreover, theywill cost an exorbitant sum ofmoney that
could better be spent elsewhere.'' In sum, theycall for criminologists to bring
reason and clarity to the public debate about "law and order."
A related but differentpoint ismade by Gill Boehringer et al. (1983), Ian
associated with
Taylor (1982), and others following the British "school"
Stuart Hall. They emphasize that crime must be understood, in Taylor's
words, as an "ideological construction," and that, according to Boehringer
and his Australian colleagues, "ideological articulation" iskey tounderstand?
ing and combating the successes of theRight. According to this perspective,
the rise of "law and order" is related to the larger crisis of political authority,
which the Right is exploiting in order to mobilize a new "authoritarian
populism." The crucial task facing theLeft, then, is not somuch the compila?
tion of rational information as
. ."
(Boehringer, 1983).
the "construction
of alternative world
views.
proposals have been made for short-term reforms in criminal justice. Many
of them are familiar and sound much like liberal proposals of the 1960s and
1970s: rape crisis centers, escort services for the elderly, community patrols,
aid for victims (Gross advocates a "Victim's Bill of Rights" which, iron?
ically, is the same name given to a right-wing proposition inCalifornia), a
moratorium on prison construction, restoration of rehabilitative and work pro?
194
Platt
given the nonrevolutionary conditions. At the same time, they also agree that
liberal reforms per se are insufficient. If they did not work in the 1960s and
1970s when liberals were in favor inWashington, D.C.,
they surely will not
work in the 1980s with theReagan administration in power. So, as Gross
(1982) puts it, "What is needed is an anticrime program that incorporates
liberal bromides but goes beyond them."
in thePolitical Economy
5. Community Control
Most of the contributors stress thatgenuine reforms of criminal justice will
only be possible throughpopular initiatives and mobilization at the local level.
Terms like "local control" and "community" are often used interchangeably
in this respect. Gross (1982) calls for programs of community protection and
self-help, citing theGuardian Angels and comparable experiments in Santa
Monica, California. Taylor (1982) cites successful reforms (e.g., to curb
Bute
police abuse) by the "Bennite Left" in England's "little Moscows."
(1982) advocates "neighborhood control" of economic and educational
resources. Boehringer (1983) calls for "authentic" forms of popular justice,
while Raymond Michalowski
(1983) proposes community crime prevention
programs and neighborhood justice systems so thatpeople can "take charge
of theirown existence.'' Many of these proposals, as Iwill discuss later, advo?
cate a vague populism and echo theNew Left's emphasis on localism. "Com?
munity"
terms.
195
in the 1980s
*
warns that 'community-based anticrime programs are still in theexperimental
stage and carry with them a potential for vigilantism that should be watched
vigilantly"; he also notes that full employment is "more an ideal than a goal
thatcould be realized" in the 1980s. Boehringer and his colleagues (1983) are
concerned also about vigilantism, co-optation of reforms, and idealism.
Michalowski
(1983) as well as Ronald Boostrom and Joel Henderson (1983)
can easily
out
that effective community programs are "problematic,"
point
be co-opted and turned against the community, and can lead to vigilantism.
Similarly, we (Platt, 1982) warn against incrementalism and idealism, losing
sight of the forest for the trees.
Critique
In recent years, the lefthas finally recognized thedangers of leaving "law
and order'' to theRight. Many progressive intellectuals and activists now see
the necessity for developing various combinations of short-term reforms and
and
long-term structural changes. They emphasize the need for "local"
"community" control, for immediate interventions in the criminal justice
tendency in
system. Overall, this is a positive development. The "radical"
was
often quite Utopian and stood
criminology, especially in theUnited States,
above and apart from the practical, day-to-day consequences of crime and
criminal justice in working class communities. As "radical criminology"
became more and more radical, it also became more and more disconnected
from any kind of popular base. Not surprisingly, therewas a strong streak of
ultra-leftism in "radical criminology," especially in regards to the prisoners'
movement. So, this new, practical, down-to-earth shift in progressive
196
Platt
"neighborhood"
interests.
that struggle." But once again, they pay littleattention to the organizational
197
in the 1980s
and class context of this struggle. They call for themobilization of progressive
intellectuals to participate in community activism but do not address the dif?
ficulties involved inwinning over intellectuals to thiskind of commitment and
accountability. With strongworking class organizations, this is possible but
stilldifficult, as Antonio Gramsci andmany others since him have pointed out.
3. Socialism and Crime
As I have already mentioned, the new attention to short-term reforms is a
welcome corrective to the utopianism of the past. At the same time, there is
a very real danger that this tendency will become indistinguishable from the
failed liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s, and that the search for long-term
structural solutions will be abandoned. This danger is partly rooted in oppor?
tunism,which is always present when the focus is on immediate reforms. But
it is also very related to the failure of "radical" and "new" criminologists to
198
Platt
REFERENCES
Boehringer, Gill, Dave Brown, Brendan Edgeworth, Russell Hogg, and Ian Ramsay
"'Law and Order' for Progressives?: An Australian Response." Crime and Social
1983
Justice 19.
Boostrom, Ronald and Joel Henderson
Issues." Crime and
1983
"Community Action and Crime Prevention: Some Unresolved
Social Justice 19.
in the 1980s
199
Unpublished
System Perspective."
Economic Crisis, San Francisco.
Hunt, Alan
1982
Mathiesen,
1980
Michalowski,
1983
"Law, Order,
Justice 18.
Thomas
and Socialism:
A Response
to Ian Taylor."
Crime
and Social
Law,
Platt, Tony
1982
Thompson,
1980
London: Macmillan.