- Email: [email protected]
Knowledge of police and court procedures and respect for the law a survey
Journal OfCriminalJurricc. Vol.5,pp.329-338(1977). Pergamon Ress. Riotedin U.S.A.
KNOWLEDGE OF POLICE AND COURT PROCEDURES AND RESPECT FOR THE LAW A SURVEY ELIZABETHD. LAKIND 356 Hillside Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
DAVID W. SUSSMAN Student, Law School Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 RICHARD GROSS Mental Health Center Hahnemann Medical Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19 139
ABSTRACT Data were collected measuring knowledge of procedures and civil liberty protections in the juvenile justice system. !n addition, questions from the Rundquist-Sletto Respect for Law Scale were used to assess attitudes toward the system. Three hundred ninety-six subjects, selected through stratified random sampling, were instructed to answer twenty-eight forced-choice questions on procedures and six Guttman-type scale questions on attitudes toward authority, all presented in the context of a brief scenario. Subjects were also asked to indicate age, sex, race, and previous arrest. Several questions were identified as applications of the Mirandadecision, and the hypothesis was confirmed that these would be most often answered correctly by all subjects. A brief survey of the development of a separate juvenile justice system is presented. The authors concluded that by relying on informal channels of communication about its role, the court does not meet its obligation to educate the public.
329
330
ELIZABETH D. LalUND. DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
OVERVIEW The juvenile courts established at the turn of the century in the United States were the product of a reform movement devoted to the welfare of children. The traditional procedures and goals of the criminal court were considered too harsh for young people, and the advocates of a paren parriue approach argued for rehabilitation rather than punishment in the service of deterrence. A doctrine developed that stressed the removal of misbehaving youths from the authoritative milieu of the criminal courts, and proposed that they be put under the protection of a court specifically for juveniles. This agency would place the welfare and development of the child as its foremost concern and make the determination of guilt or innocence and subsequent punishment of only secondary importance. The juvenile justice system has always, however, faced conflicts in applying its philosophy of individual justice, understanding, and paternalistic rehabilitation. Powerful social forces have urged a return to a position of harsh punishment to stem the appalling rise of juvenile crime. The high and apparently irreducible rate of recidivism for juveniles underscores the inadequacies of the system. Further, there is evidence to support the notion that exposure to the coutt may actually be detrimental to the child via a process of labeling that is subsequently reinforced by family, neighbors, teachers, and peers. In subtle ways, an expectation of delinquent conduct is communicated. In programs that rely on institutionalization, these unfortunate consequences may only be exacerbated. A *more complex problem in the administration of juvenile justice is judicial discretion in decision making. Although the rationale is one of individual and private justice secured through the benevolence of the court, often this has taken the form of protected capriciousness or outright prejudice against certain groups. And it effectively eliminated the protections to civil liberty that were gradually accepted for adults. As Chief Justice Fortas recognized in the case of Kenr v. Unired States (383 U.S. 541, 556; 1966) “There is evidence . . . that the child receives the worst of both worlds, that he gets neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.”
INTRODUCTION In attempting to balance the competing demands of protection to society and justice for the juvenile offender, the court has established procedures and regulations that differ from those in adult court. While many of us feel confused and somewhat alienated when dealing with the justice system in all its intricacy, this is compounded for juveniles because of both their relative inexperience and the uniqueness of the legal system they must deal with. A search of the literature revealed very few studies that determine what knowledge juveniles have of court procedures and their guaranteed rights. Attempts have been made by various groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union or Offices of the Public Defender, to prepare infonnational pamphlets that explain the role of one’s lawyer to parents and children. But there is little or no baseline data about what actually is understood about police and court procedures. Rafky and Sealey (1975) examined the responses of eleventh graders to questions on “law in general,” as well as others on vehicles of protest, privacy, and due process in suspension from school. They found a wide range of informational difference, from only twelve percent responses on the question, “Do you have a legal right to keep in your school locker a licensed gun or a knife?” to eighty-seven percent correct responses on, “Do you have a legal right to wear your hair in a manner which is offensive to the personal taste of the principal ?” They examined these responses in terms of student background, including demographic variables, behavior, and attitudes. None of these was
Knowledge of Police and Court Rocedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
331
associated with student knowledge of the law. Using a number of statements from the RundquistSletto Respect for Law Scale (1936), they found differences only between those who had been arrested versus those who had never been arrested-the former were more cynical on each of nine items. Clark and Wenninger ( 1964) also studied sentiment toward the law, and surveyed the attitudes of juveniles. They concluded that “the greater the involvement in illegal conduct . . . the more negative the attitude toward the legal institution.*’ While both these studies were helpful in assessing juveniles’ attitudes, neither provided comparison with an adult group (and the same is true for issues of information). Examining patterns of political socialization in black and white children, Greenberg (1970) found a decline in positive support for authority figures with increasing age, but we do not know if this holds true for differences between juveniles and adults. Further, Rafky and Sealy (1975) did not provide significance levels for their data, and without raw data one cannot determine the importance of apparent differences. Clark and Wenninger (1964) were not concerned with information, but solely with attitudes. A study was undertaken in hopes of providing baseline data about knowledge of our juvenile justice system as well as attitudinal measures of cynicism about authority. The demographic variables of our respondents were considered by asking about age, race, sex, and arrest record. Both adult and juvenile populations were sampled, with the expectation that data would be used in preparing either a manual or a film on the juvenile justice system. The following hypotheses were developed both on the evidence of the previously cited studies and in light of the demographic profile of Philadelphia’s court population: 1. Previous arrest will lead to a better knowledge of the procedures of both police and court, and will also show greater cynicism. 2. Through mote police and court contact, nonwhites will have a better procedural knowledge and increased cynicism. 3. Based on the proportion of males and females for armst rates, it was predicted that males would be more cynical and better informed than females. 4. No pndictions were ma& about age differences for either informational or attitudinal measures. 5. It was expected that the highest proportion of correct responses would occur on those questions that represented applications of the iUirun& decision (the right to remain silent, the right to inform parents of an arrest, and the right to counsel). METHODOLOGY
The data used to confirm or reject these hypotheses were obtained from the responses of 3% subjects randomly sampled in Philadelphia. Twenty-eight forced-choice questions measuring the respondent’s kno’wledge of police and court procedures were developed from observation of the actual arrest, intake, and hearing progression. These were presented in scenarios to make the discrete events in the process easier to understand. The second series of questions provided a Guttman-type scale designed to measure the attitudes of individuals towards the legal institution. The primary source of items for this series was the Rundquist-Sletto Law Scale, as used by Clark and Wenninger ( 1964). Also included were the four single-item demographic questions referring to age, race, sex, and arrest record. A pilot questionnaire was administered to elicit feedback from a similar sample of respondents and to verify that there was sufficient variance among them to justify further analysis.
332
ELIZABETH D. LaKIND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
The sample was stratified by three dichotomous independent variables; age (either younger or older than eighteen), sex (male or female), and race (nonwhite or white). A fourth dichotomy was added through the race of the protagonist, either black or white; this was designed to control for racial identification bias in interpreting the scenario. Sampling sites were selected to approximate an equal distribution of subjects among cells. Two high schools, several fast-food establishments, one community college, and one university campus were used. Random subjects were approached by experimenters who solicited their cooperation in completing a brief questionnaire. The sampling was done on an individual basis to minimize group efforts; to minimize deliberate falsification and suspicion, anonymity was guaranteed.
RESULTS Knowledge
of Police and Court Procedures
As can be seen in table 1, the hypothesis that previous arrest will lead to a better knowledge of police and court procedures was not confirmed. Those arrested offered significantly more correct responses on only one question (question 27, p
TABLE KNOWtiDGE
1
OF E’ROCEDURES
(PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES)
Age Procedures
All
18+
Race NonwhrWhite
Sex Male Female
Previous Arrest Yes No
Police
Procedures
56.451~
56.25
56.73
54.77
58.37
56.33
56.57
55.27
56.70
Coun F’mcedures
70.02b
64.80
71.35’
67.31
69.43
70.89
69.22
68.97
68.87
’ Nonsignificant trend, p
Knowledgeof Police aad COW-IProcedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
333
Although it was predicted that males would be better informed than females, this was only slightly supported by the data. For white respondents on court items, males were correct significantly more often than females. Item analysis indicated that males Were significantly more correct on five court items, while females were more often correct only once. For one police item, females were more often correct (question 9, p
TABLE 2
KN~~LE~E 0F IWMVDA PR~CEIXJRES (PERCENTAGEOF CORRECT RE~P~IWS)
Age Question
AN
<18-
18-k
Race NonwhrWhite
Sex MaieFemale
Previous Arrest Yes No
Does Jim have to answer questions?
91.48
90.4
91.9
90.5
92.4
89.4
93.4
84.6
93.0a
Can Jim call his parents?
94.41
95.5
93.9
95.5
94.0
92.0
97Sb
84.6
96.6’
At the trial will ’ Jim he appointed a lawyer if he can’t afford one? 89.80
88.6
90.8
93.9
85.9*
85.9
93.4b
94.0
89.6
All three questions
91.90
aNonsignificanttrend, bpc0.03. c pco.001. d pco.02.
p
334
ELIZABETH D. LaKIND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
was confinned for each question as well as for the aggregate, with 91.90 percent of respondents indicating the correct answer to these items. In additional analysis, it appeared that on only one question, referring to the right to appointed counsel, was there any difference at all in response of subgroups. White males were not as well informed on this issue as either nonwhite males or white females. However, this was a relative difference since 79.5 percent of white males did answer the item correctly. Attitudinal Measures:
Cynicism
Data reported in table 3 strongly support the hypothesis that previous arrest leads to greater cynicism on attitudinal measures about authority. Those subjects reporting a previous arrest were significantly more cynical on four of six items measuring respect for law and legal institutions. They were less likely to agree that police officers are honest (p
DISCUSSION Although the overall findings provided only weak support on most of the hypotheses, they did help sketch a picture of the relationship between the lay person and the juvenile justice system. Further, in addition to baseline data about knowledge of procedures, evidence was found to strengthen the findings of previous investigations. Several methodological issues deserve discussion. In retrospect, the authors regret the omission of additional demographic variables such as educational level. Since subjects were randomly sampled, it is possible that arrested and net arrested differences may have been confounded with other and perhaps unknown variables. Moreover, one may be suspicious of the question of previous arrest. There is no control over subject interpretation of “arrest”; for some, it may have meant being brought into a police station, while for others it may have included pre-adjudicatory and adjudicatory hearings. There is no certainty that subjects responded honestly to the question of arrest. And no question was asked about the severity of offense. Beyond consideration of the relative responses of different groups of subjects, one must turn to the absolute figures for real-world implications. The absolute responses, i.e., percentage of correct answers, were considerably less gloomy than one might have supposed. On only 27 percent of
Knowledge
335
of Police and Coutt Prucedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
TABLE 3 C~~WXSMABOUT THE LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEM (MEAN RESF~NSE)’
Age
Race NonwhrWhite 178 I83
Sex Male-Female 174 189
Previous Arrest Yes No 286 45
AN n=
<18159
18 + 195
On the whole, policeman are honest.
2.3974
2.434
2.369
2.17Sb
2.629
2.466
2.333
1.889
2.476
On the whole, judges are honest.
2.8383
2.818
2.856
2.703d
2.983
2.988
2.704d
2.523’
2.881
A person should tell the truth in court, no matter what.
3.9693
4.051
3.877
4.033
3.893
3.867
4.037
3.54s’
4.073
It’s OK to lie in court in order to protect a friend who is on trial.
1.8660
1.871
1.907
I.%2
1.781
1.918
1.836
2.422b
1.751
In the courts a poor man has the same chance as rich man,
1.6756
1.924
1.508b
1.907
1.4S8b
1.622
I.735
1.794
1.619
Almost anything can be fixed up in the courts, if you have enough money or influence.
3.9572
3.860
4.026
3.890
4.023
4.011
3.591’
4.021’
Statements
a On a scale from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). b p~O.001. c pCO.01. d pco.02. e p-Co.05. NOTE: Superscript appears above more cynical
3.901
mean response.
information items did any one group achieve 30 percent or less correct response rate. As the mean scores illustrate, 54.77 percent was the lowest percentage of correct answers for any group of items for any group of subjects. Knowledge of court procedures seemed to be particularly high among the general population, with an overall percentage of 70.02 percent correct responses, and a low of 64.80 percent correct answers. Given the diffkulty of some of the questions, these percentages were encouragingly high.
336
ELJZABETH D. LaJUND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN
and RICHARD GROSS
Respondents in general seemed to be well aware of their Miranda rights. This might be an artifact of pop culture, conveyed through the mass and electronic media. As one young offender stated, “I got a right to remain silent! You guys can’t trick me; I know my rights! I \~*ar&TV!” (Hentoff, 1972). The almost universal knowledge of these civil liberty protections was a reassuring fmding. The attitudinal measures, on the other hand, spoke quite gloomily of the cynicism in all groups. Young or old, black or white, male or female-not one group crossed the midpoint in agreement with the statement about police officers’ honesty. Not one group was in less than extreme disagreement with the statement, “In the courts a poor man has the same chance as a rich man,” while everyone clearly did agree that caurt decisions could be bought by money or influence. On the other hand, those questions that referred to personal honesty elicited responses that were much more positive. Everyone agreed that one should tell the truth; no one agreed that it was OK to lie. These measures suggested that confidence in the integrity of the individual, notably expectations of personal truthfulness, were quite high; it was the system and its servants that were perceived as dishonest and inequitable. As with the proverbial half glass of water, however, these findings could also be viewed as either half full or half empty. They are far from demonstrating widespread understanding of court, and especially police procedures. That only 55.27 percent of answers by those who had been previously arrested were correct on police items does not speak well for the educational value of the experience. Firsthand exposure made negligible difference in knowledge of police or court procedures. Contact with the system manifestly did not teach; if such contact mystified, then it will alienate even further those who confront the legal institutions. Through its reliance on informal and potentially unreliable channels of communication, our system of juvenile justice does not meet an obligation to educate. Courts, schools, the media, and’ direct service personnel must present the theory and operation of the system in a way that will facilitate comprehension by those most directly affected, the kids.
ACRNOWLEDGEMBNTS This study was supported in part by a grant fromthe Urban Studies Department of The Universityof Pennsylvania. The authors wish to thank Dr. Lucy J. Creevy, Chairman, for her generosity and assistance, and Dr. Lawrence Rosen of Temple University, Department of Sociology, for his helpful comments on an earlier dratI of this paper. Part of this paper was presented as “Rids and the Law” at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Convention, May Il. 1977.
REFERENCES Clark, J. P., and Wenmnger, E. P. (1964). The attitude of juveniles toward the legal institution. JOWM~ of criminal law, criminology. and police science, 55482~89. Greenberg, E. S. (1970). Orientations of black and white children to political authority figures. Social science 51:561-71.
quarterly.
Hentoff, N. (1972). Teaching tights to educators: Slow learners. Civil liberties.
April.
Ratlcy, D. M., and SeaJey, R. W. (1975). The adolescent and the law: A survey. Journal of crime and drlinyurncy. 21:131-38. Rundquist, E. A., and Sletto, R. F. (1936). Personality in the Depression. Child Welfare Monograph Series, no. 12. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Knowledge of Police and Court Procedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
337
BIBLIOGRAPHY Besharev, D. J. (1974). Juvenile jusrice advocacy. New York: Practising Law Institute. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). An act relating to the care, guidance. control, trial. placement and committment of delinquent and deprived children. Act of the General Assembly No. 333. Kruglanski, A. W. (1973). Much ado about the Volunteer artifacts. 2834854.
Journal
of personalityund
social
psychology.
LaKind, E. D.; Sussman, D. W.; and Gross, R. (1977). Kids and the law: Knowledge of police procedures, court procedures, and cynicism. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meeting, 11May, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Levitt, M., and Sarri, R. C. (1974). Juvenile delinquency: Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Ress.
A comparative analysis of legal codes in the U. S.
Lipsitt, P. D. (1%8). The juvenile offender’s perceptions.
Journal of crime and delinquency,
1:49-62.
Lupfer, M., and Kwanny, C. T. (1974). Watergate is just a bunch of honky jive. Paperpresentedat themeeting of the;American Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
KNOWLEDGE OF POLICE AND COURT PROCEDURES AND RESPECT FOR THE LAW A SURVEY ELIZABETHD. LAKIND 356 Hillside Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
DAVID W. SUSSMAN Student, Law School Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 RICHARD GROSS Mental Health Center Hahnemann Medical Hospital Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19 139
ABSTRACT Data were collected measuring knowledge of procedures and civil liberty protections in the juvenile justice system. !n addition, questions from the Rundquist-Sletto Respect for Law Scale were used to assess attitudes toward the system. Three hundred ninety-six subjects, selected through stratified random sampling, were instructed to answer twenty-eight forced-choice questions on procedures and six Guttman-type scale questions on attitudes toward authority, all presented in the context of a brief scenario. Subjects were also asked to indicate age, sex, race, and previous arrest. Several questions were identified as applications of the Mirandadecision, and the hypothesis was confirmed that these would be most often answered correctly by all subjects. A brief survey of the development of a separate juvenile justice system is presented. The authors concluded that by relying on informal channels of communication about its role, the court does not meet its obligation to educate the public.
329
330
ELIZABETH D. LalUND. DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
OVERVIEW The juvenile courts established at the turn of the century in the United States were the product of a reform movement devoted to the welfare of children. The traditional procedures and goals of the criminal court were considered too harsh for young people, and the advocates of a paren parriue approach argued for rehabilitation rather than punishment in the service of deterrence. A doctrine developed that stressed the removal of misbehaving youths from the authoritative milieu of the criminal courts, and proposed that they be put under the protection of a court specifically for juveniles. This agency would place the welfare and development of the child as its foremost concern and make the determination of guilt or innocence and subsequent punishment of only secondary importance. The juvenile justice system has always, however, faced conflicts in applying its philosophy of individual justice, understanding, and paternalistic rehabilitation. Powerful social forces have urged a return to a position of harsh punishment to stem the appalling rise of juvenile crime. The high and apparently irreducible rate of recidivism for juveniles underscores the inadequacies of the system. Further, there is evidence to support the notion that exposure to the coutt may actually be detrimental to the child via a process of labeling that is subsequently reinforced by family, neighbors, teachers, and peers. In subtle ways, an expectation of delinquent conduct is communicated. In programs that rely on institutionalization, these unfortunate consequences may only be exacerbated. A *more complex problem in the administration of juvenile justice is judicial discretion in decision making. Although the rationale is one of individual and private justice secured through the benevolence of the court, often this has taken the form of protected capriciousness or outright prejudice against certain groups. And it effectively eliminated the protections to civil liberty that were gradually accepted for adults. As Chief Justice Fortas recognized in the case of Kenr v. Unired States (383 U.S. 541, 556; 1966) “There is evidence . . . that the child receives the worst of both worlds, that he gets neither the protection accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.”
INTRODUCTION In attempting to balance the competing demands of protection to society and justice for the juvenile offender, the court has established procedures and regulations that differ from those in adult court. While many of us feel confused and somewhat alienated when dealing with the justice system in all its intricacy, this is compounded for juveniles because of both their relative inexperience and the uniqueness of the legal system they must deal with. A search of the literature revealed very few studies that determine what knowledge juveniles have of court procedures and their guaranteed rights. Attempts have been made by various groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union or Offices of the Public Defender, to prepare infonnational pamphlets that explain the role of one’s lawyer to parents and children. But there is little or no baseline data about what actually is understood about police and court procedures. Rafky and Sealey (1975) examined the responses of eleventh graders to questions on “law in general,” as well as others on vehicles of protest, privacy, and due process in suspension from school. They found a wide range of informational difference, from only twelve percent responses on the question, “Do you have a legal right to keep in your school locker a licensed gun or a knife?” to eighty-seven percent correct responses on, “Do you have a legal right to wear your hair in a manner which is offensive to the personal taste of the principal ?” They examined these responses in terms of student background, including demographic variables, behavior, and attitudes. None of these was
Knowledge of Police and Court Rocedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
331
associated with student knowledge of the law. Using a number of statements from the RundquistSletto Respect for Law Scale (1936), they found differences only between those who had been arrested versus those who had never been arrested-the former were more cynical on each of nine items. Clark and Wenninger ( 1964) also studied sentiment toward the law, and surveyed the attitudes of juveniles. They concluded that “the greater the involvement in illegal conduct . . . the more negative the attitude toward the legal institution.*’ While both these studies were helpful in assessing juveniles’ attitudes, neither provided comparison with an adult group (and the same is true for issues of information). Examining patterns of political socialization in black and white children, Greenberg (1970) found a decline in positive support for authority figures with increasing age, but we do not know if this holds true for differences between juveniles and adults. Further, Rafky and Sealy (1975) did not provide significance levels for their data, and without raw data one cannot determine the importance of apparent differences. Clark and Wenninger (1964) were not concerned with information, but solely with attitudes. A study was undertaken in hopes of providing baseline data about knowledge of our juvenile justice system as well as attitudinal measures of cynicism about authority. The demographic variables of our respondents were considered by asking about age, race, sex, and arrest record. Both adult and juvenile populations were sampled, with the expectation that data would be used in preparing either a manual or a film on the juvenile justice system. The following hypotheses were developed both on the evidence of the previously cited studies and in light of the demographic profile of Philadelphia’s court population: 1. Previous arrest will lead to a better knowledge of the procedures of both police and court, and will also show greater cynicism. 2. Through mote police and court contact, nonwhites will have a better procedural knowledge and increased cynicism. 3. Based on the proportion of males and females for armst rates, it was predicted that males would be more cynical and better informed than females. 4. No pndictions were ma& about age differences for either informational or attitudinal measures. 5. It was expected that the highest proportion of correct responses would occur on those questions that represented applications of the iUirun& decision (the right to remain silent, the right to inform parents of an arrest, and the right to counsel). METHODOLOGY
The data used to confirm or reject these hypotheses were obtained from the responses of 3% subjects randomly sampled in Philadelphia. Twenty-eight forced-choice questions measuring the respondent’s kno’wledge of police and court procedures were developed from observation of the actual arrest, intake, and hearing progression. These were presented in scenarios to make the discrete events in the process easier to understand. The second series of questions provided a Guttman-type scale designed to measure the attitudes of individuals towards the legal institution. The primary source of items for this series was the Rundquist-Sletto Law Scale, as used by Clark and Wenninger ( 1964). Also included were the four single-item demographic questions referring to age, race, sex, and arrest record. A pilot questionnaire was administered to elicit feedback from a similar sample of respondents and to verify that there was sufficient variance among them to justify further analysis.
332
ELIZABETH D. LaKIND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
The sample was stratified by three dichotomous independent variables; age (either younger or older than eighteen), sex (male or female), and race (nonwhite or white). A fourth dichotomy was added through the race of the protagonist, either black or white; this was designed to control for racial identification bias in interpreting the scenario. Sampling sites were selected to approximate an equal distribution of subjects among cells. Two high schools, several fast-food establishments, one community college, and one university campus were used. Random subjects were approached by experimenters who solicited their cooperation in completing a brief questionnaire. The sampling was done on an individual basis to minimize group efforts; to minimize deliberate falsification and suspicion, anonymity was guaranteed.
RESULTS Knowledge
of Police and Court Procedures
As can be seen in table 1, the hypothesis that previous arrest will lead to a better knowledge of police and court procedures was not confirmed. Those arrested offered significantly more correct responses on only one question (question 27, p
TABLE KNOWtiDGE
1
OF E’ROCEDURES
(PERCENTAGE OF CORRECT RESPONSES)
Age Procedures
All
18+
Race NonwhrWhite
Sex Male Female
Previous Arrest Yes No
Police
Procedures
56.451~
56.25
56.73
54.77
58.37
56.33
56.57
55.27
56.70
Coun F’mcedures
70.02b
64.80
71.35’
67.31
69.43
70.89
69.22
68.97
68.87
’ Nonsignificant trend, p
Knowledgeof Police aad COW-IProcedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
333
Although it was predicted that males would be better informed than females, this was only slightly supported by the data. For white respondents on court items, males were correct significantly more often than females. Item analysis indicated that males Were significantly more correct on five court items, while females were more often correct only once. For one police item, females were more often correct (question 9, p
TABLE 2
KN~~LE~E 0F IWMVDA PR~CEIXJRES (PERCENTAGEOF CORRECT RE~P~IWS)
Age Question
AN
<18-
18-k
Race NonwhrWhite
Sex MaieFemale
Previous Arrest Yes No
Does Jim have to answer questions?
91.48
90.4
91.9
90.5
92.4
89.4
93.4
84.6
93.0a
Can Jim call his parents?
94.41
95.5
93.9
95.5
94.0
92.0
97Sb
84.6
96.6’
At the trial will ’ Jim he appointed a lawyer if he can’t afford one? 89.80
88.6
90.8
93.9
85.9*
85.9
93.4b
94.0
89.6
All three questions
91.90
aNonsignificanttrend, bpc0.03. c pco.001. d pco.02.
p
334
ELIZABETH D. LaKIND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN and RICHARD GROSS
was confinned for each question as well as for the aggregate, with 91.90 percent of respondents indicating the correct answer to these items. In additional analysis, it appeared that on only one question, referring to the right to appointed counsel, was there any difference at all in response of subgroups. White males were not as well informed on this issue as either nonwhite males or white females. However, this was a relative difference since 79.5 percent of white males did answer the item correctly. Attitudinal Measures:
Cynicism
Data reported in table 3 strongly support the hypothesis that previous arrest leads to greater cynicism on attitudinal measures about authority. Those subjects reporting a previous arrest were significantly more cynical on four of six items measuring respect for law and legal institutions. They were less likely to agree that police officers are honest (p
DISCUSSION Although the overall findings provided only weak support on most of the hypotheses, they did help sketch a picture of the relationship between the lay person and the juvenile justice system. Further, in addition to baseline data about knowledge of procedures, evidence was found to strengthen the findings of previous investigations. Several methodological issues deserve discussion. In retrospect, the authors regret the omission of additional demographic variables such as educational level. Since subjects were randomly sampled, it is possible that arrested and net arrested differences may have been confounded with other and perhaps unknown variables. Moreover, one may be suspicious of the question of previous arrest. There is no control over subject interpretation of “arrest”; for some, it may have meant being brought into a police station, while for others it may have included pre-adjudicatory and adjudicatory hearings. There is no certainty that subjects responded honestly to the question of arrest. And no question was asked about the severity of offense. Beyond consideration of the relative responses of different groups of subjects, one must turn to the absolute figures for real-world implications. The absolute responses, i.e., percentage of correct answers, were considerably less gloomy than one might have supposed. On only 27 percent of
Knowledge
335
of Police and Coutt Prucedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
TABLE 3 C~~WXSMABOUT THE LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEM (MEAN RESF~NSE)’
Age
Race NonwhrWhite 178 I83
Sex Male-Female 174 189
Previous Arrest Yes No 286 45
AN n=
<18159
18 + 195
On the whole, policeman are honest.
2.3974
2.434
2.369
2.17Sb
2.629
2.466
2.333
1.889
2.476
On the whole, judges are honest.
2.8383
2.818
2.856
2.703d
2.983
2.988
2.704d
2.523’
2.881
A person should tell the truth in court, no matter what.
3.9693
4.051
3.877
4.033
3.893
3.867
4.037
3.54s’
4.073
It’s OK to lie in court in order to protect a friend who is on trial.
1.8660
1.871
1.907
I.%2
1.781
1.918
1.836
2.422b
1.751
In the courts a poor man has the same chance as rich man,
1.6756
1.924
1.508b
1.907
1.4S8b
1.622
I.735
1.794
1.619
Almost anything can be fixed up in the courts, if you have enough money or influence.
3.9572
3.860
4.026
3.890
4.023
4.011
3.591’
4.021’
Statements
a On a scale from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). b p~O.001. c pCO.01. d pco.02. e p-Co.05. NOTE: Superscript appears above more cynical
3.901
mean response.
information items did any one group achieve 30 percent or less correct response rate. As the mean scores illustrate, 54.77 percent was the lowest percentage of correct answers for any group of items for any group of subjects. Knowledge of court procedures seemed to be particularly high among the general population, with an overall percentage of 70.02 percent correct responses, and a low of 64.80 percent correct answers. Given the diffkulty of some of the questions, these percentages were encouragingly high.
336
ELJZABETH D. LaJUND, DAVID W. SUSSMAN
and RICHARD GROSS
Respondents in general seemed to be well aware of their Miranda rights. This might be an artifact of pop culture, conveyed through the mass and electronic media. As one young offender stated, “I got a right to remain silent! You guys can’t trick me; I know my rights! I \~*ar&TV!” (Hentoff, 1972). The almost universal knowledge of these civil liberty protections was a reassuring fmding. The attitudinal measures, on the other hand, spoke quite gloomily of the cynicism in all groups. Young or old, black or white, male or female-not one group crossed the midpoint in agreement with the statement about police officers’ honesty. Not one group was in less than extreme disagreement with the statement, “In the courts a poor man has the same chance as a rich man,” while everyone clearly did agree that caurt decisions could be bought by money or influence. On the other hand, those questions that referred to personal honesty elicited responses that were much more positive. Everyone agreed that one should tell the truth; no one agreed that it was OK to lie. These measures suggested that confidence in the integrity of the individual, notably expectations of personal truthfulness, were quite high; it was the system and its servants that were perceived as dishonest and inequitable. As with the proverbial half glass of water, however, these findings could also be viewed as either half full or half empty. They are far from demonstrating widespread understanding of court, and especially police procedures. That only 55.27 percent of answers by those who had been previously arrested were correct on police items does not speak well for the educational value of the experience. Firsthand exposure made negligible difference in knowledge of police or court procedures. Contact with the system manifestly did not teach; if such contact mystified, then it will alienate even further those who confront the legal institutions. Through its reliance on informal and potentially unreliable channels of communication, our system of juvenile justice does not meet an obligation to educate. Courts, schools, the media, and’ direct service personnel must present the theory and operation of the system in a way that will facilitate comprehension by those most directly affected, the kids.
ACRNOWLEDGEMBNTS This study was supported in part by a grant fromthe Urban Studies Department of The Universityof Pennsylvania. The authors wish to thank Dr. Lucy J. Creevy, Chairman, for her generosity and assistance, and Dr. Lawrence Rosen of Temple University, Department of Sociology, for his helpful comments on an earlier dratI of this paper. Part of this paper was presented as “Rids and the Law” at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association Convention, May Il. 1977.
REFERENCES Clark, J. P., and Wenmnger, E. P. (1964). The attitude of juveniles toward the legal institution. JOWM~ of criminal law, criminology. and police science, 55482~89. Greenberg, E. S. (1970). Orientations of black and white children to political authority figures. Social science 51:561-71.
quarterly.
Hentoff, N. (1972). Teaching tights to educators: Slow learners. Civil liberties.
April.
Ratlcy, D. M., and SeaJey, R. W. (1975). The adolescent and the law: A survey. Journal of crime and drlinyurncy. 21:131-38. Rundquist, E. A., and Sletto, R. F. (1936). Personality in the Depression. Child Welfare Monograph Series, no. 12. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Knowledge of Police and Court Procedures and Respect for the Law: A Survey
337
BIBLIOGRAPHY Besharev, D. J. (1974). Juvenile jusrice advocacy. New York: Practising Law Institute. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1972). An act relating to the care, guidance. control, trial. placement and committment of delinquent and deprived children. Act of the General Assembly No. 333. Kruglanski, A. W. (1973). Much ado about the Volunteer artifacts. 2834854.
Journal
of personalityund
social
psychology.
LaKind, E. D.; Sussman, D. W.; and Gross, R. (1977). Kids and the law: Knowledge of police procedures, court procedures, and cynicism. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meeting, 11May, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Levitt, M., and Sarri, R. C. (1974). Juvenile delinquency: Ann Arbor, Ml: University of Michigan Ress.
A comparative analysis of legal codes in the U. S.
Lipsitt, P. D. (1%8). The juvenile offender’s perceptions.
Journal of crime and delinquency,
1:49-62.
Lupfer, M., and Kwanny, C. T. (1974). Watergate is just a bunch of honky jive. Paperpresentedat themeeting of the;American Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.