Criminology in the 1980s: Progressive Alternatives to "Law and Order"

Author(s): Tony Platt

Source: Crime and Social Justice, No. 21/22, INTERNATIONAL LAWLESSNESS AND THE
SEARCH FOR JUSTICE (1984), pp. 191-199
Published by: Social Justice/Global Options
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766238 .
Accessed: 11/02/2015 04:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

and tentative,we would verymuch welcome your comments and suggestions.

The first part of this paper is based partially on the contributions of Paul
Takagi. The comments on socialism and crime reflect research done with John
Horton. The overall framework of analysis relies a great deal on the theoretical
work ofMarlene Dixon,

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

St., San Francisco,

AND

SOCIAL

California

94110.

JUSTICE No.

21-22

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

Europe, see thewritings of StuartHall et al. (Policing theCrisis, 1978), E.P.

Thompson (Writings by Candlelight, 1980), Ian Taylor (Law and Order:
Arguments for Socialism, 1981), and Thomas Mathiesen (Law, Society and
Political Action, 1980). In theUnited States, a similar assessment is under way
(see, for example, Elliott Currie's articles inWorking Papers, May-June and
July-August, 1982). In order to deepen this debate, Crime and Social Justice
solicited contributions from a wide variety of liberals andMarxists on the topic
of progressive alternatives to 44lawand order." The debate was introduced 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.

1. Failure of theLeft and Progressives

to Provide Alternatives to theRight

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

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Law and Order"

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.

3. Short-Term Reforms in Criminal Justice

There appears to be general agreement with Bertram Gross (1982) that
criminal justice cannot be surrendered to theRight and proponents of "law and
order." The Left has been too preoccupied with a "hypothetical socialist
future," says Gross. We (Platt, 1982) echoed this theme inour critique of the
New Left's utopianism, particularly its failure to address "street" crime.
In order to correct this record of "abstentionism,'' a variety of progressive

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?

grams, abolition ofmandatory sentences, bail reform, community corrections,

prisoners' rights, etc., etc. Thus, we (Platt, 1982), writing from a Marxist
perspective, and Cullen andWozniak (1982), writing from a liberal perspec?
tive, propose very similar short-term reforms.
All of the contributors recognize thenecessity for thiskind of intervention,

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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."

4. Long-Term, Structural Changes

in thePolitical Economy

In varying and differingdegrees, the contributorsgenerally agree that short

term reforms in criminal justice must be linked with long-term structural
changes in the political economy in order to produce any immediate gains (for
a fulldiscussion of thispoint with respect to police reforms, see Platt et al., The
Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove, 1982, especially the last two sections). There
are several familiar proposals regarding long-term reforms: hill employment
(especially as a means to reduce theprison population); redefinitionof criminal
justice priorities in order to target violence against women, corporate crime,

government corruption, health and safety violations, racist violence, etc.;

decentralization of the economic and political system to increase local control;
reformof the tax system; increasing theminimum wage, etc. (Cullen andWoz
niak, 1982; Boehringer et al., 1983; Michalowski,
1983).
It is not always clear in these proposals how or why long-term changes in
thepolitical economy will generate or reinforce reforms in thecriminal justice
system. The exception is the relationship between unemployment and prison
rates, a proposition forwhich there is considerable evidence and specificity.

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"

is generally used metaphorically and presented in classless

terms.

6. Cautions and Reservations

The attempts to construct a progressive alternative to the politics of "law
and order" are not without problems and contradictions. Most contributors
have reservations and nagging doubts about theirown proposals. Gross (1982)

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Law and Order"

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

criminology is welcome because it opens up the possiblity of cooperative

activities by intellectuals and activists.
It is also a positive development because for the first time inmany years
there is a detente between liberals and leftists. The collapse of New Deal
liberalism in theU.S. has moved many intellectuals to the left (though ithas
also moved many more to the right) and opened up a dialogue about the limits
of liberalism. The latest issues of Crime and Social Justice represent an effort
to build unity where it is possible, tomake the fullest use of thewidespread
opposition to Reaganism.
At the same time, however, we need to have a critical eye on current
debates in progressive criminology, because there are stillmany problematic
and unresolved issues. In England, for example, there is a raging debate about
racism and crime (on which we commented inCrime and Social Justice 20).
In theUnited States, there ismuch talk about progressive alternatives to "law
and order" but there is littleaction. Before the actions unfold, it is timely to
raise some critical issues regarding the current debate.
1. Idealism
Many of thepolicy proposals thatwe have discussed are progressive, sensi?
ble, and rational. But for themost part they remain blueprints for action,

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

Platt

disconnected from the practical realities of the world. Without concrete

discussion of how progressive proposals are to be implemented, they remain
inevitably idealist and Utopian. Itmakes no difference that they are "prac?
tical" and "immediate" proposals, as opposed to long-term structural goals
or ideals. A "practical'' proposal is idealist if itdoes not speak tomaterial con?
ditions, tactics and strategy, political climate, etc. As Alan Hunt (1982) puts

it,we need to "breathe substance" into slogans about "popular, democratic

socialist politics." There is toomuch "fashionable rhetoric" and "very little
basis for assessment of the strategy proposed."
2. Lack of Class Analysis
is a noticeable lack of discussion about the agency of reforms,
especially its class base and organizational form. For themost part, a petty
bourgeois, social democratic politics predominates thedebate about progressive
alternatives to "law and order." Ian Taylor (1982) notes thatcommunity action
can only be successful ifand when it is constructed in class terms.But he then
proceeds topropagandize on behalf of the leftwing of theEnglish Labour Party
without doing any kind of serious class analysis. He dismisses without discus?
sion "democratic centralist" forms of organization and asserts thata vision of
community politics "can only be arrived at via thedemocratization of theexist?
ing 'progressive' party [i.e., Labour] into a socialist, feminist, and anti-racist
politics" (emphasis added). This is not a class analysis; it is dogmatism, for it
is at least questionable whether or not a transformedLabour Party will become
There

the vehicle of popular democracy inEngland.

The problems inTaylor's analysis are reproduced throughout the debate.
calls for mobilization at the
Joseph Bute (1982), writing about the U.S.,
a
level through coalition of "organized labor, community
"neighborhood"
There is notmuch evidence,
organizations, and urban political leaders...."
are
inany way representative or accountable
ifany, to suggest that these forces

to themajority of the population. In fact, a compelling argument could be

made that theirpolitics and practice sinceWorld War II have been antagonistic
to working class interests?examine, for example, the failure of organized
labor toorganize theunorganized, the role of' 'community leaders" in cooling
out dissent and resistance in the 1960s, the collaboration of "community
organizations" with the federal government's so-called "war on poverty,"
and theupward mobility of self-appointed "community leaders." There is no
reason to believe

"neighborhood"

that these forces, as presently constituted, will fight for

interests.

idealist approach to reformism is reflected also by Michalowski

(1983), who advocates seemingly spontaneous forms of popular justice and
warns against the dangers of "bureaucratism." But how are these struggles
tobe organized and articulated? Doesn't resistance without organization inev?
itably dissipate and guarantee failure? Boehringer et al. (1983) argue that the
Left has to construct an "alternative worldview" to theRight and "opt into
This

that struggle." But once again, they pay littleattention to the organizational

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Law and Order"

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

address crime and criminal justice under socialism.

As we have noted in a recent paper (Horton and Platt, 1983), "left
idealists" either dismiss or underplay the persistence of seemingly capitalist
crime patterns in socialist societies, whereas "right idealists" exaggerate the
same patterns in order to indicate the universality of crime in "modern
society." The most common "left idealist" argument is that crime persists
under socialism as an ideological and material vestige of capitalism and that
itwill eventually wither away. Such a view is both intellectually lazy and
wrong, an apologetic which reduces crime tomaterial forces of thepast rather
than recognizing itas an ongoing, dynamic social phenomenon of the present.
The "left idealists" have failed to explain why in socialist countries there is
generally less crime, or why crime persists, or why there is considerable varia?
tion over time in crime rates.Meanwhile, the "right idealists" have gone on
theoffensive to show thatcrime in socialist countries verifies either the failure
of socialism or the universality of crime.
In the same way that the Right has monopolized the "law and order"
debate within theU.S., so too have the "right idealists" taken the initiative
in the international arena. It is not enough for progressives to develop alter?
natives only at the domestic level. We must also enter the debate about
socialism and crime at the global level. To ignore thismeans to abandon any
serious search for long-term structural solutions.
Agenda

for the Future

In this paper, I have tried to summarize new, important currents in pro?

gressive criminology, primarily in theU.S. I have also addressed some of the
limitations and problems apparent in this new tendency. I want to conclude
with some brief comments about thekinds of issues and questions thatwe need
to address in the future.
1. Current proposals for immediate, short-term reforms have much in
common with liberal policy proposals of the 1960s and early 1970s. What
minimal gains were made then?community corrections, civilian review of

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

198

Platt

been quickly lost. Criminal justice

police, prisoners' rights, etc.?have
have
become
further
removed
from any kind of popular control
bureaucracies
and are increasingly managed by administrative fiat.We need to understand
much more clearly why criminal justice is resistant to even themost modest

kind of reforms,why attempts to democratize the content and governance of

criminal justice are so fiercely opposed.
2. There are many proposals for reformingdifferentaspects of the criminal
justice system. There needs to be discussion and debate about what issues to
target.We need to discuss how we can strategically and tacticallymobilize a
broad base of support while also challenging the criminal justice apparatus
itself.For example, a campaign for prosecution of corporate criminals might
unitemany people and expose the class bias of bourgeois justice. Too many
reform campaigns around toomany separate issues with no mass support spell

failure from the start.

3. We need to explore how we can mobilize a broad, cross-class base of
progressive activism which includes but is not dominated by professionals. We
also need to examine why it is difficult to activate professionals in the fight
for social justice.
4. Correspondingly, we need to look more closely at the organizational
context and forms of struggle.Why is it thatwe cannot rely on theDemocratic
and Republican parties, on the union bureaucracy, on established community
leaders and organizations tomobilize the fight for social justice? What kinds
of political and community organizations are required to wage a successful
battle for even themost minimal reforms?Why do spontaneous and localized
struggles disintegrate so quickly? The answers to these kinds of questions will
help us to "breathe substance" into the idealism of the current debate.
5. Finally, the focus on immediate reforms cannot liquidate the need for

macroscopic analysis of global developments in crime and criminal justice.

Marxists who see socialism as the long-term solution to the injustices of
criminal justice have an obligation to do a materialist and class analysis of
socialist justice. Pie-in-the-sky proclamations about socialism will not suffice.
It isquite legitimate for people to ask about the experience of socialist nations,
about the lessons learned from the socialist reconstruction of criminal justice.
We need a theoretical framework that addresses how "capitalist" relations
within "socialist" nations continue to generate inequalities and the conditions
for criminality (Horton and Platt, 1983).

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.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Law and Order'

in the 1980s

199

Bute, Joseph, Jr.

1982
"Crime and Community: Strategies for the Left." Crime and Social Justice 18.
Cullen, Francis and JohnWozniak
Crime and Social Justice 18.
1982
"Fighting the Appeal of Repression."
Currie, Elliott
1982
"Crime and Ideology" and "Fighting Crime." Working Papers (May-June, July
August).
Gross, Bertram
Crime and Social Justice 17.
"Some Anticrime Proposals for Progressives."
1982
Hall, Stuart
1979
Drifting Into a Law and Order Society. London: Cobden Trust.
Hall, Stuart, Chas Critcher, Tony Jefferson, John Clarke, and Brian Roberts
the State, and Law and Order. New York: Holmes
1978
Policing the Crisis: Mugging,
and Meier.
Horton, John and Tony Platt
1983
"Crime and Criminal

Justice Under Capitalism and Socialism: Towards aWorld

paper, Institute for the Study of Labor and

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

Society, and Political Action. London: Academic Press.

Raymond
Crime and Social Justice 20.
"Crime Control in the 1980s: A Progressive Agenda."

Law,

Platt, Tony
1982

"Crime and Punishment in theUnited States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms

Crime and Social Justice 18.
From a Marxist Perspective."
Platt, Tony et al.
The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: An Analysis of the U.S. Police. San Francisco:
1982
Synthesis Publications.
Taylor, Ian
Crime and Social Justice 18.
1982
"Against Crime and For Socialism."
1981

Thompson,
1980

Law and Order: Arguments for Socialism.

E.P.
Writings by Candlelight. London: Merlin.

London: Macmillan.

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 11 Feb 2015 04:59:56 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions