Confidence in the Police, Due Process, and Perp Walks

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12380
• Author: William M. Virkler,Michael L. Benson,Shanna R. Slyke
• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Date: 01 August 2018

RESEARCH ARTICLE

CONFIDENCE IN THE POLICE, DUE

PROCESS, AND PERP WALKS

Confidence in the Police, Due Process, and

Perp Walks

Public Opinion on the Pretrial Shaming of Criminal Suspects

Shanna R. Van Slyke

Utica College

Michael L. Benson

University of Cincinnati

William M. Virkler

Utica College

Research Summary

Perp walks have been declared constitutionally acceptable even though the practice

could be perceived to be a form of preconviction punishment and a manifestation of

populist punitiveness. In adjudicating the constitutionality of perp walks, courts have

employed a balancing test in which the interests of the press and the public’s desire to

know about the activities of law enforcement are weighted heavily. No research has

been aimed at examining public opinion about this practice, however. We report the

results of a national opt-in survey of public opinion on perp walks and find that less

than one third of the sample respondents support them. By employing models derived

from research on the influence of race and ethnicity on attitudes towardcriminal justice

policies, we find that, after controlling for concerns about the police and due process

rights violations, African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are more supportive of perp

walks than are Whites. These findings suggest that perp walks are one of a few areas in

which racial/ethnic minorities might take a harsher view of punitive criminal justice

policies compared with Whites.

Direct correspondence to Michael L. Benson, School of Criminal Justice, 660P Teacher Dyer Complex, P.O. Box

210389, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221 (e-mail: bensonm@ucmail.uc.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12380 C2018 American Society of Criminology 605

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 3

Research Article Confidence in the Police, Due Process, and Perp Walks

Policy Implications

Media coverage of some perp walks is likely unavoidable in a society with a free press,

but the unscripted media coverage of a perp walk is different than the intentional

coordination of a perp walk between law enforcement and the media. This practice of

deliberately publicizing the arrest of criminal suspects has been defended by prosecutors

and police. Contrary to claims that the public wants perp walks, however, wefind that

more people oppose than support perp walks. In light of the multiple constitutional

concerns surrounding this practice, these results suggest that the orchestration of perp

walks by law enforcement should be reconsidered.

Keywords

perp walks, public opinion, race, confidence in police, due process, procedural justice

Perp walks have been declared constitutionally acceptable even though the practice

could be perceived to be a form of preconviction punishment and a manifestation

of populist punitiveness. The term “perp walk” refers to situations in which the

police or other criminal justice officials notify the news media in advance that a criminal

suspect (i.e., a perpetrator) is going to be walked or in some manner moved through a

public setting in such a way that the “perp” can be photographed or videotaped and the

images distributed via news outlets (Ruiz and Tredwell, 2002). Even more than trial in a

public courtroom, the perp walk functions as a status degradation ceremony. Indeed, in the

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Editors, 2012: 1316), a perp walk

is defined as “the deliberate escorting of an arrested suspect in front of the news media,

especially as a means of pressuring or humiliating the suspect.” Both trials and perp walks

qualify as degradation ceremonies because they represent deliberate attempts to denigrate a

person’s public identity (Garfinkel, 1956). Perp walks, however, are more demeaning than

trials because during a perp walk, the suspect is publicly paraded, typically in handcuffs,

and sometimes in a state of dishabille while under the physical control of police officers.

In contrast, during a trial, the accused is allowed to sit properly dressed in the formal and

decorous setting of a courtroom, usually without physical restraints and with an attorney

nearby. The degradation caused by a perp walk is evidenced bythe effor ts made by so many

perpetrators to shield their faces from the cameras.

Perp walks have a long history as part of the criminal justice process in the United

States dating back to at least the turn of the 20th century when Teddy Roosevelt was a

police commissioner in New York (Brandon, 1999; Weiser, 2002), but no research has

been conducted on how they are viewed by the general public. The lack of attention to

the public’s view of this practice is both puzzling and troubling. It is puzzling because

without any empirical evidence, the news media, politicians, and justice officials often

cite the public’s desire and right to know about the handling of criminal suspects as a

justification for perp walks (Elkins, 2011; Rovzar, 2011). For example, in a story on the

606 Criminology & Public Policy