Perp Walks

• Author: Kevin Drakulich
• Published date: 01 August 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12394
• Date: 01 August 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

CONFIDENCE IN THE POLICE, DUE

PROCESS, AND PERP WALKS

Perp Walks

Balancing Due Process, Freedom of the Press, and Equal

Protection

Kevin Drakulich

Northeastern University

The actions taken by the justice system in response to a crime—arrests, adjudications

of guilt, assignments of punishment—have at least two different audiences. In the

simplest sense, they concern those directly involved in the alleged crime: the

accused, the victims, their families, and the immediate community. But they can also be

broadcast to a wider audience, and the message sent matters for a variety of potential reasons.

First, if we hope arrests and punishments will deter others from committing crime, they

must be publicized. Second, the public may also find reassurance in visible signals that

our justice institutions are operating effectively in protecting the public and in ensuring

that justice is being served. Third, there may be social benefits to coming together to

condemn perpetrators: It can help reinforce the importance of particular norms—as in the

case of those perpetrating sexual assault—and can promote social solidarity by reminding

the public of shared values and interests, as in the case of a terrorist act (Durkheim, 1982

[1895]). Fourth, the public nature of these processes is a critical part of their operation in a

democratic society as it provides transparency and allows public oversight.

The public, of course, rarely directly observes these justice processes. Instead, the

press serves as an intermediary, passing along information about crime and justice that

may interest the public. In fact, most people report that the press is a primary source

of information about crime and justice (e.g., Graber, 1980; Skogan and Maxfield, 1981;

Surette, 2015). Neither the press nor the criminal justice system, however, operates purely

out of the motivation to serve the public. Both also act in ways that serve the interests and

needs of their organizations and of the actors therein (e.g., Beckett, 1997). Many criminal

justice institutions operate public relations and press offices with the purpose of shaping

Direct correspondence to Kevin Drakulich, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern

University, Boston, MA 02130 (e-mail: k.drakulich@neu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12394 C2018 American Society of Criminology 601

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 3