Understanding Crime Control Theater

• Author: Logan A. Yelderman,Lorie Sicafuse,Monica K. Miller,Shelby Forsythe
• Published date: 01 June 2018
• Date: 01 June 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016817710695
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Understanding Crime

Control Theater: Do Sample

Type, Gender, and Emotions

Relate to Support for Crime

Control Theater Policies?

Logan A. Yelderman

1

, Monica K. Miller

2

, Shelby Forsythe

3

,

and Lorie Sicafuse

4

Abstract

Policies such as America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response Alerts, safe haven laws, Megan’s

law, and three-strikes laws have provided the public with a feeling of safety and security. However,

research has provided evidence that disputes their effectiveness. These types of laws and policies

have become known as “crime control theater” (CCT) because they appear to be effective, serve

the public’s best interests, and provide a crime control purpose but are largely ineffective and have

unintended negative consequences. Using self-affirmation and emotion theory, this study examines

potential explanations as to why individuals might support CCT policies. It also investigates whether

support differs based on relevant characteristics (e.g., gender, sample type, and preexisting beliefs

about policy effectiveness). Results suggest that females and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)

workers tend to support CCT policies more than males and college students. Further, the rela-

tionship between gender and support was mediated by anticipatory guilt, and this effect was stronger

for individuals who did not believe in the effectiveness of the policy. Results suggest that individuals

who believe the policy is effective will support it more than those who do not, regardless of their

anticipated guilt. In contrast, those who doubt the policy only support it if they anticipate feeling

guilty; this effect is stronger for women. Results can help explain why people support policies that

are largely ineffective and suggest that relevance to the issue can help explain why some groups are

more supportive than others.

Keywords

crime policy, court s/law, gender and crim e/justice, other , crime prevention, l aw enforcement/

security

1

Psychology Department, Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, TX, USA

2

University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

3

Mental Health Police Liaison with Eyerly Ball, Ames, IA, USA

4

Courtroom Sciences, Inc., Irving, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Logan A. Yelderman, Psychology Department, Prairie View A&M University, PO Box 519, MS 2600, Prairie View, TX 77446,

USA.

Email: layelderman@pvamu.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2018, Vol. 43(2) 147-173

ª2017 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016817710695

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

Over the past two decades, disproportionate media focus on cases of murder, sexual assault by

strangers, and child abduction has instilled a pervasive sense of fear and moral panic in American

society, culminating in intense legislative pressure to address public concerns over violent crime

(Zgoba, 2004a, 2004b). In response, lawmakers hastily enacted a number of policies (e.g., three-

strikes-and-you’re-out laws, the America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response [AMBER ]

Alert child abduction system, Megan’s Law sex offender requirements, and safe haven laws) offer-

ing simple solutions to complex social problems. Although these policies vary in strategy and scope,

they share striking similarities. Most notably, such reactive crime control policies enjoy widespread

public support in spite of empirical failure and unintended negative outcomes (Armstrong, Miller, &

Griffin, 2015; Griffin & Miller, 2008; Hammond, Miller, & Griffin, 2010; Levenson & D’Amora,

2007; Miller, Griffin, Clinkenbeard, & Thomas, 2009; Sicafuse & Miller, 2010, 20 12; Turner,

Sundt, & Applegate, 1995). Because hasty policy responses to rare or heinous crimes create the

illusion of crime control despite their ineffectiveness, Griffin and Miller (2008) argue that they are

merely a form of “crime control theater” (CCT). These types of hypervigilant responses and sym-

bolic crime control rhetoric also appear in homeland security policy and presidential addresses,

which can lead to symbolic representati ons of security and patrol (Costanza & Kilb urn, 2005;

Kilburn, Costanza, Metchik, & Borgeson, 2011; Marion & Oliver, 2013). CCT policies might persist

despite changes in public sentiment because of the initial affective appeal at the time the policies

were enacted.

Griffin and Miller (2008) conceptualize policies and responses representative of CCT as “a public

response or set of responses to crime which generate the appearance, but not the fact, of crime

control” (p. 160). In essence, CCT allows government officials and law enforcement to visibly

demonstrate their commitment to public safety at the expense of practical utility. There are four

main aspects of responses that exemplify CCT (Griffin & Miller, 2008; Hammond et al., 2010).

First, such policies are hastily enacted in response to societal moral panic over horrifying crimes that

are often perpetuated by media sensationalism. Second, these policies are overwhelmingly sup-

ported and promoted by government and law enforcement officials. Third, these responses resonate

with cultural perceptions of the antecedents and solutions to crime. They focus on the mythic nature

of innocent victims and civilians and instill a sense of empowerment within the community. Finally,

these policies are often met with empirical failure and sometimes unintended negative conse-

quences. Yet, they receive broad support from the public (Griffin & Miller, 2008; Hammond

et al., 2010).

Outcomes of CCT

Numerous researchers have noted that intense media focus on rare and heinous crimes often cata-

lyzes the development and implementation of questionable crime control policies (e.g., Hammond

et al., 2010; Skolnick, 1994; Surrette, 2007; Zgoba, 2004a). Indeed, both Megan’s Law and the

AMBER Alert system originated from highly publicized cases involving child abduction, sexual

assault, and murder (Pennsylvania State Police, 2008; U.S. Department of Justice, 2009).

Research exploring the outcomes of responses characteristic of CCT reveals that these well-

intended measures are often inadequate means of addressing crime (e.g., Griffin, Miller, Hoppe,

Rebideaux, & Hammack, 2008). Policymakers might not discover the true effects of a policy until

after it has been implemented for a set amount of time. Moreover, CCT policies, though largely

ineffective, might be implemented effectively in some juris dictions or populations, whether by

chance or learning from past failures (see Berman & Fox, 2016). Even if these successes are few,

public support might persist when failures are apparent in the hopes that the policy become s

generally effective or has the potential to be effective. The public might see such successes as

148 Criminal Justice Review 43(2)