Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Bad men, desperadoes and outlaws have populated American musical forms since the founding of the country. Many of these men and women committed brutal acts of violence, often with little remorse and engaged in activities most listeners would never even contemplate. Although this music seems to celebrate extreme forms of deviant behavior, music about bad men and women remains extremely popular today.
Moreover, this particular genre has pushed the boundaries of acceptable and normative behavior and has even expanded to describe the exploits of criminals in great detail. A sub-genre of Hip Hop music, Gangsta Rap, has fueled this tremendous growth in outlaw music and chronicles the daily activities of gang members, armed robbers, and drug dealers, particularly those that sell crack cocaine. Music about drugs, such as cocaine, follows a long tradition in the United States from early American folk and blues to rap music today. Today’s “crack music” is substantially different. These song lyrics capture the minutiae of the drug dealing “grind” from the seller’s perspective, from packaging and hawking drugs to steering clear of rivals and avoiding the police. Duncan (1996) hypothesized why people admire folk tales and films about criminals and developed three typologies: “reluctant admiration,” “rationalized admiration,” and “repressed admiration.” Duncan applied these typologies to literature and film but not music. This paper distinguishes “crack music” today from its historical antecedents and applies Duncan’s typologies in an attempt to understand its popularity.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Group influence is an important element of study within political science. How much influence do organized interests exert within the policy process? Is this influence a normatively “good” thing, i.e., linking citizens to government? Or is it a “bad” thing? This study steps back and examines the question from the perspective of how groups might use their resources to influence public policy. I do so not at the legislative or agenda-setting phase of public policy, but at the implementation of policy, where agency officials have discretion to design rules and negotiate agreements without the scrutiny of elected officials. I argue that groups are active in securing the benefits or ameliorating the effects of legislation and devise cooperative or conflictual strategies to affect this process.

Measuring cooperation along a continuum, I argue the degree of cooperation groups exhibit is affected by the policy context, in addition to group resources. The policy context shapes the relative degree of information and access available to groups. Groups lacking access and specialized information regarding the process will fight the process more visibly than those groups with these resources.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: As a graduate student, I met Jeffrey Reiman and worked on the 4th
edition (1995) of his book The Rich Get Richer, and have subsequently
collaborated on the 5th, 6th 7th and 8th editions of the book. Each
time, inequality increased, more poor were in prison, and social class
became a less significant part of research; there's more research on
white collar crimes like credit card fraud and employee theft from
businesses, but substantially less interest in what Quinney calls the
crimes of domination and exploitation. As I stand poised to become
co-author and Full Professor, I am both confident and disturbed by the
prospect of many more editions, each easily completed because of
abundant evidence supporting the fundamental premise: that criminology
acts as a carnival mirror that minimizes the reality of the crimes of
the powerful, while magnifying the threat from below, producing
calls for more 'tough on [street] crime' and space for critiques about
the 'overcriminalization' of white collar crime in the wake of Enron.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: An analysis of a recent 10-year trend in juvenile waiver, transfer, or certification hearings in Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee shows that waivers have stabilized and that less than 1 percent of all juveniles who move beyond the intake stage are ever charged as adults. A common belief is that waivers of juveniles to criminal court is a deterrent to further juvenile offending. However, for the jurisdictions examined here, waivers fall far short of achieving this just-deserts objective. During the 1990-1999 period, the majority of juveniles waived in the jurisdictions studied were largely property or drug offenders. Only about 39 percent of those transferred were violent offenders. Furthermore, only about 7 percent of those transferred subsequently served time in correctional facilities. Approximately 48 percent of those transferred either had their cases dismissed or the charges were downgraded to less serious misdemeanors and diversion or probation was imposed. The result of waivers in these jurisdictions is that the most serious offenders in the juvenile justice system are not targeted for criminal court transfers. When these juveniles reach criminal courts for processing, they have over a 90 percent chance of having their cases either dismissed, downgraded, or plea bargained with probationary outcomes. Thus, waivers are not necessarily accomplishing what juvenile courts intend by these actions. Policy implications of what happens to juveniles once transferred are discussed.