Framing Criminal Justice

T his spring, 42-year-old convicted murderer Douglas Roberts died by lethal injection, the fifth prisoner to be put to death in Texas in as many months. High on drugs, Roberts, a 30-year drug user, stabbed a man and then turned himself in, never denying responsibility for his actions. He even asked for jurors who supported the death penalty, reporting that as a Christian, he did not fear death and hoped soon to return to his Maker. Aside from his lawyers, few people came to his defense. In an era where capital punishment is becoming less popular, how can pubic opinion continue, at least tacitly, to support state executions? 

Public opinion is shaped by a combination of unconsciously-held shared assumptions and beliefs and bold attempts to shape the way people understand an issue. Sociologists call these conscious attempts “framing,” and we have been hearing a lot lately from cognitive linguist George Lakoff and a gaggle of political commentators about the importance of framing messages for successful political movements. As it turns out, thinking about frames can be useful in helping to describe the pervasiveness of the U.S.’s tough on crime attitude; it just doesn’t tell the whole story. 

Social and political activists have been “framing” issues for centuries, and media scholars and sociologists have been using the term for decades to analyze publicity strategies. Erving Goffman is credited with explaining the process in a 1974 book. William Gamson and Charlotte Ryan have been teaching framing strategies to progressive activists for many years in Boston. In addition, there are excellent resources—including tutorials—available at the Strategic Press Information Network (SPIN). 

Political scientist Cynthia Enloe has suggested that you can tell a lot about a person’s beliefs concerning the state use of force by how they answer the question, “Is the world fundamentally a dangerous place?” Those who fear for their safety, either at home or in the world arena, are more easily influenced by forces that promise protection and justify higher levels of social control, such as mandatory minimum sentencing or the USA PATRIOT Act. This assumption leads to the belief that locking up criminals and increasing police presence will improve public safety. It is what drives the growth of the prison industry as well as the popularity of gated communities and lures politicians on both sides of the aisle to support “tough on crime” policies. But something else is at work, too. 

Another basic question is, “Are people basically good or evil?” If you hold the belief that we all must use self-discipline to avoid getting into trouble, then it follows that people convicted of criminal activity deserve what they get. “If you do the crime, you do the time” resonates for many, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet. They can easily resent anyone who beats the system and gets away with it. 

This way of thinking came to the U.S. through early settlers whose Protestant religious philosophy was grounded in the belief that humans are wicked and deserve punishment for their sinful behavior. Many of us unconsciously hold to the myth that our country, formed as it was on the values of individualism and personal responsibility, rightfully holds people accountable for their actions. Beginning in elementary school we are fed a message that personal responsibility is a necessary condition of an orderly society whether governed by religious or secular principles. Since this feels like common sense to most of us, it is no surprise that it is included in much of liberal thought. 

Many Americans want to believe that aside from certain aberrations, like wrongful convictions, the criminal justice system is fair and neutral. This myth is attractive because it allows many white, middle class, and law-abiding people to trust they will not be falsely accused of a crime and that the police will keep their homes and families safe. It also contributes to what many have called the “us-them” dichotomy, or the sense that the source of society’s problems is external to our own reality, and not our personal responsibility. Angela Davis, in her criticism of the prison industrial complex, has reminded us that our system renders prisoners invisible to many, especially those in power. They become no longer our responsibility. 

These three beliefs, that it’s a jungle out there, that people will naturally try to “get over,” and that the current system of social control is working, or at least is worth the price, contribute to a worldview that justifies killing someone like Douglas Roberts.