Charge Reduction: An Intermediary Stage in the Process of Labelling Criminal Defendants

The interactionist perspective emphasizes the imperfect correspondence between alleged deviance and societal reactions. Moreover, it is asserted that values of reactors, statuses of the alleged deviant, and bureaucratic constraints of deviance processing organizations help explain some of that imperfection. Focusing on one intermediary deviance processing stage, i.e., plea bargaining, we explore the degree to which our data are consonant with interactionist assumptions. For a sample of 1,435 male and female criminal defendants, we find the favorability of the charge reduction outcome is partly explained by values of reactors, statuses of the defendant, and bureaucratic constraints of the court. Thus, our data are supportive of the general thrust of interactionist works. However, the relative size of each of these effects suggests that reformulations of that perspective should attend to the finding that ascribed statuses play far less of a determinative role, and organizational goals seem to play a more determinative role, suggesting that greater attention be paid to organizational variables. For at least two decades, sociologists have attended to the propositions of the naturalistic, interactionist, or labelling approach to deviance. Recently this approach has come under serious attack (Gibbs, b; Gove; Hirschi; Tittie) because empirical work has failed to confirm its explanatory power. But some have argued that the methodological limitations of extant research also make it impossible to reject the perspective. Although there is still *Partial support for this research was provided by a-Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Research Fellowship to the senior author during her year of residence at Yale Law School. Special thanks are extended to Martin Barr, Lucy Friedman, and Charles Kuhlman for providing the quantitative data for these analyses, and to John Cardascia for comments on an earlier draft. Charge Reduction / 363 room for conceptual reconciliation, the greatest need is for research that can provide empirical grounds for theoretical elaboration. The problems in designing and executing such research, however, are not simple. Of prime importance is what appears to be a basic difference of opinion between the proponents and the critics as to whether the approach is a theory or a perspective. According to Becker (c) and Schur (b), labelling theory is not now nor was ever meant to be a theory of deviance; rather, it is a perspective whose purpose is to guide some aspects of deviance research by proposing a set of sensitizing concepts (Goode). Given this, much of the empirical research examined by critics in assessing the strength of the perspective is challenged as inappropriate and misguided. On the other hand, those who have attempted to assess the theory (e.g., Gibbs, a; Gove; Hirschi; Tittle) argue forcefully that a perspective that cannot be operationalized and tested is of limited use for sociology. Our view is that research bearing on hypotheses that "apparently" characterize the perspective should continue in order to provide the means for theoretical specification. Such research will not satisfy proponents or critics, but it can contribute to an empirical base from which a genuine "theory" of societal reactions to deviance might emerge. Thus, exploratory work that seeks to determine which factors affect some particular societal response to deviants is well-suited to the present needs and abilities of deviance research. The interactionist perspective stresses the imperfect correspondence between deviant acts and the reaction to those acts. Moreover, emphasis is placed on "interaction between those alleged to be engaged in wrongdoing and those making the allegations" (Becker, c: 178). This emphasis expands the study of deviance to include more than the alleged deviants and their alleged deviant acts. By including consideration of those responsible for processing and responding to the alleged deviant, interactionists claim they can better explain societal reactions to deviants (Becker, a; Goode; Kitsuse and Cicourel; Pollner; Schur, a; Scott). Stated more explicitly, factors associated with the values and activities of those responding to a deviant are said to account for some of the variance in the societal reaction. In addition to an emphasis on the "reactors," the interactionist perspective underscores the importance of studying societal response as a fluid rather than a stagnant process. Hence, it is assumed that labelling decisions made in the early stages of deviance processing will have consequences for decisions made in the latter stages (Becker, c; Lofland). Individuals are said to enter each deviance processing stage with a variety of statuses, some of which are ascribed (e.g., sex), some of which are achieved (e.g., years of schooling completed), and some of which are themselves the results of prior interactions between the alleged deviant and some deviance processing agents. To the extent that these statuses significantly affect the subsequent placement of individuals into deviance categories for fur364 / Social Forces / vol. 56:2, december 1L977 ther processing, any research seeking to model societal responses must take this into account. Accordingly, the interactionist perspective suggests (1) that greater attention be paid to the interim stages of deviance processing (e.g., plea bargaining in the processing of criminal defendants), and (2) that attempts to explain variation in the societal response estimate the determinative role of statuses resulting from prior deviance processing. A careful reading of interactionist literature (e.g., Becker, a; Erikson; Goode; Kitsuse and Cicourel; Schur, a; Scott) suggests that the following factors additionally mediate the relationship between deviant acts and the societal response. First, the power of the deviant relative to the deviance controlling agents is asserted to be a basis for differentiating the societal response (Becker, a; Rubington and Weinberg; Schur, a). The assumption is that marginal members of society have less power to resist the imposition of deviant labels. Accordingly, one might contend that a core assertion of the interactionist perspective is: individuals with socially disadvantaged statuses (e.g., blacks, youth) will be less likely to receive the more favorable societal response. 1 Second, the organizational imperatives of deviance controlling agencies are asserted to influence societal responses. Blumberg, Schur (a), and Becker (c) suggest that to the extent that the behavior of an individual conflicts with the organizational goals of the deviance controlling agency (e.g., resisting arrest) one can expect the societal response to such persons to be less favorable. Last, a host of ancillary and contingency factors interpretable as examples of factors Schur (a) had in mind when he discussed stereotyping, retrospective interpretation, and negotiation are put forth to account for how the quality of deviantness is differentially imputed to acts and to people. To illustrate: if a defendant is prosecuted for robbing a seventy-year old woman, s/he may be more negatively responded to because of stereotypic attributions (e.g., sadism) made about persons who victimize the elderly. Retrospective interpretation would characterize the practice of assuming culpability for criminal deviance partly on the basis of noting a defendant's prior conviction for the same type of offense. An example of negotiator ability would be a criminal defendant's refusal to accept a plea offer when s/he knows from prior experience that a better offer may be forthcoming. In the area of criminal justice, an area believed by many (e.g., Tittle) to be strategic for examining societal response decisions, there has been a dearth of empirical research that treats the plea bargain as a societal response to be explained. Since plea bargaining is the major mode of case disposition in the American Criminal Justice system, with approximately 90 percent of all criminal dispositions resulting from plea bargains (Newman, b; U.S. Department of Justice), examination of this interim stage is critical. This is not to demean the valuable work of Sudnow, Newman (b), Blumberg, Schur (a), and Rosett and Cressey, all of which provide important qualitative analyses of non-trial adjudicated dispositions. Rather, it is Charge Reduction / 365 to underscore the need for complementary quantitative research that provides estimates of (1) the amount of variance in the favorability of the plea bargain accounted for by the alleged deviant act, and (2) the amount of additional variance accounted for by prior deviance processing decisions, by the deviants' social attributes, by the values and expectations of the deviance processing agents, and by the organizational imperatives of the deviance processing agency. To the extent that the "assumptions" or "assertions" articulated in the interactionist perspective generally are applicable to criminal justice, these latter four variables should explain outcomes of the plea bargaining process, net of the characteristics of the alleged criminal act.