UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Modus operandi : crime as work Letkemann, Peter Jacob 1971

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A1 L48.pdf [ 22.41MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101878.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101878-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101878-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101878-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101878-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101878-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101878-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101878-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101878.ris

Full Text

MODUS OPERANDI: CRIME AS WORK by . Peter J . Letkemann M.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 1971 In present ing t h i s thes is in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fu r ther agree that permission for extensive copying o f th is thes is fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representa t i ves . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s thes is f o r f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permiss ion . Department The Un ive rs i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada MODUS OPERANDI: CRIME AS WORK ABSTRACT This study, based upon interviews with f o r t y - f i v e ex-perienced property offenders, i s intended as an addition to the sparse s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e having as i t s focus the description and analysis of criminal behaviour. Detailed at-tention i s given to the technical and organizational dimensions of property offences. In contrast to much of the available l i t e r a t u r e on crime, t h i s study does not deal with motiva-t i o n a l factors but rather with questions as to how crime i s committed. The behavioural dimensions of two crimes i n par-t i c u l a r , namely safecracking and bank robbery, are described i n d e t a i l . Although i t has long been recognized that a c r i m i -nal's s k i l l s are learned, attention to the d e t a i l s of crime makes i t possible to document what i t i s a criminal learns and how such learning takes place. This study shows that some me-chanical s k i l l s are learned by way of formal i n s t r u c t i o n from the more experienced, and how and why some s k i l l s are more e a s i l y taught and learned i n prison than other s k i l l s . I t i s indicated that the method of learning criminal s k i l l s does not resemble the system of apprenticeship common in legitimate s k i l l e d trades; criminals tend to work with equals, whether experienced or inexperienced. The data also indicates that some of the criminal's s k i l l s consist of making relevant and e x p l i c i t such common-sense knowledge as i s routinely used i n everyday l i f e — t h e systematic application of such knowledge being best i l l u s t r a t e d i n the instance of "casing" procedures. The a b i l i t y to make p r o f i t a b l e , a l b e i t i l l e g a l , use of every-day knowledge suggests a continuity i n the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of criminals and non-criminals which i s not developed i n other l i t e r a t u r e . Analysis of various types of crime, such as burglary, safecracking and armed robbery, leads to the development of two analytic units: surreptitious and non-surreptitious crimes. The former category i s characterized by the criminal's concern with avoiding the victim, and the need of mechanical s k i l l s . Non-surreptitious crimes, i n contrast, involve v i c t i m confrontation--the r e q u i s i t e s k i l l s having to do with organiza-t i o n and victim-management. I t i s argued that these a n a l y t i c units are more manageable than those typologies and c l a s s i f i -catory schemes which are based upon purely l e g a l and career d i s t i n c t i o n s . In addition, t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s based upon the behavioural dimensions of crime rather than the s o c i a l and per-sonal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of criminals. In t h i s way the sociology of crime i s more f u l l y brought under the rubric of the socio-logy of occupations and hence of s o c i a l science i n general. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I Introduction 1 Chapter II  Methodological Notes A. INTRODUCTION 39 B. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS 46 C. THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER 60 1. The Establishment of Independence 63 2. Researcher as Mediator 65 D. THE INTERVIEW 67 1. Informal, Unstructured Association 67 2. The Interview i n the Prison Context 69 (a) The Interview Context 69 (b) Interview Procedure 75 (c) Interview Problems 83 (d) Tape Recording 95 Chapter III  Perspectives on C r i m i n a l i t y A. INTRODUCTION 98 B. LEGAL CRITERIA AND PENAL CLASSIFICATION 100 i i i Ch. I l l cont.: Page C. LAY AND CRIMINAL PERSPECTIVES IN CONTRAST 107 1. The Criminal as "Professional" 107 (a) Rounders and Squares 110 (b) The "true" criminal and the "bum" 111 (c) Professional and Experienced/Amateur 117 (d) Alky, Dope fiend, and Normals 129 2. The Criminal as Prisoner 133 (a) How much time done, and where 136 (b) Prison subculture and "doing your own time" 137 3. The Criminal as S p e c i a l i s t 143 (a) "Having a l i n e " 144 (b) Variations within a l i n e 150 (c) Small f r y / b i g shot 153 D. RECOGNITION AND REPUTATION 154 1. On being "known" 155 2. How orie becomes "known" .159 3. The implications of "being known" 163 Chapter IV Surreptitious Crimes: The Technical Dimensions of Burglary, with Special Attention to Safecracking A. INTRODUCTION 167 B. MAKING THE "IN" 172 1. Unlocked Windows 174 i i i Ch. IV cont.; Page 2. Fo r c i b l e Opening 175 (a) "Loiding the door" 17.8 (b) Tampering with the lock 178 (c) Lock picking 179 3. Alarm Systems 183 C. ACCESS TO CASH 191 1. House Burglary 192 2. Hotel Prowling 197 3. Commercial Establishments 200 D. SAFECRACKING AS A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE 20 3 1. Inroduction 203 2. Basic Tools and Equipment 205 (a) Grease 205 (b) Soap 214 (c) Knockers and String 214 3. Techniques of Safecracking 218, (a) The Jam Shot 22 3 (b) Shooting for Space 2 32 (c) The Gut Shot 2 34 (d) Harnessed Safes 236 (e) Blowing a Vault 2 38 (f) Non-explosive Techniques 242 4. The Interpretation of Technique 248 E. BEHAVIOURAL IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE 2 63 XV page Chapter V Non-Surreptitious Crimes (Victim Confrontation): The Technical Dimensions of Robbery,.With Special Attention to Bank Robbery A. INTRODUCTION 2 71 B. PRE-EVENT PLANNING 275 C. PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS 280 1. Example No. 1 281 2. Example No. 2 299 D. DIMENSIONS OF VICTIM-MANAGEMENT 308 1. Surprise and V u l n e r a b i l i t y 30 9 2. Establishing Authority and Managing Tension 311 Chapter VI  Learning Technical S k i l l s A. INTRODUCTION 325 B. THE DELINQUENT STYLE 327 C. THE PRISON AS SCHOOL 332 D. LEARNING AND EXPERIENCE 349 V Page Chapter VII "Casing"; Perceptual S k i l l s A. INTRODUCTION 363 B. AVENUES OF INFORMATION 366 1. Information v i a other Criminals 366 2. Information v i a legitimate sources 371 3. Personal Investigation 376 C. ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC POTENTIAL 383 1. Patterns of Monetary Fluctuations 384 2. Fraudulent Use of Legitimate Roles 392 D. ASSESSMENT OF RISK 400 1. P r e d i c t a b i l i t y of the Victim 401 (a) The Risk Factor, for example, the Corner Grocer < 401 (b) The Age Factor, for example, the Banker 404 (c) The Incongruity P r i n c i p l e 408 (d) Home Owners 411 2. Location--A Reinterpretation of Geography 414 (a) Alarm systems 415 (b) P o l i c e 417 (c) Noise 422 E. ASSESSMENT OF DIFFICULTY 424 F. GENERAL COMMENTS ON CASING 430 Page Chapter VIII  Concluding Comments ^ ^ BIBLIOGRAPHY 441 APPENDIX: A. Supplementary Notes on Data C o l l e c t i o n 447 B. Interview Guide 454 C. Insurance Ratings 455 D. Alarm Systems 456 *** ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To ray respondents, p a r t i c u l a r l y Bob and Lloyd, who shared t h e i r experiences with me; To my Advisory Committee, p a r t i c u l a r l y Prof. Adrian Marriage and Dr. Roy Turner, for help and valuable suggestions; To my wife, Katie, for typing, patience and much encouragement; To the Canadian Penitentiary Service for per-mission to interview; To the Canada Council for f i n a n c i a l support— Thank you. Chapter I Introduction This paper i s intended as an addition to that small, yet growing body of research which has as i t s focus the des-c r i p t i o n and analysis of criminal behaviour. P a r t i c u l a r em-phasis i s to be given to the technical and organizational dimensions of such behaviour. The value of such an emphasis derives p a r t l y from the tendency of researchers to bypass these dimensions i n favor of research on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the criminal and on the defining processes of o f f i c i a l agen-c i e s . Much has been inferred from the i l l e g i t i m a c y of crime, but l i t t l e from the inherent nature of the behaviour i t s e l f . Despite the magnitude of the l i t e r a t u r e , both s c i e n t i -f i c and j o u r n a l i s t i c , on the subject of crime, s o c i o l o g i s t s studying criminal behaviour have argued that very l i t t l e i s a c t u a l l y known about such behaviour. A look at the exi s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e , with i t s preponderance of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y schemes and typologies would seem to substantiate t h i s . The intended u t i l i t y of such c l a s s i f i c a t o r y schemes has ranged from that of the applied and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e to high le v e l s of abstraction and theory b u i l d i n g . Some of these cl a s s i f i c a t i o n s , notably those which combine exis t i n g l e g a l cate-gories with administratively relevant c r i t e r i a , have found t h e i r way into various therapeutic and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e programs 2 The most obvious weakness of many of these schemes i s the absence of s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the a n a l y t i c a l units by which the various categories are seen to be meaningful units i n re-l a t i o n to each other.^ This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of those schemes which u t i l i z e l e g a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s as a b a s i s . Prob-lems of v a r i a t i o n i n law enforcement practices have further minimized the u t i l i t y of such schemes for comparative purposes. The number of c l a s s i f i c a t o r y types continues to grow. Journal a r t i c l e s i n p a r t i c u l a r , appear to concentrate on the 2 description of a single "type" , though the rela t i o n s h i p of t h i s type to a larger c l a s s i f i c a t o r y system i s seldom spelled out. C l i n a r d and Quinney point out that the factors which con-s t i t u t e the basis for various schemes w i l l d i f f e r according to the purpose of the scheme: Clarence Shrag, "A Preliminary Criminal Typology", Paci- f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 4 (Spring, 1961)> pp. 11-16. Shrag distinguishes between c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and typology i n terms of these c r i t e r i a ; for example, a typology contains such s p e c i f i -cation, a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does not. 2 For example, the publications of J u l i a n Roebuck, whose "types" are based upon arrest records: J.B. Roebuck and M.L. Cadwallader, "The Negro Armed Rob-ber as a Criminal Type: The Construction and Application of a Typology", P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 4 (Spring, 1961), pp. 21-26. J.B. Roebuck, "The Negro Numbers Man as a Criminal Type: The Construction and Application of a Typology", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and P o l i c e Science, 54 (March, 1963), pp. 48-60. J.B. Roebuck, "The Jack-of-all-Trades Offender", Crime  and Delinquency, 8 (January, 1962), pp. 21-23. 3 Typologies w i l l d i f f e r markedly from one another according to the p a r t i c u l a r phenomena upon which they are based. For example, i f a typology i s based on criminals, the emphasis w i l l be on such matters as l i f e h i s t o r i e s of offenders, self-conceptions, attitudes and so-c i a l background factors. On the other hand, i f the objective i s a typology of criminal beha-viour, attention w i l l be focused on such mat-ters as the mode of operation, the overt crimi-nal act, the s i t u a t i o n i n which the offence occurs, opportunities to commit crime, subcul-t u r a l norms, relationships between offenders, and s t r u c t u r a l aspects of the larger society. A typology based on c r i m i n a l i t y would consist of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that relate to the condi-tions and processes by which persons and be-haviours become defined as criminal.1 C Una id. and Quinney*s summarization of typologies as based upon eithe r criminals, criminal behaviour or criminality, f a c i l i t a t e s the evaluative process. Extended discussion and evaluation of the various typologies i s provided by various 2 sources. Our own discussion w i l l be limited to those aspects r e l a t i n g d i r e c t l y to the material to be presented i n t h i s paper. Leading text books and journals dealing with crime and s o c i a l problems display a good deal of consensus as to what are M. C l i n a r d and R. Quinney, Criminal Behaviour Systems:  A Typology, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. (1967), p. 13. 2 For such discussion see i n p a r t i c u l a r : D.C. Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker: The Treatment of Delinquents and  C riminals, Englewood C l i f f s , N. J .: Prentice H a l l Inc. (1965); M. C l i n a r d and R. Quinney, Criminal Behaviour Systems: A  Typology, Chapter 1. 4 taken to be the cen t r a l t h e o r e t i c a l issues i n criminology. In terms of C l i n a r d and Quinney*s d i s t i n c t i o n s , the emphasis has to do with the attr i b u t e s of the cr i m i n a l . This emphasis i n turn, i s characterized by a p a r t i c u l a r methodological perspec-t i v e , namely s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of quantitative data derived from o f f i c i a l records, and a reliance upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l popu-lat i o n s for purposes of interviews and questionnaires. The use of quantitative data has provided such research with a superficially respectable status, inasmuch as criminolo-g i s t s were r e l a t i v e l y early i n t h e i r use of what i s sometimes referred to as "hard data""'". Many research reports begin with an opening q u a l i f y i n g statement acknowledging the problems of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y inherent i n the data to be used, but proceed, nevertheless, to draw conclusions and make predictions which the reader i s intended to take seriously. Ned Polsky states: Fortunately, most criminologists are not ma-gicians, and the t y p i c a l criminology text i s given rather early on to moaning and groaning about the fact that criminals and the things they do are not well represented by o f f i c i a l crime s t a t i s t i c s . (This fact i s then usually ignored i n the l a t e r chapters.) 2 Emile Durkheim, Suicide, A Study i n Sociology, translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson, N.Y.: Free Press of Glencoe (1951). Durkheim's Suicide must be recognized as an early example of o f f i c i a l data. I t has since been repeatedly c r i t i -cized i n terms of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data. Ned Polsky, Hustlers, Beats and Others, Chicago; Aldine Publishing Company (1967), p. 120. 5 David Maurer, commenting on studies done by Hooton and Rorschach, says: However, i n order to keep our perspective, we should remember that these highly t e c h n i c a l approaches t e l l us a l i t t l e (a very l i t t l e ) about the criminal, a good deal about the i n -vestigator and h i s methods, and almost nothing about crime.-*-I t i s not the intention here, to evaluate the procedures c r i t i c i z e d by Maurer, p a r t i c u l a r l y since such evaluation would need to take into account an investigator's purpose at hand. However, the u t i l i z a t i o n of the categories which comprise of-f i c i a l data can be misleading i f the assumptions b u i l t into the categories are not recognized. The consequence of analysis based upon a s u p e r f i c i a l acceptance of data provided by o f f i c i a l agencies, i s i l l u s t r a -2 ted by the study on delinquency by Shaw and McKay . They found delinquency to be highly correlated with broken homes, 3 and implied a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p . A recent ethnographic David Maurer, Whiz Mob, New Haven, Conn: College and University Press (1964), p. 12. 2 CR. Shaw and H.D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency i n Urban  Areas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1942). 3 The work of L e s l i e Wilkins, both i n B r i t a i n and the Uni-ted States, and of several researchers i n Sweden, represents a more sophisticated quantitative analysis of o f f i c i a l s t a t i s -t i c a l data. c f . L. Wilkins, S o c i a l Deviance, London: Tavistock Publications (1959); L. Wilkins, Evaluation of Penal Measures, N.Y.: Random House (1969); and N. C h r i s t i e , ed., Aspects of  S o c i a l Control i n Welfare States, V o l . I I , Toronto: Methuen Publishing (1969) . 6 study, concerned with the processes of juvenile j u s t i c e , sug-gests rather that the c o r r e l a t i o n may be accounted for i n terms of occupational dimensions of p o l i c e work."*" This i s to say that o f f i c i a l categories are a product, as i t were, of some s o c i a l arrangement, rather than simple statements of "what i s " . They are formed not only by the be-haviour which they presumably refer to, but also by the v a r i e -t i e s of constraints forming the context of t h e i r genesis. Only by c a r e f u l attention to t h i s context, does the meaning of the category become c l e a r . For example, David Sudnow, by carefully looking at the occupational demands of the Public Defender's o f f i c e , found that the o f f i c i a l category " l o i t e r i n g about a public playground " refers to behaviour more commonly known as 2 the sexual molestation of young children, by older men. Sudnow* s i s but one of several recent studies which have provided us with d e s c r i p t i v e accounts regarding the s o c i a l context within which laws are broken and enforced. I t i s ironi-c a l that, given the magnitude of the l i t e r a t u r e on the subject of crime, there should be so l i t t l e which takes as i t s task the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of what i t i s that i s being studied. Re-searchers have la r g e l y assumed that terms such as "crime" and "burglary" can be understood without documentation. "'"Aaron Cicourel, The S o c i a l Organization of Juvenile Jus- t i c e , N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons (1968). 2 David Sudnow, "Normal Crimes: S o c i o l o g i c a l Features of the Penal Code:,,Social Problems, V o l . 12 (Winter, 1965), pp. 255-270. 7 Only recently have researchers taken the int e r p r e t a t i o n of o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s as a research problem i n i t s own right."*" This p a r t i c u l a r approach appears to have great p o t e n t i a l , a l -though at t h i s stage i t i s t e l l i n g us much more about the bureaucratic processes and the c r i t e r i a that determine o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s , than about the criminals whom the s t a t i s t i c s are in-tended to describe. In terms of C l i n a r d and Quinney's three d i s t i n c t i o n s (the criminal, criminal behaviour and crimi n a l i t y ) t h i s approach i s d i r e c t i n g attention to. the t h i r d , namely crimi-n a l i t y . As defined by them, typologies based' on c r i m i n a l i t y "would consist of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that relate to the conditions and processes by which persons and behaviours become defined as 2 criminal" . Given t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , the range of perspectives alluded to would include environmental accounts for the causes 3 of crime , as well as l a b e l l i n g theory from the standpoint of 4 symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n . Emphasis upon c r i m i n a l i t y has the advantage of placing criminology squarely within the framework of t r a d i t i o n a l so-c i o l o g i c a l themes, i n p a r t i c u l a r those of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and s o c i a l structure. I t s disadvantage l i e s i n tie i m p l i c i t "Hj .1. .Kitsuse and A.V. Cicourel, "A Note on the Uses of O f f i c i a l S t a t i s t i c s " , S o c i a l Problems, 11 ( F a l l , 1963) ,pp. 131-139. 2 C l i n a r d and Quinney, Criminal Behaviour Systems;A Typology. 3 A good example: Edwin Schur, Our Criminal Society, Engle-wood C l i f f s : P r entice-Hall Inc. (1969). 4 c f . E. Rubmgton and M.S. Weinberg, Deviance, the Inter- a c t i o n i s t Perspective, N.Y.: The Macmillan Co. (1968). 8 suggestion that o f f i c i a l l a b e l l i n g and public d e f i n i t i o n s con-s t i t u t e the important aspects, and that non-labelled criminal acts and criminals are of no s o c i o l o g i c a l interest.''" This approach, s i m i l a r to that which uses only o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s , tends to ignore a substantial, i f not the major part of that a c t i v i t y which, i f brought to o f f i c i a l attention, would be defined as c r i m i n a l . This omission, plus i t s focus upon the behaviour of 2 those responsible for law-making and law enforcement rather than upon the behaviour of criminals, suggests,that the l a b e l -l i n g perspective i s not designed to provide the needed data on, criminal behaviour. 3 The studies by Skolnik-and C i c o u r e l are examples of how the perspectives of law enforcement personnel, and the bureaucratic constraints within which they work, point to nume-rous otherwise unnoticed aspects of criminal behaviour. On the other hand, i t might be argued that any model of o f f i c i a l legal processes i s inadequate unless the perspective of the criminal i s also taken into account. -'•This i s to be distinguished from an e a r l i e r controversy i n the f i e l d where some, l i k e Tappan, argued that the only r e a l criminals are those so found by a court of law; c f . P a u l W. Tappan, "Who Is The Criminal?", American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review, 12 (February, 1947), pp. 96-102. 2 For examples of t h i s perspective i n research, c f . J . Skolnik, J u s t i c e Without T r i a l , N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1966); and A. Cicourel, The S o c i a l Organization of Juvenile  J u s t i c e . 3 I b i d . 9 In h i s 1966 introduction to Shaw's The Jack-Roller, Howard Becker states: I f we take Stanley seriously, as h i s story must impel us to do, we might well raise a series of questions that have been r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e studied—questions about the people who deal with delinquents, the t a c t i c s they use, t h e i r suppositions about the world, and the constraints and pressures they are subject to. Such studies are only now beginning to be dene. Close study of The Jack-Roller might provide us with a wide range of questions to put as we begin to look at the dealings of policemen, judges and j a i l e r s with delinquents. 1 Contrary to the suggestion by Becker, current research on o f f i c i a l processes does not emanate from studies of crimi-nal behaviour. This i s hardly surprising, given the r e l a t i v e s c a r c i t y of studies such as The Jack-Roller, upon which one might draw. We have discussed above, two of three approaches to the study of crime as defined by C l i n a r d and Quinney. The f i r s t involved emphasis upon att r i b u t e s of the criminal, the second upon at t r i b u t e s of the l a b e l l i n g processes. I t has been ar-gued that both approaches t e l l us more about o f f i c i a l and re-search processes than about criminal behaviour. We turn now to the t h i r d approach, namely the study of criminal behaviour i t s e l f . .Where does one f i n d information dealing with such matters as the criminal's method of operation, the criminal career and l i f e - s t y l e , subcultural norms, and relationships between. criminals? Shaw, The Jack-Roller,, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1930), p. i i i . 10 Sutherland's The Professional Thief , David Maurer's 2 3 The Big Con , and Whiz Mob are the best known and most widely used descriptive studies dealing with the dimensions l i s t e d above, judging by the frequent reference to them i n the l i t e -rature. Their continued use, despite p u b l i c a t i o n dates of 1937, 1940 and 1955 respectively, i s i n d i c a t i v e not only of t h e i r academic value, but also of the r e l a t i v e absence of comparable, contemporary research. Except for Sutherland's study of professional t h e f t c i t e d above and Maurer's work on the con-fidence game, there has been l i t t l e empirical research on the various types of professional crime. The research that does exi s t includes Cameron's study of professional and non-profes-sional s h o p l i f t e r s i n a Chicago department store, Maurer's work on professional pickpockets, Roe-buck and Johnson's study of the 'short con' man, Polsky's observations on the pool hustler, and Lemert's study of the systematic check forger.^ Complaints regarding the s c a r c i t y of descriptive material on criminal behaviour are found i n many other criminology texts and related publications: Edwin Sutherland, The Professional Thief, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1937). 2 Davxd Maurer, The Big Con, Indxanapolxs: Bobbs-Merrill (1940). 3 Maurer, Whiz Mob. F i r s t published by the American D i a l e c t Society, G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , i n 1955. 4 C l i n a r d and Quinney, Criminal Behaviour Systems; A  Typology, p. 429. 11 I t i s a l l very well to draw a f u l l e r quanti-t a t i v e picture of the numbers and kinds of c r i -minals and criminal acts. But we cannot use t h i s to dodge what i s the ultimate, q u a l i t a t i v e task, p a r t i c u l a r l y regarding career criminals whose importance to any t h e o r i s t of human beha-viour, not to mention the rest of society, i s so disproportionate to t h e i r numbers: providing well-rounded, contemporary, s o c i o l o g i c a l descrip-tions and analyses of criminal l i f e styles, sub-cultures, and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to larger s o c i a l processes and structures. This i s where c r i m i -nology f a l l s f l a t on i t s face....Criminologists can t e l l you about Sutherland's Chic Conwell, but they can't give you comparable data on pro-fessionals of today, s t i l l less the many other kinds of data on professionalism i n crime that Sutherland never got to at all.-'-More recently, Wolfgang and Fer r a c u t i , who su b t i t l e d t h e i r work "Towards an Integrated Theory i n Criminology", state: Unfortunately, there has thus far been i n -adequate attention and research time given to a f u l l d escription and analysis of criminal of-fence types.^ The l i s t of early descriptive studies can be only slightly expanded. Studies which, l i k e Sutherland's and Maurer's, have had an on-going influence, include W.I. Thomas's The Unadjusted 3 4 G i r l , Shaw's The Jack-Roller , Jerome H a l l ' s Theft, Law and "'"Polsky, Hustlers, Beats and Others, p. 122. 2 M.E. Wolfgang and F. Ferracuti, The Subculture of Violence, London: Tavistock Publications (1967), p. 40. 3 W.I. Thomas, The Unadjusted G i r l , Boston: L i t t l e and Brown (192 3) . 4Shaw, The Jack-Roller. 12 1 2 Society , Donald Cressey's Other People's Money , Thrasher's 3 4 The Gang , and W-F. Whyte's Street Corner Society . U n t i l about 1965, s o c i o l o g i s t s theorizing about crime have had to r e l y almost exclusively upon these aforementioned early studies, for information of a descriptive and analytic s t y l e . The work of other writers and j o u r n a l i s t s who have dealt i n more popular style with the subject, and whose material has frequently been u t i l i z e d for purposes of supplementing systematic research, i s not to be ignored. Inclusion of such material greatly expands our i n i t i a l bibliography. .Some names, however, are more prominent than others and need s p e c i f i c 5 6 mention. The work of Damon Runyon and Dostoevsky cannot be 1 Jerome H a l l , Theft, Law and Society, Indianapolis: Bobbs-M e r r i l l (1952). 2 D.R. Cressey, Other People's Money: A Study of the So- c i a l Psychology of Embezzlement, Glencoe: The Free Press (1953). 3 F.M. Thrasher, The Gang: A Study of 1313 Gangs i n Chi- cago, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1927). "Sj-F. Whyte, Street Corner Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1943). ^Damon Runyon, Runyon on Broadway, London: Constable and Co. Ltd. (1950) . ^F. Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment, London: Dent (1963), o r i g i n a l l y published i n 1866. I t i s noteworthy that a chapter from Dostoevsky's The House of the Dead, London: William Heineman Ltd. (1862) i s reprinted i n a recent reader i n Crimi-nology by G. Sykes and T.E. Drabek, Law and the Lawless, Toronto: Random House of Canada Ltd. (1969). 13 ignored. Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy , John Martin's My L i f e 2 3 i n Crime and Jean Evans' Three Men provide "xnside" subjec-t i v e accounts which are highly valuable to the analyst. The serious scholar, however, looking for detailed and well documented data on criminal behaviour, w i l l be disappoin-ted. In 1955, David Maurer, the l i n g u i s t s p e c i a l i z i n g i n criminal argot, commented: Ac t u a l l y we know l i t t l e about crime as a way of l i f e ; i n fact, we have more data on the be-haviour pattern of almost any obscure pr i m i t i v e t r i b e than we have on these problem areas within our own culture....At any rate, we need more l i g h t thrown into these areas, not so much to reform society as to understand i t . 4 Donald Gibbons has stated: H i s t o r i c a l l y , criminologists have not paid much attention to the detailed description of the beha-v i o u r a l forms taken by c r i m i n a l i s t i c deviance. Yet i t hardly needs to be pointed out that s a t i s f a c t o r y explanation of behaviour i s u n l i k e l y i n the absence of good information about the phenomena to be explained. The p r o l i f e r a t i o n of studies based on a generally u n c r i t i -c a l useage of o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s did not produce either the theory or the s o c i a l reforms sought a f t e r . More recently, and i n p a r t i c u l a r since 1965, the l i t e r a t u r e indicates a s h i f t i n the d i r e c t i o n of research. As indicated e a r l i e r , a serious look at the categories which constitute o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s has re-sulted i n several descriptive accounts having to do with the "'"Brendan Behan, Bor s t a l Boy, London: Hutchinson (1958) . 2 J.B. Martin, My L i f e i n Crime, N.Y.: Signet Books (1952). 3 Jean Evans, Three Men, N.Y.: Random House Inc. (1950). ^Maurer, Whiz Mob, p. 12. 5 Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker, p. 285. 14 processes of o f f i c i a l decision-making. In addition, contem-porary inte r e s t i n the style of Sutherland and Maurer i s e v i -2 dent. W. J . Einstadter , i n h i s study of the s o c i a l organiza-t i o n of armed robbery, examines h i s data with reference to Sutherland's work. He concludes that the contemporary st y l e of armed robbery bears l i t t l e resemblance to that depicted by Sutherland. Similar also to Sutherland's use of autobiography i s the account by Williamson, edited by R. Lincoln Keiser and 3 analysed by Paul Bohannan, both anthropologists. An e a r l i e r account by Parker and A l l e r t o n , despite i t s more popular style , constitutes a r i c h source of subjective perspective of the 4 cr i m i n a l . In 1965, Gibbons noted: A f a i r amount of information has begun to appear on another question regarding lower-class delinquents, namely, 'What do delinquents do? 1^ 6 Walter M i l l e r , an anthropologist, i s currently Sudnow, "Normal C r i m e s : , pp. 255-270; Cicourel, The S o c i a l Organization of Juvenile J u s t i c e ; Skolnik, J u s t i c e Without T r i a l . 2 W.J. Einstadter, "The S o c i a l Organization of Armed Robbery", S o c i a l Problems, Vo l . 17, No. 1 (Summer, 1969), pp. 64-83, from h i s unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , "Armed Robbery—A Career Perspective", University of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley (1966). 3 H. Williamson, Hustler'., F. Lincoln Keiser, ed., N.Y.: Avon Books (1965) . In h i s concluding commentary, Bohannan states, "Indeed, not since Sutherland's 'Professional T h i e f fo r t y years ago have we had so f u l l an account from the other side of the law." 4 Tony Parker and R. A l l e r t o n , The Courage of His Convictions, Hutchinson & Co. Ltd. (1962). 5 Gibbons, Changing the Lawbreaker, p. 285. 6W.B. M i l l e r , "White Gangs", Transaction, V o l . 6, No. 10 (September, 1968), pp. 11-26. 15 concluding a ten-year ethnographic study on delinquency i n C h i -cago, and R. Lincoln Keiser has recently published an ethnography on the s o c i a l structure and culture of the gang''". Camp, i n h i s study of bank robbery, points out that h i s "...main unit of analysis moves away from the actor (the bank 2 robber) to the action (the robbery) ..." . Ward and Kassebaum, writing i n .1965, claim that t h e i r s i s "the f i r s t comprehensive study of the s o c i a l structure of 3 4 a women's prison" , and W.E. Mann , i n h i s recently published book on a Canadian Reformatory, i s correct when he states that h i s i s "the f i r s t such study i n Canada". Renewed in t e r e s t i n descriptive studies makes possible the r e v i s i o n of extant t h e o r e t i c a l models. Dubin points out that the early descriptive studies l i s t e d above served the same function i n t h e i r time: ^R. Lincoln Keiser, The Vice Lords, Warriors of the Streets, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehard and Winston (1969). 2 G.M. Camp, "Nothing to Lose: A Study of Bank Robbery i n America", unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yale University (1967), p. i i i . 3 D.A.Ward and G.G. Kassebaum, Women's Prison,.Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. (1965) . W^.E. Mann, Society Behind Bars, Toronto: S o c i a l Science Pub. (1967), p. 14. Studies of Canadian Correctional I n s t i t u -tions are l i m i t e d to G. Hjalmarson, Just C a l l Us Bandits, Toronto: Doubleday (1961)—(Hjalmarson i s a Kingston Peniten-t i a r y inmate ); and some Government Commission Reports. I know of no Canadian study comparable to D.Clemmer, The Prison Com-munity, N.Y.: Holt,. Rinehart and Winston (1940), or G. Sykes, The Society of Captives, N.J.: Princeton University Press (1958). 16 One of the descriptive tasks of empirical research i s to delineate the observable states of a system. When t h i s i s done, i t i s l i k e l y that there w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t feedback to the model from which the research was generated* In p a r t i c u l a r , the feedback may force modifica-t i o n of the st a r t i n g model by introducing states of the t h e o r e t i c a l systems that were not pre-vi o u s l y recognized. Several examples w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point. Sutherland, i n h i s study White C o l l a r Crime, made i t cl e a r that criminal behaviour resulted i n states of the system l i n k i n g the i n d i v i d u a l with h i s s o c i a l m i l i e u that were not previously conceptualized by c r i m i n o l o g i s t s . Clinard's study The Black  Market as an extension of the analysis of white c o l l a r crime added further complexity to the states of the i n d i v i d u a l - s o c i a l systems that produce criminal behaviour. Subsequently, Yablonsky, s t i l l working i n the area of c r i m i -nal behaviour, analysed the delinquent gang as a near group and came to the conclusion that there was a state of relationship among members of a delinquent gang that was different from the states usually postulated by the students of delinquency. In t h i s example of the work of Sutherland, C l i n a r d and Yablonsky, each des-cribed system states that required r e v i s i o n of extant t h e o r e t i c a l models i n order to incorpo-rate the empirically determined system s t a t e s . x The early impetus towards descriptive sociology emanat-ing from the "Chicago School" has recently been augmented by a renewed i n t e r e s t i n the phenomenological and ethnographic stance as exhibited by s o c i o l o g i s t s at the University of C a l i -f o r n i a . The perspectives of Goffman and Garfinkel, for ex-ample, are shaping the research of t h e i r students, who appear to f i n d ready pub l i c a t i o n of t h e i r work. Such publications R„ Dubin, Theory Building, N.Y.: The Free Press (1969), pp. 162-163. 17 have not as yet p e r t a i n e d d i r e c t l y t o c r i m i n a l behaviour, 2 3 but s e v e r a l , n o t a b l y those of Wiseman and Cavan , provxde u s e f u l r e l a t e d data. The dearth of d e s c r i p t i v e material d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h c r i m i n a l behaviour may. be p a r t l y accounted f o r i n terms of the i n a c c e s s a b i l i t y of such data r e l a t i v e to the ease of o b t a i n i n g s t a t i s t i c a l data. By the f a c t of i t s i l l e g i t i m a c y , . . . . 4 p r a c t i t i o n e r s have an i n t e r e s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g secrecy . W r i -t e r s and j o u r n a l i s t s , even those who have found entrance i n t o c r i m i n a l "subcultures", f i n d i t necessary t o f i l l - i n or to e m b e l l i s h t h e i r otherwise incomplete accounts. In a d d i t i o n , and as I s h a l l document l a t e r , researchers i n t e r e s t e d i n com-municating d i r e c t l y w i t h confined c r i m i n a l s w i l l f i n d that those charged w i t h t h e i r custody discourage such contact and encourage i n s t e a d the use of e x i s t i n g , f i l e d data. As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r > E i n s t a d t e r ' s d i s s e r t a t i o n on armed robbery i s as yet unpublished. 2 J.P. Wiseman, S t a t i o n s of the L o s t , Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l (1970). 3 S h e r r i Cavan, L i q u o r License, Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co. (1966) . 4 Ned P o l s k y has argued t h a t the d i f f i c u l t y of doing r e -search on i l l e g i t i m a t e behaviour i s g r e a t l y exaggerated but agrees t h a t a r e a l consequence of the exaggeration i s t h a t researchers have p r e f e r r e d to do research on the "law s i d e " of crime. c f . Polsky, H u s t l e r s , Beats and Others, Chapter 3. 18 Researchers have also tended to study those types of crime most amenable to research. For example, studies on homi-cide far outnumber studies on armed robbery. Probably because of the seriousness of homi-cide and i t s high degree of s o c i a l v i s i b i l i t y (hence detection), t h i s offence has received more attention than most other types of criminal offence from a phenomenological perspective.1 At any rate, and for various reasons such as the above, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , l i k e the public, must r e l y heavily on jour-n a l i s t s and the mass media for information on criminal beha-viour. I t i s generally agreed that such presentations are probably incomplete, but the c r i t e r i a for evaluation are not e x p l i c i t l y stated. I t i s the intention, therefore, as stated e a r l i e r , to add to that growing body of research which has as i t s focus the d e s c r i p t i o n and analysis of criminal behaviour. An effort w i l l be made to get as close to such a c t i v i t y as possible, by way of extensive use of verbatim accounts by criminals. P a r t i c u l a r attention w i l l be focussed upon the techni-c a l and organizational dimensions of criminal behaviour. Most writers have given these dimensions secondary attention, f a -vouring instead to analyse values and a t t i t u d e s . I t i s note-worthy that those studies (such as Sutherland's and Maurer's) ^Wolfgang and Ferracuti, The Subculture of Violence, p. 40 . 19 most frequently referred to i n research on crime, have placed heavy emphasis on technical dimensions. I t w i l l be argued here that the significance of behaviour can hardly be assessed unless the nature of that behaviour i s f i r s t known. Not only i n the sociology of crime, but i n other f i e l d s as well, we have often studied the implications of behaviour p r i o r to a study of the behaviour i t s e l f . Implications of industrializa-t i o n were studied at great length p r i o r to any detailed exami-nations of behaviour within an i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g . Worker d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was i n f e r r e d p r i o r to recognition of v a r i a -tions within i n d u s t r i a l contexts. Only recently has there been reborn an i n t e r -est i n the core feature of the modern i n d u s t r i a l w orld—the technologies upon which i t i s ground-ed. S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s and management th e o r i s t s have been pre-occupied for several decades with 'human problems' and human rel a t i o n s i n work or-ganizations. A recent analysis could discover fewer than three dozen research studies i n Ameri-can, B r i t i s h , French and German l i t e r a t u r e empi-r i c a l l y dealing with s o c i a l aspects of the man-machine re l a t i o n s h i p . This paucity i s a harsh commentary on the neglect of technology during the current pre-occupation with the psyche of man i n industry. x Case studies of factory work have "paid o f f " t h e o r e t i -c a l l y . Sweeping generalizations have been replaced as a r e s u l t of a new appreciation of v a r i a t i o n s within the i n d u s t r i a l context. R. Dubin, et a l . , Leadership and Productivity, San Fran-c i s c o : Chandler Publishing Co. (1965), p. 10. The study re-ferred to by Dublin i s by M. Meissner, "Behavioural Adaptations to I n d u s t r i a l Technology", unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Un i v e r s i t y of Oregon, Department of Sociology (1963). 20 In p a r t i c u l a r , the importance of technical v a r i a t i o n s i s of recent"*" acknowledgement. I t i s reasonable to assume that criminal behaviour should be no less immune to the e f f e c t s of technological change than i s non-criminal behaviour. Nowhere, to my knowledge, have the ef f e c t s of technological change (for example, unemployment, worker re-training, specialization) been studied with reference to criminal behaviour. David Maurer recognizes that criminal techniques vary over time, but i n s i s t s on the continuity of underlying p r i n c i p l e s : I f we examine the multifarious rackets prac-t i c e d by the. legions of professional criminals i n the United States today, we are hard put to i t to discover a single new type of crime. Each has i t s prototype i n some culture going back to the beginning of recorded h i s t o r y . Every p r i n -c i p l e of thievery known today was chronicled by Petronius as he surveyed the Roman underworld; on our own times i s to be found recorded i n the great mass of picaresque l i t e r a t u r e which flood-ed Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries; these p r i n c i p l e s were already ancient and time-less, i t should be noted, by the time they were written down. Techniques change, but the p r i n -c i p l e s remain the same.2 Although Maurer himself has spelled out the p r i n c i p l e s of confidence games and demonstrated t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y over time, no such p r i n c i p l e s are available for other types of crime. I t i s cl e a r from Maurer*s own studies, that such Though they were pointed to e a r l i e r by, for example, Marx and Veblen. 2 Maurer, Whiz Mob, p. 14. 21 p r i n c i p l e s cannot be developed without a detailed knowledge of technique. Such knowledge i s not available for most major crimes, except i n b i t s and pieces. As an example of the u t i l i t y of Maurer's p r i n c i p l e s i t i s necessary to quote from h i s own work again: As a b r i e f i l l u s t r a t i o n of how tenaciously Freudian or pseudo-Freudian explanations for crime influence contemporary thinking, I fi n d i n the 1954 publi c a t i o n of the Isaac Ray Lec-tures, delivered at Yale by Dr. Gregory Zilboorg, the following passage i n which he comments on a diary by Barrington, the famous 18th century t h i e f , who notes that pickpockets i n London l i k e to go to work on the crowd the moment the victims swing at a public hanging: 'If we re-c a l l the intimate relationships between the murder and suicide i n our psychic economy, we may understand a l i t t l e better the pickpockets who p l i e d t h e i r trade while within the sight of the strangled criminal swinging from the gallows. A f t e r a l l , they had v i c a r i o u s l y par-t i c i p a t e d i n the act of execution and also, therefore, had v i c a r i o u s l y paid for t h e i r past crimes. This automatically brought them into a state of combined vicar i o u s expiation and challenge against those righteous possessors of f u l l pockets which they proceeded to pick with a complete sense of doing what they wanted to do, no matter what. This was t h e i r revenge for t h e i r own vicari o u s execution.' Now Dr. Zilboorg i s an eminent p s y c h i a t r i s t and perhaps as w e l l q u a l i f i e d as any to write on the psy-chology of the criminal act. But i f he had even a rudimentary understanding of how pick-pockets l i v e and work, he would never have made the statement just quoted. He does not know that the timing of thef t from the person can be e a s i l y explained on the basis of a very sound mechanical p r i n c i p l e of misdirection which i s as old as organized thievery. 'You can't s t e a l a man's money as long as he has h i s mind on i t . ' Maurer, Whiz Mob, pp. 14-15; quoting Gregory Zilboorg, The Psychology of the Criminal Act and Punishment, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. (1954), pp. 65-66. 22 The "mechanical p r i n c i p l e of misdirection" referred to by Maurer, above, places the criminal within the context of the sane and the r a t i o n a l , rather than the pathological and possibly b i z a r r e . The p r i n c i p l e of misdirection would seem to be an ex-tension and refinement of a p r i n c i p l e used by many non-criminals for legitimate purposes. More important, the simpler and there-fore preferred interpretation of the' act requires a thorough knowledge of criminal technique, or as Sudnow"*" might put i t , of the "procedural basis" of criminal behaviour. Attention to the t e c h n i c a l and organizational aspects of criminal behaviour places such research within the rubric of the sociology of work and occupations. For example, both criminals and nan-criminals need to develop c e r t a i n s k i l l s necessary for the suc-sess f u l completion of work tasks. Furthermore, the temporal dimensions of work place c e r t a i n r e s t r a i n t s upon non-work time. The implication of technology and of work-time have been studied i n considerable d e t a i l by s o c i o l o g i s t s of work and industry. What I am suggesting i s that the various dimensions of work would appear to be as applicable, for the purpose of study, to the i l l e g i t i m a t e as to the legitimate worker. I f not, i t may be that our concepts are unduly l i m i t e d . Ned Polsky applied the concepts, both of the sociology of work and the sociology of l e i s u r e , to h i s study on poolroom h u s t l e r s . Although the study i t s e l f i s a strong case for the continued application of t h i s approach, he has argued h i s po s i t i o n more e x p l i c i t l y . 'D. Sudnow, Passing On, Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice Hall (1967) . 23 Criminologists stand to lose l i t t l e and gain much i n the way of s o c i o l o g i c a l understanding i f , when studying people dedicated to an i l l e g a l oc-cupation, they w i l l overcome t h e i r fascination with the ' i l l e g a l ' part long enough to focus on the 'occupation' part. A f t e r a l l , any theory of i l l e g a l occupations can be but a s p e c i a l case, a l b e i t an important one, of general occupational theory. Criminologists, following the lead of the l a t e Edwin Sutherland, recognize that one h a l l -mark of the career c r i m i n a l — b e he engaged i n major crime or, l i k e the hustler most of the time, i n v i o l a t i n g generally unenforced criminal law— i s that the i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y i n question c o n s t i -tutes h i s regular job. Yet t h e i r researches seem thoroughly untenanted by what occupational s o c i o l o g i s t s have learned about how to look at someone else's regular j o b . ± The p o t e n t i a l analytic u t i l i t y of an occupational per-spective i n the study of crime may be demonstrated by the ex-amples given below. My own data on safecracking indicates that safecrackers open safes on a sporadic and i r r e g u l a r schedule. Only i n ex-ceptional circumstances would safecrackers attempt to "go on a caper" more often than once a week, despite the fact that p r o f i t a b l e opportunities are not seriously reduced by more frequent a c t i v i t y . T r a d i t i o n a l explanations for the sporadic a c t i v i t i e s of criminals have revolved about the need for c r i -minals to r e s t r a i n t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s p e r i o d i c a l l y in,order to 'cool' p o l i c e "heat", and about the assumption that criminal a c t i v i t y pays so well that i t s p r a c t i t i o n e r s need only work Polsky, Hustlers, Beats and Others, p. 101. 24 p e r i o d i c a l l y . These explanations are not to be discounted, yet both raise additional questions. Why do safecrackers not avoid p o l i c e pressure by moving from c i t y to c i t y rather than by temporarily ceasing a c t i v i t y ? Why do safecrackers not ac-cumulate c a p i t a l by more frequent a c t i v i t y , as would be con-sistent with the Western free enterprise t r a d i t i o n ? An occupational perspective suggests an unusual approach, namely that we might be dealing here 1 with a case of ." r e s t r i c t e d output". S o c i o l o g i s t s of work have discovered that the re-s t r i c t i o n of output i s not necessarily due to external factors, but i s frequently one of the products of work-group pressure. C e r t a i n l y i t i s hard to think of occupations i n which there i s no group preoccupation with de-f i n i t i o n of proper l e v e l s of e f f o r t and product and of those l e v e l s which, since they may en-courage others i n the work drama to expect too much, are p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous for a l l who share the fate of l i v i n g by the given trade or c a l l i n g . 2 This perspective encourages us to look beyond obvious external r e s t r a i n t s (such as p o l i c e a c t i v i t y ) , to the implica-tions of being involved i n group criminal a c t i v i t y as over against operating as a "loner". ^Donald Roy, "Quota R e s t r i c t i o n and Goldbricking i n a Machine Shop", American Journal of Sociology, 57 (March, 1952), pp. 427-442. 2 . E.C. Hughes, "The S o c i o l o g i c a l Study of Work: An E d i -t o r i a l Forward", American Journal of Sociology, V o l . LVII, No. 5 (March,. 1952), p. 426. 25 As a second example of the u t i l i t y of occupational concepts, I s h a l l quote at some length from Polsky's study of poolroom hu s t l e r s : As to the possible gain for criminology i n the o r i e n t a t i o n I suggest, consider, for ex-ample, one t h e o r e t i c a l implication of what the h u s t l e r often does when he needs addi t i o n a l sources of income. I t suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y that many of the data criminologists refer to by rubrics such as 'the occasional criminal' or 'occasional crime' would be more sharply conceptualized and better understood under the heading 'crime as moonlighting'. This i s for two reasons. F i r s t , as soon as we think of crime i n t h i s way, i t becomes clear e r that much serious crime (for example, bank robbery) i s undertaken by people who are neither 'mentally i l l ' nor 'white-collar criminals' nor oriented to serious crime as a career (unlike the hust-ler) but who are employed i n and i d e n t i f y with p e r f e c t l y legitimate lower-class jobs, get way behind i n t h e i r b i l l s , and see temporary or 'one-shot' criminal a c t i v i t y as a way to get solvent without giving up t h e i r regular jobs. Second, a major precondition of moonlight-ing, according to Wilensky, i s the existence of 'occupations and industries on f l e x i b l e work schedules which provide opportunity for part-time help', and more recent analysis by labor economists confirm t h i s point: 'the i n -dustries i n which moonlighters found t h e i r se-cond jobs were t y p i c a l l y those providing op-p o r t u n i t i e s for part-time work'. Most crime f i t s these descriptions p e r f e c t l y . Indeed, ene of the most genuinely appealing things about crime to career criminals and part-timers alike —though one would hardly gather t h i s from criminology t e x t s — i s that for most crimes the working hours are both short and f l e x i b l e . 1 Polsky, Hustlers, Beats and Others, p. 103. 26 A t h i r d and more recent example i n the sociology of deviant behaviour, are Skipper and McCaghy's studies of the occupational requirements of being a strip-teaser."*" The high rate of lesbianism among pro s t i t u t e s and strip-teasers has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been explained i n psychological and psychoanalyti-c a l terms. Skipper and McCaghy, by looking at the occupational aspects of being a s t r i p teaser, are able to account for les-bian behaviour without recourse to psychopathology. Factors such as s p a t i a l mobility of the occupation, occupational image, worker v u l n e r a b i l i t y , and hours of work are u t i l i z e d to account for homosexual preference. This explanation i s also able to account for the lack of lesbian tendencies among those s t r i p -teasers whose work s i t u a t i o n does not involve t r a v e l . The a b i l i t y to account for contrary cases, as well as the law of parsimony, suggests that the occupational perspective i s the more powerful explanatory device. In addition, the occupational perspective provides a wider framework within which, to analyse the transmission of values and s k i l l s , as well as the process and context of learn-ing. Howard Becker has used t h i s framework i n h i s analysis, J.K. Skipper and C.H. McCaghy, "Strip-teasers: The Anatomy and Career Contingencies of a Deviant Occupation", S o c i a l Problems, V o l . 17, No. 3 (Winter, 1970), pp. 391-405; and J.K. Skipper and C.H. McCaghy, "Lesbian Behaviour as an Adaptation to the Occupation of Stripping", S o c i a l Problems, V o l . 17, No. 2 ( F a l l , 1969), pp. 262-270. 27 of both the subculture of jazz musicians and the learning of marijuana smoking."'" James Bryan has documented the learning 2 process of p r o s t i t u t i o n i n terms of the concept of career. One looks i n vain, however, for a contemporary analysis of con-ventional crime from the perspective of the sociology of work and occupations. Sociology, and c e r t a i n l y the sociology of occupations has benefited greatly by the concommitant u t i l i z a t i o n of two methodological stances, namely attention to both behaviour and s o c i a l action. In addition to d e t a i l e d attention to the behavioural dimensions of crime, i t i s intended i n ftis paper as well, to take seriously the perspective of the criminal himself. This requires that the researcher avoid imposing an "outside" order upon the data. He must look for the categories which are meaningful to the p a r t i c i p a n t and seek to a r t i c u l a t e the analytic properties of these categories and t h e i r r e l a t i o n -ship one to another. He must look to the actor for answers to questions having to do with the meaning of an action and i t s motivations. The relationship between the subjective perspective of the actor and i t s behavioural dimensions poses p a r t i c u l a r me-thodological problems for anyone doing research on criminal "Sl.S. Becker, Outsiders, N.Y.: The Free Press (1963). 2 J . Bryan, "Apprenticeships i n P r o s t i t u t i o n " , S o c i a l  Problems, V o l . 12, No. 3 (Winter, 1965), pp. 278-297. 28 behaviour. Since the behaviour he i s studying i s i l l e g i t i m a t e , there are various and obvious reasons why he i s dependent upon the actor for a description of the behaviour. This description may be supplemented by persons who become involved i n the be-haviour through circumstance (for example, robbery victims) or through occupation (for example, the p o l i c e ) . For d e t a i l s of the procedures and s k i l l s involved one must, however, r e l y heavily upon the actor's own account, the behaviour i n ques-t i o n not being amenable to observation without participation."^ A b r i e f review of two recent studies focussing on the perspective of the actor may help to c l a r i f y the objectives of t h i s research. John Irwin, i n h i s study The Felon, set as h i s objective the analysis of the career of a t y p i c a l felon. With t h i s i n mind, he singles out three concepts as ce n t r a l to h i s analy-2 s i s : "perspective, i d e n t i t y and behaviour system". In h i s opening chapter he says: The methodological implications w i l l be discussed i n the following chapter. I t might be noted here that such observa-t i o n a l problems are not confined to the study of criminal be-haviour. Skolnik, i n h i s study of p o l i c e behaviour, discovered that observation was impossible without considerable p a r t i c i -pation i n the behaviour to be observed. The methodological implications are similar; for example, the researcher i s both observer and actor. The p r a c t i c a l consequences are d i f f e r e n t ; namely, Skolnik did not become a criminal through p a r t i c i p a t i o n , as would the researcher-participant i n crime. 2 . John Irwin, The Felon, Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice H a l l (1970), p. 3. 29 Allow me to answer the major c r i t i c i s m which I anticipate w i l l be inspired by the general approach on p a r t i c u l a r aspects of t h i s study: namely that an analysis which focuses on the perspective of the actor, subcultural patterns, and shared meaning worlds remains at the l e v e l of the i d e a l - t y p i c a l , far above concrete be-haviour, and therefore misses most of the r e a l behaviour. To a great extent t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s true, but no more of t h i s approach than of most others. I t i s noteworthy that Irwin's study of the criminal career contains no discussion of what criminals a c t u a l l y do as c r i m i n a l s — i t i s assumed that terms such as theft, burg-l a r y and armed robbery, require no description as a work-phenonencn. I t may be that the perspectives which he provides i n consider-able d e t a i l remain " f a r above concrete behaviour", p a r t l y be-cause t h e i r relevance to the criminal's actual work i s seldom 2 made e x p l i c i t . In h i s study of bank robbery, Camp provides considerable d e t a i l having to do with the meaning of the robbery for the robber. In h i s opening chapter he recognizes the need to re-late such subjective perspectives to the behaviour i t s e l f . Ibid., p. 6. 2 My own data would suggest that the perspectives Irwin provides are not "f a r above concrete behaviour". My only c r i t i c i s m i s that t h i s evaluation cannot be made on the basis of the data he has provided. 30 Indeed, he states: ...the main unit of analysis moves away from the actor (the bank robber) to the action . (the robbery) and by focussing on the robbery as the primary unit of analysis, the relationships be-tween the bank robber, the bank, and the mecha-nisms of s o c i a l control are explored. Unfortunately, the research provides v i r t u a l l y no data having to do with the behavioural dimensions of the robbery i t s e l f . The section e n t i t l e d "During the robbery" deals only with the r e c i p r o c i t y of expectations as to bank robber and bank personnel, without t e l l i n g us what either do as a conse-quence of these expectations. Soc i o l o g i s t s of occupations have pointed out how the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of various occupations shape, and are shaped by the perspective of the worker. Some of the occupa-t i o n a l demands of c e n t r a l importance to the worker are larg e l y 2 hidden from the view of the outsider. Detailed examination of such demands i s required i n order to make i n t e l l i g i b l e both 3 the perspective and behaviour of the worker. This i s not to "''Camp, "Nothing to Lose:...", p. i i i . 2 An excellent example of such an occupation i s that of the apartment-house j a n i t o r . c f . Ray Gold, "Janitors versus Tenants: A Status-Income Dilemma", American Journal of Socio-logy, V o l . LVII, No. 5 (March, 1952), pp. 486-493. 3 Skolnik, for example, i n J u s t i c e Without T r i a l accounts f o n the often unorthodox behaviour of p o l i c e i n terms of the demands of a highly bureaucratized and unresponsive organiza-t i o n a l law enforcement structure. 31 suggest, however, that occupational demands are to be treated only as independent v a r i a b l e s — t h e y too may be subject to change i n response to the expectations and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s which the worker brings with him. I t w i l l be our objective i n t h i s paper to see whether considerations of t h i s kind help to make criminal behaviour more i n t e l l i g i b l e . There i s also reason to believe that the study of criminal behaviour may help to make non-criminal be-haviour more i n t e l l i g i b l e . Following from the work of theorists such as Simmel and Schutz i s a growing recognition that every-day taken-for-granted routines are legitimate subject matter for s o c i o l o g i c a l analysis, and that i t i s there, i n fact, where one looks for the foundations of s o c i a l structure. I t i s also recognized that the "taken-for-granted" i s least obvious to those most intimately acquainted with i t . . Like the "civilian""*", the criminal operates on the basis of "background expectancies". The member of the society uses background ex-pectancies as a scheme of inter p r e t a t i o n . With t h e i r use actual appearances are for him recog-nizable and i n t e l l i g i b l e as the appearances-of-familiar-events. Demonstrably he i s at a loss to t e l l us s p e c i f i c a l l y of what the expectancies con s i s t . When we ask him about them he has l i t t l e or nothing to say. For these background expectancies to come into view one must either be a stranger to the ' l i f e The term " c i v i l i a n " , criminals (police excepted) samepurpose. used by criminals to refer to , w i l l be used throughout for non-that 32 as usual" character of everyday scenes, or be-come estranged from them. As A l f r e d Schutz pointed out, a 'special motive' i s required to make them problematic. In the s o c i o l o g i s t ' s case t h i s 'special motive* consists i n the pro-grammatic task of treating a s o c i e t a l member* s p r a c t i c a l circumstances,which include from the member's point of view the morally necessary character of many of i t s background features, as matters of t h e o r e t i c a l interest.1 The nature of "background expectancies" makes possible the documentation of several perspectives. The researcher strange to the l i f e of crime may be sensitive to what the c r i -minal takes for granted. In turn, the criminal, who, i f not a stranger then at least one who has a "spec i a l motive" to make the background expectancies of the c i v i l i a n problematic, may provide new perspectives from which to view the larger l e g i t i -mate s o c i a l order. From a methodological point of view i t i s also sugges-ted, p a r t i c u l a r l y by Garfinkel, that such structure can only be uncovered by deliberate v i o l a t i o n of taken-for-granted ex-pectations. From t h i s , one might also i n f e r that a study of the deliberate v i o l a t i o n of o f f i c i a l expectations, such as i n crime, might t e l l us much about the taken-for-granted l e g i t i -mate structure. ^H. Garfinkel, Studies i n Ethnomethodology, Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice H a l l Inc. (1967), p. 37. 33 The operations that one would have to perform in order to multiply the senseless features of perceived environments; to produce and sustain bewilderment, consternation, and confusion; to produce the s o c i a l l y structured a f f e c t s of anxi-ety, shame, g u i l t , and indignation; and to pro-duce disorganized in t e r a c t i o n should t e l l us something about how the. structures of everyday a c t i v i t i e s are o r d i n a r i l y and routinely produced and maintained.1 I f t h i s . i s so, then a study of those non-experimentally induced behaviours which produce the same ef f e c t should also t e l l us much about the structures of everyday a c t i v i t i e s . Many s o c i a l acts, such as'locking doors, are designed to prevent shame and f r u s t r a t i o n . I t would appear, therefore, that a study of the criminal's perspective might uncover the taken-for-gwanted of everyday l i f e . As a part of the descriptive scope of t h i s paper, an e f f o r t w i l l be made to underline those aspects of criminal a c t i v i t y which provide new perspectives from which to view the larger s o c i a l order. For example, common va r i a t i o n s i n everyday arrangements may have special significance for the c r i m i n a l — a painter's s c a f f o l d beside a building i s not seen by the criminal as a sc a f f o l d only, but as a means of entry to the b u i l d i n g . Common, i n s i g n i f i c a n t problems take on new meanings--the absence of a parking spot i n front of the bank i s an inconvenience for the shopper, but i t i s of central oc-cupational concern to the urban bank robber. One may gain new 1 I b i d . , p. 38. 34 a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r the c u l t u r a l l i m i t a t i o n s of t h a t aspect of s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n v o l v e d i n the development of p e r c e p t u a l s k i l l s ; f o r example, the average customer does not see the alarm tape pasted around the store window, but the b u r g l a r sees t h i s even when he i s on a l e g i t i m a t e shopping t r i p . The unintended com-munication of r o u t i n e a c t i v i t i e s may be i l l u s t r a t e d by the f a c t t h a t , when a c a s h i e r goes back to the o f f i c e f o r change, the burglar knows there i s more money back there; the o r d i n a r y customer i s merely annoyed at having to w a i t . S h e r r i Cavan has noted t h a t : The taken-for-granted c h a r a c t e r of'the stand-ing behaviour p a t t e r n s of any s e t t i n g may a l s o become a matter of p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t to those who wish to e x p l o i t them, to use them i n a way t h a t i s n e i t h e r r o u t i n e , nor proper, but none-t h e l e s s p o s s i b l e . x I am suggesting t h a t , i n s o f a r as the t y p i c a l l y 'unques-ti o n e d background of t h i n g s taken-for-granted' i s a matter of p r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t t o the c r i m i n a l , h i s observations may bring the taken-for-granted to the a t t e n t i o n of the c i v i l i a n . I n t h i s sense i t might be s a i d t h a t the c r i m i n a l takes on a r o l e very s i m i l a r t o t h a t of the s c i e n t i s t . Schutz puts i t t h i s way: What i s taken f o r granted i n the b i o g r a p h i -c a l s i t u a t i o n of d a i l y l i f e may become question-able f o r the s c i e n t i s t s , and v i c e versa; what avan, L i q u o r License, p. 6. 35 seems to be of highest relevance, on one l e v e l , may become e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t on the other. x I have attempted, throughout t h i s opening chapter, to demonstrate the need for descriptive research having to do with the sociology of crime. I t has been necessary to provide a b r i e f summary of the substantive nature of related, published research and l i t e r a t u r e . By doing so I have t r i e d to indicate that the p r e v a i l i n g emphases have by-passed the analysis of criminal behaviour, in favor of the study of criminals and of o f f i c i a l processes. In addition to the problems generated by the inaccuracies and misinterpretations of o f f i c i a l s t a t i s t i c s , an additional and important weakness of much available research must be men-tioned. Concern with p r e d i c t i o n and i t s p r a c t i c a l implications has seldom been based on c a r e f u l l y conceptualized t h e o r e t i c a l models. A c r i t i c i s m directed against much of the predicting done by h i s t o r i a n s i s applicable here. The reason why we interpret t h e i r statements as supported only by reference to trends i s that nothing of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t turns upon the truth or f a l s i t y of the predictions, and t h i s i s t y p i c a l of n o n - s c i e n t i f i c predictions. A scien-t i s t uses predictions as a method of testing some of the statements from which h i s p r e d i c t i o n -statement i s deducible.... 2 A l f r e d Schutz, "Common-Sense and S c i e n t i f i c Interpreta-t i o n of Human Action", M. Natanson, ed.,.Philosophy of the S o c i a l Sciences, N.Y.: Random House (1963), p. 336. 2 R. Brown, Explanation i n S o c i a l Science, London: Rout-ledge and Kegan Paul (1963), p. 31. 36 Furthermore, a good deal of the l i t e r a t u r e having to do with crime has been i n terms of what the philosopher Robert Brown refers to as "reporting", as d i s t i n c t from describing."'' That i s , the reader i s informed as to various frequencies and events (for example, how many bank robberies were committed i n Montreal over a six-year period) without being provided with the c r i t e r i a by which such events might be recognized. I have argued that description, i f i t i s to have scien-t i f i c u t i l i t y , must provide the a n a l y t i c a l units necessary to the subsequent development of models and t h e o r e t i c a l schemes. I cannot emphasize too strongly that there i s a fundamental place for accurate description i n any science. Description, as I have already indicated i n the previous chapters, provides the input for developing units of a theory, i t s laws of interaction, the system states, and the boundaries of the model. Without adequate des-c r i p t i o n , we would not have models that connect with the world that man perceives and about which he theorizes.^ Throughout t h i s chapter i t has been claimed that our approach w i l l "make more i n t e l l i g i b l e " , "account for" and "help us to understand" the various phenomena to be discussed. Such claims make i t reasonable for the reader to expect answers to various "why" as well as "how" questions. For a f u l l e r discussion of the d i s t i n c t i o n , c f . Brown, Explanation i n S o c i a l Science, pp. 15-16. His use of the term "reporting" i s sim i l a r to the perjorative "mere description" as used by s o c i o l o g i s t s . 2 Dubin, Theory Building, p. 227. 37 Brown points out how, at each point i n an account, i t i s : ...possible and reasonable to i n t e r j e c t the question, 'why t h i s ? ' ....No account could give the answers to a l l such questions: t h e i r num-ber would be i n d e f i n i t e l y large since each ans-wer could produce a further question. But an account which s a t i s f i e d no such queries would be a monstrosity, since we should not know which events were responsible for the occurrence of other events.1 I t i s not claimed that the queries s a t i s f i e d by my re-search w i l l necessarily or obviously s a t i s f y various theo-r e t i c a l concerns. For example, the answer to the question, "Why i s the timing of an urban bank robbery less predictable than a r u r a l one?" appears to be, "Because the urban bank robber cannot e a s i l y predict when a sa t i s f a c t o r y parking op-portunity w i l l occur". Although t h i s response may explain the temporal i r r e g u l a r i t i e s of urban bank robberies, the t h e o r e t i -c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the statement i s not obvious. I t w i l l be our intention throughout t h i s paper, to s p e l l out what appear to be patterned relationships between variables, even where the t h e o r e t i c a l significance of the relationship i s not obvious. The s p e c i f i c a t i o n of variables and analytic units i s only one step, yet an important one, i n the development of theory. Brown, Explanation i n S o c i a l Science, p. 23. 38 Description, other than that of attitudes and beha-viour, w i l l be limited to that having a d i r e c t bearing upon behaviour; for example, the description of bank architecture i s important to us only insofar as i t helps to account for the behaviour of persons involved i n a bank robbery. As Brown has said: In a work of s o c i a l science the descrip-tions of the appearance of things are simi-l a r l y j u s t i f i e d by the connection between appearances and s o c i a l behaviour. x Ibid., p. 24. Chapter II Methodological Notes A. INTRODUCTION I t i s obvious that no study i s possible unless the de-sired data i s av a i l a b l e . When the subject matter, however, deals with information which i s information i n part because o i t s secret nature, then the factors which make such informa-t i o n available to s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s are themselves s o c i o l o g i -c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . What, for example, were the conditions which prompted Williamson to speak with such freedom into Reiser's tape recorder"'"? We are given glimpses into Maurer's 2 on-going i n t e r a c t i o n with members of whiz mobs , and of Shaw' 3 counselling relationship with Stephen, the Jack-Roller , yet these accounts lack the s e n s i t i v i t y towards methodological 4 matters found, for example, i n Dalton's Men Who Manage . I t i s not enough simply to indicate how i n i t i a l contacts were made—we need also to know how the contacts were maintained and terminated, and how the s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n may have affee ted the data provided. "W illiamson, Hustler'. 2 Maurer, Whiz Mob. -3.-Shaw, The Jack-Roller. 4 M e l v i l l e Dalton, Men Who Manage, N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons (1959). 39 40 In order to a s s i s t the reader i n h i s assessment of the data and interpretation to be presented, a b r i e f , yet detailed d e s c r i p t i o n of the research procedure and s i t u a t i o n follows. As Becker points out, the methods used i n q u a l i t a t i v e research are seldom made e x p l i c i t . Q u a l i t a t i v e analysis of f i e l d data are not new in s o c i a l science; indeed, many c l a s s i c s of s o c i a l research have been based on such ana-lyses. But the methods of a r r i v i n g at conclu-sions have not been systematized and such re-search has often been charged with being based on insight and i n t u i t i o n and thus not communi-cable or capable of r e p l i c a t i o n . ! In the F a l l of 1967, I was asked by the Canadian Com-mittee on Corrections, to study the implementation of Habitual Criminal L e g i s l a t i o n i n Canada and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. I welcomed the assignment for several reasons. F i r s t , i t would provide me with the o f f i c i a l sanction which I would need i n order to ask of law enforcement o f f i c i a l s the kinds of questions that other s o c i o l o g i s t s were now asking with 2 a good deal of t h e o r e t i c a l u t i l i t y . E s s e n t i a l l y these studies were e f f o r t s to document the implications of routine occupational demands. The Habitual Criminal l e g i s l a t i o n , i t seemed to me, would provide an ide a l case for the study of non-legal factors, such as organizational demands, which a f f e c t l e g a l decisions. ^H.S. Becker, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes and Anselm L. Strauss, Boys i n White, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1961), p. 30. o I am thinking here of those studies which made detailed inquiry into the routine aspects of police work, lawyer's activities and court procedures (Skolnick, C i c o u r e l and Sudnow, for example) . 41 The H a b i t u a l C r i m i n a l study was completed w i t h i n three months; some t h i r t y persons i n v o l v e d i n l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n s and i n what i s known as " c o r r e c t i o n s " were interviewed. I was granted access t o two F e d e r a l penal i n s t i t u t i o n s and was a l s o i n v i t e d t o attend the weekly Thursday evening sessions of pa-r o l e d H a b i t u a l C r i m i n a l s who met i n t h i s way w i t h t h e i r P a r o l e O f f i c e r s . My attendance at these sessions c a r r i e d on w e l l be-yond the three-month p e r i o d , and i n t o the time of t h i s p a r t i -c u l a r study i t s e l f ; consequently, some f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n i s necessary. The Thursday nig h t sessions were unstructured and h i g h l y i n f o r m a l . The meetings were h e l d i n an o f f i c e of the John Howard S o c i e t y B u i l d i n g and attending were those H a b i t u a l C r i m i n a l s on p a r o l e who were able and w i l l i n g to come. I t was c l e a r t h a t t h e i r coming was coloured w i t h a good dea l of am-b i v a l e n c e — a d e s i r e to s o c i a l i z e , sometimes s e r i o u s l y t o ask f o r advice, but l a r g e l y because i t was expected of them by t h e i r P a r o l e O f f i c e r s . The number of parolees v a r i e d from four t o seven, w i t h some turnover owing to the r e t u r n to p r i s o n of two and the r e l e a s e of two others, w i t h i n an eight month p e r i o d . The d e t a i l s of my i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h i s s e t t i n g w i l l be discussed below. I discussed my paper and i t s recommendations w i t h the Thursday nig h t group, p r i o r t o my submitting i t to Ottawa. I a l s o continued going t o the sessions, even though my o f f i c i a l reason f o r being there no longer a p p l i e d . 4 2 Gradually, over time, relationships developed into friendships. I was introduced to other parolees, one of whom became a frequent f i s h i n g companion. Relationships of mutual t r u s t developed—I r e a l i z e d that I was being confided in, con-sulted and treated i n a way that parolees do not normally treat "squares"."'" I also realized that I was being given access to information otherwise unavailable. The Thesis research was beginning, as i t were, well be-fore i t s formal inception. Many hours were spent i n casual conversation while driving, eating, or other leisure time ac-t i v i t i e s . The evenings spent l i s t e n i n g to a group of "cons" exchanging anecdotes i n t h e i r own peculiar type of humor were p a r t i c u l a r l y d e l i g h t f u l . This i n i t i a l period of i n t e r a c t i o n might be viewed as one during which the researcher obtained a working knowledge of the language of the "natives". By language I do not re f e r so much to what i s regarded as the criminal argot--of t h i s I found sur-p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e ; strange words usually referred to tec h n i c a l aspects of criminal acts. Instead, I refer to p a r t i c u l a r meanings assigned to the conventional categories of the English language, often r e s u l t i n g in unconventional usage. In the sub-sequent chapter the various dimensions of these categories w i l l be made e x p l i c i t . xAt the time of f i n a l writing, Spring, 1971, association i s s t i l l being maintained with several subjects, v i a regular correspondence. One respondent has v i s i t e d our family f r e -quently and has read and commented on t h i s paper. I am being informed as to the welfare and whereabouts of about twelve s u b j e c t s - - a l l of t h i s on a purely s o c i a l basis. 43 I t i s d i f f i c u l t , i n retrospect, to place these associa-tions within the framework of what i s commonly known as a re-search design, since at t h i s point no research was intended."*" My academic interest i n the association had to do with the re-lat i o n s h i p of what I was hearing, to the content of standard cr i m i n o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . The importance of t h i s i n i t i a l " s o c i a l i z a t i o n " period i s underscored by those methodologists who emphasize the socia aspect of the interview s i t u a t i o n . We s h a l l elaborate l a t e r , on Cicourel's concern with the establishment of "systems of shared meanings" . He states: The well-conceived interview,, complex as i t may be, must have i t s roots i n the categories of common-sense thinking, for without a knowledge of such roots the interviewer could not establish the necessary community for conducting h i s re-search. This means a recognition and understand-ing of how the respondent-interviewer i n t e r a c t i o n involves overlapping s o c i a l Worlds. According to Schutz, relevances necessary for the synchroniza-t i o n of meaning are pre-supposed. The respondents and interviewer 1s stock of knowledge at hand and t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of the s i t u a t i o n w i l l determine t h e i r mutual reaction to the questions posed.^ There i s a sense i n which t h i s period corresponds with what Becker, et a l . have referred to as the "unstructured tech niques" used by them at the i n i t i a l stages of research. Such techniques are referred to as methods which would "...allow us to discover phenomena whose existence we are unaware of at the beginning of the research; . our methods had to allow for the discovery of the .variables themselves as well as relationships between variables...techniques i n which the data-gathering techniques are not designed, for instance, to see which of two or more alte r n a t i v e answers to a question someone w i l l pick, but rather which questions he himself w i l l ask." Becker, et a l . , Boys i n White, p. 18. Aaron V. Cicourel, Method and Measurement i n Sociology, N.Y.: Free Press of Glencoe (1964), p. 79. 44 As I listened to the Habitual Criminals t a l k of the criminal l i f e - s t y l e , I became more convinced than ever of the truth of David Maurer's statement, quoted e a r l i e r : "Actually we know l i t t l e about crime as a way of l i f e - . ." I t seemed to me that my relat i o n s h i p with these men was now s u f f i c i e n t l y secure to aca-jrmodate research i n t e r e s t s . I could not r e l y on the criminals' vested interest i n the re-search for support as I had i n the Habitual Criminal research. However, I discussed my research interests with several parolee friends; they assured me of t h e i r cooperation and indicated that they would recommend others who would be h e l p f u l to me. In Chapter One I argued the need for descriptive re-search i n the sociology Of crime. In t h i s chapter I have i n d i -cated how a series of circumstances made i t possible for me to respond to t h i s need. Given the non-shareable nature of such information i t i s not strange that whatever c a r e f u l and des-c r i p t i v e accounts of crime we do have, are the resu l t of for -tuitous circumstances, rather than deliberate plan. David Maurer's l i n q u i s t i c i nterests provided us, as a by-product, with the best descriptive material on pick-pockets a v a i l a b l e . Re-lationships of tr u s t and confidence were developed well before a number of researchers (for example, Sutherland, Shaw and Keiser) i n i t i a t e d t h e i r actual research. I t should be empha-sized that such interpersonal relationships were not developed "'"Maurer, Whiz Mob, p. 12. 4 5 and maintained i n order to f a c i l i t a t e research. Instead, the research was an unintended consequence of already established r e l a t i o n s h i p s . More recently, W.E. Mann published an account of l i f e i n an Ontario prison. Again, i t was a combination of circum-stances which f a c i l i t a t e d h i s writing: I t was not u n t i l the writer had terminated h i s chaplaincy duties and by chance several ex-inmates came to reside i n h i s house, that the idea of conducting a s o c i o l o g i c a l study a c t u a l l y began to c r y s t a l l i z e . I t was the a v a i l a b i l i t y of these young men—and t h e i r f r i e n d s — f o r leng-thy interviews and the p o s s i b i l i t y of securing others that made a useful s o c i o l o g i c a l study f e a s i b l e . With cooperation assured, the research problem was more s p e c i f i c a l l y formulated. This was subject to two factors: needs extant i n the l i t e r a t u r e on the sociology of crime, and secondly, the nature of the information I knew to be available to me. Data c o l l e c t i o n proceeded throughout the winter of 1967-1968, p r i m a r i l y v i a informal contact with parolees. In May, June and July, of 1968, interviews were conducted i n three Federal penal i n s t i t u t i o n s . A t o t a l of f o r t y - f i v e men were interviewed, some only once, others v i a repeated association over a period of one year. Twenty of these subjects agreed to have our interview(s) taped. "hyiann, Society Behind Bars, p. 9. 46 In addition, I was able to draw upon the resources of persons involved i n corrections and custody, as well as persons who had a very d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i n crime: namely bank managers, store clerks and the manufacturers of safes. B. SELECTION•OF SUBJECTS As was indicated e a r l i e r , the i n i t i a l subjects consis-ted of those parolees attending the group meetings. I t became obvious that some were better able to converse, or were more in c l i n e d towards communication than others. Whatever sel e c t i o n occurred here was not with research purposes i n mind, but i n terms of compatibility and friendship. Two persons i n p a r t i c u -l a r became close friends and contributed i n the role of the "well-informed informants" \ not so much i n terms of t h e i r own tech n i c a l knowledge, but i n terms of t h e i r a b i l i t y to refer me to persons able to contribute to p a r t i c u l a r questions and inte-rests I had. As my research inter e s t developed, they introduced me to several persons they thought I should see, and these con-tacts i n turn led to others. During the course of casual conver-sation, or during a formal taped interview, someone might say, "You should see , he knows more about that than I", or "You should see . He could t e l l you a l l the d e t a i l s on that job." K^.W. Back, "The Well-informed Informant", i n R.H. Adams and J . J . Preiss, . eds., Human1 Organization Research, Homewood, 111.: Dorsey (1960) . 47 I t was not possible to contact a l l of the persons re-commended to me; some of them were no longer i n the province, and often t h e i r s p e c i f i c whereabouts was unknown. I t i s of inte r e s t to note, however, that the names mentioned to me were usually of persons presently i n prison. My informants referred me to persons outside of prison only a f t e r having asssured themselves of the r e f e r r a l ' s cooperation. This appears to be part of the unwritten code of ethics of "ex-cons"—they w i l l not embarrass or put i n jeopardy someone, l i k e themselves, whose concern i s with "the management of d i s c r e d i t i n g informa-t i o n . I t should be mentioned as well, that my two most help-f u l informers were both employed, without t h e i r employers "knowing" about t h e i r criminal past, and one was c e r t a i n that he would lose h i s job, should h i s criminal record become known. Most of the formal interviews were conducted i n prison; t h i s for several reasons. F i r s t of a l l , my key informers had l i s t e d names of persons presently i n prison, whom they f e l t I must see; consequently, I made e f f o r t s to do my prison i n t e r -viewing as soon as possible. The nature of prison interviewing i s such that i t does not f a c i l i t a t e intermittent i n t e r v i e w s -administration wanted to knew when I would begin and end my period of interviewing. Whatever interviewing I wanted to do, therefore, should be done without interruption. Secondly, given the cautionary remarks of other i n t e r -viewers (to w h i c h l ' w i l l refer l a t e r ) , I was pleased with the r e s u l t s of my prisoner interviews. My r e f e r r a l s often suggested 48 further persons i n prison whom I should see i f at a l l possible; also, the data I was getting was good. My l i s t , o f interviewees grew to the extent that there was no time l e f t to pursue those persons suggested by the Parole Board. Then also, prison interviewing had a number of p r a c t i c a l advantages. Timewise, i t was much more e f f i c i e n t . My i n t e r -views outside the prison had indicated d i f f i c u l t i e s i n finding mutually convenient times for interviews--evenings "wasted" be-cause the interviewee received company and couldn't continue, and so on. In contrast to this, the prison interview was re-laxed, uninterrupted, and as many put i t : "Time we have l o t s of". Furthermore, out of prison interviews tended also to be c o s t l y . I f e l t obliged (and i t seemed to be expected of me) to provide some token of a p p r e c i a t i o n — a meal, drinks, or pay-ment in money in return for the interviewee's time. Inside the prisons I supplied only cigarettes and coffee (this being a l l I was allowed to o f f e r the prisoner). The problem of gaining entry p r i v i l e g e s to the Federal Prisons was f r u s t r a t i n g and time consuming; however, once I was granted entry I was given unexpected l a t i t u d e i n several important aspects, not the least of which was the freedom to select my subjects. This freedom was r e s t r i c t e d only at the Western Penitentiary, and only in so far as I might not see those persons presently i n s o l i t a r y confinement. 49 In each of the i n s t i t u t i o n s i t was necessary to describe the nature of my research to numerous enquirers. The s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t of the enquirer varied i n terms of h i s p o s i t i o n within the i n s t i t u t i o n . Although I developed a f a i r l y standardized re-sponse, s e n s i t i v i t y to the enquirer's p a r t i c u l a r interest was important. One would not, for example, mention the possible applied u t i l i t y of my research when speaking with Custodial S t a f f . Some members of the Custodial S t a f f made very clear that they "don't believe i n r e h a b i l i t a t i o n " . Administrators needed to be assured that my research would not unduly upset organizational routine. Questions having to do with procedu-r a l d e t a i l s (how much time and space would I need) were com-bined with a concern as to whether I was "studying prison l i f e ? " Corrections Personnel (for example, s o c i a l workers and parole o f f i c e r s ) wanted to know as to the p o t e n t i a l applied u t i l i t y of my research. Such persons usually indicated a general disdain for t h e o r e t i c a l l y - o r i e n t e d research, yet interpreted any sug-gestions as to the p r a c t i c a l u t i l i t y of the research as an i m p l i c i t c r i t i c i s m of t h e i r own work. They were also concerned as to the possible adverse e f f e c t s of my interview on t h e i r c l i e n t s and on t h e i r relationships with t h e i r c l i e n t s . The selection of subjects was handled d i f f e r e n t l y i n each of the three i n s t i t u t i o n s , but at no time was my experi-ence l i k e that predicted by W.E. Mann: On the other hand, i f the investigation were conducted i n the open, and the s o c i o l o g i s t had the approval of the prison authorities, he would have to r e l y heavily on interviews with whatever sel e c t i o n of inmates was o f f i c i a l l y approved.1 "Mann, Society Behind Bars, p. 7. 50 In each of the three prisons v i s i t e d , the subjects were selected v i a several routes. The f i r s t was the r e f e r r a l s to inmates by parolees. These were the f i r s t persons interviewed. The;practice of passing on the greetings from the parolee to the inmate generally i n i t i a t e d a successful interview, and usually led to inmate-inmate r e f e r r a l s as w e l l . Secondly, there were r e f e r r a l s to inmates by inmates, as mentioned above. These constituted a second-best source of information; that i s , I would decide on the basis of the referee's response, whether or not h i s r e f e r r a l s were l i k e l y to be good ones. I f the referee did not seem to grasp the ob-j e c t i v e s of my study, I f e l t i t un l i k e l y that h i s r e f e r r a l would be a useful one. There were also r e f e r r a l s by c o r r e c t i o n a l workers. My presence i n the prison interviewing rooms involved d a i l y con-tact with agency workers, such as Parole O f f i c e r s . Those who became f a m i l i a r with my research interests were h e l p f u l i n providing names. Then, l a s t of a l l , there was some selection v i a fi l e d ' data and consultation with C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Personnel. This pro-cedure varied frcm i n s t i t u t i o n to i n s t i t u t i o n , i n each case r e f l e c t i n g the organizational structure which was operative. I t should be noted that these i n s t i t u t i o n s are part of The Canadian Penitentiary Service; as such, they are under Federal rather than P r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . My use of Federal prisons implies an i n i t i a l selection--namely persons whose sentences are of two or more year 1 s duration. This choice was deliberate, i n that my population was more l i k e l y to consist of r e c i d i v i s t s and persons with serious offences, rather than with what are known as petty offenders. 51 A f i r s t question directed to me by C l a s s i f i c a t i o n per-sonnel at each of the three i n s t i t u t i o n s had to do with the c r i t e r i a I would use for the selection of subjects. They were aware that some c r i t e r i a are more readi l y available than others, and i f the prospective researcher u t i l i z e d c r i t e r i a not to be found on the " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n cards""'", but required instead a review of inmate f i l e s , the amount of work and time required would be m u l t i p l i e d . In explaining whom i t was I wanted to interview, the following c r i t e r i a were suggested, regardless of which i n s t i -t u t i o n I was at. The person to be interviewed should have con-siderable experience i n property offences; t h i s did not neces-s a r i l y mean someone with numerous convictions. Secondly, the interviewee should, i f possible, be an inmate known as having some spe c i a l s k i l l as a criminal (for example, safecracker, or bank robber). As the research proceeded I began to be more selec t i v e i n terms of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . The above were e s s e n t i a l l y the only c r i t e r i a I sugges-ted. Despite appearing simple, these c r i t e r i a were not r e a d i l y understood, nor e a s i l y followed by persons in positions of au-t h o r i t y . The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n was too general to be useful to them. Most inmates are property offenders and except for the very young, custodians assume that, inmates are not f i r s t - t i m e "'""Classification cards" are 5" x 7" cards containing basic data such as the l a s t offence, sentence, age, r e l i g i o n , time of release, plus a picture of the inmate. These cards are f i l e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y i n a small portable f i l i n g drawer. 52 offenders, regardless of o f f i c i a l records of convictions. Beyond t h i s general conception, no further d i s t i n c t i o n s as to criminal h i s t o r y were generally known. I say generally, be-cause there were exceptions. Persons c l a s s i f i e d as Habitual Criminals and Dangerous Sexual Offenders (D.S.O.s) were known as such. Also, persons who had been leaders i n some sensa-t i o n a l crime were recognized as such. The second c r i t e r i o n was even more d i f f i c u l t . Prison employees simply do not think of inmates i n terms of " s k i l l s ' . Inmates are frequently assessed in terms of I.Q.: "He's a very bright boy", or "He's d u l l " , but not i n terms of i l l e -gitimate s k i l l s . Ignorance of the inmates' p r i o r criminal s k i l l s was r e a d i l y admitted at both Western Penitentiary and V a l l e y Prison. At the Drug Rehab i l i t a t i o n Centre this was ad-mitted with some embarrassment, since a number of counsellors perceived of the incongruity of t r y i n g to counsel someone v i a group therapy without any knowledge of the member's pre-vious occupational s k i l l s . The " s p e c i a l s k i l l " c r i t e r i o n poses further problems, i n that few inmates are t r u l y specialized criminals, and fur-ther, the various s k i l l s required i n crime are not mutually exclusive categories. For example, the safecracker i s also an accomplished Breaking and Entering ("B & E") man. A hold-up man may occasionally do a bank, but not consider himself a bank robber. (The meaning of reputation and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n w i l l be dealt with i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter III.) 53 Since the c r i t e r i a I wished to use as a basis for se-l e c t i o n were not available v i a o f f i c i a l f i l e d data, i t was necessary for me to r e l y heavily upon u n o f f i c i a l and informal sources. I was aware, for example, that prison employees may be much more knowledgeable than the o f f i c i a l data would suggest. During the previous study I had found a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r (C.O.) at Western Penitentiary"*" to be a person rather well acquainted with the u n o f f i c a l designations or reputations of inmates. He was a regular member of the Thursday evening Habitual Criminal sessions and was therefore also f a m i l i a r with my present research i n t e r e s t s . Together we thumbed through the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n cards and he quickly eliminated inmates on the basis of several c r i t e r i a . Younger offenders with only limited experience i n crime were eliminated. I t should be noted that such information cannot be inferred on the basis of one or even a few l i s t e d convictions, but i s more r e l i a b l y inferred from* the inmate's prison reputation, where the experi-enced criminals are distinguished from the inexperienced on the basis of u n o f f i c i a l information. Other persons eliminated were those whose offences were pri m a r i l y against the person. This included assault, rape and other sexual offences. The account which follows i s limited to a d e s c r i p t i o n of procedure at Western Penitentiary. For s i m i l a r l y d e t a i l e d accounts of procedure at the Drug Re h a b i l i t a t i o n Centre and at V a l l e y Prison, c f . Appendix A , pages 447-453. 54 Persons who were d e f i n e d by the C O . as " d i s t u r b e d " were a l s o e l i m i n a t e d . These i n c l u d e d persons who had j u s t had t h e i r p a r o l e a p p l i c a t i o n r e j e c t e d , or who had l o s t a c o u r t appeal, and the C O . f e l t t h a t t h i s would not be the r i g h t time t o t a l k t o them. While thumbing through the cards, he kept up a running commentary, r e l a t i v e t o the above: "He's been t r a n s f e r r e d " , "He's doing e i g h t years but he's not your type", "He wouldn't t a l k t o you", "He might t a l k t o you", "You should see him—he's got a long h i s t o r y " , and so on. I i n d i c a t e d t h a t persons should not be excluded simply because they were l i k e l y t o be uncooperative, but t h a t I would take my chances. He agreed, but g e n e r a l l y commented t o the e f f e c t : "He'd be good i f he"11 t a l k - - y o u can t r y " . I j o t t e d down the names of p r o s p e c t s as we went along and t r i e d t o i n c l u d e the C.O.'s comments. With a few ex c e p t i o n s I found those who had been p r e d i c t e d as un-c o o p e r a t i v e t o be among my b e s t informants."*" \ l y e xperience at V a l l e y P r i s o n was s i m i l a r . I gathered t h e r e t h a t the i n t e r v i e w e e s I s e l e c t e d were not those whom the inmates had expected I would s e l e c t . I t was suggested by one int e r v i e w e e t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , f o r p u b l i c i t y purposes, s e l e c t s " c e r t a i n " inmates ( r e f e r r e d t o as "sugars") whenever the Press, or T.V. wants t o i n t e r v i e w someone. "We checked when we heard you were coming and i t was a l l r i g h t — t h e r e wasn't a s i n g l e sugar on the l i s t I" s a i d the i n t e r v i e w e e . I asked him how they (the inmates) had checked the l i s t . He s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e were some o f f i c e r s (guards) who " t a l k e d " and whom they t r u s t e d — a p p a r e n t l y they got a review of my proceedings from these guards b e f o r e any a c t u a l i n t e r v i e w i n g was done. 55 The l i s t of names provided by the C.O. was supplemented by my e a r l i e r r e f e r r a l s , by r e f e r r a l s from inmates, and by r e f e r r a l s made by Parole O f f i c e r s whom I met i n the hallways of the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Building, while i n the course of my work. Except for the lengthy l i s t provided by the C.O., I was able to see a l l my other r e f e r r a l s . I gave p r i o r i t y to these l a t t e r r e f e r r a l s , since they were based on a more s p e c i f i c knowledge of my research interests and a more intimate know-ledge of the r e f e r r a l himself. Following i n i t i a l consultation with the C.O., my contact with Administration was r e s t r i c t e d l a r g e l y to a junior f i l i n g c l e r k . Our method was as follows: I would write the name and number of the inmate on a s l i p of paper and hand t h i s to the f i l e c l e r k . He would then phone the appropriate prison area and request the prisoner to come down. Although senior ad-mini s t r a t i v e s t a f f , when present i n the larger adjoining office, could hear the number he requested, I was s a t i s f i e d that no censorship of any kind was operative at t h i s l e v e l . The persons interviewed do not necessarily constitute a representative sample of the larger prison population, or of criminals i n general. In fact, my selection of subjects suggests that my sample i s biased i n favor of the more s k i l l e d , experienced and successful criminal, yet at the same time does not include persons who, though engaged i n crime, have managed successfully to evade the law. 56 In terms of informal reputation (for example, the i l -legitimate a c t i v i t y , i f any, by which the subject i s "known" both to peers and persons i n law enforcement), my f o r t y - f i v e subjects may roughly be grouped as follows: Safecrackers - 10 Armed robbers - 5 Bank robbers - 5 Breaking and Entering - 10 House and Hotel Burglars - 3 Sh o p l i f t e r s - 2 Theft: various forms - 10 Total: 45 As was pointed out e a r l i e r , the interviewees were not i n i t i a l l y selected on the basis of s p e c i f i c s k i l l s , but i n terms of being "experienced property offenders". I t was d i f f i c u l t to know i n advance, how the research int e r e s t s outlined i n Chapter I could most adequately be ac-commodated. Owing to circumstance, the f i r s t f i v e persons s p e c i f i c a l l y interviewed for t h i s research were known as safe-crackers. The cooperation of these subjects, and t h e i r w i l l i n g -ness to provide extensive r e f e r r a l s , made the prospect of limiting my subjects to safecrackers only, highly a t t r a c t i v e . On the basis of initial interviews i t became apparent that by lijaiting my subjects to a single type, the analytic u t i l i t y of my research would be seriously undermined. I t became obvious that the cate-gory "safecracker", f o r example, cannot be understood without reference to numerous other categories to which the safecracker 57 a l s o belongs ("rounder", "B & E man", " t h i e f " ) . Furthermore, t e s t i n g the u t i l i t y of applying conventional o c c u p a t i o n a l con-cepts t o crime would c e r t a i n l y be more complete i f more than one type of crime were s t u d i e d . Indeed, t h e study of one type alone would be extremely d i f f i c u l t , since p r a c t i t i o n e r s are c o n s t a n t l y making comparisons between v a r i o u s types of crime. Safecrackers, f o r example, see the work and o c c u p a t i o n a l d i -mension of t h e i r trade as being q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of "going heavy" (armed robbery) . I n a d d i t i o n , the study of more than one type f a c i l i t a t e d comparison—a u s e f u l research s t r a t e -gy i n any case, and p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l f o r purposes of des-c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s . As the i n t e r v i e w s proceeded, the c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n of f u r t h e r subjects became i n c r e a s i n g l y e x p l i c i t . x Various s k i l l c a t e g o r i e s became apparent and f u r t h e r s e l e c t i o n of sub-j e c t s was done, i n p a r t on the b a s i s of these s k i l l s . I n t h i s way i n f o r m a t i o n could be supplemented where necessary. Further, as the i n t e r v i e w s proceeded, t h e c a t e g o r i e s meaning-f u l to the a c t o r s became apparent. The c r i t e r i a as t o the adequacy of the data are complex. I t should be remembered that the research was not intended t o provide a f u l l and complete p i c t u r e of one or more types of crime. Rather than a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p o r t r a i t of crime, i t i s ''"Wiseman discusses s i m i l a r problems i n her study of a l c o -h o l i c s . "In an e x p l o r a t o r y study of t h i s type, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o know i n advance what the sample should be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f " . Wiseman, S t a t i o n s of the Lost, p. 282. 58 intended as a demonstration of the relationship between the "how" of some types of crime (given various technical con-straints) , and the context of expectancies within which such acts are committed. This requires c a r e f u l and d e t a i l e d at-tention to the behavioural dimensions of crime and the meaning of the behaviour for the actor. Given these requirements, how i s the adequacy of the data assessed? As a rough guide during the period of data-gathering, Glaser's "saturation technique" was u t i l i z e d : The c r i t e r i o n for judging when to stop samp-l i n g the d i f f e r e n t groups pertinent to a category i s the category's t h e o r e t i c a l saturation. Satu-rati o n means that no addi t i o n a l data are being found whereby the s o c i o l o g i s t can develop proper-t i e s of the category. As he sees s i m i l a r instan-ces over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that a category i s saturated.-'-This technique was p a r t i c u l a r l y applicable to the study of safecracking. The technology of safe construction l i m i t s the number of methods by which a safe can be opened, to a few. Although the procedures were discussed i n d e t a i l with ten "known" safecrackers, by the time I interviewed the l a s t three 2 I was receiving no s i g n i f i c a n t l y new information. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago, Aldine Pub. Co. (1967), p. 61. 2 Wiseman used e s s e n t i a l l y the same technique. "When there i s no set number of interviews decided upon i n advance and no structure to the questions, how does one decide when to stop gathering data? In the case of t h i s study, interviewing con-cerning a c t i v i t i e s at a station and the two views of meaning of those a c t i v i t i e s continued u n t i l no new material was disco-vered for some time." Wiseman, Stations of the Lost, p. 282. 59 The application of the "saturation technique" was more d i f f i c u l t i n the case of armed robbery. Subjects indicated that numerous procedural v a r i a t i o n s are employed. The data, as presented, i s intended to display the range of variations employed. Although each additional subject was able to pro-vide a d d i t i o n a l information as to procedural variations, sub-jects agreed as to the basic problem of robbery, namely that of victim-management. I t i s t h i s problem which makes the con-cept of "going heavy" or "armed robbery" meaningful to the criminal, and which distinguishes i t from some other forms of crime. The data, therefore, must adequately represent the d i -mensions of victim-management as a central feature of armed robbery. The c r i t e r i a for the adequacy of q u a l i t a t i v e data are not available i n as e x p l i c i t a form as are those pertaining to quantitative analysis. I t does not follow, however, that the data i s therefore less adequate, but only that the evalu-ation of i t s adequacy i s less e a s i l y agreed upon. In dealing with the problems of inference and proof i n q u a l i t a t i v e re-search, Becker points to ce r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s between quanti-t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e analysis: In assessing the evidence for such a conclu-sion the observer takes a clue from h i s s t a t i s t i -c a l colleagues. Instead of arguing that a con-clus i o n i s either t o t a l l y true or false, he decides i f possible, how l i k e l y i t i s that h i s conclusion about the frequency or d i s t r i b u t i o n of some pheno-menon i s an accurate q u a s i - s t a t i s t i c , just as the 60 s t a t i s t i c i a n decides, on the basis of the vary-ing values of a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t or a significance figure, that h i s conclusion i s more or less l i k e l y to be accurate. x Becker has suggested that q u a l i t a t i v e research would become more " s c i e n t i f i c " and less " a r t i s t i c " endeavours i f the data were presented i n "natural h i s t o r y " fashion. This would require "...presenting the evidence as i t came to the atten-t i o n of the observer during the successive stages of h i s con-ceptualization of the problem". He stresses that the reader be given 11 . . .greater access to the data and the procedures 2 on which conclusions are based". Becker's advice accounts i n part for the format of t h i s paper. The natural h i s t o r y of the research i s presented i n considerable d e t a i l ; further, the reader i s given access to much of the data. Many quotations are included i n order to a s s i s t the reader in h i s assessment of the analysis. C. THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER The role of the prison researcher has been discussed at some length by W.E. Mann: ^ i . S . Becker, "Problems of Inference and Proof i n P a r t i -cipant-Observation", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 23,No. 6, (December, 1958), p. 656. 2 I b i d . , p. 660. 61 On the other hand, i f the investigation were conducted i n the open and the s o c i o l o g i s t had the approval of the prison authorities, he would have to r e l y heavily on the interviews with what-ever selection of inmates was o f f i c i a l l y approved. In carrying out such interviews, too, the resear-cher would have to present himself either as a psychologist, s o c i o l o g i s t or s o c i a l worker, any of which t i t l e s would automatically place him i n a status and role foreign to the s o c i a l system of the prison and to that from which the majority of prisoners come. Unless he had s p e c i a l g i f t s of achieving rapport with h i s subjects, he would l i k e l y become i d e n t i f i e d as belonging to an a l i e n , s o c i a l group and regarded as a friend of the hated administration, for example the 'captors'. In consequence, he would be the object of d i s t r u s t among a substantial number, i f not a majority of the inmates. These would l i k e l y stereotype him as a t o o l of the captors. Inmates less involved in the 'cold war1 of the prison might regard him suspiciously as an outsider c r i t i c a l l y observing inmates l i k e guinea pigs. Unless the investiga-tor could e f f e c t i v e l y break down such d i s t r u s t - -and to do t h i s would require unusual personal charisma, or a c o l d l y calculated campaign to win support by evincing sympathy for the prisoner's biases and problems, he would receive from cer-t a i n inmates very guarded, useless, exaggerated or f r i v o l o u s r e p l i e s , at best an uncertain mix-ture of fact and fancy. The task of separating t h i s 'chaff from the authentic and r e l i a b l e would tax the s k i l l of the investigator to the utmost—and l i k e l y bring into focus at least some of h i s basic sympathies and personal and t h e o r e t i c a l biases.1 Mann points out several central issues. I have e a r l i e r i n d i -cated how my experience d i f f e r e d regarding the selection of subjects. hi ann, Society Behind Bars, p. 7. 62 With regard to " t i t l e s (that) automatically place him i n a status and role foreign to the s o c i a l system of the p r i -son" (from preceding quote), i t was to my advantage that I was not a "head-shrinker" Inmates implied that head-shrinkers used deception and could not be trusted. Furtha:, to be i n t e r -viewed by a psychologist raises doubts about one's sanity, a sanity about which inmates are p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive, per-haps because the environment v i t i a t e s against i t . I frequently needed to explain the meaning of "sociolo-g i s t " , and mentioned that I was studying at the un i v e r s i t y . This seemed to help, as there was no antipathy towards the uni v e r s i t y . S o c i o l o g i s t s were not known to inmates, nor even confused with s o c i a l workers whom they see as parole of-f i c e r s . In addition, I was known to some as the guy that had done the "Bitch Study" (Habitual Criminal Study). This study had been discussed by those inmates "doing the b i t c h " (Habitual Criminals, some of whom had attended the Thursday night ses-sions as inmates, on a special pass), and was regarded favor-ably by them. My report, a copy of which I had given to a senior C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e r at Western Penitentiary, had been used as study material i n a group session of inmates. This term i s used to apply to both psychologists and to p s y c h i a t r i s t s . 63 Mann i s quite correct when he states that inmates re-sent an "outsider c r i t i c a l l y observing inmates l i k e guinea pigs".''" My acquaintance with "outside" parolees, and the nature of my research topic operated i n my favor. I mentioned to the inmates that I would ask them the same question I would ask of any working person (for example, I related i t to the sociology of occupations). Every e f f o r t was made to imply no moral d i s t i n c t i o n . Writers and cor r e c t i o n a l personnel f r e -quently remark on the prisoner's a b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y a "phoney"; from t h i s i t would appear that a "non-moralistic" stance would be d i f f i c u l t to put on simply for purposes of research. On a number of occasions I f e l t that the subject made deliberate ef-for t s to assess my own values. I t was personally more comfort-able, and I believe also more productive for purposes of research to be p e r f e c t l y honest on t h i s issue. I had no desire to de-fend or denigrate the p r e v a i l i n g l e g a l and s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . I f e l t that my stance did not i d e n t i f y me as a s o c i a l worker or as a c i v i l servant, or with an overly sympathetic attitude (the motives of which might quickly become suspect). 1. The Establishment of Independence Mann refers to " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with 'captors', for ex-2 ample, Administration" . I f inmates operated on a simple "inmate-non-inmate" dichotomy, then of course I would be a mem-ber of the a l i e n group; however, I found that t h i s was not the "Mann, Society Behind Bars, p. 7. 2 I b i d . 64 case. The Public, or Society, i s viewed as being i n support of prison p o l i c y and i n that sense i s viewed also as being part of the "enemy". But inmates have room for exceptions--both i n public as well as the prison administration sphere. They are probably less prone to lump a l l prison o f f i c i a l s into one category than are reform oriented social workers and sociologists . I assumed that to be i d e n t i f i e d with Administration would not be favorable to my research. At the same time, co-operation and thus contact with them was necessary; consequently I made e f f o r t s to l i m i t my contacts to the "right guys" (accord-ing to the inmates) i n the administration. Here again, my p r i o r ongoing relationship with parolees proved invaluable. I learned through inference, and through blunt comments, who i n Administration w a s respected by inmates and who was despised. I obtained evaluations of the senior administrators both of the Western Penitentiary and the Drug Centre. Subsequently I made e f f o r t s to avoid being seen together with the "wrong guys", and where this' was not possible, I adopted a business-l i k e demeanor which would not imply friendship. At the same time, I made no e f f o r t to be seen together with the "right guys"; i n fact, I avoided contact with Administration as much as pos-s i b l e . (Within the prison setting t h i s did not define me as asocial.) A p o l i t e "Good morning", and a generally business-l i k e , no nonsense approach seemed to be appropriate and appreci-ated. Researchers may be viewed with suspicion and t h i s may account for some of the antagonism, but they are also viewed 65 as a nuisance and an interruption (for example, as a person who does not appreciate the routines and patterns that have become r i g i d l y entrenched i n the prison system).. I brought my own lunch and ate i t alone i n my i n t e r -viewing room. I t should be noted here that there are no areas of a prison which are sealed o f f to an inmate—some inmates are used as j a n i t o r s , or clerks, and therefore have a very good knowledge of the sociometric patterns which are operative. To what extent such information f i l t e r s back to the larger inmate population i s d i f f i c u l t to say, but my impressions are that i t i s substantial. 2 . Researcher as a Mediator I t i s well known that prisoners' contact with the out-side, v i a l e t t e r or verbal communication, i s severely r e s t r i c -ted. I t i s also known that such communication i s often greatly desired, as the methods of obtaining i t would indicate. The interviewer i s one such possible source of contact with the outside world, without going through the o f f i c i a l and censori-ous channels. I t might be hypothesized that the greater the degree of t r u s t between interviewer and subject, the greater the tendency for the subject to request special favors of the interviewer. I received some, but not many such requests. From contact with agencies such as the National Parole Service and the John Howard Society, I was aware that any interference with, 66 or advice I might o f f e r regarding someone's c l i e n t , would be disapproved of unless s p e c i f i c a l l y requested by the agency worker. Agency workers did frequently ask me about inmates I had seen. Such questions implied that I was one of them (the agency), since c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y among parole o f f i c e r s does not apply intra-agency. To such questions, of course, I would give no substantive re p l i e s , although on a few occasions these questions did provide the opportunity for me to convey a mes-sage requested by the subject i n question. Only once did I de l i b e r a t e l y seek out a parole o f f i c e r i n order to convey a message. This was from an inmate who claimed he had unsuccess-f u l l y t r i e d to see the o f f i c e r for a year and asked whether perhaps I could contact him. I did, and the inmate had an i n -terview with h i s parole o f f i c e r on that same day. Whether or not t h i s favor was the cause I do not know, but t h i s inmate, who had been most h e l p f u l , gave me a r e f e r r a l to another inmate who also proved to be an excellent source. There was also a sense i n which I served as a l i n k be-tween the inmates i n the three i n s t i t u t i o n s . This was not i n the form of providing factual information, for the prison grape-vine operates between i n s t i t u t i o n s as well as within any one. Inmates know who has been released or paroled, and when; or who has been re-admitted, and for what. Such information ap-p l i e s only to persons who matter to them; they do not keep track of the "young punks". My contribution as a l i n k seemed 67 s u p e r f i c i a l l y minimal. When asked, "How's o l d Bob d o i n 1 out at ?" I needed t o be c a r e f u l i n my response, f o r I could not communicate th a t which was s a i d t o me i n confidence. I would perhaps r e f l e c t on d i s p o s i t i o n ; f o r example, "Oh, he's q u i t e a g u y — a f t e r f i v e years he s t i l l has q u i t e a sense of humour". I was never pressed f o r d e t a i l - - a b r i e f exchange l i k e the above would probably end w i t h , " I f you see him again, say ' h i 1 f o r me, okay?" I t i s understandable that persons i n confinement place greater value upon the exchange of gree t i n g s than persons who are not i n such circumstances. Whenever I could begin a new in t e r v i e w by conveying gr e e t i n g s from someone e l s e , I was a l -most c e r t a i n l y assured immediate rapport. D. THE INTERVIEW 1 . I nformal, Unstructured A s s o c i a t i o n I t would be misleading t o suggest t h a t any one s t y l e of i n t e r v e i w technique was employed, or even to suggest that a l l data were gathered by the i n t e r v i e w method. In a d d i t i o n to the i n t e r v i e w , s e v e r a l other methods were employed. F i r s t of a l l , I p a r t i c i p a t e d r e g u l a r l y i n the group session w i t h p a r o l e d H a b i t u a l C r i m i n a l s , every Thursday. As was mentioned e a r l i e r , the s e t t i n g here was h i g h l y i n f o r m a l , though the d i s c u s s i o n matter revolved around a few b a s i c themes, such as: the com-munication of news and gossip regarding persons i n p r i s o n , new 68 parolees, court decisions, parole decisions; the communica-t i o n of employment information—job openings, relations with employers; and discussion and frequent argument between pa-rolees and parole o f f i c e r s regarding f i n a n c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and parole r e s t r i c t i o n s . The Thursday sessions frequently ended by the entire group d r i v i n g to the nearest bar, where the con-versation centered about the humorous aspects of crime and law enforcement. I did not make notes or use a tape recorder at these sessions--such an observer-researcher stance may have destroyed the informal and spontaneous style of the sessions. However, I frequently made notes following the sessions. Some of these notes pertained to the subject matter of my thesis, but most were clues as to how to proceed, whom to see,, and so on. As was indicated e a r l i e r as well, such data was to prove invalu-able in the subsequent research--in fact, i t i s doubtful that my studies would have materialized without t h i s . Through my s o c i a l contact with parolees and "ex-cons" I gleaned more information. Such contacts took the form of informal v i s i t s and fi s h i n g t r i p s , not motivated by research interests, but by friendships and similar recreational i n t e -rests. E n t i r e days were spent f i s h i n g , without a word being said regarding crime or prison; i t seemed appropriate to sepa-rate my research from such a c t i v i t i e s . For purposes of i n t e r -viewing I would make appointments with these persons for another time, t e l l i n g them that I intended to question them, 69 use a tape recorder and spend the evening s p e c i f i c a l l y on re-search business. Such interviews were conducted at my Uni-v e r s i t y o f f i c e , at the subject's home, or in the one instance, at the subject's place of work. 2. The Interview i n the Prison Context (a) The Interview Context: T h i r t y - s i x interviews were conducted i n prison, ranging i n length from one hour to f i v e hours. Interviews tended either to be very short (one hour) or quite long (from four to f i v e hours), and those which were longer than two hours were interrupted as least once by the fact of prison routine. To describe the prison interview i t i s necessary to describe the prison schedules. Prison routine varied from prison to prison and i t was necessary for the interview process to adapt to the ongoing patterns. I s h a l l describe i n d e t a i l the procedure i n the largest of these prisons, the Western Penitentiary. I arrived at the prison at, or shortly a f t e r nine o'clock i n the morning. Inmates were available for interviews at eight-t h i r t y , but i t was my impression that the records s t a f f did not wish to be rushed at that time of day—consequently I wait-ed t i l l nine. Entry into the prison usually followed a pattern: a perfunctory look into my briefcase, a joke or two by the guards regarding my bag lunch, and my signing of the v i s i t o r ' s r e g i s t e r . Generally I would be delayed between gates while the 70 guards processed a truck or other vehicle through the gates. The Administration was unduly slow i n issuing me a permanent pass; consequently, for the f i r s t two weeks I would need to wait u n t i l a clerk came to the gate with the appropriately signed d a i l y pass. This procedure was p a r t i c u l a r l y f r u s t r a t -ing, not only for myself but for the clerks and gate guards. The problem of the clerks was to find someone available who was duly authorized to sign my pass. No reason was given, either to myself or to the frus-trated Records Clerk, for the delay in getting my permanent pass. There i s reason to believe that the series of hurdles which l i e i n the path of the p o t e n t i a l researcher serve a func-t i o n useful to the Administration. F i r s t , only the most per-sistent w i l l continue, and t h i s assures that only projects considered highly important to the researcher w i l l be carried out. Secondly, delays of several months make projects with dead-lines v i r t u a l l y impossible; t h i s eliminates students who want to do term papers or a course project. A t h i r d func-t i o n i s that the delays provide an 'education' for the resear-cher, regarding the l i n e of authority operative at the i n s t i -tution, both the formal and the informal. Below i s a quote taken from my notes made on Thursday, June 27, 1968: Western Penitentiary, Thursday, June 27, 1968. Due to a long weekend, the s t a f f meeting i s being held today. This means that interviews are not possible u n t i l 2:00 p.m. In addition to t h i s de-lay, I am further delayed by the fact that the 71 Records Clerk has forgotten to bring my Prison Pass to the front gate. I t i s 2:30 by the time I get to the o f f i c e and have put in the a p p l i -cation to see . By 3:45 has s t i l l not ar-rived, despite repeated phoning by the Records Clerk. The Clerk does not know how to account for t h i s ; he feels that the Supervisors don't make any e f f o r t to locate the inmate. I ask hew i t i s that Parole O f f i c e r s can see ten or twenty men i n one day. 'Oh', he says, 'For Parole the inmate i s probably bugging h i s supervisor to go for the interview 1.-'- Apparently, the speed with which an inmate can be located i s dependent both on the Supervisor and the inmate. I t i s not cle a r whether the inmate can refuse to come for the interview when c a l l e d for. I t i s clear, feem the Records Clerk, that the Supervisors can frustrate an interview and that there i s an on-going c o n f l i c t between Records and Supervisory s t a f f . The above i l l u s t r a t e s several points. F i r s t , the a f t e r -noon was unproductive—there was no interview. Secondly, when I did get to see , he i n s i s t e d that t h i s was the f i r s t time he had been c a l l e d . Evidence that he was sincere was seen i n h i s willingness to help and in h i s readiness to come for a second session. I t did seem that Supervisory s t a f f may thwart the Records s t a f f i f i t wished, and the reason for t h i s became apparent. By c a l l i n g men to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n O f f i c e , the work schedule, for which Supervisors are responsible, i s i n -terrupted (for example, worked as a baker and he indicated to me that there are c e r t a i n times when he can't leave h i s work). Usually Records s t a f f are aware of and t r y to accommodate the various work schedules, but f a i l u r e to do so results i n non-cooperation. A second reason may have to do with the status of There i s a more simple explanation, namely that Parole O f f i c e r s tended to c a l l up several inmates at once. This i n -volved waiting, on the part of some inmates, but was highly ef-ficient for the Parole O f f i c e r s . 72 the various departments i n the I n s t i t u t i o n . The C l a s s i f i c a -t i o n O f f i c e i s regarded as part of "Corrections" (for example, those persons i n r e h a b i l i t a t i v e programs), i n contrast to Cus-tody. From comments by custodial and c o r r e c t i o n a l s t a f f i t i s obvious that an on-going tension e x i s t s . Once I had gained entry to the prison my task was to find an empty interview room.x The rooms were very s i m i l a r to one another. I t r i e d to avoid the room next to the A s s i s -tant Deputy Warden's O f f i c e , since conversations could be overheard between them; and one other o f f i c e was "out of bounds" on those days when a Board Meeting was being held next door. The interview rooms were c o l o r l e s s and s t e r i l e i n ap-pearance. Furniture consisted of two chairs and a table, and the absence of window blinds tended to raise temperatures well 2 above the comfort l e v e l . The f i r s t communication I received from prison admini-s t r a t i o n stated that I could only occupy an interviewing room on one day per week, when agency personnel would not be using i t . The f i r s t day of my interviewing, however, personnel seemed surprised when I stated that I would "be back next week"— why not come back tomorrow? Thereafter I interviewed each day of the week. 2 At the V a l l e y Prxson I found the interview room so de-pressing that I asked permission to move in some upholstered furniture from the nearby lounge. I was given permission and was c a r e f u l to return the chairs at the end of the day. Upon a r r i v a l next day, the chairs had been replaced i n my o f f i c e by an inmate j a n i t o r . At the Drug Rehab i l i t a t i o n Center the rooms were well furnished, a t t r a c t i v e and comfortable. 73 A f t e r s e v e r a l d a y s o f e x p e r i m e n t i n g , t h e R e c o r d s C l e r k and I w o r k e d o u t an a g r e e a b l e p r o c e d u r e f o r c a l l i n g a n i n m a t e . My r e j e c t i o n o f e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e s was due t o my own c o n -v i c t i o n t h a t i n m a t e s s h o u l d n o t b e k e p t w a i t i n g ; t h e r e f o r e I d i d n o t l e a v e a l i s t o f names w i t h t h e C l e r k ( o f w h i c h h e c o u l d h a v e c a l l e d up a s many a s p o s s i b l e a t h i s l e i s u r e ) . I n -s t e a d , I w a i t e d u n t i l t h e p r e v i o u s i n t e r v i e w was c o m p l e t e d b e f o r e c a l l i n g a new s u b j e c t . A t t h a t p o i n t I w o u l d h a n d t h e C l e r k a s l i p o f p a p e r w i t h t h e number and name o f t h e i n m a t e on i t . F o r t h e f i r s t week h e h a b i t u a l l y r e s p o n d e d w i t h "The b o d y o r t h e f i l e ? " " ' ' My p r o c e d u r e n e c e s s i t a t e d h i s i m m e d i a t e p h o n i n g f o r t h e i n m a t e . U s u a l l y I w o u l d w a i t f o r h i s r e p l y , f o r e x a m p l e : "He's o u t o n t h e y a r d s — s h o u l d I c a l l h i m up o r s h o u l d I c a l l a n o t h e r ? " , o r " H e ' l l b e r i g h t u p " , b e f o r e r e -t u r n i n g t o my o f f i c e t o a w a i t t h e i n m a t e ' s a r r i v a l . The r e l a t i v e r o l e o f "body" a s a g a i n s t " f i l e " a s v i e w e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e R e c o r d s Department a nd b y C l a s s i f i -c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l i n g e n e r a l , i s o f i n t e r e s t . I n e a c h i n s t i -t u t i o n i t was i n c o n c e i v a b l e t o s u c h p e r s o n n e l t h a t a n y o n e w o u l d w a n t t o s e e t h e "body" a nd n o t t h e " f i l e " . Some, I f e l t , t o o k i t a s a p e r s o n a l a f f r o n t r e g a r d i n g t h e v a l u e o f t h e i r w r i t t e n w o r k . The c l a s s i c t h e o r y o f t h e i m p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r o f b u -r e a u c r a c i e s t a k e s on a c u r i o u s t w i s t h e r e . A l t h o u g h t h e "body" To w h i c h a P a r o l e O f f i c e r c o u l d r e s p o n d w i t h " b o t h " o r " j u s t f i l e " , e t c . 74 i s indeed viewed as a number (personnel refer to inmates by-number rather than by name), the f i l e i t s e l f i s personified. The comments of others constitute the prisoner. These com-ments of others are perceived of as a more accurate r e f l e c t i o n of the person than the person himself. In fact, ihe "body" i s perceived of as being a fa l s e image. " I t " may "give you a l i n e " , "b.s. you", "give you a snow job". In contrast, the f i l e i s trustworthy. I t contains absolute l e g a l i d e n t i t y , the finger-p r i n t s . In addition, i t provides us with tie body's character--an account of i t s values and thoughts by way of psychological tests, charts, and reports. The body's a b i l i t y also i s i n d i -cated by aptitudeand I.Q. t e s t s . The body's photograph, the only evidence towards which one i s i n c l i n e d to react in a more personal manner, i s tucked away in an envelope at the back of the f i l e . The length of time spent waiting for the inmate to ar-rive would vary from f i v e minutes to an hour, and might i n fact end with an apology by the Records Clerk, to the e f f e c t that said inmate could not be reached, and a question as to 2 whether I would want him to c a l l someone else. ''"The numbers were a l l f i v e - f i g u r e numbers. The p r a c t i c a l reason for t h e i r routine use may be accounted for, at least i n part, i n terms of ease of f i l i n g . The numbers themselves, how-ever, do not communicate any information other than i d e n t i t y . The a b i l i t y to remember numbers also appears to be a c r i t e r i a of status and work experience—an occupational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which prison clerks share with parts-men i n machinery shops. 2 Since the length of the wait was unpredictable, I could not r e l y on i t i n order to make notes on the previous i n t e r -view. I f such note-making was required, I would do so before c a l l i n g up the next subject. 75 The inmates c a l l e d by the Records Clerk were not t o l d the reason they were asked to come and t h i s had both advanta-ges and disadvantages. P o s i t i v e l y , i t meant that persons un-w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n research could not refuse u n t i l I had a chance to explain the project to them. Negatively, those inmates who were waiting to hear from the Parole Board, or who had been waiting to see t h e i r Parole O f f i c e r , were disappoin-ted when they discovered that t h i s was not the reason for being c a l l e d . The paged inmate would come to the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n b u i l d -ing to await d i r e c t i o n . From here the Records Clerk brought him to my o f f i c e . The Clerk made no introduction; he simply ushered the inmate into the o f f i c e and closed the door. Then the interview began. (b) Interview Procedure: A l l interviews were conducted with only the interviewer and the respondent present. As was pointed out e a r l i e r , the physical arrangements and comforts of the interviewing rooms varied. I assumed that the arrange-ment of objects, the type of objects, and so forth, would be used by the subject as clues i n interpreting the new s i t u a t i o n . I therefore eliminated any objects that might arouse eit h e r suspicion or resentment; t h i s included removal of the tape recorder, the inmate f i l e s , and any large hard-bound books"*" \)ne psychologist, who I knew was d i s l i k e d by inmates, took several large volumes on psychiatry and psychology with him, even when t r a v e l l i n g to another i n s t i t u t i o n for i n t e r -views. These would be stacked 11 impressively" on h i s desk i n the otherwise barren room. 76 (the tape-recorder was l e f t i n my b r i e f c a s e ) . Then I put on display such objects that imply comfort and r e l a x a t i o n — a n open pack of tailor-made"*" cigarettes, a thermos of coffee, and so fo r t h . The opening of the interview did take on a pattern, yet with repeated s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s . A handshake did not a l -ways seem appropriate—some inmates simply walked i n and sat down without saying a word. Others were outgoing, f r i e n d l y and t a l k a t i v e . The formal inception varied according to the i n i t i a l mood of the encounter. Where greetings were to be con-veyed, i t was done at t h i s time. In such cases rapport was 2 quxckly achieved and e a s i l y maintained. I began my explanation with a question: "Do you know what I'm here for?" This question for two reasons: I was i n -terested i n knowing how quickly and widely information of t h i s 3 kind t r a v e l l e d in a prison ; also, I needed some in d i c a t i o n from the subject as to the degree of explanation I should o f f e r . "'"Generally, prisoners are only allowed to " r o l l your own". Tailor-made cigarettes are considered a luxury by many, though some fin d them too mild r e l a t i v e to the home-made v a r i e t y . 2 Cannell and Kahn emphasize the importance of maintaining rapport: "...rapport i s not something which i s 'plugged i n ' at the beginning of the interview i n order to get i t off to a good s t a r t . Rapport refers to the atmosphere or climate of the en-t i r e r elationship between respondent and interviewer." Charles F. Cannell and Robert L. Kahn, "The C o l l e c t i o n of Data by int e r -viewing", in L. Festinger and D. Katz, Research Methods i n Be- havioural Sciences, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston (1953),p.356. 3 The r e s u l t : The news spread slowly i n the Western Peni-t e n t i a r y (500 inmates). At V a l l e y Prison, following the f i r s t interview, a l l subsequent subjects had at least some idea of what I was studying. At the Drug Centre, the d i f f e r e n t method used to introduce the project assured that a l l had at least a vague notion of the project. 77 I f the answer to my question was negative, I would say something l i k e , "Well, f i r s t of a l l , I should say that I'm not a Parole O f f i c e r , or an agency worker of any kind. I have no connection of any sort with the P e n i t e n t i a r i e s Commission. I'm from the University here and am interested i n a number of things that only people l i k e yourself can help me with. I think you know that you are not required to help me--that t h i s w i l l be s t r i c t l y voluntary. I should add too, that there i s nothing i n t h i s for you."'" I can't pay you and I can't o f f e r you Parole or anything of that sort. You can help me, but I can't help you. I want there to be no misunderstanding about that, okay? You're under no obli g a t i o n to stay, either now of a f t e r I've t o l d you what i t i s I want." This opening admission, with an emphasis on the volun-tary nature of the occasion, had several e f f e c t s . F i r s t of a l l , i t was honest and as such eliminated any pretence of my doing someting for the inmate, which my presence at the p r i -son might suggest. This statement was obviously disappoint-ing to some, p a r t i c u l a r l y those who were hoping to hear good news from the Parole Board. Secondly, I decided to leave the door open, as i t were, even before I began my explanation. In part t h i s was because of my personal dis t a s t e for the common salesman t a c t i c s , and that just as with any other person, the inmate as well should not be made to f e e l obliged to l i s t e n even to an i n i t i a l " p i t c h " . Inmates, as they often admit, have "*"This statement was not intended, nor was i t interpreted, as a denial of the p o t e n t i a l g r a t i f i c a t i o n which might be de-r i v e d from the communication process and the personal relatdorship. 78 l o t s of time, but to take t h i s and t h e i r a v a i l a b i l i t y for granted i s an affront to t h e i r self-respect. They seem only too aware of t h e i r "captive quality", and since i t i s the most obvious fact of t h e i r condition, i t i s also one which i t must remain t h e i r p r i v i l e g e to joke or to ta l k about. Most inmates were at least curious about what I wanted and asked me to "go on". Some already at t h i s point, offered to be of whatever help they could. My general impression was that those who requested the most detailed explanation of my research tend-ed to be the most informative subjects. At t h i s point I would launch into a description of my project. This would include an account of the factors that led to i t . F i r s t of a l l , I would mention the Habitual Crimi-nal project, which was of general interest to the inmate. Many were interested i n i t for personal reasons; for example they wondered i f they themselves might be e l i g i b l e for such proceed-ings. In that case I had an excellent opportunity to discuss t h e i r past convictions with them and to t e l l them whether or not they might i n fact be e l i g i b l e . By t h i s I do not wish to imply that I was the f i r s t person with whom they had discussed this--the inmates were acquainted with the l e g i s l a t i o n , though not always of i t s d e t a i l s . I was probably, for some of them, the f i r s t "outside" person with whom they had discussed i t . Without exception, inmates considered the l e g i s l a t i o n unjust and were anxious to support any e f f o r t towards i t s amendment. 79 Secondly, I would discuss with the convicts the theo-r e t i c a l reasons behind the research project. This involved a candid confession that, although academics had written a great deal about crime and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , l i t t l e was r e a l l y known about how the criminal went about h i s work, how he spent h i s money, organized h i s time, and so on. I stated that most studies tend to emphasize the "Why?", whereas I was interes-ted i n "How?" I indicated that I f e l t that the criminal had cert a i n s k i l l s which were often not recognized; perhaps these could be adapted for legitimate use. Frequently I used the example of the drug addict, by saying something l i k e , "Take the drug a d d i c t — o f t e n thought of as a petty t h i e f , yet he manages to earn some f i f t y to sixty d o l l a r s per day, seven days a week. Most squares couldn't do that. How does the addict manage? Surely there are some s k i l l s involved." By asking "How", rather than "Why", I was giving recog-n i t i o n to the s k i l l s which they had developed. Placing t h e i r s k i l l s within the general rubric of work and occupations im-p l i e d continuity rather than d i s c o n t i n u i t y between themselve s and myself. More frequently the reservation expressed by the con-v i c t was of a modest nature. Most subjects f e l t they had l i t t l e to o f f e r by way of expertise on s k i l l s . In fact, the concept " s k i l l s " was not one they e a s i l y associated with i l l e g i t i m a t e a c t i v i t y . A number expressed surprise at the association. In 80 contrast to what my many "advisors" from custodial and correc-t i o n a l s t a f f had t o l d me, I met with a great deal more modesty than I did with the exaggeration of s k i l l s . Perhaps t h i s was owing to my i n i t i a l imputation of s k i l l . Perhaps also, i t was because I was expressly interested i n examining these "often exaggerated" s k i l l s , i n contrast to most interviewers who are b a s i c a l l y interested i n discovering d e f i c i e n c i e s of various sorts. Their defensive reaction was towards my expecting too much of them, rather, than too l i t t l e - - h e n c e modesty rather than exaggeration. Cannel and Kahn indicate that: ...two major types of motivation may be tapped, thereby ensuring continued cooperation by the res-pondent... One of the motives for communicating i s the desire to influence, in some manner, the per-son to whom the communication i s addressed. That i s , a person w i l l communicate i n a given s i t u a t i o n i f he believes that such communication w i l l bring about a change or e f f e c t an action which he con-siders desireable.... A second major type of moti-vation depends more d i r e c t l y upon the personal re-la t i o n s h i p between the interviewer and respondent. I t can be defined as follows: An i n d i v i d u a l i s motivated to communicate with another when he re-ceives g r a t i f i c a t i o n from the communication process and the personal r e l a t i o n s h i p . x In terms of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i t i s obvious that my d i s -cussion of Habitual Criminal l e g i s l a t i o n appealed to the f i r s t type of motivation. In terms of research strategy, however, i t provided the basis for the second type of motivation. I t i s l i k e l