4.7 Ethical Issues in Criminology

If you were to assemble a group of world-renowned criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists devoted to the study of crime, its causation, and the basis of criminal behavior, and posed the question, “What are ethical issues currently facing the field of criminology?,” chances are you would have some common themes emerge. In public safety and ground-level criminal justice occupations, four common themes develop–discretion, duty, honesty and loyalty. These themes are prescribed in large part due to the social contract of police, corrections employees, and the courtroom work group. For the criminologist, it needs to be understood that the role they play may be influenced by these themes, but in large part they act independently and are not beholden to the same constructs as a police officer or attorney might be.

Some key ethical issues in criminology include:

Information Gathering

The methods by which criminologists harvest their data, matters. If a researcher seeks only certain sources based on a personal perception, this would be indicative of possible bias on the collector and could nullify the results of an important study. The researcher may not be comfortable with contacting, interviewing, or otherwise collecting certain data from certain sources, but disregarding a source devalues their unique information, and may be perceived as disrespectful. It would also leave out aspects, perhaps important viewpoints, to the full research, rendering the results as an incomplete package.

It should be noted here that not all information-gathering inaccuracies rise to the level of an ethical issue. In fact, honest mistakes, or more commonly, erroneous entry or classification of a criminal event in a wrong category can lead to unsupported conclusions of fact. One example here concerns the Jeanne Clery Act; passed by Congress in 1990 as a consumer protection measure, the Act requires all colleges and universities which receive federal funding, to report crimes occurring on, or in the near vicinity, of its campuses and areas under their control. In some cases, the federal definitions of certain crimes are not consistent with state and local definitions of the same criminal act, and can lead honest reporters to enter inaccurate data.

Manipulating Facts and/or Numbers

Engaging in number manipulation implies bias on behalf of the researcher. In some funded studies, “cooking the numbers” may be an illegal act. Most importantly, research using untruthful or inflated/deflated numbers to achieve a purpose will most assuredly be discovered, forever damaging the credibility of the researcher from that point forward.

Using the example of crime reporting on colleges and universities, no educational institution wants to be considered “unsafe” or to have their brand tarnished by reporting of serious crimes. In certain cases, pressure may be exerted toward the individuals completing the annual Jeanne Clery Act compliance reporting (Van Vliet, 2020). The pressure comes in the form of encouraging a reduction of the actual number of criminal events reported to a lower level so as to not raise concerns of the parents of college-age children, or even adult learners, about the safety of the school they may consider attending.

Development and Publishing of Research

In recent years, at least half of the respondents to a survey of the American Society of Criminology (Vohryzek-Bolden, 1997) expressed they had concerns involving certain elements of the research, including how consent was obtained, participant confidentiality, and claims of deceptive practices. For others, implications of racism and bias, combined with restrictions placed on funding and publication, were troublesome.

This was also evident in the research conducted by Stephen Jay Gould, whose work refuted some long-held, biased positions of others regarding the measurement of the brain cavity and correlating the volume of the cavity to intelligence and the individual’s race (Weisberg & Paul, 2016).

Figure 4.20

Providing Expert Testimony

Often researchers in criminology are summoned to provide expert testimony for the purposes of supporting criminal prosecution, civil plaintiffs, or the defense. Whether criminal or civil in nature, the stakes in such testimony are high. Legal counsel will provide material in the form of reports, to include police reports, witness and victim statements, crime scene and crime lab findings, and many other forms of information pertinent to the case. What is not openly discussed are the reasons why one side or the other sought out the expert testimony of the criminologist. It is not above some individuals to attempt to convince the criminologist to adjust data to match that which is included in their testimony to support their theory of what happened. The opposing legal team may have also acquired the services of an expert witness, and often the stark contrast between expert testimonies regarding the very same fact sets, are astonishing. In the end, criminologists providing expert testimony need to act with the highest levels of integrity, have open, honest and sometimes, courageous conversations with legal counsel, in order to uphold the highest standards of their role in the legal system.