Social Status and Attitudes

toward Delinquency Control*

WILLIAM P. LENTZ
Lecturer, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin;
Chief of Planning and Development, Division for Children and Youth,
Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare
Assistant Superintendent, Child Center (Sparta) ,
Wisconsin Department of Public Welfare, 1949-50
Ph.D. (Sociology), 1954, M.S.S.W., 1959, University of Wisconsin

Known or official delinquents form the basis for the delin-

quent stereotype and become the focus of attention of both
agencies and the public. The boy who has been labeled a
delinquent faces other people whose attitudes are crucial in
the perpetuation of delinquency as a stable role. This survey
sought to determine how Wisconsin adults believe delinquents
should be handled. The findings show that they favor swift
and impartial justice, but they also conceive of the delinquent
as an emotionally disturbed individual who
ought to be given
the attention of experts. In general, the higher the social status
the less likely the respondent was to subscribe to the general
view. Those in higher social status groups displayed less con-
fusion on most issues. We may conclude that the general con-
fusion regarding the handling of delinquency is a barrier to
control. Agencies may mitigate the problem somewhat by clari-
fying their roles. Delinquency will not be prevented if current
attitudes on how to handle the delinquent persist.

HE PROCESS OF BECOMING IDENTIFIED treated as simply the &dquo;sowing of wild

T as a delinquent is not under-
clearly
stood or easily described. Behavior that
may be viewed as delinquent activity is
much more widespread than is shown by
the official figures; much delinquent
-
activity is not reported.1 In general the
delinquency of lower-class youngsters is
dealt with officially, but the delinquent
behavior of middle- and upper-class ju-
veniles is unrecognized, hidden, or
*
This study was supported by funds provided
by the Division for Children and Youth, Wis-
consin State Department of Public. Welfare.
James S. Wallerstein and Clement J. Wyle,
1 may be included. The boy who is truant
"Our Law-abiding Law-Breakers," Probation,
April 1947, pp. 107-12; Austin Porterfield,
Youth in Trouble (Fort Worth, Tex.: Leo
Potishman Foundation, 1946); James Short,
Ivan Nye, and Virgil Olson, "Socio-economic
Status and Delinquent Behavior," American
Journal of Sociology, June 1958, pp. 381-88.
147
oats.&dquo;
Only a portion of all delinquent activ-
ity, then, becomes known or receives
official attention. If we remove from
consideration all those youngsters whose
acts are not dealt with officially by the
police or the courts, the remaining-
group, recognized by the general public
as delinquent, provides the basis for the
public’s conception of the delinquent.
This group is elaborated in a stereotype
in much the same way that we conceive
of the criminal. A variety of behavior T
is to be &dquo;delinquent&dquo; as clearly
adjudged
as the boy who engages in a series of
thefts. Both have been known to agen-
cies, have appeared in court, and have
been labeled delinquent. But the legal
label is not enough; the stereotype is
 148
accepted and used only if the label is
carried over into everyday life. When
adults and peers regard a person as a
delinquent, for all practical purposes he
meets the definition.
The stereotype is reaffirmed and rein-
forced in many ways. The movies and
television characterize the delinquent,
various mass media report on episodes of
delinquent behavior and some agencies
publish reports on the number and kind
of delinquent acts, and neighborhood
gossip permits even the youngest child
to learn about the concept.
A boy who has been labeled delin-
quent is quite likely to accept the devi-
ant role. His conception of himself and
his social role as a delinquent is depen-
dent on the way others treat him.= If he
is treated as a delinquent and he con-
ceives of himself as one, role acceptance
is enhanced. Once this has occurred the
shedding of the role is difficult indeed.
There are even some rewards for contin-
uing : the delinquent receives a great
deal of attention from a wide variety of
people, and execution of some delin-
quent acts continues to provide a thrill
and a sense of adventure even if it does
not provide large monetary rewards.
The return to a conventional role is
blocked by others since he has been
defined as &dquo;bad.&dquo; This label follows him
wherever he goes-in school, in contacts
with social agencies, and frequently in
attempts to enter the armed services or
seek a job. The stereotyped concept of
the delinquent contributes to perpetua-
tion of the delinquent role.
THE PROBLEM
This conceptualization of the stable
role of delinquency is not inconsistent
with recent theories regarding delin-
quency.3 The development of the delin-
quent role is dependent upon many
2See Marshall B. Clinard, Sociology of De-
viant Behavior (New York: Holt, 1963), pp.
213-15 for a summary of the relationship be-
tween self conception and delinquency.
3 The formulation is consistent with that
outlined by Albert Cohen and James Short,
persons other than the delinquent him-
self. The people who know him-the
school, the police, the courts, and the
general public-are all involved in ac-
ceptance and continuation of the role.
While most theories of delinquency in-
clude or imply these aspects of the
delinquent role, the emphasis is usually
on the individual and his definition of
the situation.
The attitudes of the &dquo;others&dquo; involved
is probably crucial to the problems of
controlling juvenile delinquency. Atti-
tudes which clearly convey how one feels
about a delinquent not only become
part of the process of his role develop-
ment but also constitute a barrier to his
acquisition of conventional roles. The
magnitude of the problem of juvenile
delinquency, then, is not depicted mere-
ly by listing persons and their offenses. It
can be fully understood only if we know
how those persons, who are about to
become delinquent or are already la-
beled delinquent, will be regarded and
treated. At the outset, then, we ought to
determine the attitude of various groups
toward the stereotyped delinquent. How
does the general public look upon him?
Are there differences between various
groups or socio-economic strata in the
way they view him?
If attitudes differ according to social
status, the implications for theory are
directly related to the foregoing discus-
sion of the &dquo;other side&dquo; of delinquency.
Do attitudes toward delinquency control
bear a relationship to the incidence of
official delinquency among the various
groups? If they do, a new dimension is
added to the general etiology of delin-
quency.
"Juvenile Delinquency," Contemporary Social
, Robert Merton and Robert Nisbet,
Problems
eds. (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1961) , pp.
80-81. It is also not at odds with Walter B.
Miller, "Lower Class Culture as a Generating
Milieu of Gang Delinquency," Journal of Social
Issues, vol. 14, no. 3, 1958; and it does not
conflict with Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd
E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A
Theory of Delinquent Gangs (New York: Free
Press, 1960).
 149

METHODOLOGY ought to be
published in the newspa-
A representative sample of 702 adults pers. Thirty-seven per cent (question
in Wisconsin was surveyed.4 Questions 82) believe that strict discipline and
concerning attitudes toward delinquency spankings will prevent delinquency; and
control were asked in direct interviews only 29 per cent (question 84) favor
with the respondents. Data were also col- greater use of institutions in preference
lected on indicators of socio-economic to probation.
status, including occupation, education,
and family income.5 The schedule was TABLE I
pretested on office workers, public wel- NfORE REFERRALS TO THE POLICE
fare professionals, and students. On the
basis of this experience thirteen ques-
tions were included in the final survey.
They pertain to legalistic methods of
handling delinqency, including punish-
ment as well as professional treatment.
The aim was not to set up a continuum
of methods but rather, as an examina-
tion of the questions will show, to insure
some bipolarity.
In all instances the null hypothesis The data also reveal differences for
implied that there were no signifi-
was various socio-economic groups. Table 1,
cant differences between the various social for example, shows that the greater the
status groups in their attitudes toward amount of education the less likely is the

delinquency control. Chi-square tests and respondent to favor more referrals to the
critical ratios were computed to deter- police. Table 2 indicates a similar differ-
mine whether differences were signfi- ence in regard to strict discipline and
cant. spankings as a preventive.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
TABLE 2
The overall responses to the schedule STRICT DISCIPLINE AS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE
may be found in the Appendix. Above
all, the general public in Wisconsin
favors swift and impartial justice (87 per
cent, question 89) and feels that the
punishment ought to fit the crime (86
per cent, question 85) At the same time
they believe that more delinquents
ought to be referred to the police (69
per cent, question 8~) . A clear majority
of the sample (58 per cent, question 94)
believe that the names of juvenile delin- In a similar manner, the higher the
quents who commit serious offenses family income the less likely is the
respondent to agree with the same prop-
4 The questions were included in a larger osition and the less likely is he to favor
survey of a representative statewide sample greateruse of instittitions.6 Table 3
conducted by the Survey Research Laboratory
of the University of Wisconsin under the
shows the differences between specific
supervision of Professor Harry Sharp. groups.
5 For a discussion of the use of indicators of
socio-economic status see: Leonard Reissman, Chi square equated 13.0. P<.05
6 level with
Class in American Society (New York: Free 16.4, P<.05
6&deg; df, and level with 6&deg; df, re-
Press. 1959). pp. 144-64. spectively.
 150

TABLE 3
DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES’

I
Critical ratios significant at the .05 per cent or lower level of confidence.

The responses also indicated some tained for various levels of family in-
preferences for treating the delinquent. come.7
Seveny-nine per cent of the respondents
said that delinquents should be iden- TABLE 4
tified in order to receive early treatment ATTITUDE OF GANG BOYS
UNLIKELY TO CHANGE
(question 91) . A majority (54 per cent,
question 86) believed that the gang
boy’s attitudes may be changed. Similar
percentages apply to the propositions
that the petty thief is emotionally dis-
turbed and ought to be treated, that
gang boys need treatment, that vandals
should also be treated, and even that
fighting between delinquent gangs
should be handled by a psychologist or a
psychiatrist (questions 87, 90, 92, and There were also differential responses
93). according to socio-economic indicators
Again there are differences between for other questions pertaining to treat-
socio-economic groups. Table 4 shows as shown in Table 5.
ment,
the differences in responses of various
educational levels in regard to the per- Forty-eight per cent of the respon-
dents said that all traffic offenses by
manency of gang boys’ attitudes. Similar
results on the same variable were ob- 7 ’rhe results: X
2 = 22.33, P<.01 with 6&deg; df.
 151

teen-agers should be handled by the come, the less likely the person will be to
juvenile Again there were many subscribe to these propositions. The
court.
different responses by various groups. same may be said for higher status
This question specifies special handling occupational groups, although the data
rather than treatment of a group of are not as definitive in this area.
offenders not ordinarily classified as de- We may conclude, therefore, that so-
linquent. cial status does have considerable impact
CONCLUSIONS upon the perpetuation of official delin-
The findings show that the vast ma- quency as a stable role. The social
jority of the general public has an groups with the greatest incidence of
interest in fair and impartial justice. An official delinquency, the lower social
ambivalence may be noted: it em- classes, form the strongest basis for con-
phasizes punishment but, at the same tinuation rather than shedding of the
time, it favors treatment. It believes that delinquent role. Finally, the higher the
the delinquent is ill and should be social status, as indicated by socio-
treated by highly specialized experts. economic variables, the less likely is it
The specific null hypotheses pertain- that the person will be ambivalent in
ing to social status factors and their espousing a legalistic-punitive approach
relationship to most of the statements rather than treatment. The understand-
must be rejected. Generally the higher ing of delinquency also varies according
the educational level and the family in- to the same dimensions.

TABLE 5
DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSES’

a
Critical ratios significant at the .05 per cent or lower level of confidence.
152

LIMITATIONS delinquent. The general public feels

The sample limits the findings and
conclusions to Wisconsin. As in any
interview schedule, questions might be
raised as to whether the statements were
that the situation should be handled by
experts. Does this imply a denial of
public and individual responsibility? Be-
cause of the punitive overtones in con-

understood by the respondents. The trast to treatment, it suggests the possi-

number of persons who were undecided
or who indicated that they did not know
what to say would lead us to believe that
this was not a problem. We do not know
why a person answered in a certain way.
The questions were relatively straight-
forward, and little difficulty was noted
in eliciting responses. Lack of knowl-
edge in answering the questions would
appear to be borne out by the results
obtained for the education variable.
This contributes to our assessment of the
problem and is actually a finding of the
study rather than a defect.
A further limitation is imposed by the
scope of the questions. One may easily
suggest other questions or propositions
which could have been used. The aim,
however, was not to saturate the area of
injury but rather to obtain answers
representative of points of view re-
garding delinquency control. The
findings and conclusions are, therefore,
limited to attitudes in this field and
cannot apply to wider problems.
bility that the problem may be passed on
only to the experts.
Finally, while the sense of justice and
fair play may be seen, there is also cause
for pessimism. Since delinquency is a
stereotype but also consists of a variety
of behavior contrary to widely held
social values, the task of prevention and
control, in the strict sense, cannot be
accomplished. As long as people have
the attitudes shown in this study, the
transfer from a delinquent to a conven-
tional role will be blocked in most
instances. Without some drastic shift in
viewpoint, the public will always be able
to find some children who may be la-
beled delinquent. The social processing
and acquisition of the stable role will
continue to reflect the &dquo;other side&dquo; of
delinquency.

PRAGMATIC VALUE OF STUDY

The confusion regarding how delin-
quents should be handled, as indicated
in the data, has some practical implica-
tions. The various roles of social agen-
cies engaged in delinquency control are
apparently not clear to the general pub-
lic. Clarification of their functions and ApPE1IoõDlX: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
much interpretation to thepublic are

certainly needed. One might raise a

supplementary question concerning
roles. Are the aims of personnel within
such agencies consistent with agency
goals? If such personnel reflect in any
way the attitudes of the general public, a
serious problem exists in attaining such
goals and should be subjected to further
research.
There also emerges a patchwork pat-
tern
concerning responsibility for the