Abstract
This study uses hearing transcripts to examine judge-defendant interaction in a trial-type setting. The setting is a public housing eviction hearing; judges are eviction board members and defendants are tenants facing eviction for non-payment of rent. All tenants in the sample were formally evicted, but in each case the execution of the eviction order was stayed on the condition that the tenant pay his rent. Two forms of verbal interaction are identified. The first, “moralizing” is deemed present when one or more board members directs a degrading remark toward the tenant. The second, “cooling in” is deemed present when one or more board members directs a helping remark toward the tenant and the tenant in some way indicates his receptivity. When moralizing occurs the eviction hearing contains all of Garfinkel's (1956) requisites for successful status degradation ceremonies. Consequently it was hypothesized that tenants who had been moralized would be less successful in clearing their rent debts than tenants who had not been moralized, but if successful, more likely get into rent payment trouble again. It was also hypothesized that tenants who had been “cooled in” would be more likely to clear their rent debt than tenants who had not been cooled and that, having cleared their rent debt, they would be less likely to recidivate. All predictions except the hypothesized association between cooling in and recidivism are supported by the data. Although cell sizes grow uncomfortably small, the predicted relations persist after controlling for obvious sources of spuriousness. The conclusion discusses the analogy between the housing eviction hearing and the criminal trial.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becker, H. S.Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, New York: Free Press, 1963.
Duncan, O. D. A sociometric index for all occupations. In Reiss, A. J., Hatt, P. K., & North, C. C. (Eds).Occupations and Social, Status New York: Free Press, 1961.
Emerson, R. M.Judging Delinquents Chicago: Aldine, 1969.
Garfinkel, H. Conditions of successful degradation ceremonies.American Journal of Sociology, 1956,16, 420–424.
Goffman, E. On cooling the mark out.Psychiatry, 1952,15, 451–463.
Goldberger, A. S.Econometric Theory. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Kinch, J. W. A formalized theory of the self-concept.American Journal of Sociology, 1963,68, 481–486.
Lemert, E. M.Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967.
Lemert, E. M.Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.
Lempert, R. O. Evictions from public housing: A sociological inquiry. Unpublished doctoral disseration, University of Michigan, 1971.
McPartland, T. S., Cummings, J. H. & Garretson, W. S. Self-conception and word behavior in two psychiatric hospitals.Sociometry, 1961,24, 111–124.
Mead, G. H.,Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1934.
Mileski, M. Courtroom encounters: An observation study of a lower criminal court.Law and Society Review, 1971,5, 473–536.
Schwartz, R. & Skolnick, J. Two studies of legal stigma.Social Problems, 1962,10, 133–142.
Videbeck, R. Self-conception and the reaction of others.Sociometry, 1960,23, 351–359.
Webster, M., Roberts, L. & Sobieszak, B. I. Accepting “significant others”: Six models.American Journal of Sociology, 1972,78, 576–598.
Wheeler, S., Bonacich, E., Cramer, M. R., & Zola, I. S. Agents of delinquency control: A comparative analysis. In Wheeler, S. (Ed).Controlling Delinquents. New York: Wiley, 1968.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I would like to thank Bliss Cartwright, Theodore Newcomb, Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Stanton Wheeler for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Work on this article was supported by Cook Funds of the University of Michigan Law School. In writing an earlier version I benefited from a Russell Sage Foundation residency in law and social science at the Yale Law School.
About this article
Cite this article
Lempert, R.O. Trial-type ceremonies and defendant behavior. Law Hum Behav 1, 343–362 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048594
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048594