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 pose the question, “What are ethical issues currently facing the field of criminology?” chances are some common themes would 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. The role criminologists play may be influenced by these themes, but in large part they act independently, and they are not beholden to the same constructs as a police officer or attorney. What follows is a discussion of some key ethical issues in criminology.

Information Gathering

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

However, not all information-gathering inaccuracies rise to the level of an ethical issue. Honest mistakes, or more commonly erroneous entry or classification of a criminal event in the wrong category, can lead to unsupported conclusions of fact. An example of this concerns the Jeanne Clery Act. Passed by Congress in 1990 as a consumer protection measure, the act requires all colleges and universities that 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 inconsistent with state and local definitions of the same criminal act. This can lead honest reporters to enter inaccurate data.

Manipulating Facts 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 or deflated numbers to achieve a purpose will most assuredly be discovered, forever damaging the researcher’s credibility.

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 the reporting of serious crimes. In certain cases, pressure may be exerted on the individuals completing the annual Jeanne Clery Act compliance reporting (Van Vliet, 2020). The pressure comes in the form of encouraging a reduction in the actual number of criminal events reported 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 that they had concerns about certain elements of criminology 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 Stephen Jay Gould’s research. His work refuted some long-held biased positions of others regarding the measurement of the brain cavity and the correlation between the volume of the cavity to intelligence and the individual’s race (Weisberg & Paul, 2016).

Providing Expert Testimony

Criminology researchers are often summoned to provide expert testimony for the purposes of supporting criminal prosecution, civil plaintiffs, or the defense in civil or criminal cases. Whether criminal or civil in nature, the stakes in such testimony are high. Legal counsel in criminal cases will provide material in the form of reports, including police reports, witness and victim statements, crime scene and crime lab findings, and many other forms of pertinent information. What is not openly discussed are the reasons why one side or the other sought out the criminologist’s expert testimony. Unfortunately, it is not beneath some individuals to attempt to convince the criminologist to adjust data to match 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 is astonishing. In the end, criminologists providing expert testimony need to act with the highest levels of integrity and have open, honest, and sometimes courageous conversations with legal counsel in order to uphold the highest standards of their role in the legal system.

Attributions

1. Figure 3.20: Expert Witness by Nick Youngson is released under CC BY-SA 3.0