When
faced with the possibility of breaking the law, most of us might initially
contemplate the legal consequences associated with that action. Yet as Grasmick
and Bursik explain, there are other factors to account for when such an
opportunity arises. In addition to “state-imposed physical and material deprivation,” they argue that “self-imposed shame”
and “socially
imposed embarrassment” also
factor into one’s
decisions on legal compliance (Grasmick & Bursik: 841). While they found
that self-imposed shame was the most effective deterrent, some of Grasmick and
Bursik’s other
results did not materialize as expected. Regardless, the study provides a good
foundation for evaluating how certain populations interact with specific laws.
Particularly, how might Grasmick and Bursik’s results look if they studied college students faced with
breaking Michigan’s Minor
in Possession of alcohol (MIP) law? While the social underpinnings of underage
drinking would lead to much different findings, applying these concepts can still
help us better understand a student’s thought process when choosing to break this law.
Michigan’s underage drinking laws are stricter
than in many other states: the law defines a person’s body as a container, and allows
officers to stop and ticket someone even if he/she does not have alcohol on
his/her person (“Michigan Liquor Control Act”). For students in Ann Arbor, first time offenders of the
MIP law generally enter into a deferred sentence program, which involves paying
$405 in fines and court fees and attending an alcohol awareness class. Upon
completing those requirements and provided that the person is not cited again
for a drug or alcohol-related offense, the case will be dismissed after six
months (“Minor
in Possession”).
In their study, Grasmick and Bursik said that the
principles of expected utility factor into one’s assessment of the threat of sanctions: people account for
the “likelihood
(certainty) of such sanctions and the magnitude (severity) of such sanctions
should they be imposed” (Grasmick
& Bursik, 839). The certainty dimension helps explain why the MIP law is
not an effective deterrent to drinking. Underage students tend to drink in
their dorm rooms, at fraternity or house parties, or at football tailgates -
places where the sheer volume of people makes you feel invulnerable to getting
caught. Additionally, the sanctions are more severe in its short-term rather
than long-term components. Students are likely most concerned with keeping
their record clean and maintaining the ability to drink and socialize. Since
probation is non-reporting and the charges are dropped pending its completion,
a single MIP offense does not result in any long-term harm. What would likely
deter students are the more tangible, short-term penalties: the cost of court
fees and paying a lawyer, the time spent in court and with your lawyer, and the
time taken to attend the awareness classes. The short-term costs are harsher,
but are weighed less heavily than the long-term costs when considering overall
severity. A one-time MIP offense will not likely deter a student from underage
drinking in the future, but will instead make them more vigilant about police
and more strategic of where and how they drink.
If
underage drinkers are undeterred by the threat of an MIP’s legal sanctions, then they will
likely be even less phased by the threat of shame. Grasmick and Bursik describe
this cost as an internalization of guilt for violating a norm, which makes
sense within the context of the crimes they studied. However, for many college
students, drinking complies with a social norm, and the threat of internalized
shame or guilt may be more likely for someone not drinking. Thus, both
the certainty and severity of the threat of shame would be close to zero.
The
threat of socially imposed embarrassment is the third and final form of
deterrence, and the one with the most variability in the MIP context. Assuming
someone is among a like-minded group of friends, social norms dictate that
there would be no threat of embarrassment imposed by one’s peers. The likelihood and severity
of embarrassment would be higher if imposed by the adults in a student’s life: parents, grandparents,
professors, etc. Most parents are probably aware that their college-aged
children drink, but may not have a great idea of the frequent and excessive
nature of such drinking. Regardless, since students are away at school, the
threat of embarrassment from adults is not a strong enough deterrent.
Though
the effectiveness of each of the threats varied among the three crimes,
Grasmick and Bursik found that a prior offense was an effective deterrent
across the board. While the legal sanctions and levels of shame and
embarrassment all become more severe with a second MIP offense, the lack of
certainty of getting caught remains at a similar level. Each of the threats of
a second offense may cause a student to scale down his/her drinking behavior,
but it will not deter someone entirely.
Because
underage drinking is so common among college students, if the study were to be
replicated, it would be more sensible to measure what Grasmick and Bursik
describe as the “stigma” of being caught rather than the “stigma of committing the offense”
(Grasmick & Bursik, 855). A student is unlikely to feel
shame or embarrassment for drinking, but rather for being stupid and
irresponsible enough to be in a position where they got caught. Though modifying the study would correlate
shame and embarrassment more strongly with deterrence, it seems clear that the
social motivations to drink would still outweigh these potential costs.
Though Grasmick and Bursik’s conclusions do not correspond
perfectly to college students and underage drinking, they still provide a lens
through which we can evaluate why they choose to break the law. The culture on
many college campuses demonstrates that norms and the law do not always agree.
In this case, the social benefits of drinking seem to outweigh the deterring
threats of legal sanctions, self-imposed shame and socially imposed
embarrassment.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Grasmick, Harold G., and Robert J. Bursik, Jr.
"Conscience, Significant Others, and Rational Choice: Extending the
Deterrence Model." Law and Society Review 24.3 (1990): 837-62.
Michigan Liquor Control Act of 1998, §§
436-703-705 (Michigan Legislature 1998).
"Minor in Possession of Alcohol Information."
Studentlegalservices.umich.edu. University of Michigan, n.d. Web. 22 Sept.
2014.
I definitely agree with your analysis of Michigan's MIP Law using Grasmick's article. I have had multiple friends get MIPs throughout the years. Not only have none of them been deterred from social shaming or harsh penalties, but they were additionally not deterred from seeing others get MIPs. While I agree that professors do not really play a role in students and their drinking habits, I do think that the parental role could be explored a bit further. Some students, including myself, rely on their parents financially and would be required to tell their parents about the citation in order to pay for a lawyer, court fees, etc. This might deter students from drinking to the point of possibly getting an MIP out of fear of the shame and retribution incurred from their parents.
ReplyDeleteThis article shows a clear understanding of Gramsick's piece as it applies to a situation many students can relate to. I specifically appreciated the distinction between shame from committing an offense versus shame from getting caught. Here, I would like to push this argument further in asking - what role does one person's actions have in deterring another? For example, if my best friend gets an MIP while we are at a party and I do not, does that have a deterrent effect on me? Presumably, a normal response would be for me to cease drinking in the moment - but I wonder if this sensation continues into the future? During my friends probation would I still continue to drink? I am curious how the shame/guilt felt by one person can impact that of another?
ReplyDeleteThis is a good analysis, and I think you were dead on when you mentioned the lack of social sanctions for underage drinking being a major factor. I think underage drinking and MIPs are a great example of when a law is not only supported by informal norms, but in facts exists in conflict with them. College students are expected to drink, and often face social sanctions for not drinking. In this respect it is not surprising to me that the threat of legal sanctions do not even enter the equation when a student decides to drink - the cost benefit analysis doesn't just discount shame and embarrassment, but it in fact factors them in on the opposite side.
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis of this very common issue is quite on point. The actual legal ramifications of MIP offenses do not deter students from drinking-most students anyway-and the first offender program at the University allow students to escape rather easily if they are caught.
ReplyDeleteThe point I would like to contend, however, is the analysis of the embarrassment one may feel from receiving an MIP. If I were to get an MIP and my mother discovered, I would not only feel terrible, but my mother would also hang this over my head for a long time. Even if one's parents are far away, I feel that most parents would be quite ashamed if there son or daughter were to receive a misdemeanor. I would like to know how parents would react if they discovered that their child, whom they know drinks, received an MIP. There reaction could range from severe to uncaring, yet I feel that the repercussions from an angry parent could be enough to deter a student in some way.
I find your point on how threat of a first MIP as a weak deterrence as a very interesting point. It seems that not only the policies created by the University but the culture of the students makes fearlessly drinking the norm. Often even at house parties, and tailgates that are broken up by the police, there seem to be students who are in no hurry to leave. I also agree with you on the point that shame and guilt do not play much of a role within campus itself. It would be strange for a group of students to shame another student for drinking tickets. However shame from parents and other family back home could provide a deterrence for some students; who come from backgrounds where underage drinking would be deemed extremely unacceptable. However, Could some students not tell there parents? It seems $400 would not be a lot for many financially independent students on campus, especially those with jobs.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that I found most compelling was the reaction to second offense drinking. The idea that even after students first offense, most will not be completely deterred from alcohol speaks loudly to the culture of a college campus. The punishments for a second offense are much greater, and could have lasting effects on a person. Still most students will only slightly scale back, rather than stop drinking.
I think you make a very interesting point when it comes to the deterrents associated with underage drinking in Michigan. One point that I think could have been expanded on is the idea that parents are not strong deterrents to keep kids from drinking in college. For many of our parents, when they were in college the legal drinking age was 18. Because of this, many of them have fond memories of drinking throughout college with little to no fear of the legal ramifications, simply because there weren't any. Now that the laws have changed, not all parents realize or agree with these new policies, and feel that their children should have the same college experience that they did. Due to this mentality, some parents are not only poor deterrents, but might actually be advocates for their child to drink at school. I believe that once our generation becomes parents, we will have a better understanding of the laws and the seriousness that can come with the punishment. Once that occurs, I think we will see a shift in the way parents deter their kids from drinking.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good piece that clearly understands the Gramsick reading, while nicely connecting it to a very prevalent issue on college campuses. I think it's very accurate to say that there is more shame attributed to not drinking than to getting caught drinking. Sure, one might feel dumb or angry for getting caught, but that hardly prevents the individual and his/her friends from reengaging in that same behavior. I noticed that there was an idea that parents are not quite aware of the extent that their children drink, thus implying that they could play more of a role; however, that's a difficult claim to make, for the same parenting styles, with regards to drinking, can have vastly different outcomes. While underage drinking is taken seriously, I believe that society has allowed quite a bit of leeway with it, especially on college campuses, and that is where the issue lies.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job using the Grasmick and Bursik reading to analyze a legal infraction that is all too often occurring across college campuses. However, I do think that the role adults play in deterrence could have been explored a bit further. In your piece, you state, “Regardless, since students are away at school, the threat of embarrassment from adults is not a strong enough deterrent.” Even though students may be away from home, the reactions adults, such as parents, might have could have far reaching effects on their behavior. Knowing the disappointment and anger my parents would have if I got an MIP definitely had an effect on how I went about engaging in certain activities. While parental disappointment might not be a complete deterrent, it very likely holds some weight in a student’s decision to drink underage. Not only should the emotional reactions of adults be considered, but the role money plays in a student’s relationship with important adults in their lives should also be examined. Many of my friends that have received MIPs have relied on their parents for financial assistance when it came time to pay their fines, legal expenses, and medical bills. If a student is going to need to go to their parents for money, they may deterred from underage drinking so that they can avoid that situation all together. Although each student’s relationship with the adults in his/her life is going to be completely different, it is still important to take into action the role adults may have on deterring certain illegal behaviors.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great analysis on the interaction between formal law and societal norms. In the case of underage drinking at college campuses, informal norms seem to govern students’ behavior—the costs of Michigan’s MIP law violations are simply too weak, both legally and socially, on campus. I think MIP laws fail to reduce the amount of underage drinking that occurs due to the clear “in-group” mentality among college students on campus. This in-group is dictated by certain informal norms that don’t exist when the in-group mixes with out-groups—such as college students and their parents. It seems that the threats and costs associated with violations of the MIP laws result in greater shame and embarrassment when college students are not in the presence of the in-group, or other students, but rather have to face their parents or other out-group members. So, I think the environment and the people we are surrounded by dictate the amount of deterrence we feel from certain laws.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your contrast of the social norms going against the formal law in regards to underage drinking. I was actually just talking to my housemates regarding MIPs and was really surprised that out 6 girls I'm the only one that hasn't gotten one. Their understanding of underage drinking and receiving an MIP was that it was just a rite of passage in college. Instead of creating shame and embarrassment for doing these actions, having an MIP has become a social status. I don't really know when this phenomenon came to exist, but I'm curious if it will revert to becoming a shaming mechanism?
ReplyDelete