Normal Homicides, Normal Defendants: Finding Leniency in Oklahoma's Murder Conviction Machinery

By Mays, G. Larry; Keys, David | Western Criminology Review, March 2011 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Normal Homicides, Normal Defendants: Finding Leniency in Oklahoma's Murder Conviction Machinery

Mays, G. Larry, Keys, David, Western Criminology Review

Abstract: Data derived from Oklahoma Criminal Offender Records, Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals, and newspapers of record (1973-2008) were analyzed along with interviews of key criminal court officers, assessing the normal crimes concept (Sudnow 1965) and common-sense considerations in homicide case dispositions (Garfinkel 1956). Statistical analyses of charging patterns in murder cases in Oklahoma (n = 2,629) demonstrate that defendants' legal representation, both public and private, dispose of large numbers of cases as normal homicides and that specific predictor variables exist that influence the decision to treat a given homicide as normal.

Keywords: social disorganization, collective efficacy, informal control, formal control, crime, victimization

Introduction and Literature Review

This paper utilizes the concept of normal crimes developed by Sudnow (1965) to determine the extent to which this notion explains the manner in which death penalty cases are disposed in Oklahoma. Historically, in excess of 71% of homicide cases in Oklahoma are disposed of via plea negotiations that alter charging and reduce sentences. Thus, it is clear that a functional and enduring structure is in place that selects less offensive cases. It is not surprising, therefore, that the late ethnomethodologist, David Sudnow, in his classic paper "Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office" (Sudnow 1965), analyzed a broad range of criminal offenses, finding that public defenders and prosecutors worked in a coordinated and complimentary fashion, in many cases coupling charge reductions with guilty pleas, all toward quick disposal and avoiding trial.

In a similar study of jury deliberations, Garfinkel (1956) found that panel members, in the face of opposing views on a given defendant's guilt, formed what he called "common-sense considerations that anyone could see," in arriving at the necessary unity in their verdict (Garfinkel 1956: 240-241). Sudnow's work looked at the interactions of supposed adversaries that were, in reality, cooperative relationships vital to the smooth operation of a criminal court. Sudnow (1965) documented opposing counsel's considerations of the "typical manner in which the offenses are committed, the social characteristics of the persons who regularly commit them, the features of settings in which they occur, and the types of victims often involved" as key organizing concepts in understanding and explaining the normality of a given homicide (Sudnow 1965: 256).

Normal crimes are the result of criminal justice actors creating a sense of structure through their interpretations of circumstances surrounding criminal behaviors and legal procedures. Out of these concepts Sudnow constructed the idea of normal crimes: an array of offenses, whose typical features (e.g., manner of occurrence, personal characteristics of the persons who commit them) both defense and prosecution agreed merited mutually beneficial legal compacts, thus dispensing with trials. Garfinkel (1967) observed jurors working across what could have been significant disagreements, using a body of common-sense knowledge and a range of procedures and considerations that permitted the finding of unanimous verdicts. Garfinkel (1956) found that jurors worked through a number of challenging distinctions (e.g. "fact versus opinion," "what the evidence shows and it says to each of us," "what was reasonable doubt") in arriving at unified decisions (Garfinkel 1956: 241). In reference to homicides in particular, Garfinkel (1949) found very early in the history of the death penalty research that courts formed norms, what he termed local knowledges, shaped by the racial discourse in a specific social landscape and that these imposed guidelines on the responses to certain crimes and treatment of defendants.

Both studies examined emerging and functional patterns of agreement within common sense-making procedures that any ordinary members of society would understand and use.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Normal Homicides, Normal Defendants: Finding Leniency in Oklahoma's Murder Conviction Machinery


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?