Comparing and Contrasting the Formal and Informal Crime Control Views of Indian and U.S. College Students

Abstract

This study examined the importance of formal and informal crime control in the United States and India. Formal crime control relies on the law and official government agencies to deter criminal actions and to respond to criminal activity. Informal crime control relies on moral and social institutions (e.g., family, peers, and neighbors) to promote lawful behavior. Using the data collected from 928 college students, the study found that the Indian and U.S. respondents differed on most of the formal and informal control measures. Overall, the Indian respondents were more likely to rank informal control as more important than were their U.S. counterparts. Although there were differences, both groups of respondents shared similar views on the importance of both forms of crime control and held that family was the most important form of crime control.

Keywords

formal crime control informal crime control college students’ views India the United States

Although crime is a universal issue, different societies select different mechanisms to prevent and respond to it. Although there are many ways to control crime, they fall into two major categories, formal crime control and informal crime control.¹ Formal crime control refers to legal control imposed by law or implemented by official or governmental organizations, whereas informal crime control refers to control carried out by unofficial controlling groups or individuals based on moral rules (Jiang, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2010). The primary official controlling organizations include the police, the courts, and a variety of correctional agencies, whereas unofficial controlling groups include family, neighborhoods, and peer groups.

The literature suggests that social orientations influence individuals’ views, attitudes, and perceptions, and distinct cultural groups have their own values, views, and norms (Chung & Bagozzi, 1997). There has been little cross-cultural research on views of control in dealing with crimes. The failure to engage in cross-national research limits the understanding of crime issues and how they differ across the world (Terrill, 2007). Much of the research on views on crime control has focused on Western nations, particularly the United States. Khan and Unnithan (2009) argued that limiting research on criminal justice issues to Western, developed nations leads to a myopic worldview of insularity and ethnocentrism. They further pointed out that such a narrow focus of criminal justice research ignores the majority of people on the planet. Moreover, cross-national research can help narrow the gap between different nations and create bridges where information flows more freely (Cao & Cullen, 2001). For theoretical and practical reasons, comparing and contrasting views on crime-related matters across the globe is important.

This preliminary study examined the crime control views of individuals in the Republic of India (henceforth, India) and the United States of America (henceforth, the United States). There have been few, if any, cross-national comparison studies published in Western journals on the control views of these two nations; therefore, this preliminary study was undertaken to provide new insights and spur additional cross-national research on crime control views.

Literature Review

Overview of India

India is a nation in south Asia with a rich and long history dating back thousands of years. It became a modern parliamentary democracy nation in 1947, when it gained its independence from Great Britain (Raghavan, 2004). India has more than 1.1 billion citizens (World Factbook, 2009). Its land mass is one third the size of the United States, and India’s population is almost four times as large. India has a vibrant and rapidly growing market-based economy, estimated to be the sixth largest economy in the world and which is predicted to exceed the size of the U.S. economy by the middle of the 21st century (Unnithan, 2009). Despite its growing economy, poverty and illiteracy are social problems (World Factbook, 2009). About a third of Indian citizens live in urban areas and more than half work in agriculture (Khan & Unnithan, 2009). India is a very diverse nation in terms of ethnicity and religion—the majority (80%) of Indian citizens are Hindu, 11% are Muslim, 2% Christian, 2% Sikh, and 5% belong to other religious denominations (World Factbook, 2009). The Indian population is young, with about 30% below 15 years of age and with a median age of approximately 25 (Geographia, 2011).

Crime Control in India

Before the British colonial era, India used both formal and informal crime control to prevent and reduce crime (Verma & Subramanian, 2009). Formal crime control was in place during ancient and medieval times and was enforced by various dynastic rulers (Unnithan, 2005). Kings administered punishments for various offences under the guidance of experts on the Hindu concept of Dharma (meaning an individual’s duties and responsibilities) and the circumstances under which the crime was committed. Dharma guided people’s conduct and how society dealt with those who engaged in crime (Mumukshananda, 2000). Under Dharma, individuals were expected to exercise self-control and stay away from evil, regardless of social status (Tapasyananda, 1999). In addition, there were several informal crime control mechanisms that were also in force. Informal crime control was exercised through the joint systems of family, village, and religious organizations, including the caste system in both rural and urban India.

During the British colonial era, the blend of formal and informal crime controls continued in order to deter crime and to punish criminals, but formal mechanisms were strengthened. The British instituted laws to regulate certain acts, especially when the regulations strengthened colonial rule. British laws had dual aims: perpetuate divisions in Hindu society and increase conformity to their laws. During India’s struggle for independence, the British used the police to deal harshly with those seeking independence or protesting against British rule (Verma & Subramanian, 2009). During this period, the majority of the citizens lived in small rural village communities. In these communities, the use of informal crime control continued, including the traditional village panchayat systems, where village elders enforced rules and settled disputes (Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009).

After its independence from British rule, India moved further toward law-based formal control. Its formal criminal justice system continues to use the British colonial model and English common law (Khan & Unnithan, 2009). This is especially true in urban areas. Ever since its independence, the number of Indian police has grown steadily, and they are centrally organized and controlled (Raghavan, 2004). Fines, forfeiture, probation, imprisonment, imprisonment with hard labor, life imprisonment, and the death penalty are all formal criminal sanctions in India.

In rural areas, informal control still plays a significant role in crime control. Although India as a whole has moved toward a formal control system, people living in rural India tend to depend on informal crime control through caste and joint family systems. In the majority of situations, one system or the other will work to control behaviors of people. These local and traditional systems can provide immediate justice, as there is widespread corruption and delay in securing justice through formal systems. People often resort to informal settlement of petty and civil cases. In some communities, Mohalla committees have been formed. These are committees of local residents who meet to discuss social problems to head off potentially larger problems and conflicts (Raghavan & Shiva Sankar, 2003).

Informal village courts (panchayats) are important crime control mechanisms, which resolve minor matters, including criminal cases. They comprise respected and trusted members of the local community (Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009). The panchayat system is a form of localized dispute resolution, where people generally abide by the judgments of these informal courts due to social pressure to respect the decisions (Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009).

In both rural and urban areas, the Indian criminal justice system attempts to resolve civil disputes first through informal mechanisms, such as mediation, and only resorts to formal means when informal means fail. In fact, the Indian courts are too overburdened to handle many civil disputes; hence, there is pressure to resolve these disputes through informal means.

Crime Control in the United States

Formal crime control has been used to prevent and respond to crime in the United States, and there has been less emphasis on informal crime control efforts. The United States has patterned its crime control mechanisms after those in Europe; therefore, it is no surprise that the United States relies far more on formal crime control methods than on informal ones. The U.S. population tends to be more mobile, urban, and individualistic than the Indian population. A mobile and urban population hinders the development and use of informal crime controls. As people move to and live in urban areas, there is a smaller chance that members of a local community will know, interact with, or trust one another. This reduces the chances of a shared moral code being developed and informally enforced (Warner, 2003), and it also reduces the effect of extended families in controlling individuals. The U.S. society is far more individualistic than collectivist. Individualism is an obstacle to the enforcement of an informal control system because there is less pressure to conform (Jiang et al., 2010). In addition, the United States is a pluralistic society, which means that different social groups share some values and differ on other values. All of these social forces, along with others, make informal crime control harder to practice in the United States (Jiang et al., 2010). This does not mean, however, that there are no informal crime controls in the United States. There have been efforts to use informal crime controls in the United States, including restorative justice, reintegrative shaming, community courts, and neighborhood watches (Braithwaite, 2002; Rhine, Mathews, Sampson, & Daley, 2003). Nevertheless, informal crime control efforts have not been used on a wide-scale as compared to formal crime control efforts.

Overview of Reported Crime in India and the United States

Although traditional and current crime control mechanisms can be important predictors of people’s views of formal and informal control, the local crime rate can be another important predictor. In the past 50 years, crime rates, particularly for violent crime, have increased in India, although they have leveled off in recent years. The increased crime statistics in India are partially attributable to increased religious and political violence arising out of separatist movements emanating from several parts of the country. The murder rate in India, although higher than most European countries, is lower than the U.S. murder rate. In 2007, India had a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000, compared to the U.S. rate of 5.6 (National Crime Records Bureau, 2007; Uniform Crime Reports, 2008). Reported sexual assaults in both India and the United States have increased dramatically in the past 50 years; however, the sexual assault rate in India is still much lower than that of the United States (2 per 100,000 as compared to 30 per 100,000 in 2007; National Crime Records Bureau, 2007; Uniform Crime Reports, 2008). The actual number of sexual assaults in both India and the United States is probably much higher due to the reluctance of victims to report the crime.

In both nations, property crimes are much more common than violent crimes. The rate of reported burglary is much lower in India than it is in the United States (8 vs. 722 per 100,000; National Crime Records Bureau, 2007; Uniform Crime Reports, 2008). The official larceny theft rate is higher in the United States than in India (25 as compared to 2,178 per 100,000; National Crime Records Bureau, 2007; Uniform Crime Reports, 2008). In sum, the overall crime rate for India (504 per 100,000) is much lower than that in the United States (5,278 per 100,000; National Crime Records Bureau, 2007; Uniform Crime Reports, 2008).

Research Objectives

There were two research objectives for this exploratory study. The first research objective was to determine what type of crime control was favored by the surveyed college students in India and the United States. Whereas there is considerable literature on crime control concerning the United States, there is little published Western literature on the crime control views of Indian citizens. As described earlier, India has two forms of crime control—formal and informal. It is unclear whether people in India favor one form of crime control over the other in dealing with crime. In the United States, there has been heavy use of formal control in dealing with crime and limited use of informal control. Although Jiang et al. (2010) explored the U.S. respondents’ overall level of formal and informal control views in comparison with China, much more research on the topic is needed.

The second research objective was to compare and contrast the views of Indian and U.S. college students. As previously indicated, crime control views are based on cultural forces, and as such, probably vary by different cultures. The United States is a more established nation with a long history of using formal control for crime (Jiang et al., 2010). India, however, is a nation caught in more of a dynamic change. In addition, India has a mixed history on crime control. India’s formal crime control system is “a legacy of the British system” (Raghavan, 2004, p. 2), and its informal crime control system has a long history. As previously indicated, panchayat systems still exist, particularly in villages. In rural areas, informal control is often the strongest form of control. However, ideas related to the formal and informal crime controls are changing. Even though most Indians still live in rural areas (a reality that is also changing), urban locations are becoming modern. The growing urban middle class of India is being influenced by Western ideas, including those pertaining to crime control. For example, an increase in watching television can result in less interaction with others outside the home, which can negatively affect informal crime control. It is unclear if these changes in India are also leading to changes in views of how to best control crime. It could be that as India continues to grow economically, there will be greater acceptance of formal crime controls over informal ones.

Moreover, much of the population of India is young (i.e., at a median age of 25; Geographia, 2011). This younger population is more mobile and has higher expectations for the future. In addition, the importance of the extended family has become less important as many Indian citizens become more educated, more skilled, and more mobile. They may be more influenced by an emerging culture than are older citizens. Indian youth may perceive a breakdown of the previous communal ties, which may cause them to question the previous informal crime control system. Thus, younger Indian citizens could reject the system of crime control they view as that of older generations. Conversely, the economic and social changes have probably placed strains on formal crime controls in India. The expectations of the youth, particularly college-educated youths, may lead to questions about the ineffectiveness of the formal Indian criminal justice system. Some view the police as corrupt, brutal, and inept, and there have been calls to reform the police (Singh, 2007; Verma & Subramanian, 2009). The courts have been alleged to be unfair, and punishments administered unfairly (Gupta, 2011). The crime control views of Indian citizens are unclear. This exploratory study was therefore undertaken among a group of college students in India and the United States.

Method

Sample

A convenience sample of students at an Indian university and a U.S. university were surveyed. The Indian university was a large metropolitan public university in southern India (i.e., the state of Andhra Pradesh), which offered undergraduate, master’s, and terminal degrees. At the time of the survey, it had an enrollment of about 100,000 students. The U.S. university was a public institution located in the Midwest that also offered undergraduate, master, and terminal degrees. At the time of the survey, it had an enrollment slightly below 20,000. At both universities, the surveys were administered in undergraduate classes that represented a wide array of majors and included classes required by all majors. At the U.S. university, undergraduate students in 18 classes were surveyed. At the Indian university, students in 20 classes were surveyed. The survey was written in English. Although English was not necessarily the native language of the respondents, it was the language spoken at the university in both countries. In addition, the survey was explained to the students, and it was emphasized both verbally and in writing that the survey was voluntary and the results would be anonymous. To avoid duplication, students were asked not to complete the survey if they had done so in another class. Students completed the survey during class time. It was estimated that more than 95% of the students in class completed the survey.

A total of 434 surveys were returned from Indian students. In terms of gender of respondents, 43% were women and 57% were men. The median age of the respondents was 20 and ranged from 18 to 47. The mean age was 20.99, with a standard deviation of 3.42. In terms of academic level, 43% were freshmen, 22% were sophomores, 26% were juniors, and 8% were seniors. A total of 484 surveys were returned by U.S. students. In terms of gender of respondents, 56% were women and 44% were men. The median age of the respondents was 21 and ranged from 18 to 63. The mean age was 21.96, with a standard deviation of 5.38. In terms of academic level, 19% were freshmen, 20% were sophomores, 33% were juniors, and 28% were seniors. Thus, a total of 918 surveys were used in the current study.

Measures

The respondents were asked to respond to 15 Likert-type statements reflecting their views on formal and informal crime control. These statements are presented in Table 1 and were answered using a 5-point response scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Four statements measured formal control, and 11 statements measured informal control. The respondents were also asked two more specific questions comparing effectiveness of formal and informal control in terms of deterrence. One question asked “Which of the following is more effective in terms of deterrence: fear of being rejected by family, neighbors, and peers, or fear of violating law.” The other question asked “For those who have been caught by criminal justice systems, which of the following do you think may be more important to deter them from further committing crime: fear of being rejected by family, neighbors, and peers, or fear of apprehension and punishment.” Finally, respondents were asked to rank the effectiveness of seven formal and informal control mechanisms in deterring crime. Specifically, the respondents were asked “Based on the importance of crime prevention, rank the following items (family, peers, neighborhood, schools, police, courts, and prison/jail [or other correction facilities]) from 1 to 7 (with 1 = most important and 7 = least important).”

Table 1.

Views on Formal and Informal Social Control of Crime (Percentages Reported)

	India (n = 434)					The United States (n = 484)
Items	SD	D	U	A	SA	SD	D	U	A	SA
Formal control
Police patrol is a powerful deterrent to crime.	4	17	17	44	18	4	30	20	44	2
Punishment by neutral strangers such as police and judges is not a powerful deterrent to crime.	4	26	21	38	11	2	38	35	24	1
Incarceration is a powerful deterrent to crime.	4	14	33	33	16	1	15	29	50	5
Legal sanctions are a powerful deterrent to crime.	2	13	28	47	10	1	21	48	28	2
Informal control
For crime prevention and control, informal social mechanisms are more effective than formal or legal ones.	3	17	22	42	17	2	14	52	29	4
Criminal prosecution should proceed only when the normal process of public apology, compensation, and the victim’s forgiveness break down.	9	17	26	38	10	13	40	34	13	1
Crime is not shameful in India/the United States (varies by nation of the respondent).	22	35	10	23	10	14	44	22	16	3
Controlling people by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame	2	20	29	38	11	3	28	53	14	2
Personal shame over violating the law is a powerful deterrent to crime.	4	17	18	44	16	5	19	24	43	8
The fear of public humiliation is a powerful deterrent to crime.	8	21	13	45	13	5	24	17	48	7
The combination of disapproval of the offender’s wrongful deeds and helping them understand their wrongdoing is an effective mechanism to prevent an offender from reoffending.	8	9	28	39	15	2	12	35	44	7
When a person commits a crime, it is not only that person who should be punished but also his or her family.	47	29	7	12	5	56	34	6	4	0
Neighborhood or community watches are a powerful deterrent to crime.	5	14	19	49	13	2	18	29	49	3
Volunteer surveillance of residential neighborhoods by residents deters crime.	4	19	29	36	13	0	16	32	49	3
My behavior is strongly influenced by significant others, such as my parents, family members, peers, and friends.	4	14	10	44	28	2	10	9	45	34

Note: SD = strongly disagree; D = disagree; U = uncertain; A = agree; SA = strongly agree. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Results

Table 1 presents the percentage responses for the 15 Likert-type statements reflecting views on formal and informal crime control in the United States and India. Indian respondents were more likely to agree that police patrol deterred crime as compared to their U.S. counterparts. Similarly, more Indian students than U.S. students felt that legal sanctions were a powerful deterrent; however, more U.S. respondents agreed that imprisonment was a powerful deterrent (55% U.S. compared to 49% Indian). U.S. students were also more likely to feel that formal agencies (e.g., police and courts) were likely to deter people from engaging in crime. Overall, Indian respondents appeared to hold slightly more favorable views on informal crime control. Indian respondents were more likely to feel that informal crime control worked better than formal crime control, that shame helped control people, and that neighborhood watches were effective.

For the majority of the statements in Table 1, there appeared to be differences between two groups of respondents. The independent t test was used to determine whether the differences were statistically significant, and the findings are reported in Table 2. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents on 10 of the 15 crime control statements. Indian students were more likely to feel that formal control in terms of the police, courts, and legal system was a deterrent to crime, as well as that informal crime control was more effective than formal crime control, that formal prosecution should proceed when the offender failed to show remorse and make amends, that personal shame was a deterrent to crime, that neighborhood watches were effective in combating crime, and that both the offender and his/her family should be punished for the wrongdoing. U.S. respondents were more likely to have answered that significant others (family and friends) influenced their behavior. There was no significant difference in views on whether public humiliation deterred crime, whether crime was shameful in their respective nation, whether public disapproval and education deterred people’s illegal actions, whether incarceration was a powerful deterrent to crime, and whether volunteer surveillance in neighborhoods curbed criminal activity. Ordinal ordered regression was also computed with each of the statements in Table 2 with the gender, age, academic level (i.e., freshmen, sophomore, etc.), and nationality of the respondent as independent variables, and the results are reported in Table 2. Nationality was a statistically significant predictor for 11 of the 15 statements, and this is similar to that found in the bivariate analyses reported in Table 2. In the bivariate analyses, there was no difference for the statement that public humiliation was a powerful deterrent to crime, but there was difference in the multivariate analysis. Indian students were more likely to agree with this statement than were the U.S. students. In addition, nation was the best predictor variable compared to gender, age, and academic level.

Table 2.

Independent t-Test Results

	India (n = 434)		The United States (n = 484)			Ordered ordinal regression
Item	M	SD	M	SD	t value	Gender	Age	Level	Nation
Formal control
Police patrol is a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.54	1.09	3.11	0.99	6.27**	.15	.03*	.03	.80**
Punishment by neutral strangers such as police and judges is not a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.28	1.09	2.85	0.85	6.01**	−.20	.01	.07	.75**
Incarceration is a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.43	1.04	3.41	0.85	−0.22	.40**	−.01	.01	−.07
Legal sanctions are a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.48	1.03	3.11	0.77	6.19**	.10	.02	−.04	.89**
Informal control
For crime prevention and control, informal social mechanisms are more effective than formal or legal ones.	3.53	1.04	3.20	0.78	5.54**	.21	−.01	.11	.80**
Criminal prosecution should proceed only when the normal process of public apology, compensation, and the victim’s forgiveness break down.	3.23	1.12	2.49	0.90	10.97**	.12	−.01	.07	1.41**
Crime is not shameful in India/the United States (varies by nation of the respondent).	2.64	1.32	2.50	1.03	1.81	.37**	.01	.04	.11
Controlling people by law and punishment, and they will avoid wrongdoing but will have no sense of honor and shame.	3.36	0.99	2.85	0.77	8.38**	.06	−.01	.04	1.24**
Personal shame over violating the law is a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.52	1.08	3.30	1.03	3.09**	−.31**	−.01	.08	.56**
The fear of public humiliation is a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.33	1.18	3.27	1.05	0.87	−.07	.01	.17**	.33*
The combination of disapproval of the offender’s wrongful deeds and helping them understand their wrongdoing is an effective mechanism to prevent an offender from reoffending.	3.44	1.10	3.42	0.88	0.27	−.28*	.01	−.02	.17
When a person commits a crime, it is not only that person who should be punished but also his or her family.	1.98	1.20	1.57	0.76	6.11**	.17	−.03	.21**	.68**
Neighborhood or community watches are a powerful deterrent to crime.	3.52	1.04	3.34	0.86	2.99**	.06	.06	−.04	.54**
Volunteer surveillance of residential neighborhoods by residents deters crime.	3.36	1.04	3.39	0.78	−0.48	.07	.06*	.02	−.07
My behavior is strongly influenced by significant others, such as my parents, family members, peers, and friends.	3.78	1.13	3.98	1.02	−2.76**	−.12	.01	.04	−.44*

Note: SD = standard deviation; Gender = the gender of the respondent (0 = female, 1 = male); Age = the age of the respondent in continuous years; Level = academic level (1 = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior); Nation = the nation of the respondent (0 = the United States and 1 = India).

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Table 3 presents the views of the respondents on the effectiveness of formal and informal control for deterring crime. For both Indian and U.S. respondents, the vast majority felt that the rejection was more likely to deter crimes than was fear of violating the law. U.S. respondents, however, were more likely to feel that being rejected by family, neighbors, and peers was more effective in stopping crime than was the law. The view on the importance of informal control changed when asked which form of control was more effective in deterring criminals from reoffending. A slight majority of U.S. students felt that the law was more effective in deterring convicted criminals from committing future crimes, whereas a majority of Indian respondents felt that informal control of rejection of family, neighbors, and peers was more effective at deterring criminals who had been caught from reoffending.

Table 3.

Perceptions of the Impact of Formal and Informal Controls on Deterrence of Committing Crimes (Percentages Reported)

Items	India (n = 434)	The United States (n = 484)	χ²
Which is most effective in deterring crimes?
Fear of being rejected by family, neighbors, and peers	70	80	10.67**
Fear of violating the law	30	20	df = 1
For those who have been caught by criminal justice officials, which is more important in deterring them from committing further crimes?
Fear of being rejected by family, neighbors, and peers	55	49	3.83*
Fear of violating the law	45	51	df = 1

Note: df = degrees of freedom. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

The students were asked to rank the relative importance of seven specific social mechanisms in deterring crime—family, neighborhoods, peers, school, courts, police, and correctional facilities. Family, neighborhoods, and peers were considered informal control mechanisms, whereas courts, police, correctional facilities, and schools were viewed as formal control mechanisms. The results are presented in Table 4. Based on the ranking of the most important form of crime control, Indian respondents ranked family first, followed by police, corrections, schools, courts, peers, and neighborhood. U.S. respondents ranked family first, followed by police, corrections, courts, peers, schools, and neighborhood. Although both the groups of students viewed family as the most important mechanism, U.S. students were more likely than Indian students to select family as the most important form of control to deter crime. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups of respondents in their ranking on six of the seven crime control mechanisms. There was no significant difference in the ranking of correctional facilities.

Table 4.

Ranking of Social Control Mechanisms in Terms of Effectiveness of Crime Control (Percentages Reported)

	India (n = 434)							The United States (n = 484)
Control mechanism	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	Sig.
Family	55	10	6	7	8	4	11	61	8	4	7	8	5	7	**
Peers	6	19	19	16	16	13	11	6	27	13	19	12	14	9	**
Neighborhood	3	20	23	20	12	16	8	5	15	24	25	11	10	10	**
Schools	9	20	18	27	5	10	10	5	17	22	22	10	11	13	**
Police	12	16	7	14	24	22	6	13	12	13	9	26	17	9	**
Courts	7	10	17	9	24	24	10	7	13	11	8	15	31	14	**
Correctional facilities	10	5	11	7	10	13	44	12	8	10	6	15	11	38

Note: Sig. represents whether there was a statistically significant difference between the rankings of Indian and U.S. respondents and is based on the chi-square test. The question for this table was “based on the importance of crime prevention, rank the following items (family, peers, neighborhood, schools, police, courts, and prison/jail [or other correction facilities]) from 1 to 7 (with 1 = most important and 7 = least important).” Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Discussion and Conclusion

The two major findings from this preliminary study are that there are differences and similarities between Indian and U.S. respondents, and there are differences within the views of each group. Indian respondents were more supportive of both formal and informal control in deterring crime as compared to their U.S. counterparts. Indian respondents were more likely than were U.S. counterparts to feel that police patrol deterred crime. This was a surprising finding in light of the complaints against Indian police. It has been alleged that the Indian police engage in extrajudicial activities, such as use of physical or even deadly force, to control crime, but, nevertheless, they generally have the support of the news media, politicians, and the public (Belur, 2009). Even today, the Indian police still adhere to the colonial model and are more for order maintenance than to serve and protect (Scott, Evans, & Verma, 2009). There have been efforts over the past several decades to create a more professional Indian Police Force that serves the community and is accountable to it. These efforts, however, have not been implemented or, if implemented, have not been successful (Verma, 2005). It could be that some of the Indian respondents felt that these extrajudicial activities actually deter people from engaging in crime due to fear of swift and severe punishment at the hands of the police. For example, perceptions that the police might use brutal tactics could convince potential offenders that it is wise to avoid criminal activity in some Indian neighborhoods or even that it is wise to avoid those neighborhoods completely (Belur, 2009).

It could be that Indian police, who are more likely to walk patrols and have more interaction with the residents, are more effective at curbing crime before it occurs. In addition, interactions between Indian residents and police officers may allow them to feel safer in their communities than is the case in the United States. In the United States, most police patrols are motorized and the officers have little contact with residents except when called for crime or service. It could also be that U.S. residents are aware that police cannot stop crime themselves. In India, it could be that the informal crime control is effective in many instances in deterring crime and the police are expected to handle only those cases that the informal control system fails to deter (Kethineni & Srinivasan, 2009). This would put less pressure on the Indian police. In the United States, the police take on a greater responsibility for crime control because informal control mechanisms are not used to the extent as they are in some other nations, such as India. U.S. respondents’ lower agreement about the effectiveness of formal crime control may be due to a cynicism brought on the higher level of crime in the United States. When crime is perceived to be high for a long period of time, the respondents may develop a perception that the current crime control methods do not work. Thus, any crime that occurs will place the police and the other formal control agencies in a negative light. In India, when crime occurs, it may be viewed as a failure of both formal and informal crime control. This may explain why in general Indian respondents had more favorable views of the formal control mechanisms when compared to their U.S. counterparts.

Overall, Indian respondents had more favorable views on informal control items. It could be that they have more experience with the use of informal control to deter crime. With exposure to use of informal crime control, they may see that it is an effective method for dealing with crime. Thus, Indian students may see that both formal and informal controls are necessary to deal with crime. U.S. students, however, are probably exposed to a system that relies heavily on formal control to deal with crime. They probably hear from the media and other sources that crime is high in the United States and, as a result, may question the effectiveness of the crime control efforts. It is interesting to note for all the crime rates presented earlier, crime rates in India is generally lower than the United States. There are probably numerous reasons for the lower crime rates in India, including the use of a dual system of formal and informal crime control. For some people, formal and informal crime controls are a dichotomy. When one type of control is increased, the other form of control decreases (Rose & Clear, 1998). This is not necessarily true. Both forms of controls can operate and be supported within a society. There can be differing balances of the use of each form of crime control within a culture. It is up to each society to determine the mixture of formal and informal control in dealing with crime. Rather than rejecting one form of crime control for the other, the Indian respondents in this study seem to embrace both. Thus, the findings suggest that the Indian students in this study are supportive of a comprehensive and systematic strategy for dealing with crime in their society.

Interestingly, the U.S. students were slightly more likely to consider family as important in controlling crime. This is surprising in light of the importance of family in India. In India, the extended family plays a much greater social role than it does in the United States. Indian children are expected to be more dependent and supportive of their parents and elders on important life decisions. For example, arranged marriages still take place in India. Later in life, children are expected to care for their aging parents. In the United States, children are expected to be more independent of their parents as they age. Individualism is an important aspect of the U.S. culture. In addition, as children age in the United States, peers become a more important group of influencing the values and behaviors of young people. It could be that this difference is partially due to the fact that the respondents were college students. In general, family probably influenced significantly their value system and behaviors so they were able to attend college. This may allow them to see the value of family in being an effective form of crime control. One possible answer is that a more traditional and collective nation does not mean that family is more important. Another situation is that India has been changing rapidly in the past decade. India has become more individualistic, whereas today’s United States seems more conservative than it was several decades ago. Finally, importance of family can be measured in different ways. The current study just used two questions. Thus, measurement could have influenced the results. This is an interesting difference that needs to be further explored.

There were also some similarities in the views of the Indian and U.S. respondents. Both Indian and U.S. respondents were similar in their views that incarceration was a powerful deterrent to crime. It is probably the view that imprisonment is a severe punishment in both societies that resulted in similar views between two groups of students. Nevertheless, although the views may be similar, the actual practices in each nation differ significantly. Incarceration in India is used far less frequently than in the United States. The United States has the world’s highest incarceration rate, almost 25 times the Indian rate (Walmsley, 2007). Thus, views on the deterrence value of incapacitation may be similar between the two groups of students, but it does not mean that the actual practice of imprisonment is the same for the two nations. In addition, the majority of students, regardless of nation, felt that crime was shameful. Likewise, both groups of students felt that public humiliation was an effective form of crime control. This implies that both Indian and U.S. respondents perceived crime as an unacceptable act in their society. In both nations, there is a social stigma for those convicted of crime. In the United States, prior criminal convictions can hamper finding employment, particularly for jobs with good pay and benefits. Similarly, there is social stigma associated with history of crime, although some are sensitive to the circumstances in which a crime is committed.

Indian and U.S. respondents agreed that volunteer surveillance by neighbors deters crime in a neighborhood. However, Indian respondents were slightly more likely to feel that neighborhood watches deterred crime. In India, group pressure is significant. Disapproval by family and caste institutions may cause misery. This could be an effective deterrent in India, especially in rural communities. Moreover, although there were differences between Indian and U.S. respondents, for the most part, these differences were more of the degree of view rather than being radically different from one another. The majority of both groups felt that family was one of the strongest forms of crime control in dealing with crime. Similarly, there was support for both formal and informal crime control among many of the students, regardless of their nationality.

As with most research, the present study had shortcomings. This exploratory study was based on a convenience sample of Indian and U.S. college students. Additional studies will be needed to determine whether the results can be replicated. It could be that the results may vary based on the type of college selected. Furthermore, to generalize the results to the overall populations in each country, random sampling of the general population is needed. Additional and more detailed measures of crime control need to be developed and tested. Linked to this is a need to include perceptions of the importance of personal control in dealing with crime. As previously indicated, self- or personal control is another method to ensure conformity among people in addition to that of formal and informal crime control methods. Because this study did not directly ask about perceptions of effectiveness of personal control, it is unknown what, if any, differences would exist between Indian and U.S. students in this area. Broader measures of formal and informal social crime control need to be used in future research. Self-control is an important form of crime control as illustrated in the general theory of crime proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), which postulates that low self-control increases the propensity to engage in criminal acts. The area of self-control as a crime control mechanism needs to be further studied to determine whether perceptions of the effectiveness of self-control as a crime control measure differ between Indian and U.S. citizens.

In this study, limited forms of formal crime control linked to the criminal justice system, such as police, courts, and corrections, were used. There are other forms of formal crime control, such as mental health organizations, treatment services, and so forth. Likewise, there are other forms of informal crime control not measured in the current study. It is unclear what level of support would be given to these other forms of formal and informal crime control mechanisms. Moreover, there is a need to explore what forces shape people’s views on crime control. This study examined only views on crime control but not why views differed among respondents. It is not only possible but also likely that there will be differences in views of crime control among different segments with each culture (i.e., there are probably intra- and interdifferences in views). The race/ethnic/caste status of the respondent should be controlled for in future studies. Race/ethnic status has been found to influence criminal justice view, especially among U.S. residents (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2000). In addition, the religious status of the respondents needs to be measured in more detail and controlled for in future studies. Future research needs to examine the crime control views of rural and urban citizens to determine whether they differ, particularly in India where there has been little published research on views on crime control. In addition, the degree of conservatism and liberalism should be controlled for in future research. Research is needed to determine whether past victimization and experience with various formal and informal crime control mechanisms influence the views of people in both nations.

In closing, cross-cultural criminal justice research can lead to not only knowledge about criminal justice issues in other countries but also a better, clear, critical understanding of criminal justice issues in one’s own nation (Khan & Unnithan, 2009). Angel and Thoits (1987) argued that views and attitudes of different groups are windows to the salient values of the particular group. Crime control is a major force in a society and offers views on how that culture tries to deal with crime. It is important to explore the formal and informal crime views of people not only within a particular nation but also across nations. Even though India is a nation in which almost one sixth of the world’s population resides, little has been published in Western journals on the crime issues it faces, how Indian citizens respond to crime, and whether views on crime control vary compared to those in the United States; therefore, this exploratory study examined the crime control views of college students in India and the United States. Based on survey results, there was no single clear-cut pattern of views. This was only a single exploratory study with limited resources in which college students in each nation were surveyed. The findings raised far more questions than they answered. More cross-cultural research is needed, especially in light of the potential theoretical and practical benefits. Future cross-cultural research will not only provide a better understanding of crime control views but also how and why they differ across cultures. It is strongly hoped that the findings from this study will spur further research in cross-cultural studies on crime control views.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the article. Eric Lambert, Sudershan Pasupuleti, and Shanhe Jiang contributed equally to the article and are listed in random order.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Angel

R. J.

Thoits

(1987). The impact of culture on the cognitive structure of illness. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 11, 465-494.

Belur

(2009). Police use of deadly force: Police perceptions of a culture of approval. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 237-252.

Braithwaite

(2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cao

Cullen

(2001). Thinking about crime and control: A comparative study of Chinese and American Ideology. International Criminal Justice Review, 11, 58-81.

Chung

W. S.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1997). The construct validity of measures of the tripartite conceptualization of punishment attitudes. Journal of Social Service Research, 22, 1-25.

Geographia. (2011). India. Retrieved from http://www.geographia.com/india/india02.htm

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Gupta

(2011). Capital punishment and the poor. Worldpress.org, January 25, 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1932.cfm

Jiang

Lambert

Jenkins

(2010). East meets west: An empirical comparison of formal and informal crime control in China and the U.S. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 264-284.

10.

Kethineni

Srinivasan

(2009). Police handling of domestic violence cases in Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 202-213.

11.

Khan

M. Z.

Unnithan

N. P.

(2009). Criminological and criminal justice education in India: A comparative note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 97-109.

12.

Mumukshananda

(2000). Teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Kolkata, India: Advaita Ashrama.

13.

National Crime Records Bureau. (2007). Crime in India 2007. Retrieved from http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2007/home.htm

14.

Raghavan

R. K.

(2004). India: World factbook of criminal justice systems. Retrieved from http://nicic.org/Library/019426

15.

Raghavan

R. K.

Shiva Sankar

(2003). A community policing approach to crime prevention: The case of India. In Lab

S. P.

Das

D. K.

(Eds.), International perspectives on community policing and crime prevention (pp. 113-126). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

16.

Rhine

Mathews

J. R.

Sampson

L. A.

Daley

(2003). Citizens’ circles: Community collaboration in re-entry. Corrections Today, 65, 52-54.

17.

Rose

D. R.

Clear

T. R.

(1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441-479.

18.

Scott

Evans

Verma

(2009). Does higher education affect perceptions among police personnel? A response from India. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 214-236.

19.

Singh

(2007). Corruption in police. Retrieved August 24, 2011, from http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Police/2007/police-corruption.html.

20.

Tapasyananda

S. R.

(1999). The philosophical and religious lectures of Swami Vivekananda. Kolkata, India: Advaita Ashrama.

21.

Terrill

R. J.

(2007). World criminal justice systems: A survey (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

22.

Uniform Crime Report. (2008). Crime in the United States 2007. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

23.

Unnithan

N. P.

(2005). Hindu legal traditions. In Wright

Miller

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology. (pp. 673-675) London, England: Routledge.

24.

Unnithan

N. P.

(2009). Crime and justice in India. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 128-130.

25.

Verma

(2005). The Indian police: A critical evaluation. New Delhi, India: Regency.

26.

Verma

Subramanian

K. S.

(2009). Understanding the police in India. New Delhi, India: Lexis Nexis Butterworths.

27.

Walker

Spohn

DeLone

(2000). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

28.

Walmsley

(2007). World prison population list (7th ed.). London, England: Kings College London, International Centre for Prison Studies. Retrieved from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/world-prison-pop-seventh.pdf

29.

Warner

B. D.

(2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 41, 73-97.

30.

World Factbook. (2009). India. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html