contemporary social upheavals. Critical crimi- nology relies on economic explanations of behavior and argues that economic and social inequalities cause criminal behavior. It focuses less on the study of individual criminals, and advances the belief that existing crime cannot be eliminated within the capitalist system. It also asserts, like the conflict school, that law has an inherent bias in favor of the upper or RULING class, and that the state and its legal system exist to advance the interests of the ruling class. Critical criminologists argue that corporate, political, and environmental crime are under- reported and inadequately addressed in the current criminal justice system. Feminist criminology emphasizes the sub- ordinate position of women in society. Accord- ing to feminist criminologists, women remain in a position of inferiority that has not been fully rectified by changes in the law during the late twentieth century. Feminist criminology also explores the ways in which women’s criminal behavior is related to their objectifica- tion as commodities in the sex industry. Others using the social-structural approach have studied gangs, juvenile delinquency, and the relationship between family structure and criminal behavior. Social-Process Criminology Social-process cri- minology theories attempt to explain how people become criminals. These theories developed through recognition of the fact that not all people who are exposed to the same social- structural conditions become criminals. They focus on criminal behavior as learned behavior. Edwin H. Sutherland (1883–1950), a U.S. sociologist and criminologist who first pre- sented his ideas in the 1920s and 1930s, advanced the theory of differential association to explain criminal behavior. He emphasized that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others, usually in small groups, and that criminals learn to favor criminal behavior over noncriminal behavior through association with both forms of behavior in different degrees. As Sutherland wrote, “When persons become criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal patterns and also because of isolation from anticriminal patterns.” Although his theory has been greatly influential, Sutherland himself admitted that it did not satisfactorily explain all criminal behavior. Later theorists have modified his approach in an attempt to correct its shortcomings. Control theory, developed in the 1960s and 1970s, attempts to explain ways to train people to engage in law-abiding behavior. Although there are different appro aches within control theory, they share the view that humans require nurturing in order to develop attachments or bonds to people and that personal bonds are key in producing internal controls such as con- science and guilt and external controls such as shame. According to this view, crime is the result of insufficient attachment and commit- ment to others. Walter C. Reckless developed one version of control theory, called containment. He argued that a combination of internal psychological containments and external social containments prevents people from deviating from social norms. In simple communities, social pressure to conform to community standards, usually enforced by social ostracism, was sufficient to control behavior. As societies became more complex, internal containments played a more crucial role in determining whether people behaved according to public laws. Furthermore, containment theorists have found that internal containments require a positive self-image. All too often, a sense of alienation from society and its norms forms in modern individuals, who, as a result, do not develop internal containment mechanisms. Sociologist Travis Hirschi has developed his own control theory that attemp ts to explain conforming, or lawful, rather than deviant, or unlawful, behavior. He stresses the importance of the individual’s bond to society in determin- ing conforming behavior. His research has found that socioeconomic class has little to do with determining delinquent behavior, and that young people who are not very attached to their parents or to school are more likely to be delinquent than those who are strongly at- tached. He also found that youths who have a strongly positive view of their own accomplish- ments are more likely to view society’s laws as valid constraints on their behavior. Political Criminology Political crim inology is similar to the other camps in this area. It involves study into the forces that determine how, why, and with what consequences societies chose to address GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 308 CRIMINOLOGY criminals and crime in general. Those who are involved with political criminology focus on the causes of crime, the nature of crime , the so cial and political meanings that attach to crime, and crime-control policies, includ ing the study of the bases upon which crime and punishment is committed and the choices made by the principles in criminal justice. Although the theories of political criminol- ogy and conflict criminology overlap to some extent, political criminologists deny that the terms are interchangeable. The primary focus points in the new movement of political criminology similarly overlap with other theo- ries, including the concerns and ramifications of street crime and the distribution of power in crime-control strategies. This movement has largely been a loose, academic effort. Other Issues Criminologists also study a host of other issues related to crime and the law. These include studies of the VICTIMS OF CRIME, focusing upon their relations to the criminal, and their ro l e as potential causal agents in crime; juvenile delinquency and its correction; and the media and their relation to crime, including the influence of pornography. Much research relat- ed to criminology has focused on the biological basis of criminal behavior. In fact, a field of study called biocriminology, which attempts to explore the biological basis of criminal behav- ior, has emerged. Resear ch in this area has focused on chromosomal abnormalities, hor- monal and brain chemical imbalances, diet, neurological conditions, drugs, and alcohol as variables that contribute to criminal behavior. The true effect of criminology upon prac- tices in the criminal justice system is still subject to question. Although a number of commenta- tors have noted that studies in criminology have led to significant changes among criminal laws in the various states, other critics have suggested that studies in criminology have not directly led to a reduction of crime. In McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1987), an individual who had been sentenced to death for a MURDER in Georgia demonstrated to the U.S. Supreme Court that a criminologist’s study showed that the race of individuals in that state impacted whether the DEFENDANT was sentenced to life or to death. The study demonstrated that a black defendant who had killed a white victim was four times more likely to be sentenced to death than was a defendant who had killed a black victim. The defendant claimed that the study demonstrated that the state of Georgia had violated his rights under the EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, as well as under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. The high court disagreed. Although the majority did question the validity of the study’s findings, it held that the study did not establish that officials in Georgia had acted with discriminatory purpose, and that it did not establish that racial bias had affected the officials’ decisions with respect to the death sentence. Accordingly, the death sentence violated neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the EIGHTH AMENDMENT. Criminology has had more of an effect when states and the federal government consider new criminal laws and sentencing provisions. Crim- inologists’ theories are also often debated in the context of the death penalty and CRIME CONTROL ACTS among legislators and policymakers. In this light, criminology is perhaps not at the forefront of the development of the criminal justice system, but it most certainly works in the background in the determination of criminal justice policies. FURTHER READINGS Carrington, Kerry, and Russell Hogg, eds. 2002. Critical Criminology: Issues, Debates, Challenges. Kent, U.K.: Willan. Cullen, Francis T., and Velmer S. Burton, Jr. 2007. Criminolog- ical Theory: Content and Consequences. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Reid, Sue T. 2008. Crime and Criminology. 12th ed. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. White, Rob. 2001. “Criminology for Sale: Institutional Change and Intellectual Field.” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 13 (November). CROSS REFERENCES Critical Legal Studies; Forensic Science; Marx, Karl Heinrich. CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES An intellectual movement whose members argue that law is neither neutral nor value free but is in fact inseparable from politics. Critical legal studies (CLS) is a sometimes revolutionary movement that challenges and seeks to overturn accepted norms and standards GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES 309 in legal theory and practice. CLS seeks to fundamentally alter jurisprudence, exposing it as not a rational system of accumulated wisdom but an ideology that supports and makes possible an unjust political system. CLS scholars attempt to debunk the law’s pretensions to determinacy, neutrality, and objectivity. The law, in CLS scholarship, is a tool used by the establishment to maintain its power and domination over an unequal STATUS QUO. Openly a movement of leftist politics, CLS seeks to subvert the philosophical and political authority of what it sees as an unjust social system. CLS advances a theoretical and practical project of reconstruction of the law and of society itself. CLS is also a membership organization that seeks to advance its own cause and that of its members. CLS was officially started in the spring of 1977 at a conference at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. However, the roots of the organization extend back to LEGAL REALISM,a movement in U.S . legal scholarship that flour- ished in the 1920s and 1930s. Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with being the grandfather of CLS with his various observations in The Common Law (1881). The legal realists rebelled against the accepted legal theories of the day, including most of the accepted wisdom of nineteenth-century legal thought. Like CLS, legal realism emphasized that judicial decisions depend largely on the predilections and social situation of the judge. Thus, the legal realists urged that much more attention be paid to the social context of the law. The legal realists eventually influenced the development of the NEW DEAL under President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT in the 1930s, and many served in positions where they affected government policy. In the 1960s many of the founding mem- bers of CLS participated in social activism connected to the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT and the VIETNAM WAR. Many future CLS scholars entered law school in those years or shortly thereafter, and they quickly became unhappy with what they saw as a lack of philosophical depth and rigor in the teaching and theory of law. Roberto Mangabeira Unger, a leading CLS theorist, has described the law faculty of those days as “a priesthood that had lost their faith and kept their jobs.” These young students began to apply the ideas, theories, and philo- sophies of postmodernity (intellectual move- ments of the last half of the twentieth century) to the study of law, borrowing from fields as diverse as social theory, political philosophy, economics, and literary theory. Since then, CLS has steadily grown in influence. By 1989 more than 700 articles and books had been published expounding the ideas of this movement. Besides Unger, noted CLS theorists include Robert W. Gordon, Morton J. Horwitz, Duncan Kennedy, and CATHARINE A. MACKINNON. CLS has been largely a U.S. movement, though it has borrowed heavily from European philosophers, including nineteenth-century German social theorists such as KARL MARX, Friedrich Engels, and MAX WEBER; Max Horkhei- mer and Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt school of German social philosophy; the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci; and poststructuralist French thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, representing, respectively, the fields of history and literary theory. Several subcategories exist within the CLS movement: feminist legal criticism, which examines the role of gender in the law; critical race theory (CRT), which is concerned with the role of race in the law; postmodernism, a critique of the law influenced by developments in literary theory; and a subcategory that emphasizes political economy and the economic context of legal decisions and issues. Scholars disagree about the extent to which CLS is a coherent intellectual movement. Some see it simply as a political position adopted by a disparate group of legal theorists who have fundamentally different, even contradictory, views. Others emphasize that CLS theorists share a number of important ideas and approaches that together co nstitute a new approach to legal scholarship. First among the basic ideas that CLS scholars tend to share is the notion that law is politics—in other words, that law and politics are indistinguishable from one anothe r. Liber- alism, according to CLS theorists, has tradition- ally viewed the law as an objective, rational process of precise decision-making and politics as a realm of imprecise, often irrational opinions and competing interests. According to CLS theorists, however, the law is not separate from the political realm and its disputes. Legal reasoning, rather than being a strong fortress of objective rationality, is a fragile structure fraught with contradictory and arbitrary categorizations that are endlessly redefined and reworked. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 310 CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES In this view, the law is only an elaborate political ideology, which, like other political ideologies, exists to support the in terests of the party or class that forms it. The legal system, according to CLS, supports the status quo, perpetuating the established power relations of society. The law does have logic and structure, but these grow out of the power relationships of society. CLS therefore sees the law as a collection of beliefs and prejudices that covers the injustices of society with a mask of legitimacy. Law is an instrument for oppression used by the wealthy and the powerful to maintain their place in the hierarchy. As part of its project, CLS exposes what it sees as the flaws in various aspects of liberal legal theory and practice. It argues, for example, that judicial objectivity is impossible because political neutrality or philosophical objectivity cannot exist. CLS thus strips the judiciary of its supposedly disinterested role in society. As Allan C. Hutchinson, a CLS theorist, wrote: “The judicial emperor, clothed and coifed in appropriately legitimate and voguish garb by the scholarly rag trade, chooses and acts to protect and preserve the propertied interest of vested white and male power.” In this way, CLS seeks to “delegitimate” and “demystify” the law—that is, it seeks to undermine the law’s acceptance and to remove the cloak of mystery and awe surrounding its functioning. CLS theorists also share the related view that the law is indeterminate. They have shown that using standard legal arguments, it is possible to reach sharply contrasting conclusions in indi- vidual cases. The conclusions reached in any case will have more to do with the social context in which they are argued and decided than with any overarching scheme of legal reasoning. Moreover, CLS scholars argue that the esoteric and convoluted nature of legal reasoning actually screens the law’s indeterminacy. They have used the ideas of deconstruction to explore the ways in which legal texts are open to multiple interpretations. (Deconstruction is a movement in literary theory that is connected to the work of French philosopher Derrida and that emphasizes the fundamental indeterminacy of language.) Consistent with their position on the political left, CLS scholars have a common dissatisfaction with the established legal and political order and particularly for the l iberalism that they see as the dominant political ideology. CLS demonstrates how liberalism describes the world according to categories that exist as dualities: subjective-objective, male-female, public-private, self-other, individual-community, and so forth. These dualities are sometimes called paired opposites by CLS theorists.CLS then breaks down the dualities and shows how they create an ideology that furthers the interests of the RULING class. CLS theorists also decry the individualism that liberal society fosters, and they call for a renewed emphasis on communal rather than individual values. They particularly object to capitalism as an economic system, and they see liberalism as capitalism’s greatest apologist. Feminist Legal Criticism Catharine A. MacKinnon is a leading figure in radical feminist criticism (sometimes called fem-crit). Throughout her career, MacKinnon has attempted to show the ways in which the established legal system reflects the sexism of the society that created it. The law, according to MacKinnon, is only one extension of a male- dominated society that is characterized by inequality between the genders and by the sexual objectification of women. As the product of a male-oriented view of the world and a male-dominated state, the law systematically victimizes and discriminates against women. “The law,” MacKinnon wrote, “sees and treats women the way men see and treat women.” It ensures male control over female sexuality. The feminist project to counter this negative aspect of the legal tradition, MacKinnon wrote, is “to uncover and claim as valid the experience of women, the major content of which is the devalidation of women’s experience.” One topic that Mac Kinnon has examine d in detail is the legal doctrine regarding RAPE. Citing the difficulty that women have proving legally that they have been raped, MacKinnon inter- prets rape doctrine as the product of male ideology. She argues that rape and the laws surrounding it, which are often ineffective in securing convictions of male rapists, are used by men to keep women in a positio n of submission and inferiority. The law’s standards of objectiv- ity and neutrality, according to MacKinnon, actually hide a male bias that makes it very difficult for a woman to win a rape case in the legal system. The state thus perpetuates rape in a way that promotes the dominance of men. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES 311 MacKinnon also uses rape as an example of the way in which the conventional liberal distinction between public and private spheres actually enhances male powe r. For women, according to MacKinnon, the private sphere cannot be separated from the public. The private sphere as it is usually understood—that is, the home—is actually a place where the law defines men’s right to dominate women through domestic abuse, marital rape, and exploitive work conditions. The law, according to MacKinnon, overlooks such injustices, and legal doctrines regarding the private sphere of the home perpetuate rather than resolve them. Critical Race Theory (CRT) CRT began in the mid-1970s when many intellectuals perceived that the CIVIL RIGHTS movement of the 1960s had ended and that in fact many of its gains were being turned back. As a result, they began to develop new theories and concepts that would allow them to under- stand the causes and implications of these new developments. Like CLS, CRT gathers disparate scholars and theorists under a common head- ing. However, CRT is a less formally organized school of thought than CLS. Leading critical race theorists include Derrick Albert Bell Jr., Alan D. Freeman, and Patricia J. Williams. The first annotated bibliography of CRT writings, published in 1993, listed more than 200 books and articles. Critical race theorists share a number of themes. Like CLS, CRT finds major faults in liberalism and particular features of liberal jurisprudence that bear on race, including AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, neutrality, and “color blind- ness.” Many CRT writers, for example, dispute that the Constitution is or ever can be “color- blind.” They also assert that supposed break- throughs in the area of racial rights by the Supreme Court serve only to validate an unjust political system by creating the illusion that racial inequalities are being ended when in fact they are not. CRT scholars generally seek a greater understanding of the social origins of race and racism, and, like CLS theorists, they employ social theory and science in that cause. Many in the CRT movement examine how the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, usually in a way that maintains the status quo. Some in the movement make a case for cultural separatism or nationalism for people of color, arguing that preserving the diversity and separateness of different racial groups will benefit everyone. CRT also attempts to understand the cyclical nature of U.S. race relations—characterized by periods of racial progress and relative harmony followed by periods of racial retrenchment and discord. CRT writers also make frequent use of historical and social theories regarding colonialism and SLAVERY. Many CRT writers employ unconventional narrative methods—sometimes called legal storytelling—in their legal writing, including fiction, myth, parable, anecdote, and autobiog- raphy. These approaches often demonstrate the way in which the majoritarian mind-set (in this case, the outlook of the white majority, includ- ing its prejudices and presuppositions) impedes the cause of racial reform. Bell, for example, published in a legal journal a science fiction story with implications for race relations in the United States. In it, an extraterrestrial race comes to earth and offers to solve the United States’ economic and environmental problems in exchange for possession of all black U.S. citizens. In describing what happens after this event, the story shows how a majority group (here, white U.S. citizens) must always put some other group on the bottom of the socioeco- nomic ladder as a scapegoat for the country’s social ills. CLS and Its Alternative View of the Law and Society Consistent with their leftist heritage, CLS theorists call for radical changes in the law and in the structure of society itself. Unger has called this radical project “institutional recon- struction.” Many in the CLS movement want to overturn the hierarchical structures of domina- tion in modern society, and many of them have focused on the law as a tool in achieving this goal. The law, CLS claims, has played a key role in maintaining that hierarchy by impeding efforts at social change. In general, CLS argues that there is no natural or inevitable form of social organization, and there is by no means agreement between CLS scholars as to what form society and its laws should take. CLS thus avoids the kind of blueprint for social revolu- tion that radical leftist movements such as Marxism-Leninism supplied in the past. In- stead, leading CLS devotees envision a potential emancipation of individuals from the structures of power that restrict and victimize them. For GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 312 CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES these reasons, the political philosophy of many in the CLS movement has been described as utopian, a characterization that many do not completely deny. Unger provides the most well-known exam- ple of the utopian tendencies in CLS. In his writings, he has attempted to outline a “cultural- revolutionary practice” that will lead to nothing less than “the systematic remaking of all direct personal connections … through their progres- sive emancipation from a background plan of social division and hierarchy.” Unger envisions a future in which the categories that currently divide and separate people—including sexual, racial, political, and class categories—are broken down, allowing people to share more values and to create a more harmonious society. He calls for an “empowered democracy” with a government and economy that are largely decentralized. In terms of the economy, he proposes that capital be controlled by the government, which would establish a “rotating capital fund” that would pass to “teams of workers or technicians” who would decide how to use it. Many conditions of the economy, such as income disparity between individuals, would be addressed by “central agencies of government.” Such innovations would require major changes in the law, particularly as regards an understanding of rights, including property rights. In his call for a radical restructuring of rights, Unger proposes creating four categories: immu- nity rights, which protect the individual from the state, organizations, and other individuals; desta- bilization rights, which make it possible to dismantle institutions and practices that create social hierarchy and division; market rights, which constitute claims to social capital and replace conventional property rights; and solidarity rights, which are “the legal entitlements of communal life.” Despite his criticism of liberalism, Unger calls his philosophy “superliberalism”: It pushes the liberal premises about state and society, about freedom from dependence and governance of social relations by the will, to the point at which they merge into a larger ambition: the building of a social world less alien to a self that can always violate the generative rules of its own mental or social constructs and put other rules and other constructs in their place. Unger therefore seeks to reform the law and society in such a way as to liberate and empower every individual. CLS has many critics. Some see it as lacking coherence, fraught with the very contradictions that it identifies in liberalism. Others accuse the movement of being nihilistic, of destroying the foundations of legal reasoning without putting anything in its place or without even making positive recommendations for change. They find CLS prescriptions for the future to be too vague and utopian for practical application. Another widespread complaint is that the writings of CLS scholars are unnecessarily obscure, opaque, and turgid. Despite these criticisms, CLS has greatly influenced the study and theory of the law. After some early battles to gain acceptance in the 1970s and 1980s, it earned an accepted position in law schools across the United States. However, some legal scholars, both inside and outside the CLS movement, argue that as many of the original CLS adherents age and reach positions of power in established law schools, their original radical impetus will fade and moderate. Others argue that the call for justice and equality will always require an untempered radicalism that will be fueled by CLS. Whatever the outcome, CLS has permanently changed the landscape of legal theory. FURTHER READINGS Boyle, James. 1992. Critical Legal Studies. New York: New York Univ. Press. Delgado, Richard. 1993. “Critical Race Theory: An Anno- tated Bibliography.” Virginia Law Review 79, no. 2 (March). Hutchinson, Allan C., ed. 1989. Critical Legal Studies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Oetken, J. Paul. 1991. “Form and Substance in Critical Legal Studies.” Yale Law Journal 100. Tushnet, Mark. 1991. “Critical Legal Studies: A Political History.” The Yale Law Journal 110, no. 5. Unger, Roberto M. 1986. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCE Legal Education. v CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN John Jordan Crittenden served as attorney general of the United States in 1841 under President WILLIAM H. HARRISON, and again in 1850 under President MILLARD FILLMORE. He is also known for his efforts to keep Kentucky in the Union during the CIVIL WAR. Crittenden was born September 10, 1787, near Versailles, Woodford County, Kentucky. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN 313 His father was a Revolutionary War soldier and an early Kentucky settler. Crittenden was schooled near his home in Jessamine County, Kentucky. He showed a great aptitude for learning and was encouraged to pursue a career in the law. He attended William and Mary College, and gr aduated in 1807. His first law practice was established in Logan County, Kentucky. After two years as a struggling country lawyer, Crittenden was appointed attorney general for the Illinois Territory by Governor Vinian Edwards, of Kentucky, in 1809. His first experience as a public servant was cut short by the WAR OF 1812. Crittenden returned to Kentucky and enlisted as a volunteer; he served for three years and experienced firsthand the tragedy of war. In 1816 Crittenden was elected to a term in the Kentucky state legislature. The following year, he was elected to a seat in the U.S. Senate, but he did not complete the term. Finding local politics more to his liking, he resigned in 1819 and return ed to Fra nkfort, Kentucky, to reclaim his old seat in the statehouse. Though he had little affection for national politics, Crittenden did support fellow Kentuck- ian HENRY CLAY in his unsuccessful 1824 bid for the presidency. Crittenden respected Clay’s views on a number of issues, and they became political allies and lifelong friends. It was because of his association with Clay that Crittenden lost his next job. In 1827 Crittenden was appointed U.S. DISTRICT ATTORNEY for Kentucky by President JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.He held the post until 1829, when he was removed by President Andrew Jackson—after Crittenden and Clay had voiced their opposition to the financial policies of the Jackson administration. In 1835 Crittenden decided to give politics another chance. Again, he sought and won a seat in the U.S. Senate. Crittenden was begin- ning his second Senate term when he was offered the position of attorney general by President Harrison. He accepted. Crittenden had been an ardent Harrison supporter and had campaigned for him in 1840. When Harrison died of pneumonia shortly after his inauguration and was succeeded by VICE PRESIDENT JOHN TYLER , Crittenden was unable to support the new president. Along with other Whigs in the cabinet, Crittenden resigned in ▼▼ ▼▼ John Jordan Crittenden 1787–1863 17751775 18251825 18501850 18751875 18001800 ◆◆◆◆◆◆ ❖ ❖ 1775–83 American Revolution 1787 Born, Woodford County, Ky. 1807 Graduated from William and Mary College 1809 Appointed attorney general of the Illinois Territory 1812–14 Served as volunteer soldier in the War of 1812 1816 Elected to the Ky. state legislature 1827–29 Served as U.S. district attorney for Ky. 1817–19 Served in U.S. Senate 1835–41 Served in U.S. Senate 1841 Appointed U.S. attorney general by President Harrison 1842–48 Served in U.S. Senate 1850 Appointed U.S. attorney general by President Fillmore 1855–61 Served in U.S. Senate 1861–63 Served in U.S. House of Representatives 1863 Died, Frankfort, Kentucky 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1848 Elected governor of Ky. John J. Crittenden. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 314 CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN September 1841. In 1842 Crittenden found himself back in the U.S. Senate, appointed to fill the seat left vacant by the retirement of Clay. He finished Clay’s term and was subsequently reelected in his own right. Throughout his five separate terms in the Senate, Crittenden was affiliated with the Whigs. With the WHIG PARTY, he opposed the annexa- tion of Texas, discouraged animosity toward Great Britain over the Oregon boundary, and refused to give enthusiastic support to the Mexican War. In 1848, while still a U.S. senator, Crittenden was elected governor of Kentucky; he resigned his Senate seat to accept the job. His return to Kentucky brought renewed contact with Clay, who was again running for the presidency. Crittenden, convinced that Clay was not a viable candidate, threw his support to ZACHARY TAYLOR, and caused a permanent rift between himself and Clay. Following the death of President Taylor and the succession of Vice President Fillmore, Crittenden was offered his old cabinet post as attorney general. He again accepted, and through this office he authored an opinion upholding the constitutionality of fugitive slave laws. Though many of Crittenden’s writings were controversial, he agreed with the view that attorney general opinions were only advisory and could be ignored by the president. In 1855 Crittenden was elected to another term in the U.S. Senate. There, he vigorously opposed the KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT of 1854. When the issue led to the breakup of the Whig party, he joined the American, or Know-Nothing, party in 1856. Two years later he joined the Constitutional Union party, and campaigned on behalf of JOHN BELL and Edward Everett in the 1860 presidential election that brought ABRAHAM LINCOLN to the White House. Although Crittenden did no t agree with Lincoln on all matters of policy, he did oppose secession of the Southern states and he did support Lincoln’s efforts to preserve the Union. As a prominent political figure in both the North and the South, Crittenden worked hard to effect a compromise that would avert a civil war. In December 1860 he proposed an amend- ment to the Constitution that has come to be known as the Crittenden Resolution. To bring the Union together, he suggested that the Missouri Compromise line be restored and continued to California, that SLAVERY be guaran- teed indefinitely in the District of Columbia, and that slaveholders be reimbursed for run- away slaves. Crittenden’s compromise effort was defeated by Lincoln’s strong stand against any extension of slavery into the territories, and by opposition from strong Republican leaders in Congress. Nevertheless, Crittenden stood with the government and continued to support Lincoln’s position that it was the right and duty of the government to maintain the Union. Returning to Kentucky in early 1861, Crittenden traveled the state urging citizens to support the Union cause and to remain neutral in the escalating conflict. On May 27, 1861, he acted as chairman of the Frankfort Convention and successfully argued against leaders who encouraged Kentucky to join the Southern secessionists. For his efforts, Crittenden was returned to Congress, but this time to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a representative, he opposed the confis- cation acts, the EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION,the military regime in Kentucky, the employment of slaves as soldiers, and the war in general. On July 19, 1861, he offered a resolution that was adopted with only two dissenting votes: Resolved by the house of representatives of the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern states, now in arms against the constitutional government, and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect its only duty to the whole country; this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By 1863 Crittenden had held political office for al most 45 years. He had served two presidents as attorney general, completed five terms as a U.S. senator, and finished a single I HOPE TO FIND MY COUNTRY IN THE RIGHT ; HOWEVER,I WILL STAND BY HER, RIGHT OR WRONG. —JOHN CRITTENDEN GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CRITTENDEN, JOHN JORDAN 315 term as a U.S. representative. He was preparing to run for another term in the House when he died. He was remembered at his funeral as a man with fine person al qualities, a gift for public speaking, and a firm commitment to the Union. Crittenden’s efforts to preserve the Union were personal as well as political: two of his sons were on opp osite sides of the issues and the battle lines. His youngest son, Thomas L. Crittenden, was a commissioned officer in the Union army; another son, George Bibb Crit- tenden, held similar rank in the army of the Confederacy. v CROCKETT, GEORGE WILLIAM, JR. George William Crockett Jr.’s political career spanned almost six decades. He was an attorney, a judge, and a leading CIVIL RIGHTS and LABOR UNION activist. At the age of 71, he was tapped to represent Michigan’s 13th district in the U.S. House of Representatives. His ten-year stint in Congress was marked by many milestones and much controversy. Crockett was born August 10, 1909, in Jacksonville, Florida. He grew up in the South when racial segregation was a fact of everyday life, an experience that fueled his commitment to correct injustices. He attended public schools and graduated with a bachelor of arts degree from Morehouse College in At lanta in 1931. He studied law at the University of Michigan, graduating in 1934. He was admitted to the Florida bar in the same year and began his legal career in Jacksonville. In 1939 Crockett became the first African American lawyer in the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR . He was one of the first hearing examiners in the Fair Employment Practices Commission. Crockett’s early involvement in LABOR LAW led to his founding and directing the Fair Emplo y- ment Practices Departm ent of the International United Auto Workers (UAW) Union in 1944. He also served as treasurer and associate general counsel to the UAW and as assistant to the union’s secretary-treasurer. ▼▼ ▼▼ George William Crockett Jr. 1909–1997 19501950 19751975 20002000 19251925 ❖ ◆ 1909 Born, Jacksonville, Fl. 1914–18 World War I 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ◆ ❖ 1934 Earned J.D. from University of Michigan Law School ◆ ◆ ◆ 1997 Died, Washington, D.C. 1980–90 Served in the U.S. House of Representatives 1966–78 Served as judge on Detroit Recorders Court 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in voting, jobs, and public accommodations 1952 Served four months in prison as result of contempt citation from Foley Square case 1949 Defended U.S. Communist party members in Foley Square trial 1943 Joined the Fair Employment Practices Commission 1944–46 Founded and directed the Fair Employment Practices Department of the International UAW George Crockett Jr. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 316 CROCKETT, GEORGE WILLIAM, JR. After leaving the UAW, Crockett returned to private practice with the law firm of Goodman, Crockett, Eden, and Rob, where he was a partner from 1946 to 1966. He remained active in the civil rights and labor movements throughout his career. In the 1949 Foley Square trial, he de fended several members of the U.S. Communist Party against charges of un-Ameri- can activities. (United States v. Foster, 9 F.R.D. 367 [S.D.N.Y.]). Crockett’s clients, along with many codefendants, were charged with conspir- acy to advocate the overthrow or destruction of the government by force or violence and conspiracy to organize the Communist Party as a society advocating such overthrow or destruction. During the trial, he railed against what he thought were the judge’s abuses of his clients’ rights. His refusal to back down earned him a contempt citation (United States v. Sacher, 9 F.R.D. 394 [S.D.N.Y.]). His conviction and sentence for contempt were upheld on appeal, 182 F.2d 416 (2nd Cir.), and he spent four months in the penitentiary at Ashland, Kentucky, in 1952. While serving his prison term, Crockett wrote to his son that prison is a good place to learn patience because the relentless passage of time teaches the value of persistence. Crockett’s patience was severely tested after his return from prison when he was ostracized and forced to fight a move to disbar him. Because of his involvement in the Foley Square trial, the labor movement, and the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, he was labeled a communist sympathizer. However, in 1963 when President JOHN F. KENNEDY planned a meeting of civil rights lawyers at the White House, Crockett’s name was on the list of those the president wanted to attend. To be allowed into the White House, Crockett had to be investigated by the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION , which finally granted him a security clearance. Crockett served as a judge of the Detroit Recorder’s (Criminal) Court from 1966 to 1978. His years on the bench included a term as presiding judge in 1974. He retired from the recorder’s court in 1978, but soon returned to public service. In 1980 Representative Charles C. Diggs Jr. (D-Mich.), one of the few people who had befriended Crockett upon his return from prison in 1952, was himself sentenced to three years in prison, for accepting kickbacks from his congressional staff. Diggs endorsed Crockett to replace him, and, in a special election to fill the vacancy, Crockett was elected to the post. At the age of 71, Crockett launched into his new career in Congress. He continued to take controversial positions on issues ranging from African Americans in the foreign service to decriminalization of drugs. He was arrested in 1984 at a demonstration protes ting South Africa’s policy of apartheid. In 1985, when tensions between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East were high and the United States officially supported Israel, Crockett invited a representa- tive of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to brief members of Congress on the PLO’s views about conditions in the Middle East. The invitation was denounced by some members of the House, and, after intervention by the SECRETARY OF STATE, the visit was canceled. In 1986 Crockett criticized President Ronald Reagan’s administration for not appointing more African American ambassa- dors. He noted that the number of African Americans in the foreign service had declined during the years Reagan had been president. He used his position as chair of the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Activi- ties to initiate a hearing on racism in appoint- ments to the foreign service. The result was a promise from the secretary of state that the STATE DEPARTMENT would pursue a goal of appointing more members of minority groups to foreign service positions. In 1987 President Reagan appointed Crockett to the position of public delegate to the UNITED NATIONS. In addition to chairing the House Subcom- mittee on Western Hemisphere Activities, Crockett served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Aging. His final contro- versial act as a representative came in 1989 when he became the first member of Congress to recom mend publicly the decriminalization of drug possession. Stating, “Our co urts are burdened down with these drug cases and there is nothing they can do about it,” Crockett called for decrimina lization as “the only solution.” He was sharply criticized by many members of the administration, including William J. Bennett, who was the director of federal drug policy. Crockett retired from public life at the end of his fifth term in the House, which ended January 3, 1991, but remained one of Detroit’s NO OTHER PROFESSIONAL GROUP BEARS A RESPONSIBILITY AS GREAT AS THAT OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION FOR RIDDING OUR LAW AND OUR BODY POLITIC OF THIS CANCEROUS GROWTH OF RACISM . —GEORGE CROCKETT GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CROCKETT, GEORGE WILLIAM, JR. 317 . address GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 30 8 CRIMINOLOGY criminals and crime in general. Those who are involved with political criminology focus on the causes of crime, the nature of. a way that promotes the dominance of men. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES 31 1 MacKinnon also uses rape as an example of the way in which the conventional. envision a potential emancipation of individuals from the structures of power that restrict and victimize them. For GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 31 2 CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES these