ADAPTED FROM:
Robinson, Matthew B. (2002).  “McDonaldization of American Police, Courts, and Corrections,” In George Ritzer (Ed). The McDonaldization Reader.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

 McDonaldization is a term created by sociologist George Ritzer (2000:1) to describe the “the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as the rest of the world.” It is a process that represents the culmination of numerous practices of 20th century America, including bureaucratization, scientific management, and assembly line production.

 According to Ritzer, McDonaldization is made up of four elements:
1) Efficiency is “the optimum method for getting from one point to another” or for achieving some goal (Ritzer, 2000: 12).  In the fast food industry, efficiency is imperative, as the term “fast” implies;
2) Calculability is “am emphasis on the quantitative aspects of products sold ... and services offered ... In McDonaldized systems, quantity has become equivalent to quality; a lot of something, or the quick delivery of it, means it must be good” (Ritzer, 2000: 12).  In the fast food industry, more for your money is better than less for your money;
3) Predictability refers to “the assurance that products and services will be the same over time and in all locales (Ritzer, 2000: 13).  In the fast food industry, the goal is to make one’s entire dining experience completely consistent with all previous visits; no matter where you go, the product will be exactly the same; and
4) Control means that as many aspects of production and consumption are governed by strict rules and an emphasis on one way of doing things.  In the fast food industry, control is often achieved through the use of nonhuman technology (Ritzer, 2000: 236).

Any institution, system, or in this case, network of agencies, that stresses efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control, can be thought of as McDonaldized. According to my own research, America’s agencies of criminal justice (police, courts, and corrections) have been McDonaldized, which means they tend to be aimed at efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control, perhaps even more than justice.

Efficiency and Criminal Justice

 The importance of efficiency in American criminal justice has always been stressed, perhaps never in our nation’s history as in the past three decades.  When agencies of criminal justice are more focused on controlling crime than assuring fairness and impartiality, efficiency of criminal justice become the most important value; informal processes such as plea bargaining are used in place of trials to expedite criminal justice operations and hold a larger proportion of criminals accountable for their criminal acts.

 To the degree that cases move through the criminal justice network like an “assembly line,” criminal justice practice is much like a fast-food production line.  Modern criminal justice practice aims to be efficient, even at the cost of due process rights of defendants.  As you saw in Chapter 1, most criminal justice resources go to police and corrections, with courts receiving the fewest resources.  The result is that almost all convictions by courts are achieved through the assembly line process of plea bargaining; less than 10% are convicted in criminal trials.

 Allegiance to efficiency can also be seen within each of the agencies of criminal justice, including police, courts, and corrections.  With regard to policing, the increased use of directed and aggressive patrol techniques (including foot and bike patrol), as part of a problem-oriented policing strategy, provides evidence that law enforcement values efficiency.  The zero tolerance policing in our nation’s largest cities, aimed at eliminating small problems of disorder before they grow into large crime problems, is further evidence of an allegiance to efficiency.  The shift from two to one man police cars based on the realization that one man cars are just as effective as those occupied by two officer provides further evidence for the importance of efficiency in policing.  Finally, the growth of technology in policing, from crime analysis and crime mapping, to fingerprinting and computers in squad cars, suggests that policing is much more focused on proactive strategies than its has been historically.

 With regard to courts, the popularity of plea bargaining provides tremendous evidence for the significance of efficiency in American courts.  The ideal of American justice is an adversarial process, whereby prosecutors and defense attorneys fight for the truth and justice in a contest at trial.  Yet, an administrative system is in effect, as evidenced by the large use of plea bargaining in courts; these cases are handled informally in hallways and offices rather than in courtrooms.  Instead of criminal trials where prosecutors and defense attorneys clash in an effort to determine the truth and do justice for all concerned parties, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and sometimes judges “shop” for “supermarket” justice through plea bargaining.  Criminal trials are now the exception to the rule of plea bargaining.  Plea bargaining achieves only one thing – a more efficient court.  Most criminologists and criminal justice scholars view plea bargaining as an unjust process driven by large numbers of caseloads, understaffed courts, and the renewed emphasis on using law enforcement to solve drug use and public order offenses (see Chapter 7).

 With regard to corrections, a renewed emphasis on efficiency can be found in the increased use of incarceration to achieve incapacitation and deterrence of large numbers of inmates.  Increased use of imprisonment is discussed below in the section on calculability.  Here, it simply should be noted that a greater use of imprisonment implies to consumers that the criminal justice network will be more efficient in preventing crime because it will prevent criminality by those currently locked up and instill fear in those considering committing crimes.

 Other evidence of increased efficiency in corrections includes legislative efforts to expedite executions by limiting appeals and the elimination of gain time and parole by states and the federal government.  The elimination of gain time and parole is a major factor contributing to prison overcrowding.

Calculability and Criminal Justice

 A greater emphasis has been placed on calculability in criminal justice over the past three decades – policy makers seem much more satisfied with more criminal justice (quantity) rather than better criminal justice (quality).  Victimless crimes have at virtually all times in our nation’s history been criminalized and we have fought numerous wars on drugs; yet, the most recent war on drugs under Presidents Reagan, Bush (the first), Clinton, and Bush (the second) has stressed much more criminal justice intervention than at any time in our nation’s history.  As a nation, we have spent more than $300 billion on the war on drugs since 1980; the cost of the drug war increased from just over $1 billion in federal dollars in the early 1980s to almost $20 billion in federal dollars in 2001.  The largest portion of the 2001 figure (as in every previous year) was intended for domestic law enforcement while treatment and prevention received less than this and domestic social programs have been cut dramatically to pay for the war on drugs.  The largest spending increases between the end of the Clinton presidency and the beginning of the Bush presidency (1996 and 2001) were for international spending and interdiction, while prevention and treatment increased less (see Chapter 11).

 In policing, we see calculability in the promises by politicians to place more cops on the street and to build more prisons.  We also see calculability in asset forfeitures in the nation’s drug war.  The reward for police is being allowed to confiscate and keep some drug-related assets, including cars, houses, cash, and other property.  To some degree, law enforcement officials have come to rely on drug assets to purchase equipment and conduct training so that police can exterminate drug use.  The majority of law enforcement agencies in the United States have asset forfeiture programs in place (see Chapter 6).

 In courts, the value of calculability is seen in the passing of longer sentences for virtually all crimes.  It is also evident in laws that require offenders to serve greater portions of their sentences – the so-called “truth in sentencing” laws (see Chapter 8).

 In corrections, calculability means building more prisons, sending more people to prison, and a renewed use of capital punishment.  The imprisonment rate in America has historically been relatively constant.  It has fluctuated over the years, but never until the 1970s did it consistently and dramatically increase.  Beginning in 1973, America began to engage in an imprisonment orgy (see Chapter 9).  Since the early 1970s there has been approximately a 6.5% increase each year in imprisonment.  Most of the increase has been due to drugs; from 1980 to 1993, the percentage of prisoners in state prisons serving sentences for drugs offenses more than tripled and in federal prisons more than doubled.  America now has more than twice the rate of prisoners per 100,000 citizens as any other democracy, and more than 5 times the rate of democracies such as Canada, England, Germany, and France.

 The ironic fact remains, however, that drug use trends have largely been unaffected since 1988 and drug abuse levels have always hovered at approximately the same level (see Chapter 11).  An increased commitment to calculability – more criminal justice – has not resulted in substantial reductions in crime rates, nor drug use and abuse.
 
Predictability and Criminal Justice

 If one were to fairly assess the performance of our nation’s criminal justice network in terms of crime control over the past century, one could conclude that the likelihood of being subjected to it was always very unlikely; that is, the most predictable thing about it has been reactive criminal justice processes fail.  Even today, the chance of being apprehended, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment is highly unlikely for all crimes other than murder.

 The most important factor in the effectiveness of deterrence is the certainty of punishment, that is, the likelihood of being punished.  Research on deterrence has consistently found that the severity of a sentence has less of a deterrent effect than sentence certainty (see Chapter 8).  American criminal justice performs poorly in providing certain, swift punishments that outweigh the potential benefits of committing crimes.  Putting more cops on the street and increasing the use or prison sentences are efforts to make criminal justice outcomes more predictable.

 In terms of policing, law enforcement officers now attempt to apprehend suspects by using offender profiling methods, which allows them to develop a picture of the offender based on elements of his or her crime.  The scientific method has always been a part of policing, yet only in the past two decades, however, has offender profiling been used by police.

 Police also try to accurately predict who is likely to get into trouble with the law before they commit criminal acts.  They focus on particular types of people because of their own personal experience or that of their institution and profession, which suggests that certain people are more likely to violate the law.  This practice, known as police profiling, results in startling disparities in police behavior based on class and race.  Police use race, ethnicity, gender, and so forth, as a proxy for risk (see Chapter 6).  Using race to establish probable cause is even supported by courts as legitimate when race is used in conjunction with other factors.  Courts have stated that as long as the totality of the circumstances warrants the conclusion of the officer that the subject was acting suspiciously, race can be part of the circumstances considered by the officer.  These elements of predictability in policing lead to difficulties in police-minority interactions, disproportionate use force against people of color, and disrespect for the law generally.

 American courts are also highly predictable in all they do.  The main actors in this process within the criminal courts – the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge – enter the courtroom daily knowing essentially what will happen each day before it happens.  Ideally, each member of the courtroom workgroup serves its own roles and has its own goals; in reality, each member’s main job is not to rock the boat in the daily operations of America’s courts.

 Because of the strong working interpersonal relationships among courthouse workers, going rates are established in bail and sentencing.  The process of plea bargaining, discussed earlier, serves as an excellent example.  In studies of plea bargaining, cases are disposed of with great regularity and predictability meaning that the resulting sentence is reliably predicted based on the nature of the charges and the defendant’s prior record.  A going rate is established for particular types of crimes committed by particular types of people, one which becomes established over time and which is learned by each member of the courtroom workgroup.  Plea bargains typically closely parallel this going rate, and defendants charged with particular crimes can easily learn what sentence they likely face if they plead guilty (see Chapter 7).

At the sentencing phase of courts, criminal penalties are highly predictable. Generally, the most important factors include the seriousness of the offense and the offender’s prior record, so that the more serious the offense and the longer the prior record, the more severe the sentence will be.  Mandatory sentences now establish a minimum sanction that must be served upon a conviction for a criminal offense.  Thus, everyone who is convicted for a crime that calls for a mandatory sentence will serve that amount of time.  Indeterminate sentences which allowed parole and determinate prison sentences which could be reduced by good-time or earned-time credits have been replaced by mandatory sentences across the country.  Furthermore, sentencing guidelines have been established to make sentences more predictable and scientific based on a set of criteria including prior record, offense seriousness, and previous interactions with agencies of criminal justice.  Sentencing grids reduce the discretion of judges and thus shift power to government prosecutors (see Chapter 8).

 The best example of mandatory sentences are the “three strikes” laws in effect in more than half of our states.  The logic of three strikes laws is to increase penalties of second offenses and require life imprisonment without possibility of parole for third offenses (see Chapter 8).  These laws usually do not allow sentencing courts to consider particular circumstances of a crime, the duration of time that has elapsed between crimes, and mitigating factors in the background of offenders.  The offender’s potential for rehabilitation, ties to community, employment status, and obligations to children are also not taken into account.

 Risk classification in corrections entails a great degree of prediction, as well.  Individuals convicted of crimes can be put on probation, incarcerated in jail or prison, or subjected to some intermediate sanction; largely one’s punishment is determined by offense seriousness, prior record, and behavior during previous criminal justice interventions.  Yet, each form of punishment entails more or less supervision and fewer or greater rules to follow (e.g., probation versus intensive supervision probation), and/or greater restrictions on movement and activities (e.g., minimum versus maximum security) (see Chapter 9).  The most violent and/or unmanageable inmates are now placed in isolation or incarcerated for 23 hours of the day in supermax prisons.  These issues are discussed in the section on control that follows.

Control and Criminal Justice

 As you saw in Chapter 1, In the past three decades, America has witnessed a rapid expansion of American criminal justice. This is evidence of increased control efforts by the criminal justice network and is criticized for being a disinvestment in the nation’s future.

 This expansion is literally unparalleled in history; yet corresponding decreases in crime have not been achieved.  Indeed, street crime decreased throughout the 1990s but only about one-fourth of this decrease is attributable to imprisonment (see Chapter 4).  The clearest control issue in criminal justice revolves around corrections.  Correctional facilities are now state of art in terms of their use of technology to manage inmates.  Increased use of other technologies include electronic monitoring of offenders under house arrest.  Supermax prisons are the epitome of control.  Offenders in super-maximum prisons have restricted contact with other inmates and with correctional personnel.  Many inmates are locked in their cells for most of the day, in stark cells with white walls and bright lights on at all hours of day and night.  Cells have completely closed front doors and no windows.  In these prisons, prisoners are confined to their cells for 23 hours per day and can only take showers 2-3 times per week.  When inmates are transferred, they are shackled in handcuffs and sometimes leg irons.  Temperatures inside these facilities consistently register in the 80s and 90s.

 The supermax facility gives us another interesting parallel between criminal justice and the fast food industry.  Technically, nothing can be more maximum than “maximum” custody, yet now we have supermax custody.  In fast food, french fries used to come in small, medium, and large.  Now they come in medium, large, and extra large; the extra large sizes are “super sized,” “biggie sized”, and even “super super sized” and “great biggie sized.”  French fries provide the fast food industry their greatest profit margins for any of their products.  The McDonaldized fast food industry tricks consumers to pay very high prices for a very small portion of one potato using deceptive terms such as “super super sized” and “great biggie sized” to convince consumers they are getting a good deal; the McDonaldized criminal justice network creates the illusion through the term supermax custody that these institutions keep Americans safe.  In fact, most of supermax inmates will one day be released back into society, having to readjust to even living with other people.  And the costs to taxpayers just to build such facilities can be more than $130,000 per inmate.

 From the analysis presented, it is clear that our criminal justice network has fallen victim to McDonaldization.  Each aims to be as efficient and predictable as possible, each uses quantity as an evaluative criterion, and each is highly controlling.  Given the frequency of exposure to the efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control of the fast food environment, people have probably come to expect these qualities from many institutions and services other than fast food restaurants.

This would make it easier for politicians to tout and sell fast and easy solutions to the nation’s crime problem.  Unfortunately, as American police, courts, and corrections have become McDonaldized, irrational policies have resulted.  Although there is more criminal justice today than thirty years ago, although much of criminal justice practice is now highly predictable, and although American may now believe they are safer because of more control over criminals exerted by the government, the truth is that Americans are less sure of receiving justice from their agencies of criminal justice.