Apr. 18.

2005 I'04PM

No. 4380

P. 2/10

BOOKERS AND PEACEMAKERS: TYPES

OF GAME WARDENS
CRAIG J. FORSY-H
University of Southwestern Louisiana
This paper is a descriptive analysis of the job of flame warden.
Using data from interviews with 31 game. wardens, the author describes
the interactions of game wardens with other wardens and poachers. Two
types of game wardens were constructed on the basis of this data: "bookers" and "peacemakers." The literature on the official behavior of law
enforcement officers is reviewed. Extensive quotes from interviews with
glame wardens are presented.
Traditional images of police officers.have focused on the law
enforcement aspects of the iob. These images emphasized crime
prevention, the apprehension of offenders, and the maintenance of
order. A much less pubticized role of law enforcement officers is
the problem solving or public service role of official police behavior. Furthermore, police activities have generally been viewed
within an urban setting, so in essence, law enforcement has been
defined by an urban crime fighting model. The official behavior of
rural law enforcement officers has not been the subject of
many studies. The paucity of interest in rural crime, criminals, and
police officers is easily documented by perusing any criminology
textbook (Bankston and Jenkins !982),
T.he purpose of this exploratory research was to add to the..
existing body of literature on 'the official behavior of law enforcement officers by studying the behavior of a relatively unresearched
police officer, the game warden. Though game wardens have not
been given significant attention in the past, this does not mean the
existing body of literature on official police behavior is without
relevance to their study. The major objective of this paper is .to
explicate the implications of this literature to the study of game
wardens, with special reference to their application to a typology
of official police behavior,

very

LITERATURE REVIEW
Walker (1983) described two schools of thought on what role
the police officer should play: the crime prevention role or the
Address correspondence to Craig J. Forsyth, University of Southwestern Louisiana,
Department of Sociology, P.O. Box 40198, Lafayette, LA 70,504,

SOCIOLOGICAL SPECTRUM, 14:47-6S, 1994

Copyright 1994 Taylor & Francis
0273-2173/94 $I0.00 + .00

TYPES OF GAME WARDENS

strict law enforcement role. The specific discussion was in regard

to juveniles, but it is applicable to interactions with adult criminals. The crime prevention role calls for police officers to act as a
kind of social worker heJping criminals slay out of situations that
might lead them to further troubles_ The strict law enforcement role
contends the police officer should concentrate on arresting people
who violate the law. Many officers contend that the roles are not
complementary; they fear that if they adopt a helpful position in
one situation they wilJ not be taken seriously when the circumstances call for a strict law enforcement role. This wourd seem to
creat role ambiguity for.each officer located in either of these lwo
types. Some officers feel they can fulfill both of these roe exiec-

rations simultaneously (Walker 1983).

Other research, starting with Bittner's (1967) conceptualization of the plice in a eacekeeper role, has investigated styles and
types of policing and offers fudher explanation of their behaviors
(Broderick 1977; Hochstedler 1-981 a; I9111 b; Pepinsky 1976; Reppetto 1975; Smith 1984; Talarico and Swanson 1980; White 1972;
Wilson 973). Wilson (I 973) developed a typology of departmental styles of policing: legalistic, watchman, and service. The legalistic style emphasizes interpretations of ituations in terms oflaw
enforcement. Police are expected I Jandle each situation forreally. Legal processing occurs whenever possible. In contrast, the
primary fundion of departments operating within a watchman
style is the maintenance of order. Under the watchman style, many
incidents are handled informally. In the service style, alternatives
to formal processing are used. AJI requests for Order maintenance
and law enforcement are answered, but formal sanctions are less
likely. Alternatives to formal processing, including referral to drug
and traffic education programs and social service agencies, are
preferred. According to Wilson (1973), a service style is suited to
homogeneous communities in which there is support for the police.
Broderick (1977) differentiated between individual police
officers on the basis of their perception of the need for social order
and their regard for due process. Broderick constructed four ypes:
the realist, the idealisl, the enforcer, and the optimist. The idealist
recognizes lhe necessi[y for law and oder, but also has a high
regard for individual rights. The enforcer is concerned about law
and order, but not due process. The optimist is supportive of
due process, but low on- social oler. The optimist wants to help

49

people, not merely fomnally process them. The realist has a defeatist attitude. This individual feels the courts have elevated the
individual rights of due process over the protection of society.
Hence, this individua! sees society as having [ittJe interest in eliminating crime.
Moore and Trajanowicz (1988) suggested a community relations emphasis to the role of police officer. They found three strategies that guide policing: strategic poJicing, problem-solving policing, and community policing. ,Strategic policing emphasizes the
crime fighting role of police using both traditional and innovative
enforcement techniques. The two other strategies give cognizance
Io Wilson's (I 973) service style of policing. Problem-solving policing takes the perspective that lhe majority of crime is caused by
existing social conditions. The emphasis is on unco;ering and
eliminating underlying social problems. Citizen involvement in
crime fighting is stressed. Community policing goes a step beyond
problem solving by estab[ishing a working partnership between
the communffy and the police. The research of Skolnick and Bay]ey (1986) documents the growth of this service-oriented style of
policing.
In a study of Virginia state game wardens, Palmer and Bryant
(1985, p. 115) found 38 (56.7%) of the respondents indicated law
enforcement was the main aspect of their job, while the remaining
29 (43.3%) indicated service (conservation, public relations, or
education) as the chief aspect of the job. Their conceptualation
of behaviors suggest a similarity with the Walker (1983) typology.
White (T972) distinguished between four types of police ofricer: tough cop, rule applier, problem solver, and crime fighter.
The tough cop sees his!her job as one of keeping criminals under
control, usually by force. The problem solver is understanding of
the plight of police clientele. The problem solver is like a sociar
worker. Crime fighters see their role as enforcing the law. They are
rustrated by the more routine aspects of police work. The rule
applier operates by the book and has a rather unconcerned slance
toward all facets of police work.
The foregoing review of literature suggesls a quasi-typology of
official police behavior. This-typology establishes a continuum of
types ranging from those officers who perform within a strict law
enforcement/rule app]ier roJe to those who see their role as serving
the public as a kind of social worker. In between are several types
that blend these two extreme roles. This study uses interview data

50

c.j. ORSYTH

to determine if the-officia] behavior of game wardens is

adequately
described by existing typologies.

M'TIODOLOGY
The data in this paper were based on interviews with 31
current or retired Louisiana state game wardens during
they
described their interactions with other wardens and withwhich
poachers.
-[he interviews ranged from 1 to 3 hours.
The wardens were selected by the author on lhe basis of his persona! acquaintance
w_ith
them and their availability. Respondents were interviewed in their
homes or in the field.
The analysis is focused on th wardens' responses to several
questions: Where are poachers caught and how? Are there
regu[atidns you must abide-by when apprehending an certain
Alhat are the penalties for being caught poaching? Howoffender?
often do
you give out citations for offenses? Are game
wardens put into
different categories? Characterize game wardens and poachers.
Are them nicknames for certain types of game wardens
and poachers? Would you do it all over again (become a
game warden)?
Describe the job of game warden. Additional questions were intended to elicit general responses about poachers and/or game
wardens. All questions were intended to be uides to discussion
rather than generators of specific responses. All data for this
project
were collected between January 1991 and june 1992.

TYPES QF GAME WARDENS

51

solver, and the crime prevention role. The appendix to this paper
offers a summary description of each type.

Type I: Bookers
The following were typical responses from bookers when
asked about arrest procedures and practices:
Regulations are there to be abided
to get rough and tough.

but sometimes you have

Just like

any other acl that violates a law, you read and inform
them of their rights. You basically have to folJow le rules_

We basically must follow the same principles that all slate law
enfore_ment otficers must follow.
only difference is
justice is done in an area far away from civilization. Thal is why
we can get away with some things... Ira poacher oomes in with
a few knots upon his head, no one ever worries or t]ks about it.

We must folio.w guidelines. But out here in the swamps a person

can run ito a lot of trees just by accident.

We basically have to abide by thesame regulations as the law

enforcement agents. "[he only difference is thatwe are usually in
the woods or in de water alone, so we can get a Iilfie justice
done. Who will a judge believe? You and -both kow that
answer.

/NDINGS AND

DISCUSSION

Game wardens are dffferentiated on the basis of several dimensions: perception of poachers and game wardens, application
of the law and arrest procedures, and description of the
role of
game warden. Data from the interviews suggest a
conceptualization of the official behavior of game wardens into two types:
bookers and peacemakers_ Of the 31 game Wardens
18
interviewed,
(58%) were categorized as bookers and the remaining !3
(42%)
were characterized as peacemakers. A crude
comparison wfth
types discussed in the review of the literature finds bookers the
tively similar to the strict law enforcement role, watchman relastyle,
strategic policing rule applier, tough cop, and enforcer.
Peacemakers could be compared to the optimist, service styie, probiem

Bookers cast themselves in a strict law enforcement role_ But

while they were overly preoccupied with sticking to arrest procedures, they did not consider the physical abuse of poachers inconsistent with these ideals. As these comments of: same wardens
indicated, bookers readily talked aboutthe use of physical force in

apprehending a poacher and bragged about physically abusing

poachers.
When asked about penalEes for poaching, the following comments were characteristic of bookers:
Not nearly strict eough if you ask me. They usually get a small
fine, a little slap on the wrist. Community service is all a bunch
of bullshit.

3"fPES OF GAME WARDENS

You really need a stronger force of fines and other fomas of

punishment. The people who poach are breaking the Iaw, pe-

No quest3on about it. When they break the rules they

should be punished. And to het[ with all of this community work.
Put them in a real prison so that every time they lure around
some dude is grabbing them in the ass; then we would see how
they would obey the laws once they are out. Legislators are the
ones vcIo should be put in }ails. 7hey make up the lazy sanctions
put against those people who poach.
riod_

Penalties for poaching are dere but just not as bad as they should
be.

Bookers seemed frustrated by the fact that more severe penalties were not given to poachers.
As exhibited by the following quotes from the interviews,
bookers were quite derogatory in their description of poachers.
Poachers are evil son-of-bitches that love to cause pain and want
to make huge sums of money to suppor their drug habits_

harsh handling of poachers. In general, the status of "deviant" or

"'crireinat ' tends to override ai! other statuses and to have a special
priority that makes this status more important than most others. In
other words, one is identified as a deviant before other identifications are made. This tendency of "'retrospective interpretation'"
(Schur 1979) is easi|y recognized at work in the interaction
tween poachers and some game wardens. These "identh'y tags"
(Tannenbaure 1938, pp. 19-20) took on a special centrality in
characterization of poachers. Like the prostitute, if you do it once
you become one (Schur 1979). By definition, a "'criminal'" need
only comreit a sotitary criminal offense. However, the word conveys a number of insinuations designating auxiliary traits of an
individual burdened with the tag of criminal (Becker 1963). For the
booker, poaching was a central trait to the identity of the poacher,
which "blinded" these .game wardens to their other characteristics. The label "poacheV' therefore becorees a "master status"
conferred upon them (Becket i963; Hughes 1945).
Game wardens were also asked to describe game wardens
and/or the job of game warden. As the following .responses demonstrate, the opinions of bookers were generally negative.

Poachers are out to destroy nature.

Game wardens are loners.

Poachers are greasy, slimy, and imperfect geople. These types of
peopre should be punished to the fullest extent.

Poachers are stupid people trying to ruin our animal kingdom.

They are usually greedy and only worried about themselves.

Poachers are hardened criminals looking for another way to

make a fast buck_
Poachers are called stupid gease bails.
Poachess are slimy, deceitful human beings with no goal or
inhibions in li, othe an to cause s much hvoc as
Poachers are il, sImy,

or cu r hum being.

As revealed by eir commen,

game wardens had a
for acm; is pmbly-explains eir rict and

low

rega

5S

[Game wardens are} creatures who roam the woods of Loisian a.

They are usually strong, musoa]ar, and not too intelligent.

Game wardens are bookers. They will hit you w[h everything
they can get their hands on. Game wardem like to be alone in
the woods and usually don't get along with the reaf world too
well.

They. call me bookie because

give no slack. Common nicknames for game wardens are bookiehe would throw the book
at his own mother--then we have lazy, who doesn't do anything

worth even discussing.

Game wardens are hard--headed individuals who can't have a
wife and kids unless she can be e.motional[y independenL We
keep such weird hours, don't know what a 9 to _5 job would be
like.

c.j. FORSVrH

Some-game wardens

are called bookies, which means they

would throw the book at their mother.

TYPES OF GAME WARDENS

55

in my case if they are poaching to survive

let him off..., tfthe

criminal is good-hearted and kind he should have another

chance.
Game wardens usualJy am single with no girlfriend or dose
relatives. Most of them barely have a high school education.
Tey Iike to stay in the woods and just be.themselves.

Game wardens have no social life and it is hard for them to raise
children and have a family, unfess she don't mind living in the
wods or marsh.

Generally bookers seemed to have low job satisfaction. They

continuaffy emphasized the negative aspects of their work and/or
the consequences of their job on their family and personal lives.
They atso used negative terms to describe game wardens. However, they seemed to take pride in their role as "bookers," continually using the term to describe their actions.

Type lIT: Peatmkers

The comments from peacemakers obtained in the interviews
revealed significant differences when compared to bookers. The
following responses were distinctive of peacemakers when asked
about arrest procedures and practices.
The job.of the game warden is to keep the honest people honest
and to keep the violators guessing. As a whole, all our state game
wardens will give the honest people the benefit of doubt unless
there is a flagrant viola'don-where the person was deliberately
abusing the law.
think that game wardens in their districts influence the number
of violations.., by the type of public relations they promote.

You do something simila to what a state trooper does when

issuing a ticket. We take down all the information and remove
the driver's license from the person. You try to explain to them
he larger picture of the consequences of their actions _on the
environment and wildlife. He then has 30 days to pay the fine;
once his fine is paid his driver's license is returned to him. give
out 12 to 17 [citaons] a week.

The comments of these peacemakers indicate they see themselves

in a crime prevention rather an a strict Iaw enforcement role. In
comparison to bookers, peacemakers rarely mentioned the use of
physical force; it was to be used in apprehension only as a last
resorL Among bookers the use of hysicai force and the physical
abu of offenders was a topic mentioned in each interview.
The statements that follow were representative of the responses from peacemakers when asked about penalties for poaching.
You usually get fines ranging from $50 to $1,000 depending on
what you trapped/killed and your past criminal record_ You
could also be required to serve a sho_rt jail term of I to 6 months_
But you are always going to be puton a list to do20 hours a week
community service in the woods trying to get poachers. They try
to make a c0nservationst out of you and, believe it or not, it
actually works sometimes.
Most of the offenses committed are only misdemeanors.
You have to be Pair... people will go against you if you are a
smart aleck. You can incite people to commit violations_
Penalties now include community service work of 20 hours per
week. )-his is done to show the offender the problems that he has
caused.

The comments of these game wardens exhibited support for

sentences of community service. These peacemakers see these
sentences as educational mechanisms. Unlike bookers tey feJt
communi/service was effective. Peacemakers were generalJy satisfied with the penalties for poaching.
Peacemakers were also more positive in their description of

Poachers.

Somebody kills iwo ducks so the other guy will want tO kill 1 O;
this type of behavior makes up about 80
amongst honest people_

to 90% of our cases

C.j. FORS'I'TH

Most [peons wFo get caught poaching are not professionaJ

poachers, but there are a few and they are hard to catch because
they have a select few people they sell to.

In contrast to bookers, peacemakers did not place the criminar

[al:l "poacher'" on all offenders.
The subsequent statements were typica| of peacemakers
when asked to describe game wardens and!or the job of game
warden.
Game wardens are the protectors of nature.
We are smart individuals with a keen sense of right and wrong.
We are here to help the environment and wi'dlif flourish.
[Game wardens are] easy-oing yet in/to do their job so not too
many people get hurt.

lGame wardens are]

smarl

and witty individuals.

The preceding, responses generally demonsl'ated that peacemakers, unlike bookers, regarded both game wardens and the job of
game warden very ]:ositively.
As indicated by the following responses, both types of wardens were very aware of the differences that existed among them
on several dimensions of their job.

PEACEMAKERS:
If you are poaching and you are caught, at you can do is hope
that you geta good and fair game warden. Because, believe me,
lhey got some assholes who are game wardens and they live to
make poachers sweat, squirm, and bieecl.

]:Eere are sonde of us who hmw the book at everyone.

Game wardens do different tings because of different personalities. So in each situation te outcome could be differen

The-treatment of poachers all depends upon the game warden.

We have some really hard-nosed son-of-bitches who would
thzow their own moer in jail

TYPES OF GAME WARDEN.5

57

[The penalty for poaching] depends on the circumstance and the

agent.

and BOOKERS:
don't care what some game wardens say, a poacher is a law

breaker, period. There s no need for discussion on lhe matter= A.s

far as am concerned they are all grouped into one category:
stupid criminals trying to get something for nothing. They get
away sometimes, but they don't get offwhen geta hold of them.
Those other wardens can do v/nat they want, but become the
poacher's worst nighlmare.

c-

know some
us are hinkiag, "What about the criminal's
rights' Fuck hs rights. As far as am concerned, he lost his
rights when he decided to poach; plus who asked about the
animal's rights? Surely not the poacher.

The data suggest some distinct differences among game wardens rearding their perceptions of roles associated with their job.
There were also significant differences among wardens in their
perceptions of poachers. Peacemakers differentiated between professional poachers and normai folk, acategory most poachers fit
into. They saw the problem as being the professional poacher.
Bookers put all poachers into one category, which they hically
labeled i some disparaging manner_ Peacemakers were also more
likely to use discretion in arresting or giving citations to offenders.
Bookers used little, if any, discrelion. In short, peacemakers generally felt that laws should not be strictly enforced while bookers
strictly applied the law.
When asked to describe the job of game wardens, peacemakers stressed their role in protecEng the environment and!or "educating" offenders. Bookers generally stressed the negative aspects
of their job such as being away from family or their role as strict
enforcers of the law. Some bookers offered negative stereotypes of
game wardens. Perhaps they were projecting their own negative
feelings about the job. When asked to evaluate the lob of game
Warden and would they do [tall over again, typical responses from
bookers were:
Yes. The money sucks but have my freedom and authority. No
one is constantly on top of you.
Yes. The money is not the best in the wodd, but you are your
own boss. You do what you want to do when you want to.

(:.

J_ FORSYTH

TYPES OF GAME WARDENS

Yes. This job has plenty of excitement and it usually doesn't have
dangerous moments. Malter of fact sometimes il is
actually boring. But al least we can relax.

too many

No. It doesn't pay enough and the lifestyle sucks. am looking

-now, but iris very hard to get anywhere without a college degree.
No. Too much politics.

No. would like to do something eJse.

No. have been looking for another job since started.

The responses of peacemakers were somewhat more positive.

Yes, it is something that need to do to help o_[ the environment
and the wodd. Woods are where belong. ]t is where feel at
home. love my job.
Yes. Without any hesilation.

Yes. And think enjoy il lwice as much

the past.

types of wardens were very aware of the differences that existed

among them on several dimensions of their job. None of the individuals in our sample mixed these two rotes; they are in apparent
agreement with the majority of police officers and the literature
0Nalker 1983) that contends the roles are not complementary.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE CH

Future research should look at the baclround characteristics
of game wardens and police officeps generally to determine factors
that.contribute to different types of official behaviors. Research
should also be aimed at investigating the relationship between the

personal experiences of officers and their view of potential law

violators or certain types of violations as being more or less serious.
The 'law enforcement officer who has used marijuana with friends
in the past may be inclined to dea] with minor drug offenders tess
harshly than an officer who has neer used drugs. T-he officer who
routinely exceeds speed limits while driving his family vehicle nlay
be prone toward lenient action toward speeders encountered
while on duty. Likewise, the game warden who perhaps violated
game laws as a youth may be more lenient
poachers.
Styles of policing are based on a number of sociologicat influences ranging from personality 9ariables to organizational char
acteristics (Brown 1981; Muir 3977). Muir (3977) analyzed what
conditions influenced Unacceptable and appropriate policing.
Brown (1981) conducted research on individual styles of policing.
Part of their research involved the ways in which police officers
;ccommodated themselves to the demands of the police bureaucracy. These ideas form a foundation for understanding how po] ice
types are, at ]east parlJally, formed by t_he organization that directs
them. Research investigating the relationship between the official
behavior of game wardens and lhe organizational characteristics
should be of benefit to those interested in producin8 certainstyles
of game warden behavior. The social-organizational features of
justice systems are critical factors in understanding patterns of police behavior.
The gradual transition from traditional rural society to a more
urban industrial society has affected the job of the game warden.
While the areas where game wardens work are still relatively rural,
these areas have undergone significant social change; e.g., many
have become bedroom communities. -[he effect of this social

on

Yes.
as

have enjoyed it in

Yes. have zo regrets. feel my job is important for preserving the

world.
Yes. love this work.

Generally peacemakers indicated higher levels of lob satisfaction

than did bookers.
The results of this study suggest that the official behavior of
game wardens follows a patlern (fits a typology) already identified
by previous research. The findings of this research are similar to
those of Palmer and Bryant (I 98.). Bookers, as indicated by the
interview data, supported the taw enforcement aspect of their jobs.
Peacemakers stressed public relations as a key point in their 3obs,
as well as conservation/environmental issues. Other peacemakers
were concerned with educating poachers as to the environmental
consequences of their violations. As indicated by the data, both

59

60

G. Jo FORSFH

change upon both the behavior of game wardens and the kinds of
crime and criminals they encounter demands further research. As
researchers ponder the effects of social change on the slyle of
policing, the expectation, according to the literature (Wilson
1973)_, would be that socia!ly homogeneous communities would
be more likely to be associated with service-oriented styles of
policing while more heterogeneous communities would be associated with a law enforcement style of poJ icing. Research on game
wardens wourd be an excellent vehicle to test these hypotheses.
Studies of game wardens, whiJe an important start to under-

standing a particuJar type of crime, do not provide a omplete

analysis. Research efforls must also be directed toward the characteristics of poachers. The question of who commits what kinds of
crime is most important, and the data collected by official
agencies, with regard to this type of crime, are limited. No systematic
-studies of offender traits exist to my knowledge, and yew few
analyses of rural offenders have been carried out (Bali 1977; Bankston and Jenkins 1982; Gibbons 1972). One of the most significant
questions that such research may answer is related to the popuJalion source of rural offenders. Determining what kindsof crime are
committed by local residents is crucial for theoretical understanding of the criminogenic characteristics of rural social structures and
for effective preventive efforts.
This paper has revealed some of the interactiona] dynamics
between poachers and game wardens that result in application of
a criminal label or the absence, of one. Future research
should
address the process of labeling and the idea that master status is the
end resuJt of this process (Dotter and Roebuck 1988; Clinard and
Meir 1992). The labeling perspective is unique'y positioned to
explain the relationship between rule eriforcers and deviant actors
and lhe dynamics of that interaction as i eads to the officiaJ
designation of criminal. Slatements of these wardens linguislically
account for and support the ]abeling process. Future research
should advance beyond these accounts of wardens and begin to
investigate the criminal or noncriminal careers of poachers and the
role that all phases of the labeling process play in this designation.
The nature, anlecedents, and consequences of official evaluations
should occupy the attention of much research on deviance (Meier
"I 990)..Such research would do a great deal to quiet the critics of
labeling (Akers 1968; Gibbs 1981 ).
This research has attempted to describe [he different roles of

TYPES OF GAE WAIDENS

61

a specific type of law enforcement officer, the game warden. It was

indeed not intended to be a comprehensive or exhaustive statement on this specific occupation. Rather, it was meant to add to the

existing body of literature on the official behavior of law enforcement officers general ly. It has also suggested directions future research may take. Perhaps it wirl also create interest among crimino]ogisls, who may have "'tired" of urban police and crime. Such
research also provides opportunities for all sociologists interested
in social change and the legal system.

DescriofGameW
Has.low opinion of poachers
Uses little discretion
Does not differentiate between poachers
Gives no slack to offenders
Thinks laws should be strictly enforced
Overuses physical force in apprehending a poacher
Brags about physically abusing pcachers
Is preoccupied with sticking to arrest procedures but does not
consider the physica abuse of poachers to be inconsistent with
these ideals
When describing game wardens, stresses the negalive aspects
the job
Has relatively low job satisfaction

Thinks most poachers are good people

Uses a lot of discretion
Differentiates between poachers
:Gives offenders slack
Thinks Jaws should no be strictly enforced
Uses physical force in apprehension only as a la resort
When describing game wardens, stresses their role in protecting
the environment
Has relatively high job satisfaction

C.J.

FORSI'H

Akers, Ronald L. 968. "Problems In The Sociology _Of Deviance: Social

Definitions And Behavior." Socia! Fortes 46:455-465:

Ba[], Rich&rd A. 1977. "Emergent Delinquency In A Rural Area." Pp.
_] 09-120 in Juvenile DeliraTueocy, edited by
Theodore Ferdinand.
Beverly Hills,. CA: Sage.
Bankston, William B. and QuentJn'A. L. Jenkins. 1982. "Rural Crime In
The South: An Overview Of Research Traditions And Theoretical
Issues." The Rural Sociologist 2:233-24.
Becket, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders: 5Pudies In The 5ocio/ogy Of DeWante. New York: Free Press.
Bittner, E. 1967. 'q-he Polie On Skid Row: A Study Of Peace Keeping.'"
American 5o:iological Review 32:699-715.
Broderick, J. 1977. Police/n A Time O/Change. Prospect Heights, IL:
Wave]and.

Brown, Michael.

198t. Working The Street. New York: Russell Sage.

Clinard, Marshal[ B. and Robert F. meier. 1992. Sociology Of Deviant
Behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publish-

Dotter, Daniel L. and Julian B. Roebuck_ 1988. "The Labeling Approach

Re-examined: interactionism and Components Of Deviance." Deviant Behavior 9:79-32.

Gibbons, Don C. 1972. "Crime Jn The Hindedand." Criminology 10:
177-192.
Gibbs, Jack P. 198I. "q-he SodoJogy of Deviance and Social Control."
Pp.483-522 in Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, edRed by Morris Rosenherg and Ralph H. Turner. New York: Basic
Books.
Hochstedler, E. 198Ia. "Dimensions Of Police -types: A Study Of Perspective And Passion." Criminal Justice And Behavior 8::303-323.
Hochstedler, E. 1981 b. "'A Review And Test Of- PoEce Types." Journal of
Crimina/ Jostice 9:451-466.
Hughes, Everett C. 1945. "Dilemmas And Contradictions Of Status.'"
American Journal Of Soio!ogy 50:3_53-359.
Meier, Robert F. 1990. "Norms And The Study Of Deviance: A Proposed
Research S'ategy." Pp. 128-148 in Deviant Behavior, edited by
Con Bryant. New York: Hemisphere.
/vloore, Mark H. and Robert C. Tmjanowicz 1988. "Corporate Strategies
For Policing." Perspectives On Policing, Number 6, Washington,
DC: National Institute Of Justice.
Muir, William K. 1977. Police: Streetcorner Po/iticans. Chicago: Univers]ly of Chicago Press.
Palmer, C. Eddie and Clifton D. Bryant. 1985. "Keepers of the King's
Deer." Pp. I11-137 in The Rural M/orkForce, edited by Clifton D.

Bryant, Donald J. Shoemaker, James It Skipper and William E.

Snizek. South Hadley,/v.: Bergin and Garvey.
Pepinsky, H. 1976. "'Police Patrotmen's Offense Reporting Behavior.'"
Journal Of Research In Crime And Delinquency 13:33-47.
Reppetto, T. A. 1975. "q-he Influence Of Police Organizational Style On
Crime Control Effectiveness.'" journal Of Police Science And
ministration 3"274-279.
Schur, Edwin M. 1979. Interpreting Oeviance. New York: Harper & Row.
5koJnick, Jerome H. and David H. Bay[ey. I986. The New Blue Line:
Police Innovabbn In Six American Cities. New York: Free Press.
Smith, D_ A. 1984. "The Organizational Context Of Legal Control.'"
Criminology 22:3 9-38.
Tararico, S. M. and C. R. Swanson. 1980. "Policing Styles: Notes On An
Empirical Synthesis Of Wilson And Muir.'" Journal Of Crimina/jusrice 8:327-334.
Tannenbaum, Frank. 1938_ Crime And Community. Boston: Ginn.
Walker, Samuel 1983. The Police in America: An introduction. New

York: McGraw=Hll.
White, So O. I972. "A Perspective On Police Professionalization." Law
And Society Review 7:61--85.

Wilson, J. Q. 1973. Varieb'es Of Police Behavior: The Management Of

Law And Order In Eight Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.