As I’m bunkered down in the library this early evening plowing my way through back issues of Crime and Delinquency, I couldn’t help but get sidetracked by reading this paper unrelated to my dissertation.
Jill Leslie Rosenbaum and Lorrain Prinsky (1991). “The Presumption of Influence: Recent Responses to Popular Music Subcultures,” 37(4): 528 – 535.
It definitely has the scariest abstract I’ve read in quite some time:
This article focuses on the juvenile justice system in California and outlines approaches currently taken in response to teenagers who are part of the “punk” and “heavy metal” subculture. Data were collected from hospitals that have adolescent care programs. When these hospitals were given a hypothetical situation in which the parents’ main problem with their child was the music he or she listened to, the clothes he or she wore, and the posters on his or her bedroom wall, 83% of the facilities believed the youth needed hospitalization. These findings were placed within a labeling framework in order to understand the effect of these policies.
Apparently some California courts went so far as to tack on these stipulations to juvenile parole sentences:
1.Not to dress in any style that represents Punk Rock or Heavy Metal.
2.Not to wear hair (dye or cut) in any style that represents Punk Rock or Heavy Metal.
3.Not to associate with known Punk Rockers or Heavy Metalers.
4.Not to wear any Punk Rock or Heavy Metal accessories – earrings, or jewlery, spikes or studs.
5.Not to frequent any place where Punk Rock or Heavy Metal is main interest.
6.Not to listen to Punk rock or Heavy Metal music.
7.Not to write or draw Punk Rock or Heavy Metal.
8.No to tattoo, cut, harm or injure self in any way.
9.To keep parents of whereabouts at all times.
Maybe this explains why west coast punk rock sucks.