Charis E. Kubrin is Professor of Criminology, Law & Society, and Sociology at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). She is an expert for the Crime and Justice Research Alliance and a 2024 Newkirk Center for Science & Society Fellow. She spoke with SSRN about the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials, what data shows about the relationship between immigration and crime, and how keeping an open mind allows science to do its job.
Q: Your research within the field of criminology spans all the way from immigration and crime to rap music and media to criminal justice reform. How has your career developed in a way that you’ve built expertise in so many different areas?
A: Usually people [say] “these areas have nothing to do with each other. They’re totally different. They don’t connect. How are you interested in all of them?” But I actually do think they connect in one important way, which is that in each of these different areas, public perception about the topic – whether it’s immigration and crime or criminal justice reform and its impact or rap lyrics in the courtroom – there are a lot of stereotypes, assumptions and incorrect knowledge. Everyone assumes that immigrants cause more crime than the native-born, but the data show the opposite. Everyone assumes that criminal justice reform is responsible for rising crime rates, but again, the data show the opposite. People make assumptions about rappers being more likely to engage in crime. Again, stereotypes and assumptions that do not pan out in the data.
So, what brings all of my research areas together? What unites them is a gap between perception – what people think – and reality – what we know from the data. My goal is always to narrow that gap as much as possible.
Q: Was there any motivator for you picking these specific topics in terms of debunking some of those public perceptions?
A: Part of it is a frustration with the gap: knowing about the research in this area and what it has to say about a given topic, and then seeing the way it’s written about or discussed, either in the media, among politicians, or in the public sphere. Then recognizing that what people think they know versus what we know from the data is opposite ends of a spectrum. I think my desire then is to jump in and get involved, and not only do research in the area, but work really hard to make the public aware of what we know, try to correct the assumptions that are based on faulty perceptions, and then also get people to question why they have the stereotypes to begin with.
With immigration and crime, for example, it turns out that study after study – not just my work – showed immigrants commit less crime than the native born, and immigration to an area causes crime to go down – if anything – not up. Yet, we continually see this narrative out there in the media, “immigration and crime, they go hand in hand.” Especially in an election year, we hear that. For me, it’s really wanting not just to do the research to contribute to that conversation, but then make the research do something in the public sphere to have a greater impact, so that peoples’ misconceptions can be corrected.
Q: I want to talk a little bit about your recent book from last year, “Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock,” where you and your co-author, Graham Ousey, examine various dimensions of the immigration and crime relationship in the U.S. With this being more of a divisive topic, what compelled you to get involved and jump into the middle of that issue?
A: The funny thing is, Graham and I have been doing research on immigration and crime since the early 2000s. Immigration and crime has never not been an issue, and a controversial one at that, but it’s become even more so over the last 20-25 years that I’ve been working in this area. What got me started in the first place was an op ed I read in the New York Times in the early 2000s written by criminologist Robert Sampson, titled “Open Doors Don’t Invite Criminals.” His argument in this op ed was that people assume immigration brings crime to cities, but in fact, it’s just the opposite. In response to the op ed, he was getting hate mail, some of which he shared with me. I thought, “wow, the data are speaking for themselves, but everyone feels so strongly against this.” I looked back at the research on immigration and crime, and it turns out his findings were pretty consistent [with] what we had been seeing for decades.
I got really fired up, and I decided I wanted to get involved in this research. I’ve been working in this area, doing studies on immigration and crime, giving talks about this topic, and with the same author of the book, did a meta analysis in 2017 of the immigration-crime literature over a 20-year period. Then, last year, we decided to cap it all off, all these decades of work that we and others have been doing, with the book. It’s short. It summarizes the state of the field. It’s accessible. It’s written in jargon-free language, and our goal is for policy makers, politicians, the general public, and academics to read and get a feel for what we’ve known for a long time about immigration and crime.
Q: In a complex issue like this, where there are a lot of different factors, how do you work to acknowledge little nuances within the data and policies that you analyze?
A: Well, you know us academics, we love our nuances, we love our caveats, and we love to talk about our findings in the context of limitations. I think that’s very important. It’s also important, though, to be able to – in a jargon-free way and in a general way that is relevant to policy makers and others – speak about your findings. If everything is caveated, it becomes difficult to know how to make sense of these findings. That’s been a learning curve for me, because as a social scientist, I’m a someone who works with statistics and is very careful about how I report on things. I want to report every little finding and every nuance. I do that in the papers – the academic papers have all of that.
But then, when I share the findings beyond academia, whether it’s in an op ed or in talks… a lot of people just want to know the underlying findings. That often means being able to translate the findings of your regression models, for example, in a way that is accessible and friendly, if you will. It’s not to say that people aren’t intelligent and can’t understand [the data]. But often, the level at which something needs to be communicated is different depending on the audience and the forum. With policy, individuals want to know the highlights and the key points, not how every variable was measured or how every ancillary test was done, etc.
Q: In regard to those little nuances that go beyond one issue, you’ve demonstrated this a lot through your work studying the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal trials. How have you used your scholarly work and experience as an expert witness to communicate the complexities of using rap on trial?
A: That’s an area where I’ve worked really hard to move beyond academia, because the implications of the findings in the real world are so strong. I have done everything from writing op eds, giving a TEDx talk, writing amicus briefs in actual court cases – including ones that have been read by Supreme Court justices – to training public defenders involved in rap on trial cases. I’ve also spoken to judges, educating them on the dangers associated with bringing rap lyrics into the courtroom. I’ve done experimental studies that have findings for implications in rap on trial cases, like whether the defendant is able to get a fair trial or not because of negative stereotypes associated with the genre and those who make the music. Those experimental studies have been the basis of legislation here in California that was signed by Governor Newsom called AB 2799, the Decriminalization of Artistic Expression Act.
This research – along with studies by others – helped inform this Act, which puts guardrails on the use of rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases. With a collaborator in the law school here at UCI, Prof. Jack Lerner, we wrote a legal guide that’s free and downloadable for defense attorneys involved in rap on trial cases, so that they can look at the relevant case law and also understand what the social science research has to say about the issue. All of this effort has been with the intention of making research have real world implications.
Q: Speaking of “Rap on Trial: A Legal Guide,” you released the second edition earlier this year. There was a lot of new information to add since the first edition in 2021: the new legislation you talked about, but also the analysis of media treatment towards rap music and legal influences on the music itself. What do you think have been some of the most important developments in the concept of rap on trial in the past few years?
A: First, I want to give a shout out to my collaborator who spearheaded this effort, UCI law professor Jack Lerner, and his students in the IPAT (Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology) Clinic. Years ago, Jack approached me and said, “Hey, I heard about rap on trial. I know you’ve been doing work in this area. I run a clinic here at UCI, and I’ve got students interested in this. What can we do to help you?” We decided on a legal guide that would help attorneys in cases where rap evidence is being introduced and answer key questions for them.
What do you include in a pretrial motion to exclude the lyrics? What are the normative conventions of rap music? Why do rappers write the kinds of lyrics that they do? What stereotypes may be associated with rap music and rap artists that are being brought into the courtroom? What is the case law in this area? We wanted to address all of these questions in the Guide. Three years later, we produced a 150-page legal guide, which we put on our web page and made accessible. We are thrilled with platforms like SSRN that allow this work to be seen, accessed and downloaded by people all over the world.
We could not believe the response we got. We heard from attorneys all over the country who said “this legal guide was incredibly useful. This legal guide helped my client. This legal guide helped me draft my pretrial motion. This legal guide made me able to better understand the case I was involved in. This legal guide helped me win my case.” It was so gratifying. And because this is an evolving area in terms of the courts and the law, we decided we needed to stay on top of things. That’s what prompted the second edition, with the new policy and other additions.
It’s very gratifying. It’s in many ways more gratifying than getting an email saying your paper has been published. That’s important too. Good research, as I always say to my students, is the foundation. You can’t go and change the world if you’re standing on nothing or on weak research. That’s what we’re trained to do, is the good research. But also, we can’t just expect someone else to do something with it. We have to take it one extra step further.
Q: One thing from your TEDx talk that really stood out to me was when you said, “you cannot pass judgment until all the evidence has been reviewed.” Sometimes people think that they have all the facts, but new evidence and new research develop over time. How important is it for people to keep an open mind towards evidence in the future that may call into question old ways of thinking?
A: 100% and I hear this more and more, “Well, they said this about COVID and now it’s the opposite,” or “they said this, ‘it’s okay to eat eggs,’ and now you can’t eat eggs.” And I say to myself, that’s science doing exactly what it should be doing. There’s a difference between science/scientific beliefs and ideology. Ideology is rigid. If you have an ideological belief, it is impervious to new data and new facts.
The difference between that and science, in my opinion, is that science is always changing. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, it means that we’re getting a better handle on what is right. When I see findings change, that’s not a problem. We’re learning with each new piece of evidence that we’re adding to the evidence base; we’re refining our understanding. What concerns me is ideology, when people have beliefs about things… and whatever evidence comes out that supports their ideology or not, they’re sticking to that set of beliefs. That is dangerous, worrisome, and why we need science. Refining, creating nuance, deeper understanding. That’s exactly what it’s about. So, I see it as exactly what science is designed to do.
Q: Over the years, you’ve consistently posted your work on SSRN. How do you view SSRN in the context of research and scholarship?
A: It’s vitally important to me. I go right to SSRN because I know it’s where people go to get knowledge and facts on whatever topic they’re interested in. I used to get a lot of emails asking, “can you send me this paper?” Or “can you send me that paper?” It’s wonderful to have SSRN to put the research there and make it available.
SSRN reaches people that may not be reading the journals in which this research is published. I know SSRN is a place where reporters, policy makers and others are going, looking for information. Why do I do research, if not to help inform in cases? In the end, I hope that my research is helping somebody, somewhere.
More About Charis Kubrin
Charis E. Kubrin is Professor of Criminology, Law & Society and (by courtesy) Sociology. She is also a member of the Council on Criminal Justice, the Racial Democracy, Crime and Justice- Network, the Diversity Scholars Network, the Scholars Strategy Network, The UC Consortium on Social Science and Law, and UCI’s Center for Population, Inequality, and Policy. She is an expert for the Crime and Justice Research Alliance. Kubrin’s research examines the immigration-crime nexus and considers the impact of immigration-related policy on immigrants, immigrant families and immigrant communities. Another line of research assesses the impact of criminal justice reform on crime rates. She is a 2024 Newkirk Center for Science & Society Fellow. In 2019, she was named a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology. Most recently, she is co-recipient of the Stockholm Prize in Criminology to be awarded June of 2026 in Sweden.
You can see more work by Charis E. Kubrin on her SSRN Author page here.