Gang crime and resulting public fear became a major policy focus during the 1990s, yet few studies specifically focus on fear of gang crime. Guided by social disorganization theory, we test three theoretical models about the individual thought processes leading to fear of gang crime. Using structural equation models, we find that each of these three theories—diversity, disorder, and community concern—is an important predictor of gang-related fear. In addition, we find that the indirect relationships between demographic characteristics, theoretical variables, and fear depend upon which model is tested.

Origin stories are a distinctive form of narrative. In their account of how something “began to be,” such stories connect past and present, clarify the meanings of important events, reaffirm core norms and values, and assert particular understandings of social order and individual identity. The parents of children with disabilities tell strikingly similar origin stories about the day their child was first diagnosed. Such stories not only explore the meanings of a transformative event but also draw implicit connections between past encounters with medical specialists and present encounters with educational specialists as mandated by an important federal statute. This article, based on an ethnographic study of parents, children, and educators, traces the implicit references in the parents' origin myths to a set of key oppositions that reflect their experiences within the statutory framework of special education: cooperative versus unilateral decisionmaking, lay versus professional knowledge, and authority versus legal empowerment. The article also compares the ways in which law and myth address the conflicting perspectives of disability specialists and of the parents and children themselves.

We reach, then, not a simple conclusion (law = class power) but a complex and contradictory one. On the one hand, it is true that the law did mediate class relations to the advantage of the rulers; not only is this so, but … the law became a superb instrument by which these rulers were able to impose new definitions of property to their even greater advantage. … On the other hand, the law mediated these class relations through legal forms, which imposed, again and again, inhibitions upon the actions of the rulers. [Thompson, 1975:264]

As always in social life, the heart of the mystery lies in the relationship between the struggle for power and the beliefs people hold about what is good for them and what they are capable of achieving. That relationship is the cave into which we must follow the enigma. [Unger, 1976b:242]

The way in which citizens in developing countries conceptualize legality is a critical but understudied question for legal consciousness and legal mobilization studies. Drawing on participatory observations and extensive interviews from western China, this article explores the subjective interpretations of migrant wage claimants on law and justice behind their disruptive actions. Their perception of justice differs starkly from what the law stipulates as target, evidence and proper procedures. Who shall be held responsible? What constitutes evidence? When shall they be paid? How much? Their perceptions also differ from the attitude “against the law” found among members from disadvantaged social groups in the United States. The Chinese case of legal perception is shaped by the moral precepts ingrained in the culture, and more importantly, by the lopsided relationship between migrant workers and the political and business elite. It thus points to the daunting barriers in channeling the ever-growing number of social conflicts into court.

Increasing racial and ethnic group representation in justice-related occupations is considered a potential remedy to racial inequality in justice administration, including sentencing disparity. Studies to date yield little evidence of such an effect; however, research limitations may account for the mixed and limited evidence of the significance of justice workforce racial diversity. Specifically, few studies consider group-level dynamics of race and representation, thus failing to contextualize racial group power relations in justice administration. To consider these contextual dynamics we combine court organizational and case-level data from 89 federal districts and use hierarchical models to assess whether variably “representative” work groups relate to district-level differences in sentencing. Using district-specific indexes of population and work group dissimilarity to define representation, we find no relationships between black judge representation and sentencing in general across districts, but that districts with more black representation among prosecutors are significantly less likely to sentence defendants to terms of imprisonment. We also find in districts with increased black representation among prosecutors, and to a lesser degree among judges, that black defendants are less likely to be imprisoned and white defendants are more likely to be imprisoned, with the effect of narrowing black-white disparities in sentencing. Consistent with the “power-threat” perspective, and perhaps “implicit racial bias” research, findings encourage modeling diversity to account for relative racial group power in processes of social control and suggest that racial justice may be moderately advanced by equal representation among authorities.

This study examines how taxpayers evaluate the distributive justice of personal income tax burdens. Using the concept of framing from behavioral decision theory, we suggest that taxpayers employ either an outcome-processing or a norm-processing frame of tax fairness evaluation. Framing is affected by substantive tax policies and the tax situations of individuals. Taxpayers who qualify for tax deductions and other tax preferences employ an outcome-processing frame and focus on perceived abuses of government power when evaluating fairness. Those unable to claim tax breaks employ a norm-processing frame and focus on vertical social comparisons and their inability to qualify for valued tax breaks. The findings suggest that tax avoidance policies have the net effect of increasing public perceptions of unfairness in the tax system.

From the beginning of nationhood under the Constitution to the present day, the federal system of American government— what Madison termed “a novelty and a compound,” and what Hamilton declared was “necessarily a compromise of dissimilar interests and inclinations”—has been of profound importance in shaping the nation's economic order. Power has shifted over time between the national government and the constituent state governments; and these structural shifts have had an impact upon policy process and outcomes, as well as upon the economy's institutional framework. The study of federalism has long been, of course, a concern of scholarship in constitutional law, political science, and history. Moreover, historians of American politics have lavished much attention upon the great conflicts of interest groups, parties, and ideologies, from 1787 to the New Deal and after, over the basic question of the extent to which power ought to be centralized in our federal system. And yet no scholarly studies have been specifically devoted to the analysis of federalism as an institutional variable both influencing the development of enterprise in the private sector and influencing economicpolicy processes and the substance of public economic policy. This paper attempts such an analysis. Part I reviews the recent literature on law and economic history, and Part II considers some theoretical issues. Parts III and IV examine historic American federalism in relation to governmental institutions and power, public economic policies, and the dynamics of the economy's private sector.

Research on the implementation of criminal justice reforms, such as sentence guidelines, determinate sentence laws, and no plea bargaining policies, has proliferated in recent years. This research raises a variety of concerns about how one should evaluate the effectiveness of policy innovations. We deal here with recurring issues in the evaluation of criminal justice innovations, including the problem of specifying goals against which to measure “effectiveness,” the need to interpret research findings in light of theories about how criminal courts operate, and the importance of choosing appropriate time periods in which to conduct implementation or evaluation studies.

How courts and judges in authoritarian regimes decide cases behind closed doors has rarely been studied, but it is critically important in comparative judicial studies. Primarily drawing on the minutes of the adjudication committee in a lower court in China, this article explores its operational patterns and decision-making process. The data suggest that among the criminal cases reviewed by the committee, very few were difficult or significant, but a relatively high percentage of the suggested opinions of the adjudicating judges was modified. In contrast, many civil cases reviewed were difficult to resolve but the committee offered little assistance. Overall the operation and decision-making of the committee were subsumed by the administrative ranking system inside the court and the authority of the court president was enormous. The analysis also demonstrates the limited role of the committee in both promoting legal consistency and resisting external influences. Instead of achieving its declared goals, the committee has degenerated into a device for both individual judges and committee members to shelter responsibility. The findings compel researchers to reevaluate the role of the adjudication committee in Chinese courts, and the relationship between judges and authoritarian regimes.

This article presents a new framework for analyzing the development and implementation of disability law: the prism of the fear of “the disability con”—popular perceptions of fraud and fakery. We all encounter disability rights and accommodations in everyday life. However, people with disabilities pay a price for the legal recognition of their rights. People who park in disabled parking spots, use service dogs, move to the front of lines, receive Social Security benefits, or request academic accommodations are often viewed as faking disabilities and abusing the law. This disability con stereotype thus serves as an important invisible barrier preventing Americans with disabilities from fully taking part in society, as it not only undermines the public legitimacy of rights but also restricts the design and implementation of the legal regime illustrating those. Nevertheless, this moral panic around disability con in American society and its manifestations has yet to be studied in a systematic-empirical way, nor has it been addressed in sociolegal scholarship. Using a mixed-methods approach composed of an original nationally representative survey along with in-depth interviews, this article fills this gap. The data suggest that the stereotype of disability con applies to multiple disability rights across venues and contexts; that nearly 60% of Americans with disabilities feel that others question their disability; that the stereotype of disability con extends to visible disabilities and to less apparent ones; and that, counterintuitively, the people most suspicious are nondisabled individuals with a personal connection to a disabled person and disabled people who experience suspicion themselves. Based on the richer understanding of the sociolegal phenomenon, this article suggests strategies to increase trust and reduce suspicion of the disability con.

This article documents and provides possible explanations for the degree of judicial activism in eight post-communist countries. We examined constitutional court cases for the three years following the initial adoption of a constitution in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, and Slovakia. We found that contextual political factors, such as the extent to which the party system is fragmented and the extent to which the court enjoys popular trust and confidence (rather than the formal powers entrusted to the court by the constitution or the structure of the political system), contribute most to the degree of activism by constitutional courts.

Building on our earlier work testing the stability of punishment hypothesis, we here combine the general modeling strategy previously employed with more behaviorally grounded models of actors' expectations and preferences. Using these tools, we model the historical attempts by criminal justice actors in California to balance prison admissions and releases in an equilibrating manner. We find that there have been efforts to regulate the flow of individuals through prison and that, contrary to expectations, these processes are not very different for males and females.

In recent decades, authorities have adopted a number of programs that tether the criminal and immigration enforcement apparatuses in novel ways. This mixed methods case study assesses the impact of such programs on local criminal justice processes and outcomes in King County, Washington. Although the empirical research on the effects of such programs is scant, the emerging literature on legal hybridity suggests that the enmeshment of the criminal and immigration systems is likely to enhance the state's power to detain and punish. The quantitative results support this hypothesis: non-citizens flagged by immigration authorities stay in jail significantly longer than their similarly situated counterparts. Qualitative focus group interviews with prosecuting and defense attorneys identify four key mechanisms by which Immigration Customs and Enforcement detainers alter the incentive structure, impact decisionmaking, and extend jail stays for non-citizens. Together, these findings suggest that immigration law and the threat of deportation now cast a long shadow over local as well as federal criminal proceedings, and enhance penal pain for non-citizens. Implications of these findings for the “crimmigration” literature and research on the effect of citizenship status on criminal justice outcomes are discussed.

Resource mobilization and gender socialization theories go a long way toward explaining why so many sexually harassed women opt not to report their problems, but they shed little light on why some still choose to take action and sue. This article examines how relationality can affect a sexually harassed woman's decision to sue. An analysis of 31 litigation narratives shows that regardless of the severity of the harassment, or the amount of legal aid available, maternal responsibilities, marital commitments and parental approval can become pivotal considerations. Some considered the integrity of familial ties to be priceless assets worth suing for. Others deemed them too valuable to risk losing in a contest over rights. These narratives confirm feminist assertions that relationships—especially familial ones—often play a central role in the choices that women make. They also challenge popular assumptions about what constitutes a “personal choice” and under what circumstances women are likely to chose to litigate.

This study examines how the professional work of elite corporate lawyers is constructed by influence from different types of clients. The data presented include interviews with 24 lawyers from six elite corporate law firms in China and the author's participant-observation in one of the firms. For these elite Chinese corporate law firms, foreign corporations, state-owned enterprises, and private enterprises constitute their extremely diversified client types. Accordingly, lawyers' work becomes flexible and adaptive to accommodate the different demands of the clients. Meanwhile, client influence on lawyers' professional work is mediated by the division of labor within the corporate law firm: whereas partners have solid control over the process of diagnosis, inference, and treatment and thus enjoy a high degree of professional autonomy, associates are largely stripped of this cultural machinery in the workplace, and their work becomes vulnerable to client influence. As a result, client influence on professional work appears to decrease with a lawyer's seniority.

Nearly all of us will agree that “one case does not make a sample.” Nonetheless, there is a tendency to disregard this advice when it comes to studying the historical origins of laws concerning crime and delinquency. This is understandable since it is generally acknowledged that the micro- and macro-level processes surrounding the origins of many such laws are so complex that they can only be examined case by case (e.g., Hall, 1952; Chambliss, 1964). But such an approach creates problems: although any single case study is clearly inadequate to support generalizations, strong theoretical inferences frequently are drawn, often violating the constraints adopted with more conventional data. This essay reviews a number of North American case studies in an attempt to clarify the theoretical and methodological limitations, prospects, and findings of the literature on criminal lawmaking.

I introduce this review by contrasting the two principal theoretical perspectives that guide such studies. I then discuss problems of evidence related to these rival theories, using an analysis of the origins of theft laws as my example. Following this, I review a large number of empirical studies concerned with the origin of laws that I have grouped into three categories: (i) delinquency and probation; (ii) alcohol and drug abuse; and (iii) prostitution and sexual psychopathy. Finally, I examine the implications of these and other legislative studies for future work in this important area of research.

One of the stated objectives of the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa was the creation of a political culture respectful of human rights. Thus, part of the “reconciliation” sought by the truth process was nurturing a set of cultural values among the populace that would make the gross human rights abuses that characterized the apartheid regime difficult if not impossible to reimplement in the future. Those creating the truth and reconciliation process assumed (hoped) that knowledge of the truth about the country's apartheid past would somehow contribute to the development of such a culture.

The purpose of this article is to investigate whether a culture respectful of human rights has been created in South Africa. Based on a survey of roughly 3,700 South Africans (concluded early in 2001), I begin by conceptualizing what it means for cultures and individuals to be supportive of human rights. This conceptual approach then provides guidance for operationalizing support for human rights—and in particular support for universalism in the rule of law—within the survey context. Thus, the first objective of my article is descriptive: To what extent has a human rights culture been created in South Africa?

But this article is about far more than describing the human rights culture of South Africa. The truth and reconciliation process hypothesizes that “truth” can contribute to this culture. But does it? With measures of the degree to which individual South Africans accept the truth about the country's apartheid past, this hypothesis can be rigorously tested. In addition, I explore a variety of additional explanations of support for human rights values, ranging from experiences under apartheid to attitudes toward South Africans of a different race. I conclude that whether a South African prefers a universalistic approach to the rule of law depends upon truth acceptance, interracial attitudes, and support for strong majoritarianism. Still, even with controls, racial differences in attitudes toward the rule of law persist in contemporary South Africa. Perhaps the most important contribution of this article is its evidence that the truth—participation in a country's collective memory—can affect the values that individual citizens hold.

In this article, we analyze ethnoracial patterns in youth perceptions and responses to rights violations and advance a new model of legal mobilization that includes formal, quasi-, and extralegal action. Slightly more than half of the 5,461 students in our sample reported past rights violations involving discrimination, harassment, freedom of expression/assembly, and due process violations in disciplinary procedures. Students, regardless of race, are more likely to take extralegal than formal legal actions in response to perceived rights violations. Self-identified African American and Latino/a students are significantly more likely than white and Asian American students to perceive rights violations and are more likely to claim they would take formal legal action in response to hypothetical rights violations. However, when they perceive rights violations, African American and Asian American students are no more likely than whites to take formal legal action and Latino/a students are less likely than whites to take formal legal action. We draw on in-depth interviews with youth and adults—which we interlace with our quantitative findings—to explore the interpretive dynamics underlying these survey findings, and we offer several theoretical and methodological implications of our work.

In this article, I use state-level anti-miscegenation legislation to examine how Asian ethnic groups became categorized within the American racial system in the period between the Civil War and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I show how the labels used to describe Asian ethnic groups at the state level reflected and were constrained by national-level debates regarding the groups eligible for U.S. citizenship. My main point is that Asian ethnic groups originally were viewed as legally distinct—racially and ethnically, and that members of these groups recognized and used these distinctions to seek social rights and privileges. The construction of “Asian” as a social category resulted primarily from congressional legislation and judicial rulings that linked immigration with naturalization regulations. Anti-miscegenation laws further contributed to the social exclusion of those of Asian ancestry by grouping together U.S.-born and foreign-born Asians.

Social life is inevitably conflictual. Conflict occurs as individuals with different interests, goals, problems and perspectives seek to achieve a maximum share of the values which any society provides. Yet, the inevitability of conflict does not mean that its occurrence is welcomed. In fact, generally the opposite is true. Conflict, once it occurs, is difficult to end. Resolution is elusive because conflicts transform themselves almost as quickly as they can be defined and strategies for dealing with them developed. Nevertheless, in every society there is a wide range of techniques and procedures available to deal with disputes.