Neutralization and Tax Evasion: How Effective Would a Moral Appeal Be in Improving Compliance to Tax Laws?

The failure of individuals to pay their taxes in full is a serious budgetary problem for the federal government. Existing research (Schwartz and Orleans, 1967; Grasmick and Scott, 1982) suggests that efforts to increase the guilt feelings experienced for tax evasion might improve compliance. However, neutralization theory (Sykes and Matza, 1957) predicts that guilt feelings can be reduced by neutralization strategies which justify guilt-producing behavior, compromising the inhibiting effect of guilt feelings. Our research shows that through the use of neutralization strategies which justify tax evasion the inhibiting effect of guilt feelings is sharply reduced. The implications of this finding for tax compliance programs based on appeals to the moral obligation of paying taxes are discussed.     

Shadow values,shadow figures: real violence

How can violence be both a public anathema and a private common place? In order to explore this question, data from the North London Domestic Violence Survey are revisited and the reasons why men justify violence against women investigated. This is related to Sykes and Matza’s dual notions of the techniques of neutralization and subterranean values indicating the potential of this work in understanding domestic violence. Further, this paper confronts recent arguments that estimates relating to the extent and distribution of domestic violence are either too unreliable due to problems of response and differences in defining ‘violence’ or that those figures produced by feminist research arise from a massaging of the data and, as such, exaggerate the risk.     

WHEN BEING GOOD IS BAD: AN EXPANSION OF NEUTRALIZATION THEORY*

Traditional subcultural theorists maintain that offenders operate in an environment in which oppositional norms catering to ethics of violence, toughness and respect dominate the social landscape. Such offenders actively reject middle‐class value systems and operate beyond the boundaries of what is considered decent society. In their seminal work introducing Neutralization Theory, Sykes and Matza criticized such subcultural perspectives for overemphasizing the extent to which actors reject mainstream values (1957). They maintained that offenders and delinquents are aware of conventional values, understand that their offending is wrong, and self‐talk before offending to mitigate the anticipated shame and guilt associated with violating societal norms. This study analyzes street offender decision making and behavior in an effort to expand that perspective. The analyzed data was taken from interviews of hardcore, active, noninstitutionalized (uncaught) drug dealers, street robbers and carjackers to determine how they neutralize to support their offending. Findings indicate that these offenders strive to protect a self‐image consistent with a code of the streets orientation rather than a conventional one. That is, they neutralize being good rather than being bad. This suggests that expanding the scope of neutralization theory beyond the confines of conventional value systems will allow the theory to explain the behavior of a larger group of offenders. It also takes into account the kinds of real‐world contextual forces that now influence urban crime.     

CONTROL THEORY REEXAMINED: Race and the Use of Neutralizations Among Institutionalized Delinquents

A theoretical challenge to the socio-structural analysis of delinquency was posited by Sykes and Maria over two decades ago. Since then, relatively few studies have addressed the several issues inherent in neutralization theory. The present research explores the association between socialization and neutralization as this relationship pertains to racial differences among institutionalized delinquents. Significant differences for socialization and neutralization scores on the basis of race were noted. Lack of significant differences between races in terms of the hypothesized direction of the socialization/neutralization correlation was interpreted as a function of the nonlinearity of the data.     

THE NEUTRALIZATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSE

A previously untested proposition from Sykes and Matza's neutralization theory is that certain types of offenders will favor certain types of neutralizing excuses. Murderers, for example. may tend toward denial of responsibility or denial of the victim. A competing hypothesis, derived from Hindelang's challenges to neutralization and drift theories, is that offenders would favor excuses keyed to offenses similar to their own. Robbers, for example, may favor excuses for robbery over excuses for other offenses. regardless of the content of the excuses themselves. The data presented in this article, based on o survey of inmates in four Florida prisons, fail to support either hypothesis. This may suggest that the two perspectives from which the hypotheses are derived are overly simplistic-that the nature of crime and delinquency is more subtle and complex than indicated by either the subcultural or antisubcultural theoretical traditions.     

THE MISPLACED ROLE OF RATIONAL CHOICE IN NEUTRALIZATION THEORY

This study addresses one point in neutralization theory. It is often maintained that techniques of neutralization relieve moral constraints which allow for individuals to commit delinquent behavior. Drawing on the body of knowledge concerning vocabularies of motives, it is argued here that motives in deviancy theory should not be viewed in such positivist/causal terms. Techniques of neutralization are motives which are more accurately utilized after behavior is committed and only when such behavior is called into question. It is also argued that the use of motives and the types of motives should indicate the degree of conflict involved in the question situation.     

一审判决效力与二审中的诉讼外和解协议最高人民法院公布的2号指导案例评析

对指导案例2号归纳的程序规则,理论上可用"执行力替代说"来加以说明。引入诚实信用原则并明确其在法律解释中的作用亦为本案的靓点之一。指导性案例应当随时间的推移而呈现出系列性,使规则的流变和连续这两种司法实务的需要有机地结合起来。在此意义上,本案能够成为程序规则发展的一个起点或中间项。通过对案情基本事实多种演化形态的示例性延伸,本案程序规则的内容及其参照运用能够体现出微妙地调整变化却又保持前后一贯稳定性的独特机制和作用。本案所提炼出来的裁判规则既可能循着诚实信用原则的实质化、要件化这一路径发展,也可能根据司法实务中对"撤回上诉还是撤回原审起诉"的现实问题作出的回答而演变。对指导案例2号的分析表明,可以把"类似"或"参照"等对指导性案例制度具有重要意义的关键概念逐渐地加以具体化和类型化。     

Nigeria

Conclusion Organized crime activities flourish in Nigeria because law enforcement is weak or nonexistent at all levels. The police were corrupt even before organized crime emerged in its present form in Nigeria. Since “corruption is necessary for the successful operation of organized crime,”⁹⁴ the structure and operation of the Nigerian police, together with the activities of corrupt heads of state and corrupt politicians, made Nigeria fertile ground for organized crime. When those who make the laws and those who enforce the law are shamelessly corrupt, then the entire society is cor-rupted. These leaders are supposed to be the role models of the younger generations in Nigeria. Instead, they represent what Gresham Sykes and David Matza have termed the “appeal to higher loyalty”—a technique for rationalization of wrongs by under-privileged elements of Nigerian society who willingly engage in criminal activity.     

Real Property, Spontaneous Order, and Norms in the Gold Mines

This article contributes to the current debate about why people follow the law even when they are not subject to legal sanctions, as when there are no police and little danger of a lawsuit. Most recent scholarship in this area takes the form of norms theories, suggesting that social norms rather than laws shape behavior and that deviations from the norm are punished by either social or internal sanctions. Robert Sugden, however, proposes that order may develop "spontaneously" in the many areas of life where abiding by the rules minimizes the risk of costly confrontations with others and is thus in the interest of all parties. When this is true, the threat of little or no sanctions plays no role in regulating behavior. This article tests Sugden's theory against a simple property system, that of the California gold mines, in which individual miners held small claims subject to strict work requirements. The evidence of eyewitnesses shows that the stability of the regime did not depend on norms, but on the reasonable prediction that other claim holders would themselves stand up for their rights under the local mining code. Disputes about the rules and their application were submitted to arbitrators, whose decisions were accepted by the parties and did not need to be enforced. The California experience thus provides an example of a stable property regime for which game theory has a more satisfying explanation than do any of the norms theories.     

Penal Boundaries: Banishment and the Expansion of Punishment

We use this article to argue for greater recognition of legally imposed spatial exclusion—banishment—as a (re)emerging and consequential social control practice. Although the new social control techniques that entail banishment are buttressed by a blend of civil, administrative, and criminal law, they are best understood as punitive in nature. This argument is supported by two empirical findings. First, interviews with the banished indicate that spatial exclusion often has significant negative consequences akin to those identified by Sykes (1958 ) in his seminal account of the pains of imprisonment. Second, court data show that the growing use of civil and administrative banishment has increased the number of criminal cases involving allegations of noncompliance. These findings suggest that analysts of punishment might usefully broaden their focus to include phenomena that combine civil, criminal, and legal authority, and are not defined as punishment by their advocates.     

On the Psychology of the Advantaged: How People React to Being Overpaid

Based on the idea that overpaid people are in conflict between hedonic principles (i.e., what makes them pleased) and what they believe to be right, two studies tested the hypothesis that it should be relatively difficult for people to make satisfaction judgments regarding outcomes in which they are being advantaged. In line with this hypothesis, Study 1 demonstrated that response latencies of satisfaction judgments were longer when participants were being overpaid, compared to when they were underpaid or equally paid. Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that people required more time to make satisfaction judgments when they were overpaid in the context of a close relationship (i.e., in which the conflict between hedonic and concerns for the other’s need should be stronger) than when overpaid in the context of a non-close relationship. Theoretical implications regarding the social-cognitive processes underlying reactions to overpayment are discussed.     

Domestic judicial defiance and the authority of international legal regimes

Tensions and occasional overt defiance of international courts suggest that compliance with international regimes is not a self-evident choice for domestic judges. I develop a formal theory of domestic judicial defiance in which domestic and supranational judges vie for jurisprudential authority in a non-hierarchical setting. The model emphasises the role of domestic non-compliance costs and power asymmetries in determining the conduct of domestic and international judges. I argue that the EU represents a special case of a particularly effective international regime. Weak domestic courts have little to gain from an escalated conflict with the European court of Justice. But even domestic judicial superpowers like the German Federal Constitutional Court have strong incentives to seek mutual accommodation with European judges. The analysis also yields new insights into concepts, such as “judicial dialogue” and “constitutional pluralism” that have featured prominently in the legal literature, and suggests new hypotheses for empirical research.     

Work Rules: How International NGOs Build Law in War‐Torn Societies

Drawing on socio‐legal literature and fieldwork in South Sudan, this article argues that international aid groups operating in conflict settings create and impose a rules‐based order on the local people they hire and on the domestic organizations they fund. Civil society actors in these places experience law's soft power through their daily, tangible, and mundane contact with aid agencies. As employees they are subject to contracts and other rules of employment, work under management and finance teams, document routine activity, and abide by organizational constitutions. In analyzing how South Sudanese activists confront, understand, conform to, or resist these externally imposed legal techniques and workplace practices, this article decenters state institutions as sites for understanding law's power and exposes how aid organizations themselves become arenas of significant legal and political struggle in war‐torn societies.     

Civilized Squatting

This article seeks to trace the origins of the requirement thata squatter must have an intention to possess (animus possidendi)in order to establish title by adverse possession. The requirementhas been confirmed by the House of Lords in the recent caseof Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419. Its origins canreadily be traced back to the decision of the Court of Appealin Littledale v Liverpool College [1900] 1 Ch 19, but thereis little evidence of any need for intention before that case,and no convincing authority is cited for it. Possible explanationsfor the source of this requirement are considered by the article(for instance cases on re-entry by landlords and the so-called‘found chattel’ cases), but these are ultimatelyrejected. The article goes on to suggest that the reason forthis is that the intention requirement was ‘imported’into English law from German Pandectist writers of the nineteenthcentury. It suggests that Littledale was the case in which thishappened. It seeks to support this hypothesis by reference tobiographical details of Lindley MR, who gave the leading judgmentin Littledale, and who not only trained in part in Germany butalso took an active interest in German scholarship of the time.A brief survey of the relevant German sources is undertaken,focusing primarily on the work of Savigny, but also consideringthe rival theory of Jhering. Finally, it tracks the developmentand refinement of the content of animus possidendi, first by19th century legal scholars and then by 20th century judges,to make it ‘fit’ with English property law. It seeksto address the question of whether the animus possidendi requirementis a free-standing element (the ‘strong’ will theory),or whether it is simply implied from the acts of the squatter(the ‘weak’ will theory), and suggests a solutionby reference to the German sources and later English cases.Finally, it considers how the House of Lords decision in Pyereflects the logical culmination of the acceptance of this ‘legaltransplant’ into the common law.     

Representation in Westminster in the 1990s: The ghost of Edmund burke

Why are ‘trustee’ notions of representation still invoked in the UK House of Commons in the 1990s? In answering this question this article analyses the premises of Burkean theory and the arguments that these premises are of little relevance in the late twentieth century. Despite these dismissals of trusteeship, Burkean ideas are still articulated in the Commons some 200 years after they were first voiced. The idea of trusteeship can prove extremely useful to justify the actions of representatives when those actions conflict with constituency ‘opinion’, party policy or the wishes of interest groups. Examples of the occasions when Burkean notions have been invoked in the 1990s are provided.     

Freedom in the German School System

This article describes `freedom' as a constitutional category in the German School Law. If the responsibility for schooling by the German Federal Constitution is given to the ``Bundesländer' a common frame is set by the Basic Rights of the German Federal Constitution; this constitutional frame limits the rights of the ``Bundesländer' in supervising, organising, planning and managing the schools. Basic rights of a single pupil in a school are limited by the same rights of other pupils; this is done by following the ``principle of practical concordance' and thus the freedom of the single pupil always becomes a relative one; how this principle works in a concrete conflict will be shown in this article by describing single cases. Parental Rights are also guaranteed by the German Federal Constitution in direction of the state-runned schools. The rights of the parents are equal to the state rights; so a solution of a conflict has to be found between these two actors. Rights of teachers in Germany are limited by their special status as civil servants. And if the pedagogical freedom of teachers is recognised by the school acts this does not describe a real kind of freedom for the single teacher.     

What the #@!* are they Fighting About?!?: Reflections on Fairness,Identity, Social Capital,and Peacemaking in Family Conflicts

Peacemaking is particularly challenging in family conflicts. Deeply held feelings about identity, fair treatment, moral issues, and protecting social capital often cause people in conflict to make self‐defeating decisions. There are, however, techniques that enable mediators, Collaborative Practice professionals, and other peacemakers to overcome the settlement barriers created by these strongly held views. These techniques include those pioneered by psychotherapists using the Internal Family Systems model, which enables parties to see that their strongly held views comprise only part of the constellation of feelings that they have about the conflict.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Parents who feel that their role as father or mother is in danger often find it difficult to focus on the children's best interests.
• The “rule of reciprocity” causes people who feel wronged to exact even harsher punishment on those who harmed them.
• The concept of “social capital” explains why people care so passionately about whether they are treated fairly and about their reputation for fairness.
• The Internal Family Systems model helps peacemakers to understand how to work with the parties’ ambivalence about settlement versus courtroom vindication.

     

Child Abuse as a Catalyst for Wife Abuse?

This paper draws on Matza’s (1964/1990) theory of deviance to propose that the father’s current abuse of the child moderates the relationship between father’s patriarchal beliefs and current perpetration of husband violence in South Korea. Drawing on Matza’s concept of neutralizing beliefs, the paper argues that child abuse potentiates patriarchal beliefs, allowing husbands to extend rationalizations for child abuse to rationalizations for wife abuse, resulting in an interaction effect. The paper tests this hypothesized interaction effect using data from a nationally representative sample of 585 South Korean men. The paper then tests a competing alternative hypothesis that any type of violence (including violence outside the family) by the father acts as a moderator. Support is found for the child abuse as moderator hypothesis but not for the competing hypothesis.     

The German Constitutional Court and the European Arrest Warrant: 'Cryptic Signals' from Karlsruhe

In an important 2005 judgment, the German Federal ConstitutionalCourt declared void the German Act that was meant to implementthe European Union Framework Decision on the European ArrestWarrant. However, according to the Constitutional Court, theFramework Decision itself did not necessarily provoke a breachof the German Constitution. If the German legislator had madeadequate use of the tolerance provided by the Framework Decision,he could have avoided any conflict with the Constitution. While,at first sight, the Court's criticism solely seems to referto German national law, a closer look at some statements thatdeal with European law reveals a high potential for future disagreementbetween the German Constitutional Court and European institutions:they do not share the same view as to the development of Europeancooperation in criminal matters.     

The Incidence and Structure of Conflict on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

In 1982, Congress established the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court, with the objective of reducing judicial conflict and harmonizing circuit law in specific policy areas of special complexity. This article examines the incidence and determinants of judicial conflict on the U.S. courts of appeals, focusing specifically on the Federal Circuit. Using international trade and customs regulation cases decided during the 1982 to 1995 terms, the analysis reviews three possible explanations of judicial conflict: policy-oriented, sociolegal, and organizational. The analysis shows that conflict appears in 8.4 percent of the trade and customs regulation decisions rendered by the Federal Circuit during the period of study. The policy direction of Federal Circuit decisions and the court's hierarchical relationship with lower specialized courts provide the strongest explanation for the emergence of conflict on the court. Organizational factors such as panel composition evinced rather anemic explanatory capacity. The results raise an important functional similarity between the Federal Circuit and the generalist courts of appeals. Contrary to the laments of legal practitioners that conflict on the Federal Circuit is excessive relative to conflict on the generalist circuit courts, this analysis finds little support for that claim. Rather, the level of overt conflict on the court is actually low and corroborates conflict levels that have been reported for other U.S. courts of appeals.