Studying Discretion in the Processes that Generate Criminal Justice Sanctions

This paper presents a typology of discretion that differs from the standard typology of discretion in the legal literature: Type A discretion, which is the generally recognized discretion of individual actors to make decisions within a set of laws and rules, and Type B discretion, which is the crafting of laws and setting of rules in the first place. An analysis using aggregate data from 1992 to 2002 points to the prosecution stage as the primary source of Type A discretion that contributed to the massive increase in incarceration during this period. To understand how this could happen, this paper argues that actions need to be linked to outcomes. We identify three key outcomes of the sanctioning process—crime control, justice (guilt/innocence), racial disparity (fairness)—that deserve more attention from social scientists.     

Trapped in Resistance: Collective Struggle through Welfare Fraud in Israel

This paper offers a qualitative empirical examination of the noncompliance of Israeli female welfare recipients with welfare laws and authorities. The paper demonstrates that their behavior, defined as “welfare fraud” by the law, is a limited form of collective resistance to the Israeli welfare state. Although the acts of welfare fraud that the women in my study engaged in entail a political claim against the state, the relationship between these acts and notions of collectivity is very constricted in form. The women's collectivity is shown to be constrained by the welfare authorities' invasive and pervasive investigation practices and methods. Due to fear of disclosure to the authorities, the women emerged as deliberately isolating themselves from their immediate environment and potential members of their like‐situated collective. This weakens the connection between the women's acts of resistance and their collectivity, and prevents their acts of resistance from driving social change, trapping them in their harsh conditions and existence.     

Armed,and Dangerous (?): Motivating Rule Adherence Among Agents of Social Control

A key concern within democracies is effectively regulating the behavior of societies' agents of social control, who have coercive power and considerable discretion over their use of that power. This can result in failures to adhere to the rules, policies, and laws dictating appropriate and lawful behavior. This article explores the effectiveness of motivating rule adherence among law enforcement officers and soldiers by focusing upon whether they believe that organizational authorities are legitimate or that rules and policies are morally right or wrong. The results suggest that both values have an important influence upon rule adherence. Further, aspects of organizational culture that encourage such values are identified and shown to be influential in this setting. Results show that the procedural justice of the organization is central to rule adherence. These findings support the argument that encouraging self-regulation via appeals to the values of law enforcement officers and soldiers is a viable strategy for minimizing misconduct, and they suggest how to effectively implement such approaches.     

The Professionalization of Public Accounting: A Social Dilemma Perspective

This study uses a social dilemma model of auditing and a model of cooperative regulatory enforcement to provide a framework within which the evolution of self-regulation in the U.S. accounting profession is studied. From a social dilemma perspective, individual public accounting firms are best off, in a single period sense, by providing a low quality audit product, which is defined in terms of the degree of auditor acquiescence to managers' accounting method discretion. However, firms' collective welfare is maximized by high quality auditing. The cooperative regulatory model employed is premised on the existence of a plausible government threat of punishments and invasive regulations, which motivates self-regulation in an industry. We argue that prior to enactment of the securities acts, public accounting firms faced a social dilemma in which there were limited incentives for high quality auditing either voluntarily or through the establishment of self-regulation. The securities acts provided a plausible threat to which the accounting industry responded by implementing self-regulation in order to avoid invasive and costly government regulation. After the emergence of the accounting profession, there occurred a long period of cooperative regulation with the SEC. Management discretion over accounting methods increased during this time period and audit quality correspondingly decreased, suggesting possible inefficient capture of the SEC. Evidence of an evolution towards a tripartite form of regulation appeared in the 1970s when the SEC and public accounting began to be critically reviewed by Congress. From this time to the present, new regulatory threats have motivated a series of self-regulatory responses by public accounting to improve audit quality.     

法律原则适用与程序制度保障——以民事法为中心的分析

法律原则因为没有明确、具体的事实构成要件和法律效果而无法像法律规则那样为当事人提供行为准则,为法官提供裁判根据。适用法律原则处理个案纠纷就是法官以自己所“造”之法进行司法裁判,其适用困境的实质在于,以立法机关制定的(成文)法律规则为中心运行的司法制度(尤其是司法程序)难以为法官行使自由裁量权提供有效的正当性论证。在实体法、法律适用技术的范围内,以构建适用条件、适用规则,完善适用方法等方式来破解此困境,作用极为有限。重构司法程序制度,使当事人、社会能够以恰当的方式参与到具体的裁判过程以制约法官的裁量权,或许是解决此难题的可能途径。     

Social Control and Emancipation ? Ambiguities in Child Welfare

Child welfare may be regarded either as a tool used by the authorities to exercise social control over family life, or as a weapon supporting the cause of children, striving to emancipate them from both parental and societal neglect or oppression. Research into Norwegian child welfare in the period since the Second World War reveals an ambiguous picture: the intervention of the state into family life signals both tightening social control of all family members and emancipation of the less powerful from patriarchal rule. As the rights and needs of children are considered more important, the control of parents, especially the mother, is increased. The central position of children and their interests have been strengthened in child welfare legislation. However, it is not the child, but the child welfare officials who define what is 'in the best interest of the child'. Post-war development has not granted children autonomy. Child welfare legislation is still mainly paternalistic. In child welfare casework, there is a danger that the lived experience of the child never emerges from the shadows cast by the interaction between adults. In relation to older children who came in contact with child welfare primarily because of their own problem behaviour, the ambiguity of emancipation and control has taken a somewhat different shape. The authorities wanted to keep these children out of prison. Humanitarian considerations, however, have been coupled with hopes of more effective crime prevention. In the postwar years, misbehaving children were also embraced by the increasing importance of 'the best interest of the child' as the main objective in child welfare decisions. In order to secure both emancipation and control, 'the best interest of the child' and the state's interest in preventing crime had to be understood as one and the same.     

行政自由裁量权概念的迷思与匡正

行政自由裁量权概念的发达除客观需要之外,还有人为的因素,为行政扩张服务甚至为了逃避司法审查。然而,行政自由裁量权是一个可以被内化或转化甚至淹没的概念,虽然它是事先确定的一个指引但却是一个错误的指引。国家主权理论的衰微,行政权的弱化,行政种类多样,裁量空间的压缩以及部分裁量被“不确定法律概念”涵摄,行政自由裁量权风光不再。让行政自由裁量权概念在行政法领域尽快消失。以行政法的“裁量性规范”,将行政“裁量性事实”放在行政行为下考量,通过对其目的性、公益性以及合法性进行的判断,使其获得正当性基础。行政诉讼以是否应该作为、是否超越职权、是否滥用职权为司法审查内容,以确认判决、撤销判决、确认无效判决为判决方式,取消现行的变更判决。     

Urban adolescent mothers exposed to community, family, and partner violence: is cumulative violence exposure a barrier to school performance and participation?

Using a risk and resilience perspective, the authors assessed urban adolescent mothers' exposure to community, family, and partner violence and analyzed the relationships between cumulative violence exposure and multiple school outcomes, within the context of welfare reforms. Positive attitude toward school and social support were examined as moderators of violence exposure on school outcomes. The authors pilot tested the questionnaire with 10 participants, then surveyed 120 adolescent mothers regarding their violence exposure, school performance and participation, positive attitude toward school, and social support. Results indicate very high rates of lifetime exposure to violence; intercorrelations and regression analyses indicate that as violence exposure increases, school outcomes tend to worsen, with positive attitude toward school found to be a significant moderator of the effects of exposure to community violence on behavior problems in school. Implications for researchers, practitioners, school policies and programs, and welfare policies and programs conclude the article.     

论我国自由裁量权制度的构建

按照对规则的尊重程度,可将自由裁量权分为弱自由裁量权和强自由裁量权。自由裁量权的作用包括:减轻法律的严峻性、制定利益妥协方案、作出体现最大利益的判决、拒绝适用成文法规则、创设新的规则等。法律规则、法律程序和法律原则都具有约束自由裁量权的作用。要构建和谐社会,既要防范自由裁量权的异化,也要防范规则的异化。     

Outsourcing,Discretion, and Administrative Justice: Exploring the Acceptability of Privatized Decision Making

This study explores what happens to administrative justice and to the acceptability of frontline decisions in privatized and marketized models of service. Through the case study of privatized welfare‐to‐work in Israel, it shows the fundamental tension between outsourced discretion and traditional conceptions of administrative justice in which the trustworthiness of decisions relies on the idea that decision makers have no personal interest in the outcome of their decisions. It finds that in the Israeli case, contractors' financial interests were widely perceived as putting their professionals into a conflict of interest, thereby undermining trust in their decisions. At the same time, the study finds the program's managerial performance mechanisms did not provide an alternative legitimacy argument for the acceptability of decisions. The study also analyzes the ways policy makers reconstructed the decision‐making systems to regain public acceptance of frontline decisions, while discussing both the potential and the limits of legitimizing outsourced discretion in such complex public services.     

Assessing Need in the United States, Germany, and Sweden: The Organization of Welfare Casework and the Potential for Responsiveness in the "Three Worlds"

An ongoing challenge for the administrative state is balancing the programmatic values of responsiveness and accountability. Few studies have examined these policy issues cross-nationally for social assistance, a needs-based form of income support where these tensions are especially significant. Based on street-level case studies, this article demonstrates persistent diversity among welfare states in how these programmatic tradeoffs are made, contrasting a U.S. approach that emphasizes programmatic control via a bureaucratic, flat-grant system, with German and Swedish programs in which individualized assessments of need are a core organizational task. In each European case, legal frameworks, expertise, and work arrangements have evolved in nationally specific ways to contend with the challenges frontline discretion poses to program integrity.     

法律原则、自由裁量与良法价值理念的构建

实证主义法学与新自然法学派博弈之论点在于法律是由单纯法律规则还是由法律规则、法律原则和政治道德构成的。实证主义法学在强调法律为双重规则统一体的基础上,承认包括法官造法意义上的自由裁量权的存在;而以德沃金为代表的新自然法学派则认为法律构成除规则外,还存在原则和政治道德等因素,且主张自由裁量行为是法官在法律规定幅度内的司法行为,如超越此圭臬,就是一种法官的恣意行为、不正义行为。两者在法律构成上的长期激烈争论,旨在证成何种构成模式的法能最大效应地体现人类社会所追求的公平、正义和秩序的规范价值理念,或言之,法律应具有何种有效体系,方能消除人治状态而实现良法之治。     

Fluid milk substitutions in the school nutrition programs. Final rule

This final rule implements a legislative provision on milk substitutes that is consistent with current regulations on menu exceptions for students with disabilities and adds requirements for the optional substitution of nondairy beverage for fluid milk for children with medical or special dietary needs in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. Specifically, this final rule establishes nutrient standards for nondairy beverage alternatives to fluid milk, allows schools to accept a written substitution request from a parent or legal guardian, grants schools discretion to select the acceptable nondairy beverages, and continues to make school food authorities responsible for substitution expenses that exceed the Federal reimbursement. This rule ensures consistency of standards among milk substitutes offered in the school lunch and breakfast programs, and assures that students who consume nondairy beverage alternates receive important nutrients found in fluid milk.     

规制量刑权的路径探析

量刑权属于德沃金言下的弱自由裁量权，具有实现个案事实与刑法规范无缝对接、彰显社会正义与保障人权的价值。量刑虽是一项具有浓郁能动司法色彩的活动，但量刑权的行使却不能简单地基于正当、合理的名义。而是首先应遵循一套实体规则，这个实体规则以责任刑法为价值基础，背靠法律人经验，思维步骤符合认知规律且历经实践检验；同时为确保实体规则得以一体遵循，还须设置和运行量刑程序，最终促使法官判罚说理，提高司法信度和效度。     

Toward a Marxist Analysis of Discretion and Institutional Discrimination in the Legal System

This article provides a dialectical materialist examination of the production and use of the concepts of discretion and institutional discrimination within the criminal courts. It is argued that existing Marxist accounts of discretion and discrimination, and the recommendations stemming from these, rely upon theoretical orientations that are insufficiently materialistic and processual in orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court case of McCleskey v. Georgia is presented here to illustrate the contradictions that spawned, and are spawned by, the production and use of these concepts. Contradictions related to the construction of the subject are identified as essential to the understanding of these dynamics. The essay concludes by offering a materialist recommendation that judicial discretion should be supported and institutional discrimination should be rejected.     

Troublesome Differences—Dealing with Gendered Violence,Ethnicity, and ‘Race’ in the Finnish Welfare State

Forced marriages, honour-related violence, and violence in transnational marriages have been the focus of public interest in the Nordic welfare states for over a decade. The article analyses how authorities and welfare practitioners discuss differences, ‘race’, ethnicity, and gendered violence in families in this sometimes controversial societal setting. Based on 35 interviews with representatives of the police, social work, shelter movement, and NGO-led projects, it is argued that the main ways to approach the issue are ‘culture speech’ and ‘universalist speech’. In culture speech, differences can be constructed as dichotomous and hierarchical (culturalization), but also in a variable and lateral way. The universalist discourse has paradoxical effects. It functions as a counter-force to culturalization, but it also discourages and prevents discussion about how to take into account the different starting-points of the diverse clientele. The welfare state plays an important role in both. While the universalist discourse is embedded in welfare state ideologies, the culturalist discourse (re)produces welfare state nationalism. Finnish authorities and practitioners distance themselves from cultural relativism but have developed forms of practical multiculturalism to reach migrant clients. The dominant discourses are questioned by approaches that emphasize individual and multiple differences.     

Speech, privacy, and the power of the purse: lessons from the abortion "gag rule" case.

In Rust v. Sullivan, 59 U.S.L.W. 4451 (1991), the US Supreme Court ruled that neither the privacy interests of family planning clients nor the 1st Amendment interests of their counselors prevented the government from banning all discussion of abortions in federally funded family planning clinics. In doing so, the Court also reaffirmed its view that the state and federal legislatures have virtually unlimited discretion in limiting or conditioning social welfare programs, a view having even greater long-term implications for American health policy than the implications of Rust for the constitutional protection of abortion. Rust upheld the Department of Health and Human Services' 1988 directive prohibiting the use of any funds from Title X of the Public Health Service Act (authorizing family planning programs) in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. This means that a clinician may lawfully respond to a client's inquiry about abortion only with a denial that abortion is an option. Thus, while allowing women the constitutional protection to chose an abortion, the Court has allowed the legislature to freely use the power of the purse to discourage or prevent the choice of abortion. Rust's greatest impact may well be in its acceptance of the enormous power wielded by the government over funded activities, especially in health policy. Justice Rehnquist believes there is not constitutional right to health, welfare, or any other government benefit; the legislative branches of the government cannot be required by judicial interpretation of the Constitution to provide any particular benefit or service to anyone. Even when the government chooses to fund a particular benefit, it is free to condition that benefit with virtually no judicially enforceable limits on that discretion.     

Picking battles: Correctional officers,rules, and discretion in prison

To outsiders, prisons vacillate between visions of regimented order and anarchic disorder. The place of rules in prison sits at the fulcrum between these two visions of regulation. Based on 131 qualitative interviews with correctional officers across four different prisons in western Canada, we examine how correctional officers understand and exercise discretion in prison. Our findings highlight how an officer's habitus shapes individual instances of discretionary decision‐making. We show how officers modify how they exercise discretion in light of their views on how incarcerated people, fellow officers, and supervisors will interpret their decisions. Although existing research often sees a correlation between “rule‐following” by incarcerated individuals and official statistics on such misdeeds, our data highlight that official statistics on rule violations do not easily represent the rate or frequency of such misbehavior. Instead, these numbers are highly discretionary organizational accomplishments. Our findings advance an appreciation for correctional officer discretion by focusing on the range of factors officers might contemplate in forward‐looking decisions about applying a rule and how they rationalize the nonenforcement of rules.     

Company Law and Corporate Governance Renewal in Transition Economies: The Bulgarian Dilemma

The main objective of company law and corporate governance structures is to provide rules and secure efficient functioning of decision-making mechanisms that maximise the value of enterprises and safeguard interests of various stakeholders. Company laws and corporate governance models in different countries have evolved in specific historical, cultural, market and legal conditions that prevent their direct transplantation elsewhere. Assessing available experiences, former centrally planned European economies, engaged in sweeping transformations, are challenged by the need to recreate a delicate balance between investor protection and business discretion of managers to work for corporate value maximisation and social welfare. This essay undertakes an explorative discussion on the possible choices and the costs and benefits related to principalagent problem resolution in economies in transition, with special emphasis on institutions and the case of Bulgaria.     

Support seeking,system avoidance,and citizenship: Social safety net usage after incarceration

Scholars have long described the American penal state and welfare state as joined by a common logic of social marginalization. But researchers have only recently begun to explore how the individuals who pass through the carceral system also interact with welfare state programs. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, in this article, I explore how formerly incarcerated individuals make claims on the welfare state and how participation varies across social programs and states, as well as by race, drawing on theories of social welfare rights-claiming and system avoidance. In so doing, I provide the first nationwide estimates of the extent to which previously incarcerated adults use social safety net resources. I find that participation in welfare programs varies with incarceration history, program structure, and race. Rather than finding patterns consistent with system avoidance, I find that previously incarcerated White Americans seem to engage in active rights claiming, participating in public assistance programs more than similarly eligible never-incarcerated counterparts. All formerly incarcerated individuals, however, have limited access to more generous social insurance programs, and the shift to an increasingly employment-based social safety net seems likely to further limit access to the welfare state for the growing population of Americans leaving prison.