From “habitual offenders” to “career criminals”

Mainstream positivistic criminology has recently been challenged by a sociological perspective which views crime as a social construction and attempts to account for the collective definition of categories of crime and deviance. The purpose of this paper is to present a sociohistorical analysis and interpretation of the construction of two specific and related criminal categories: “habitual offender” and “carreer criminal.” The analysis focuses on the broad historical development of these two categories and the symbolic functions they serve. The data show that similar social conditions in two different time periods led to the development of two similar legal categories. Furthermore, both categories are judged to have served important and similar symbolic and ideological functions.     

Die Reform des nationalen Artenschutzrechts mit Blick auf das Urteil des EuGH v. 10.1.2006 in der Rs. C-98/03 (NuR 2006, 166)

Der Europ?ische Gerichtshof hat mit seinem Urteil vom 10.1.2006 die Bundesrepublik Deutschland wegen unzureichender Umsetzung von Art. 12 Abs. 1 lit. d sowie Art. 16 FFHRL durch § 43 Abs. 4 BNatSchG verurteilt. Damit wird nach der Caretta-Entscheidung des EuGH vom 30.1.2002 zum zweiten Mal innerhalb kurzer Zeit das System des deutschen Artenschutzrechts in Frage gestellt. Der Bundesgesetzgeber ist nun gefordert, das nationale Recht entsprechend anzupassen. Die nachfolgende Betrachtung nimmt zun?chst die Vorschrift des § 43 Abs. 4 BNatSchG in den Blick und pl?diert für deren Ausgestaltung als Abweichung im Sinn der Ausnahmeregelungen der FFH- und Vogelschutz-Richtlinie. Weiter beleuchtet sie den Vollzug des Artenschutzrechts im Rahmen der naturschutzrechtlichen Eingriffsregelung und spricht sich für eine Verankerung der Richtlinienvorgaben in § 19 BNatSchG aus.     

US state crimes related to nuclear weapons: Is there hope for change in the Obama administration?

Given the long history of US state crimes related to nuclear weapons and the aggressive unilateralism of the George W. Bush administration that compounded these crimes, the election of Barack Obama created a “hope” for “change” in American nuclear weapons policy. While it is too early to render any conclusive judgment, we offer a preliminary assessment of the Obama record with regard to nuclear weapons based on a number of significant policy statements made and official actions taken, including Obama's 2009 Prague speech, the signing of the new START agreement in April 2010, the administration's 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Washington DC Nuclear Security Summit, and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference of 2010. Although the new administration has taken some steps to reduce the likelihood of the use or threat to use nuclear weapons, we conclude that under President Obama the US continues to be in violation of the solemn legal obligation to disarm as imposed by the NPT treaty of 1968. We also briefly note some of the structural and cultural factors related to the American empire that hinders any president from changing American nuclear weapons policy.     

Ecological Belief in a Just World

To date, there is considerable evidence that the perception of injustice influences environmental behavior in a positive way. Nevertheless, some people do not take action, even if the injustice seems obvious. Concerning this matter, approaches like the belief in a just world theory or system justification theory provide an explanation. However, so far, there is no scientific research on whether the perception of ecological justice, which is taken for granted, concerning an ecological belief in a just world (EBJW) may lead to differences in people’s environmental behavior. This paper investigates a newly conceived construct of the EBJW, regarding its occurrence as well as its disposition in the context of other constructs. Therefore, a new scale has been developed for the purpose of this study by means of a questionnaire with German citizens (n = 312) examining motives for energy-relevant behavior. The scale analyses confirm the validity of the new scale. Even though the EBJW did not score high in the total sample, possibly due to significant differences between the participants (particularly socio-demographic variables and different group memberships) it can be stated that there is definitely a relationship between the EBJW and justification arguments and, ultimately, a lack of responsibility for energy saving. Regression analyses reveal that the EBJW, together with cognitive and affective appraisals of justice, can explain energy-relevant commitment, such as engagement in behavior that has negative impact on the climate. Based on these findings, it is suggested that the EBJW is measurable and that it seems to warrant further research.