THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BEING STOPPED OR ARRESTED: AN EXPLORATION OF THE LABELING MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH POLICE CONTACT LEADS TO SUBSEQUENT DELINQUENCY

Much debate has taken place regarding the merits of aggressive policing strategies such as “stop, question, and frisk.” Labeling theory suggests that police contact may actually increase delinquency because youth who are stopped or arrested are excluded from conventional opportunities, adopt a deviant identity, and spend time with delinquent peers. But, few studies have examined the mechanisms through which police contact potentially enhances offending. The current study uses four waves of longitudinal data collected from middle‐school students (N = 2,127) in seven cities to examine the deviance amplification process. Outcomes are compared for youth with no police contact, those who were stopped by police, and those who were arrested. We use propensity score matching to control for preexisting differences among the three groups. Our findings indicate that compared with those with no contact, youth who are stopped or arrested report higher levels of future delinquency and that social bonds, deviant identity formation, and delinquent peers partially mediate the relationship between police contact and later offending. These findings suggest that programs targeted at reducing the negative consequences of police contact (i.e., poor academic achievement, deviant identity formation, and delinquent peer associations) might reduce the occurrence of secondary deviance.     

Good Administration: Why We Need It More Than Ever

This article relates the concept of 'good administration' to a range of key constitutional issues, including The Governance of Britain , the debate about a British Bill of Rights, the creation of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, and the Law Commission's consultation on public law remedy. It argues that 'good administration', far from being remote from these issues, is a critical component of much that we value most in public life. By drawing upon, for example, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's publication of Principles of Good Administration and the Court of Appeal judgment in a case concerning the Ombudsman's report on occupational pensions, the article suggests that the principles of deliberative democracy, human rights and restorative justice combine to make the Parliamentary Ombudsman an effective instrument for 'humanising the bureaucracy', as first envisaged when the Office was created by the Wilson government in 1967.     

Fathers,Families and Work: Putting ‘Working Fathers’ in the Picture

This article is a review of Fathers, Families and Work, one of a series of reports published as part of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)'s ‘Working Better’ programme. The article examines Fathers, Families and Work in the context of the wider conclusions and recommendations of the ‘Working Better’ programme and considers the extent to which these recommendations will translate into public policy. It concludes that there is a gap between parents' desire for both mothers and fathers to be involved in caring for children and the reality of long hours and inflexible workplaces that limits the time men can spend caring for children.     

Perceptions of the Process: Indian Gaming as it Affects Federal Tribal Acknowledgment Law and Practices*

This paper places federal acknowledgment practices within a context of expanding Indian gaming. It argues that gaming has changed the discourses around tribal acknowledgment in the general public, at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and in inter‐ and intra‐tribal politics. Ethnographic and archival research show that, while gaming has proven to be a highly effective development strategy, it has also given rise to backlash against, and suspicion towards, Indian groups seeking recognition of their tribal status. The intersection of acknowledgment practices with public perceptions about Indian gaming has resulted in an increased politicization of the administrative process for federal recognition.     

ASSAULTIVENESS AND ALCOHOL USE IN FAMILY DISPUTES

Systematic naturalistic observation often contradicts experimental laboratory findings and idiosyncratic personal perceptions. In this study, family disputes managed by police officers trained in interpersonal conflict management yielded uniform observational data on 1,388 cases. The view shared by police and by social scientists that family disputes are likely to involve assaultiveness and that such behavior is typically caused by alcohol use was not supported by these data. Instead, the findings suggest that: assaults do not usually precede arrival of police; disputes are not usually influenced by alcohol use; and, indeed, assaults are less common when alcohol has been used.     

Criminal Justice in Soviet Russia

Compared to American criminal justice, the fabric of Russia's system is a tightly woven structure operating under centralized co-ordination. During recent history, the goals of Russia's criminal justice system have shifted from repression by terrorism to crime prevention through education and an emphasis on individual duty in peace-keeping matters.

The militia (police), created in 1917, has been mandated to prevent crime through intelligence activities, direct intervention, and citizen education. In 1966, it was given the responsibility for the supervision of offenders newly released from correctional institutions. Peoples Volunteer Brigades and the DRUZHINNIKS aid the militia in crime prevention.

The courts also make use of non-professionals in the persons of lay assessors to insure that the accused is judged by his “peers.” The court system itself is inquisitorial in nature as opposed to the American accusational model. As the accused person moves through pre-trial and trial procedures, one can see how his “rights” may be legally abridged at every step.

Russian courts have a variety of sentences from which to choose, ranging in harshness from public censure to death by shooting. Deprivation of liberty may be applied by degree from “education” to compulsory labor to strict incarceration. The Soviets are attempting an organized plan of diversionary sentencing, in order to reduce prison populations to all but the most dangerous offenders.

Correctional facilities depend on inmate commissions to keep order and motivate good behavior through group influence and peer pressure. Inmates as well as civilians have “a national duty to mind other people's business.”

In the United States, justice is fragmented into a variety of jurisdictions: municipal, county, state, and federal, each with its own law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional agencies. Further, there is only limited coordination among the various segments of the system. There is little argument to the proposition that the American “system” of criminal justice is inefficient.

Unlike America's disjointed system, the Russian Criminal justice system is unified; militia (police), procurators (prosecutors), courts, and correctional facilities operate under a centralized coordinating body. This body is characterized by a unity of purpose and a high degree of systemic integration (Juviler, 1979, p. 1).