General systems theory and criminal justice

Criminal justice agencies are organized sequentially — “output” from one agency is “input” to the next — but most scholars argue that criminal justice is not a system in a theoretical sense. In this article, it is argued that general systems theory (GST) reveals important insights into criminal justice structures and functions. Specifically, it is argued that the criminal justice system processes “cases” rather than people, and that the common goal of criminal justice processing is to “close cases so that they stay closed.” It also is argued that processing capacity progressively declines, in that at each system point the subsequent agency cannot input as many cases as the previous agency can output. Each agency therefore experiences “backward pressure” to close cases in order to reduce input to the next agency. Overall, this article highlights that criminal justice agents and agencies are best understood as operating in the context of the larger whole, thus it is concluded that criminal justice is a system in the sense of general systems theory.     

The Changing Status of International Law in English Domestic Law

Netherlands International Law Review -     

Breaking the chain: Confronting issueless college town disturbances and riots

Law enforcement agencies and institutions of higher education have confronted increasing numbers of violent and destructive campus riots and disturbances over the past decade. Problematic is the fact that these riots typically have no underlying cause, other than students’ quest for excitement. Responding to gaps in the empirical literature about these events, this study used data from two waves of surveys to systematically examine those involved in a recurring problem event in a college town that was subject to a police crackdown. The analyses drew on survey responses from over eight hundred event participants in 2002 and 2003, and the results revealed that increased enforcement had a significant effect on crowd composition, including the gender and race of participants, repeat visitors, out-of-town participants, and perceptions about the subjects' overall experience. Implications for law enforcement and community strategies to decrease the size and destructiveness of such problem events are outlined.     

Governance without a state: Can it work?

In this article we explore how much state is necessary to make governance work. We begin by clarifying concepts of governance and the “shadow of hierarchy” and we follow this clarification with a brief overview of empirical findings on governance research in developed countries. We then discuss the dilemmas for governance in areas of limited statehood, where political institutions are too weak to hierarchically adopt and enforce collectively binding rules. While prospects for effective policymaking appear to be rather bleak in these areas, we argue that governance research has consistently overlooked the existence of functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy. We assert that governance with(out) government can work even in the absence of a strong shadow of hierarchy, we identify functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy, and we discuss to what extent they can help overcome issues of legitimacy and effectiveness in areas of limited statehood.