CAUSALITY,ECONOMIC CONDITIONS,AND BURGLARY*

This study examines the extent to which the symmetry-asymmetry distinction and offense aggregation bias obfuscate the relationship between economic conditions and crime. Specifically, we use ARIMA techniques to assess the impact of incremental and abrupt changes in oil prices on counts of total, commercial, and residential burglaries in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Taken together, the bivariate and interrupted time series analyses indicate that the causal impact of oil prices on burglary is asymmetrical and varies across the two subcategories of breaking and entering.     

Devolution's Unfinished Business

Devolution was a response to a decline in legitimacy in the territorial politics of the UK. To differing extents and in different ways, there was a legitimacy gap in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This has largely been restored in the non-English parts of the UK but has created new problems of legitimacy in England. The West Lothian Question and territorial finance are the unfinished business of devolution. Using Beetham's classic work on The Legitimation of Power, this article argues that the situation today in England resembles that which existed before devolution in the non-English parts of the UK: there is nothing illegal in the current constitutional arrangements; but there are constitutional anomalies and inconsistencies, which may lead to a withdrawal of consent.     

SOCIAL ALTRUISM AND CRIME*

Drawing on the theoretical statements of Braithwaite (1989), Cullen (1994), Messner and Rosenfeld (1994), this research examines the influence of social altruism on the level of crime for a sample of U.S. cities. The multivariate analyses clearly indicate that the ratio of contributions to the United Way to aggregate city income, a behavioral approximation of the cultural value of altruism, is inversely related to property and violent crime rates. The implications of these findings for the reduction of crime are discussed.     

PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE RETRIBUTIVE DOCTRINE OF PUNISHMENT*

In Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that public opinion, including the public's presumed desire for retribution, can be a legitimate basis for penal policy. Subsequently, the retributive doctrine has guided sentencing reform across the nation. But variation among the public in support for retribution as the goal of punishment and the effects of religion in shaping public sentiments about punishment have received little attention from researchers. Drawing from recent work on attribution theory and religion, this paper proposes and reports evidence that public support for the retributive doctrine is closely linked to affiliation with fundamentalist Protestant denominations and fundamentalist religious beliefs. The normative implications of such a connection are addressed.