Negotiating the Boundaries of Crime and Culture: A Sociolegal Perspective on Cultural Defense Strategies

In this article 1 offer a principled strategy for the courts to identify and to handle the uses of culture as a defense in a criminal proceeding. I begin by discussing the relationship between culture and behavior illuminated by sociologists of culture. I then explain the three categories into which cultural defenses fall–cultural reason, cultural requirement, and cultural tolerance–and the response of criminal courts in the United States to each. I argue that where culture offers an alternative explanation of the defendant's intent, it is highly relevant to determinations of criminal liability. However, where a defendant uses culture only to explain why he wanted to harm the victim and asks that the court be tolerant of such behavior, considerations of culture should not be allowed. In reaching this conclusion, I draw on theories of multiculturalism to consider the benefits and burdens of maintaining the facade of a "cultureless" criminal law in an increasingly heterogeneous society.     

Social theory and social action

Modern social thought identifies social science with the conception of (1) ‘social action’ and (2) the ‘rationality’ of social action. This identification is central to the specificity of modern social thought as opposed, in particular, to Marxian social theory. In this paper we present a critical appraisal of these fundamental categories of current social science and trace out the contradictions which they entail for the theoretical comprehension of social phenomena. The contradictions intrinsic to the social action methodology, once made explicit, provide the necessary starting point for the critique of modern sociology and economics.     

Life on the Cusp of Ruins

More than a few of my students at Tsinghua University were perplexed by my decision to spend this Labor Day holiday (May 1) vacationing in Shanxi Province. At the heart of China’s coal belt,     

The Two Halves of Sports-Diplomacy

ABSTRACT

What strategies does the United States pursue when it no longer perceives overt military intervention as politically viable or desirable but the problems or issues for which it was formerly undertaken remain? This analysis identifies three such periods in American foreign policy since the United States became a World Power and draws from the work of Peter Hall to develop a typology of strategies according to the magnitude of policy change. These range from adjustment in the settings of interventionism – persistence; the substitution of alternative instruments of foreign policy – ameliorism; and the principled rejection of interventionism in conjunction with a more systematic critique of prevailing foreign policy assumptions – transformationalism. Yet each approach is beset by certain structural limits and contradictions arising from the domestic politics and constitutional-institutional system of the United States that are important in understandiing and appreciating more fully the challenges – and opportunities – of the period ‘after interventionism’.     

Anaphylaxis After the Injection of Buprenorphine

Cause of death rulings in cases when the concentration of a drug or drugs is higher than observed following therapeutic use are generally straightforward “drug deaths.” However, when toxicology testing identifies drug concentrations consistent with therapeutic use or detects no drugs at all, then the cause of death determination is more complicated. Given the rapidity and protean manifestations of anaphylaxis, it should be considered in deaths where no other cause of death is apparent in a suspected drug death. This article reports two cases where an anaphylactic reaction was observed following either the actual or alleged use of therapeutic formulations of buprenorphine intravenously.