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.     

远东与后贝加尔发展战略纲要及国际合作

远东与后贝加尔发展前景将取决于对发展战略的选择。在俄罗斯的东部地区原则上可以选择两个发展战略。一是国家不对该地区采取任何政策。也就是说在没有国家任何形式的支持下让该地区经济自我增长。在这一条件下,地区经济将发生不可逆转的衰退,并完全变成国际原料产地,不可避免地造成对自然环境和国界进行监控体系的崩溃,打破亚洲在军事战略上的平衡。地区将不可避免地被“蚕食”。支持俄罗斯在世界上的大国地位更无从谈起。二是远东在开始阶段就得到国家的大力支持,依靠对地区经济的结构改革为加速发展创造前提条件。国家的支持可以为远东…     

Learning from the Danish case: A comment on Palle Svensson's critique of the Franklin thesis

Abstract. Palle Svensson in this issue of EJPR has objected to the characterisation of Danish voters made by Franklin and others who, in various publications, expounded the thesis that on issues of low salience, referendum votes tend to follow party lines. Svensson finds evidence that the Maastricht Treaty was not an issue of low salience to Danish voters in the ratification referendums conducted there, and gives other details of the evolution of public opinion regarding Europe that clarify the circumstances in which our thesis should apply. In the light of his arguments, this Comment presents a more nuanced version of the thesis that learns from the Danish case, and should be of greater utility than our earlier version in helping to interpret the role of government standing in referendum outcomes.     

The U.S.-Korea conflict over rice liberalization: A Korean perspective

This article argues that Korea should not completely liberalize its rice market. The argument begins from the issue of food-security policy to the contradiction between self-sufficiency and the comparative advantage of the importance of agricultural protection, in light of advanced industrialized nations’ heavy subsidies of their agricultural commodities, including rice, and implicit and explicit trade barriers on Korean exports. The argument emphasizes the importance of self-sufficiency policy for rice in Korea, thus recommending not complete but partial liberalization of the agricultural market, as a condition for Korea’s own self-interest. The argument also emphasizes the importance of a diversified foreign and economic policy for Korea, and thus of forming future security relations with other nations besides the United States.