Community midwifery and state measures: the new midwifery in British Columbia

The New Midwifery, a form of community midwifery rooted in home birth and intensive prenatal and postnatal care, has attracted great controversy since its appearance in British Columbia in the early 1970s. On the one hand, this form of community midwifery has endured despite legal prohibition. Midwives derive an income from their practices, obtain necessary supplies and equipment, and are active in lobbying for recognition through the State. On the other hand, community midwifery is marginalized and illegal. Out-of-hospital births comprise less than one percent of births in British Columbia (and nationwide). Community midwives are excluded from the provincal Medical Services Plan and they lack hospital privileges if their clients are transferred to hospital. Community midwives are more likely than medical personnel to be tried for criminal negligence causing death and subject to prosecution under theMedical Practitioners Act of practicing medicine without a license.Community midwifery illustrates the structural limits placed on female birth attendants working outside the norm of professionally accredited, hospital situated childbirth. It is concluded that State measures in Canada structure power relations in a dialectical fashion. This includes measures to consolidate the monopoly status of the medical profession and the nursing profession, while temporizing about demands for independent midwifery practice. State powers are however relatively autonomous of dominant economic groups such as the Medical profession. Not all prosecutions of community midwives are successful, and contradictions in State policies surrounding monopolistic powers and civil liberties, and gender relations are evident.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association Meetings, University of Manitoba, June 1986. The author is grateful for resources provided through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Department of Anthropology and Sociology (University of British Columbia), and the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University. Comments from Carol Bullock, Nanette Davis, Bob Ratner, Livy Visano and the Journal referees have been helpful in revising this paper.     

Chicano youth gangs and crime: the creation of a moral panic

The relationship between Chicano gangs, crime, the police, and the Chicano community is complex. Neither the problem of youth gangs nor the specialized police units created to cope with this problem arises in a social vacuum. Rather, both emerge from a particular historical structuring of social, economic, and political relations. This paper investigates how and why a moral panic arose concerning Chicano youth gangs in Phoenix in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A variety of qualitative and quantitative data from media reports, interviews, and juvenile court records are used to assess whether it was the actual behavior of Chicano youths or the social imagery surrounding them that formed the basis for the gang problem in Phoenix. I suggest that the image of gangs, and especially of Chicano gangs, as violent converged with that of Mexicans and Chicanos as different to create the threat of disorder. In addition, it was in the interests of the police department to discover the gang problem and build an even greater sense of threat so as to acquire federal funding of a specialized unit.     

Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial

Two factors thought to influence jurors' penalty decisions in capital trials—the nature of the crime committed and the defense's portrayal of the convicted offender's character—were examined. Mock jurors were death-qualified and exposed to one of twelve simulated penalty trials. Each trial was comprised of one of three capital crimes and one of four defense strategies. Jurors were least punitive in robbery-murder conditions and most punitive in multiple murder conditions. A conceptual argument against capital punishment was the most effective defense; a mental illness defense was the least effective. Penalty decisions were mediated by three attributional variables: (a) juror perceptions of the defendant's volition, (b) juror perceptions of the defendant's future dangerousness, and (c) juror perceptions of the relative competency of the opposing attorneys.This article is based on the author's dissertation which received an Honorable Mention in the 1985 SPSSI Dissertation Prize competition. The research was made possible by grants from the University of California, Santa Cruz and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. The author is indebted to Craig Haney, Elliot Aronson, and Dane Archer for their valuable suggestions and support.