Sex research and the construction of sexuality: A tool of male supremacy?

The social construction of sexual knowledge is analyzed by examining the model of sexuality which underpins ‘scientific’ sex research. It is an essentialist model, in which ‘sex’ is equated with heterosexuality, and coitus is assumed to be a biological imperative; male violence against women is legitimated; and sexual practices based on dominance and submission are ‘normalized’ on the basis of biological determinism. Male-defined sex research can thus be seen as constructing and promoting, by means of spurious scientific legitimation, a model of sexualiy which both reflects and reproduces the interests of male supremacy. The particular form of male sexuality that exists under male supremacy has been ‘naturalized’ and ‘universalized’, and presented as the scientifically objective model, not merely of male sexuality, but of sexuality in general. Conceptions of female sexuality based on the same model must be rejected, if feminist sexual practices are to be developed.     

THE USES OF JAIL CONFINEMENT IN THREE COUNTIES

This study uses a longitudinal approach to study the characteristics of pretrial inmates and court dispositions of their charges in three jails. Over 1,300 inmates were tracked from the point of booking through court disposition. The results indicate that a majority of the inmates booked into the jails are charged with relatively minor offenses and that most have less serious misdemeanor arrest and conviction histories. Very few or none of the defendants at each site were sentenced to prison and, at most, about one-fifth of the defendants were sentenced to any additional jail time upon conviction. Policy implications of the results are briefly discussed.     

Pour un modèle sémiotique de l'analogie du jeu en théorie du droit

Traduit de l'anglais par P. Brunet et E. Landowski (Towards a Semiotic Model of the Games Analogy in Jurisprudence,Droit & Société 17–18 (1991), 97–121.)     

Procedural Justice in Resolving Family Conflict: Implications for Youth Violence Prevention

The fairness of our legal system is often judged by individuals and the public at large along dimensions of procedural and distributive justice. People seem to care about how legal decisions are made as well as about the specific outcomes reached by juries and judges. In fact, perceptions of procedural and distributive justice or injustice may influence public perceptions and confidence in the legitimacy of our legal system. This paper focuses mainly on procedural justice. Using an ecological framework, we tested the hypothesis that older adolescents use the same or similar criteria for evaluating fairness in the context of family decision making that people in general use to evaluate the fairness of legal processes and decisions. We also tested the hypothesis that family decision-making procedures that are perceived to be unfair contribute to increased risk for acting out and deviant behavior among older adolescents. Principal components analysis confirmed that older adolescents use several distinct criteria for evaluating procedural fairness in the family context and that these criteria are comparable to those that people use to evaluate the fairness of legal procedures (rational and objective treatment conveying personal respect, consistent and non-discriminatory treatment reflecting social status or standing, and instrumental participation or having "an opportunity to be heard"). Hierarchical multiple regression analysis confirmed that procedural justice factors are associated with adolescent deviant behavior. We discuss implications for adolescent deviance and youth violence prevention.