Foucault's Expulsion of Law: Toward a Retrieval

This essay argues that there is an important sense in which Foucault gets law wrong—that the pursuit of Foucault's own objectives had the unintended consequence of inhibiting a fruitful interrogation of the place of law in modernity. His immediate concern was with the emergence of distinctive manifestations of modern power that constitute a new configuration, the disciplinary society. The most distinctive feature of his account of the historical emergence of modernity was his expulsion of law from modernity. This "expulsion of law" is found in his metahistorical thesis that law constituted the primary form of power in the premodern era, and that although law lingers on in the doctrine of sovereignty, it is supplanted by discipline and government as the key embodiments of modernity.
The essay proposes an exercise in retrieval, a "retrieval of law," to recuperate much in Foucault's thought that is suggestive for our understanding of law's role in the constitution of modern society. It rejects Foucault's opposition of law and discipline and makes use of his treatment of government and governmentality toward that end. It argues that a more adequate grasp of the place of law in modernity can be developed by establishing that law and discipline are complementary and characteristically combine in the ubiquitous presence of regulation as the mark of the modem condition.     

Effect of socialization factors on decisions to prosecute

Scottish police recruits rated the effect of various circumstances on decisions whether or not to take action against a hypothetical traffic offender. Ratings were obtained at induction (Basic group) and after one year's service (Advanced group), both before and after training periods. Factor analysis showed a primary “in-group” factor before training, together with subsidiary “special cases” and “costs and benefits” factors, on all of which the Basic group was significantly more ready to take action. Factor analysis of the after-training responses showed that the primary factor was special cases, with subsidiary in-group and out-group factors. The Basic group was not significantly different from the Advanced group on the latter two, but was still more likely to take action against special cases. These results are discussed in terms of organizational socialization and professional culture.     

Psychosocial concepts in juvenile law

This study was designed to clarify the types of information about juveniles and their families that are relevant for three types of juvenile court decisions: (a) the pretrial detention of juveniles; (b) their transfer for trial in criminal courts: and (c) disposition decisions after delinquency adjudication. Predominant legal standards for these decisions are described, information relevance for the decisions is defined, and why past studies have failed to clarify the information needs of juvenile court decision makers is explained. Results of a study involving a national sample of juvenile court personnel include an empirically derived domain of psychosocial and behavioral characteristics of juveniles and their families relevant for courts' interpretations of controlling legal standards; factor analysis of the domain, describing dimensions of the domain of information about juveniles and families; and an examination of the relation of these information categories to each legal standard controlling the decision areas in question. The interpretation of results may facilitate decision making by juvenile courts, evaluations by mental health professionals who assist juvenile courts, and further research by social scientists who study discretionary juvenile court decisions.This research was supported by grant No. MH-35090 from the Center for Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, National Institute of Mental Health, DHHS. Portions of the study were conducted in collaboration with the National Juvenile Law Center, Inc. of St. Louis. The authors wish to acknowledge Martha Bellew-Smith, Marcia Conlin, and Robert Rust, who contributed substantially to the conduct of the study. Others who participated at various stages are Steve Bellus and Sandra Seigel     

Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment

Alan S. Gerber and Donald P. Green Yale University, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, P.O. Box 208209, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520 e-mail: kevin.arceneaux{at}temple.edu (corresponding author) e-mail: alan.gerber{at}yale.edu e-mail: donald.green{at}yale.edu In the social sciences, randomized experimentation is the optimalresearch design for establishing causation. However, for a numberof practical reasons, researchers are sometimes unable to conductexperiments and must rely on observational data. In an effortto develop estimators that can approximate experimental resultsusing observational data, scholars have given increasing attentionto matching. In this article, we test the performance of matchingby gauging the success with which matching approximates experimentalresults. The voter mobilization experiment presented here comprisesa large number of observations (60,000 randomly assigned tothe treatment group and nearly two million assigned to the controlgroup) and a rich set of covariates. This study is analyzedin two ways. The first method, instrumental variables estimation,takes advantage of random assignment in order to produce consistentestimates. The second method, matching estimation, ignores randomassignment and analyzes the data as though they were nonexperimental.Matching is found to produce biased results in this applicationbecause even a rich set of covariates is insufficient to controlfor preexisting differences between the treatment and controlgroup. Matching, in fact, produces estimates that are no moreaccurate than those generated by ordinary least squares regression.The experimental findings show that brief paid get-out-the-votephone calls do not increase turnout, while matching and regressionshow a large and significant effect.