STRUCTURAL POSITION AND VIOLENCE: DEVELOPING A CULTURAL EXPLANATION*

Research assessing the capacity of a cultural explanation to account for the relationship between certain structural positions and high rates of criminal violence has ignored a significant intervening variable. That variable is disputatiousness—the likelihood of being offended by a negative outcome and seeking reparation through protest. This article develops a cultural model of disputatiousness and aggressiveness. It hypothesizes that individuals who occupy positions featuring high rates of violence are more likely than their counterparts to be offended by a negative outcome, to protest the injury, and to use force when the protest fails. It also hypothesizes that differential disputatiousness and aggressiveness are most pronounced when the negative outcome involves an attack on the self by an equal in a public setting. Testing these hypotheses calls for individual level data bearing on behavioral dispositions under a variety of circumstances. A methodological procedure for collecting such data is proposed, and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE JUVENILE COURT*

Over 100 years ago, juvenile courts emerged out of the belief that juveniles are different from adults—less culpable and more rehabilitatable—and can be "saved" from a life of crime and disadvantage. Today, the juvenile justice system is under attack through increasing calls to eliminate it and enactment of statutes designed to place younger offenders in the adult justice system. However, little evidence exists that policy makers have taken the full range of public views into account. At the same time, scholarly accounts of calls to eliminate the juvenile justice system have neglected the role of public opinion. The current study addresses this situation by examining public views about 1) abolishing juvenile justice and 2) the proper upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction. Particular attention is given to the notion that child‐saving and "get tough" orientations influence public views about juvenile justice. The analyses suggest support for the lingering appeal of juvenile justice among the public and the idea that youth can be “saved,” as well as arguments about the politicization and criminalization of juvenile justice. They also highlight that the public, like states, holds variable views about the appropriate age of juvenile court jurisdiction. We discuss the implications of the study and avenues for future research. Why is it not just and proper to treat these juvenile offenders, as we deal with the neglected children, as a wise and merciful father handles his own child whose errors are not discovered by the authorities? Why is it not the duty of the state, instead of asking merely whether a boy or a girl has committed a specific offense, to find out what he is, physically, mentally, morally, and then if it learns that he is treading the path that leads to criminality, to take him in charge, not so much to punish as to reform, not to degrade but to uplift, not to crush but to develop, to make him not a criminal but a worthy citizen.     

'FATCATS' and Prosecution in a Regulatory Agency: A Footnote on the Social Construction of Risk1

This paper explores what, in the context of occupational health and safety regulation, the idea of risk means to legal actors whose task is to assess and act upon risks. It argues that while the occupational risk to the worker is important because it may prompt a regulatory response and it informs decisions about enforcement strategy, the decision-maker contemplating formal legal action will become preoccupied with the risks posed by the legal process to the successful prosecution of the case. The legal risks arise from the nature of regulatory work and the form and character of regulatory law. Legal decisionmakers respond to these risks in a systematic fashion preferring to prosecute cases which are quick, straightforward and unlikely to be defended. This leads to the selection of cases which are breaches of absolute (rather than general) duties and violations of provisions relating to safety rather than health, thereby skewing the application of enforcement.