NORMLESSNESS,POWERLESSNESS, AND TROUBLE WITH THE LAW*

This paper examines the conditions under which normlessness leads to trouble with the law and the mechanisms through which social structure affects trouble with the law. Objective conditions of structural inconsistency, common in low socioeconomic positions, can lead to normlessness. The results presented here show that the association of normlessness and trouble with the law depends on whether normlessness is combined with a sense of powerlessness or with one of instrumentalism. Among persons who see themselves as powerless, normlessness is not associated with trouble with the law. Among persons who see themselves as instrumental, normlessness is associated with greater trouble with the law.     

THE IMPACT OF THE ETHNICITY AND GENDER OF DEFENDANTS ON THE DECISION TO REJECT OR DISMISS FELONY CHARGES*

While social scientists have long been interested in the issue of racial and sexual discrimination within the criminal justice system, they have concentrated on the decisions to convict and sentence and have paid relatively little attention to the decision to prosecute. This study examines the issue of pretrial discrimination by focusing on the prosecutor's decision to reject or dismiss charges against black, Anglo, and Hispanic male and female defendants in Los Angeles. The data reveal a pattern of discrimination in favor of female defendants and against black and Hispanic defendants. Hispanic males are most likely to be prosecuted fully, followed by black males, Anglo males, and females of all ethnic groups.     

CONSENSUS IN CRIME SERIOUSNESS: EMPIRICAL REALITY OR METHODOLOGICAL ARTIFACT?*

Miethe (1982) has recently argued that the consistent findings of wide-spread consensus in the rankings of the seriousness of crimes may be more a rejection of the methodological approaches used by past researchers than of actual public sentiments. Building on Miethe's insights, this paper examines the extent to which the nature of the techniques employed to analyze data influences seriousness evaluations. The results indicate that consensus is affected by such factors as the rating task given to the subjects, how consensus is measured, and the type of offense under investigation. In turn these methodological considerations caution against using existing research as the bask either for the verification of consensus theories of justice or for the formulation of sanctioning policy.