Zur Mikrosoziologie von Massentötungen bei Amokläufen

Spectacular but very rare violent events such as mass killings by habitual non-criminals cannot be explained by factors which are very widespread, such as possession of firearms, being a victim of bullying, an introvert, or a career failure. A stronger clue is clandestine preparation of attack by one or two individuals, against randomly chosen representatives of a hated collective identity. The mass killer chooses a setting, costume and timing to establish emotional dominance as precursor to physical casualties; such killers typically amass far more weapons than they actually use, and rely on them both for intimidation and for their own symbolic-emotional support. Mass killings end surprisingly often by surrendering, or committing suicide, once confronted by firm resistance. Mass killers develop a deep back-stage, obsessed with planning their attack, overcoming social inferiority and isolation by an emotion of clandestine excitement. Their actions might be described as mental illness, except that the clinical label adds no further explanatory power – their violent mental illness is socially constructed by just these processes.     

What police want from liquor licensing legislation: the Australian perspective

Qualitative interviews were undertaken with 53 Australian police officers with specialist expertise in liquor law enforcement to ascertain their perspectives concerning the liquor licensing legislation in Australia’s eight states and territories. Respondents generally indicated that current arrangements favoured the interests of the alcohol industry and did not sufficiently empower them to reduce alcohol-related harms. Other key themes included: ambiguity surrounding the police role in liquor licensing; difficulties in enforcing drunkenness-related offences; partnerships; strategies to enhance enforcement; data/intelligence gathering; and the separation of Ministerial responsibilities for liquor licensing and policing. Overall, police in Australia are not currently being given the tools they require to effectively reduce alcohol-related harms.     

Agency, Structure, and Social Chance as Cross-Disciplinary Concepts

It is appropriate that social scientists should develop explicit conceptualisations of agency, structure and social chance, these being three major dimensions of social and political life. The agency–structure debate, which refers to theoretical and ontological issues that tend not to be explicitly discussed by political scientists, is an important interdisciplinary starting point for conceptual and empirical work involving collaboration between political scientists and sociologists. Following a theoretical review of agency, structure and chance, it is argued that empirical research concerned with the study of politics and policy – indeed, social scientific research on any topic – should employ an ontology and methodology that focuses on the dynamics of interaction between agency, structure and social chance.