Standardized assessment of substance-related, other psychiatric, and comorbid disorders among probationers

This study examined the prevalence of alcohol- and substance-related disorders in a random sample of 627 adult probationers in Illinois. The investigation also explored the prevalence of major psychiatric disorders and their co-occurrences with alcohol and substance use disorders. To detect the presence of psychiatric disorders, researchers employed standardized assessment tools based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria. Overall, results showed that probationers had significantly higher rates of psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders, and co-occurring disorders compared with persons in the general population. In light of these findings, probation administrators are urged to invest more resources in treating drug use, mental illness, and codisorders, the latter of which is associated with a higher risk of violent behaviors.     

Social support and homicide: a cross-national test of an emerging criminological theory

The social support (also known as social altruism) perspective in criminological theory has emerged as a potentially important explanation of aggregate levels of crime. Recent studies have tested the theory's ability to predict levels of violent and property crimes at the city and state levels in the United States, yet a formal test of the theory using data from outside of the U.S. has yet to be conducted. Accordingly, this article draws on insights from social support theory in a cross-national context. Consistent with the core proposition of the theory, the analyses show that, net of statistical controls, the indicator of social support is inversely and significantly related to rates of violent crime (measured by homicides). The implications of these results for criminological theory development and for the construction of effective crime control policies are discussed.     

Strain and Opportunity Structures

Traditional strain theory received substantial empirical attention for a prolonged period of time, but it currently occupies a marginal position in criminology. Efforts to revitalize and elaborate it have occurred under the rubric of Agnew's general strain theory. These theories share a focus on how contextual factors, in particular what are commonly referred to as opportunity structures, affect the relationship between stresses and strains and delinquency. Using national-level data, this study considers empirically the impact of several illegitimate opportunity structures conceptualized at the school-level on the association between strain, stressful life events, delinquency, and self-concept. The results indicate that both stress and strain affect changes in delinquency and self-concept over time. Yet there is little evidence that these relationships are conditioned by access to illegitimate opportunity. These results suggest that strain and stress affect delinquency uniformly across a variety of illegitimate opportunity structures.     

Delinquency theory and prevention: A radical alternative

Twentieth century America has seen several delinquency prevention programs come into vogue and then collapse under the pressure of ever increasing rates of delinquency; pressuring policy makers to continue their search for new and better programs. Yet, new prevention programs are not pulled out of a hat. Because these programs are based on certain assumptions about human behavior they are, for the most part, derived from theories of crime and delinquency causation. Pursuing this relationship between theory and practice, this paper grounds the emergence of delinquency prevention with the development of positivist criminology, identifies the conceptual and practical deficiencies of positivist theories of crime and subsequent prevention strategies and presents the prevention directive of contemporary Marxist “Critical Criminology.”     

Special Issue: Deliberately Democratizing Multilateral Organization

In Economy and Society , Max Weber posits that bureaucracies that are not reined in by either democratic controls or market discipline will eventually start to pursue public policies that are detrimental to those whose lives these policies should enable or improve. During the last ten years, a number of scholars, activists, parliamentarians, journalists and whistleblowers have come to argue that Weber's hypothesis has often held up for the functioning of multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. At least, it appears that little democratic control or market discipline has been imposed on multilateral organizations. Moreover, critics from both the left and the right have severely criticized such multilateral policies as development lending, deregulation of financial markets, and structural adjustment programs. Yet it remains difficult to agree upon appropriate remedies. Many proposals—ranging from outright abolishment of large international organizations to the establishment of global parliaments at the United Nations—have been tabled, but little consensus reigns and various disadvantages (as well as advantages) cling to each of these proposals. This special issue of Governance considers yet another way in which to make multilateral organizations more democratic and pluralistic: by making these organizations more deliberatively democratic. This introduction clarifies what is meant by deliberative decision–making and why it is worthwhile to consider making multilateral organizations more deliberative. It also sets out the other contributions to the issue, which offer different justifications for increased deliberation and discuss alternative forms in which multilateral organizations can be made more deliberatively democratic.