INTERORGANIZATIONAL UTILITY OF WELFARE STIGMA IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

The appropriation of “welfare stigma” or stereotypes about poor people's overreliance and abuse of public aid in two core criminal justice functions is examined: felony adjudication in a court system and space allocation in a jail. Through a comparative ethnographic study in which an abductive analysis of data (20 months of fieldwork) was used, we show that criminal justice gatekeepers utilize welfare stigma to create stricter eligibility criteria for due process in criminal courts and occupancy in jails. Specifically, the number of court appearances, motions, trials, jail beds, food, showers, and medical services is considered by professionals to be the benefits that individuals seek to access and abuse. Professionals view their role as preventing (rather than granting) access to these resources. The comparative nature of our data reveals that welfare stigma has interorganizational utility by serving two different organizational goals: It streamlines convictions in courts, which pulls defendants through adjudication, and conversely, it expands early release from jails, which pulls inmates out of the custody population. In the context of diminishing social safety nets, our findings have implications for understanding how discretion is exercised in an American criminal justice system increasingly tasked with the distribution of social services to the urban poor.     

Perceived risk of crime: A tale of two immigrant groups in Metro Detroit

A particular source of anxiety for many immigrants is personal safety. This study examines the levels and correlates of perceived risk of crime among two understudied immigrant groups, Arab and Chinese immigrants, who resided in an understudied geographic area, the Detroit metropolitan area. Results suggested several universal and immigrants-specific correlates that are significant predictors of Arab and/or Chinese immigrants' perceptions of crime, including self-defense ability, police effectiveness, neighborhood collective efficacy, language proficiency, expectation of U.S. crime condition prior to arrival, and perception of home society crime. Implications for future research are discussed.     

行政裁量法律控制研究

对行政裁量法律控制机制进行研究,论证了权力机关对行政裁量的法律控制,在分析我国权力机关进行监督现状的基础上,提出应当借鉴一些国家实行的议会监察专员制度并结合我国国情加以改造使之符合我国的法治实践,对完善我国权力机关对行政裁量的监督提供了参考思路。在论证行政机关对行政裁量的法律控制时重点放在行政程序对行政裁量的法律控制上,对行政程序控制行政裁量的回避制度、听证制度、信息公开制度、参与制度、说明理由制度、职能分离制度进行了初步探讨。具体分析了司法机关对裁量的法律控制,提出了行政裁量权属于行政机关,司法机关不能审查,行政裁量属于行政权的运用活动、司法机关可以审查的观点,说明了审查的范围只限于行政裁量的合法性,在认定滥用职权的主观方面时主张采用“过错推定”的原则。结束语说明现代社会对行政机关提出的是积极进行行政裁量更好地为社会服务的要求,现代行政法上的行政裁量制度是以有效发挥行政裁量权的积极作用为目标。提出建立一支高素质的公务员队伍、提高公务员的依法行政意识和依法行政水平应当是解决行政裁量问题的最终途径,完善岗位责任制、发展责任控制模式是对行政裁量进行法律控制的最佳方案。     

森林旅游资源经营权市场化的若干问题思考

森林旅游是现今生态旅游的重要方面,我国森林旅游经过十多年的发展,已初具规模,但由于受到经营机制的限制,森林旅游业,尤其是地方性的森林旅游业发展出现了重重阻碍。从森林旅游资源经营权市场化,即所有权与经营权分离的可行性和必要性着手,对经营权市场化过程中涉及的双方权利义务、资源定价、法律程序等问题进行了有益的探讨。     

论行政许可中的听证制度

听证制度是我国行政许可实施运作中的崭新内容 ,是作出正确重大行政许可决定的重要保障。本文探索了听证制度的渊源 ,分析了听证制度的重要价值 ,明确了酌定行政许可听证范围 ,提出了控制听证主持人公正性的措施     

略论行政处罚自由裁量权的规制

行政处罚自由裁量权是行政权力的重要组成部分 ,是依法行政的重点和难点问题。在行政执法实践中 ,行政自由裁量权适用不当形成的行政处罚较为普遍 ,滥用行政裁量权严重的损害了行政相对人的合法权益 ,破坏了社会主义法治秩序。对行政处罚自由裁量权应当从实体法和程序法上明确规定其适用的标准、方式、步骤与范围     

EFFECT OF SUSPECT RACE ON OFFICERS’ ARREST DECISIONS*

Many respondents to opinion surveys say that the citizen's race influences how police officers treat the public, yet recent expert social‐science panels have declared that research findings are too contradictory to form a conclusion on whether American police are biased against racial minorities. We perform a meta‐analysis of quantitative research that estimates the effect of race on the police decision to arrest. Screening nearly 4,500 potential sources, we analyze the results based on 27 independent data sets that generated 40 research reports (both published and unpublished) that permitted an estimate of the effect size of the suspect's race on the probability of arrest. The meta‐analysis shows with strong consistency that minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than White suspects. Depending on the method of estimation, the effect size of race varied between 1.32 and 1.52. Converting the race effect size to probabilities shows that compared with the average probability in these studies of a White being arrested (.20), the average probability for a non‐White was calculated at .26. The significant race effect persists when taking into account the studies’ variations in research methods and the nature of explanatory models used in the studies. Implications for future research are presented.     

行政立法不作为研究

所谓行政立法不作为,是指特定行政立法机关未依照上位法的规定,未尽到合理的立法责任,在合适时间以合适的方式或者程序,展开立法创制、修订或废止活动的行为。行政立法不作为危及了公民、法人或者其他组织的权益以及社会公共利益,行政立法机关因此应该承担相应的法律责任。在控制行政立法不作为上,应该强化授权行政立法规则的完善以及妥当地处理好立法裁量权的使用,并加强行政自制、各级人民代表大会常务委员会和社会公众对立法不作为的监督。     

未成年人犯罪裁量不起诉制度探析——从合肥市未成年人犯罪案件现状谈起

对未成年人犯罪适用不起诉制度,符合刑法的谦抑原则,契合了教育刑的要求.适用裁量不起诉制度应符合犯罪的法定条件.同时,行为人的主观恶性不深,有认罪悔罪表现;具备一定的监护条件和社会帮教条件.裁量不起诉制度的适用,实现了宽与严的有机统一和良性互动,是实现控制犯罪与保障人权效果最优化的保证.