Democratization,International Knowledge Institutions,and Global Governance

The central problem of democracy has long been theorized as how to place appropriate constraints on the responsible exercise of power. Today, this problem is most acute in global governance. This article examines the rapid rise in the creation of international knowledge institutions, arguing that these institutions reflect a growing effort by nations and publics to assert democratic constraints on the on the global exercise of power through their ability to structure processes of reasoning and deliberation in global society. Specifically, the article argues for the need to attend carefully to processes of knowledge‐making in international institutions, including the roles of international institutions in setting standards for the exercise of reasoning, their contributions to the making of global kinds through their work in classifying and reclassifying the objects of international discourse, and through their roles in opening up and constraining participation in international deliberation. The article concludes that the construction and deployment of policy‐relevant knowledge are a significant source of power in their own right in global governance that need to be subject to their own democratic critique.     

CITIZEN REPORTING OF CRIME Some National Panel Data

The decision to report criminal victimizations to the police is an important determinant of the capacity of the criminal justice system to fulfill its mandate. This report analyzes the individual-level determinants of crime reporting, using data generated by the 1973 National Crime Survey conducted by the Bureau of the Census. It examines the impact of three characteristics of victimizations upon their reporting probability: the attributes of their victims, the nature of victim-offender relationships, and the seriousness of the offense. Only the latter appears to be of major significance, although youthful victims are substantially less likely than their elders to report their experiences to the police. The reasons that nonreporters give for their inaction appear to be quite rational, reflecting the probability that anything will come of their cooperation.     

The Juvenile Drug Court Judge and Lawyer: Four Common Mistakes in Treating Drug Court Adolescents

This article will present information gleaned from anecdotal experience of existing juvenile drug treatment courts regarding several common mistakes often made by those new to the drug court. The mistakes discussed include: 1) Believing the work and role responsibilities in a traditional juvenile court will not change significantly when entering a juvenile drug court; 2) Citing the elimination of drug and alcohol use as a final outcome goal when developing the mission statement for a juvenile drug court; 3) Believing that a juvenile drug court ensures accountability by keeping a close eye on participants and setting immediate consequences for any break in program rules; 4) Using vicarious learning to “teach a lesson”–making an example of an individual participant who has broken program rules in front of the large group. The goal of this article is not only to raise caution to these pitfalls, but also to help incoming judges and lawyers become aware of the changes that working in a juvenile drug court will demand.     

After Independence in East Africa

This talk by the Director of the Overseas Development Institutewas given to a joint meeting of the Royal African Society andthe Royal Commonwealth Society on February 1, 1962. Sir JamesRobertson, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.B.E., took the chair.