Suchergebnisse

Toward the end of the Great Depression, sociologists became involved in a controversy about legal definitions of crime and criminals. At least two developments stimulated the issue raised at the time: the rapid growth of a corporate liberal, sociological empiricism and the socially critical interest in white collar crime. In the controversy, American sociologists and lawyers argued furiously about definitions that would distinguish crimes from other types of behavior and criminals from other types of persons. It was observed that traditionally, criminologists used definitions provided by the criminal law and, as a result, the domain of criminology was restricted to the study of behavior encompassed by that law. In evaluating the usefulness of legal definitions for scientific purposes, sociologist Thorsten Sellin noted that such definitions merely denote external similarities rather than natural properties of criminal behavior. The legal definitions, therefore, do not arise from the intrinsic nature of the subject matter at hand. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on a book by Gregg Barak, Gimme Shelter: A Social History of Homelessness in Contemporary America (New York: Praeger, 1991 [see listing in IRPS No. 70]). Barak usefully distinguishes between homelessness, an increasingly serious social problem, & the homeless, who are unwilling victims of societal violence. He argues that structural trends have altered the composition of the homeless such that single-parent families, minorities, substance abusers, acquire immune deficiency syndrome sufferers, & the mentally ill are overrepresented among the "new homeless." Barak explores the political economy of homelessness to identify potential long-term solutions. The first step will be to broaden the US debate over policy options because people are too ready to believe the representative myths & social Darwinist precepts labeling the homeless as "undeserving poor.". M. Maguire

Reviews Capitalism, Partriachy and Crime: Toward a Socialist Criminology by James Messerschmidt. He demonstrates a hostility towards Marx and Engels on the grounds that their thinking is obsessed with class relationships and is 'sex blind'. As examples, he takes the! Kung Bushmen; he uses the same analysis in understanding crime in capitalist society. Reviews the foundation of this thinking and the use of terms. (PAS)

THE POLITICAL TIMES AND THE THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF VIOLENCE CALL FOR A BROADENING OF THE STRATEGIES FOR THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. WOMEN'S GROUPS PIONEERED IN DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY; AND THEY ENCOURAGED SELFDEFENSE STRATEGIES AS WELL AS INCREASED CONVICTIONS OF RAPISTS.

James W. Messerschmidt's Capitalism, Patriarchy and Crime: Toward a Socialist Criminology (Totowa, NJ: Rowan & Littlefield, 1986) is seen as unrelentingly hostile to Marxism, which Messerschmidt perceives as indifferent to reproductive relations that provide the material basis for patriarchy. Crime in capitalism, in Messerschmidt's view, is produced by the interaction of patriarchy & SC. Messerschmidt's basic ideas have questionable foundations, & it is noted that, though claiming to be socialist, he is unable to depict socialism accurately. In A Reply to the Schwendingers, Messerschmidt (U of Southern Maine, Portland) accuses the Schwendingers of distortion & misrepresentation of his views. The validity of socialist feminist insights is supported. 25 References. F. S. J. Ledgister