首页 > 最新文献

Law & Social Inquiry最新文献

英文 中文
Agency Entrenchment: Sociological Legitimacy in a Politically Contested Occupation 机构巩固:政治争议职业中的社会学合法性
Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.29
Dylan Farrell-Bryan
This study investigates how agents in contested occupations justify and legitimize their work. It examines Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute immigrant removal cases on behalf of the federal government, delving into the narrative strategies that attorneys use to attain self-legitimacy within the agency. While existing literature suggests that self-legitimacy stems from either public support or an intrinsic belief in one’s deservingness of power, this study introduces a third pathway to self-legitimacy, agency entrenchment, in which government prosecutors draw on a highly internalized sense of patriotism and a duty to their organizational role, in the face of heightened public protest and changing administrative priorities. Analyzing forty in-depth interviews with ICE attorneys, this study identifies two primary approaches to agency entrenchment. The first is a bureaucratic approach, in which attorneys derive an internalized sense of duty from the existing law. The second is an enforcement approach, in which attorneys derive moral authority from what they see as their protector status. By deploying these narratives of self-legitimacy, ICE prosecutors attempt to resolve perceived conflicts between their legally mandated responsibilities and the ethical and reputational criticisms they encounter. The findings contribute to the broader understanding of the occupational dynamics between political polarization and law enforcement prosecution.
本研究调查了从事有争议职业的人员如何证明其工作的正当性和合法性。研究考察了移民与海关执法局(ICE)代表联邦政府起诉移民遣返案件的律师,深入探讨了律师在机构内获得自我合法性的叙事策略。现有文献表明,自我合法性源于公众的支持或对自己应得权力的内在信念,而本研究则引入了通往自我合法性的第三条途径--机构巩固,即政府检察官在面临公众抗议加剧和行政优先事项不断变化的情况下,利用高度内化的爱国主义意识和对其组织角色的责任感。本研究通过对移民及海关执法局(ICE)律师的 40 次深入访谈进行分析,确定了机构固化的两种主要方法。第一种是官僚主义方法,即律师从现行法律中获得一种内化的责任感。第二种是执法方式,即律师从他们所认为的保护者身份中获得道德权威。通过运用这些自我合法性的叙事,移民及海关执法局的检察官试图解决他们在法律授权的责任与他们遇到的道德和声誉批评之间的冲突。这些发现有助于人们更广泛地理解政治极化与执法起诉之间的职业动态关系。
{"title":"Agency Entrenchment: Sociological Legitimacy in a Politically Contested Occupation","authors":"Dylan Farrell-Bryan","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.29","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates how agents in contested occupations justify and legitimize their work. It examines Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys who prosecute immigrant removal cases on behalf of the federal government, delving into the narrative strategies that attorneys use to attain self-legitimacy within the agency. While existing literature suggests that self-legitimacy stems from either public support or an intrinsic belief in one’s deservingness of power, this study introduces a third pathway to self-legitimacy, <jats:italic>agency entrenchment</jats:italic>, in which government prosecutors draw on a highly internalized sense of patriotism and a duty to their organizational role, in the face of heightened public protest and changing administrative priorities. Analyzing forty in-depth interviews with ICE attorneys, this study identifies two primary approaches to agency entrenchment. The first is a bureaucratic approach, in which attorneys derive an internalized sense of duty from the existing law. The second is an enforcement approach, in which attorneys derive moral authority from what they see as their protector status. By deploying these narratives of self-legitimacy, ICE prosecutors attempt to resolve perceived conflicts between their legally mandated responsibilities and the ethical and reputational criticisms they encounter. The findings contribute to the broader understanding of the occupational dynamics between political polarization and law enforcement prosecution.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Atrato River as a Bearer and Co-creator of Rights: Unveiling Black People’s Legal Mobilization Processes in Colombia 阿特拉托河是权利的承载者和共同创造者:揭示哥伦比亚黑人的法律动员过程
Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.31
María Ximena González-Serrano

In 2016, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as the first water body in Latin America to have its own rights. This article interrogates the historical roots of the judicial decision declaring the river a rights holder. Drawing on my long-term engagement with social organizations as an activist, lawyer, and then researcher, I illuminate the influence of Black people from the Atrato River in the transformation of law in at least three areas: ethnic territorial rights, transitional justice, and river rights. To do so, I combine interdisciplinary theoretical critique with socio-legal research using community-based and autoethnographic approaches to trace the community methods and historical practices of political contestation deployed along the rivers. Thus, I conceptualize how an organic and distinctive style of claiming and creating rights has been constructed in the basin. Moreover, by listening to the voices of the riverine representatives, I argue that the river is a nonhuman existence that has participated in the processes of rights-making in conjunction with local communities and a broader mosaic of allied actors. However, I also outline how legal systems still function to overlook crucial socio-legal claims of marginalized and resistant communities.

2016 年,哥伦比亚宪法法院承认阿特拉托河是拉丁美洲第一个拥有自己权利的水体。本文探究了宣布河流拥有权利的司法判决的历史根源。根据我作为活动家、律师和研究员与社会组织的长期接触,我阐明了阿特拉托河黑人在至少三个领域的法律变革中的影响:民族领土权、过渡时期司法和河流权。为此,我将跨学科理论批判与社会法律研究相结合,采用以社区为基础和自述民族志的方法,追溯河流沿岸政治争夺的社区方法和历史实践。因此,我构思了如何在该流域构建一种有机而独特的权利主张和创造方式。此外,通过倾听沿河代表的声音,我认为河流是一种非人类的存在,它与当地社区和更广泛的联合参与者共同参与了权利的创造过程。然而,我也概述了法律体系如何仍然忽视边缘化和反抗社区的重要社会法律诉求。
{"title":"The Atrato River as a Bearer and Co-creator of Rights: Unveiling Black People’s Legal Mobilization Processes in Colombia","authors":"María Ximena González-Serrano","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.31","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 2016, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as the first water body in Latin America to have its own rights. This article interrogates the historical roots of the judicial decision declaring the river a rights holder. Drawing on my long-term engagement with social organizations as an activist, lawyer, and then researcher, I illuminate the influence of Black people from the Atrato River in the transformation of law in at least three areas: ethnic territorial rights, transitional justice, and river rights. To do so, I combine interdisciplinary theoretical critique with socio-legal research using community-based and autoethnographic approaches to trace the community methods and historical practices of political contestation deployed along the rivers. Thus, I conceptualize how an organic and distinctive style of claiming and creating rights has been constructed in the basin. Moreover, by listening to the voices of the riverine representatives, I argue that the river is a nonhuman existence that has participated in the processes of rights-making in conjunction with local communities and a broader mosaic of allied actors. However, I also outline how legal systems still function to overlook crucial socio-legal claims of marginalized and resistant communities.</p>","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Paradox of Sanctuary: How Punitive Exceptions Converge to Criminalize and Punish Latinos/as 避难所的悖论:惩罚性例外如何汇聚成对拉美裔的定罪和惩罚
Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.11
Enrique Alvear Moreno
Sanctuary cities define themselves as metropoles that refuse to share information, personnel, and facilities with federal immigration authorities to police immigrants. While research suggests that sanctuary cities contest the criminalization of migration, a growing literature depicts how these urban sanctuaries could, in practice, perpetuate hierarchies and exclusionary politics against noncitizens. Yet, most of these studies conceive of urban sanctuary as local policies designed to challenge federal power and, thus, fail to fully capture how sanctuary policies could actually rely on the criminalization of migration to govern cities’ political problems. Drawing upon 1,900 pages of archival materials and 100 newspaper articles, this article takes the case of Chicago to study how and why the urban sanctuary expands immigrants’ rights while reinforcing policing with punitive implications for Latino “undeserving” noncitizens. As a form of racialized governance, I argue that Chicago’s sanctuary policies activate a set of punitive exceptions that—in response to distinct political urgencies—allow law and immigration enforcement to converge and control Latino undocumented workers, “criminals,” and “gangs.” This study not only challenges the premise that sanctuary cities necessarily resist federal power but also illustrates how they could strengthen the legitimacy of the state and racialized police power.
庇护城市将自己定义为拒绝与联邦移民当局共享信息、人员和设施以维持移民治安的大都市。尽管研究表明,庇护城市对移民的犯罪化提出了质疑,但越来越多的文献描述了这些城市庇护所如何在实践中延续等级制度和针对非公民的排斥性政治。然而,这些研究大多将城市庇护所视为旨在挑战联邦权力的地方政策,因此未能充分捕捉到庇护所政策实际上是如何依赖移民犯罪化来治理城市政治问题的。本文利用 1900 页的档案资料和 100 篇报纸文章,以芝加哥为例,研究城市庇护所如何以及为何在扩大移民权利的同时,加强对拉丁裔 "不值得庇护的 "非公民的治安管理,并对其产生惩罚性影响。作为种族化治理的一种形式,我认为芝加哥的庇护政策激活了一系列惩罚性的例外情况,这些例外情况是对不同的政治紧迫性的回应,允许法律和移民执法汇聚在一起,控制拉美裔无证工人、"罪犯 "和 "帮派"。这项研究不仅挑战了庇护城市必然抵制联邦权力的前提,还说明了庇护城市如何加强国家和种族化警察权力的合法性。
{"title":"The Paradox of Sanctuary: How Punitive Exceptions Converge to Criminalize and Punish Latinos/as","authors":"Enrique Alvear Moreno","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.11","url":null,"abstract":"Sanctuary cities define themselves as metropoles that refuse to share information, personnel, and facilities with federal immigration authorities to police immigrants. While research suggests that sanctuary cities contest the criminalization of migration, a growing literature depicts how these urban sanctuaries could, in practice, perpetuate hierarchies and exclusionary politics against noncitizens. Yet, most of these studies conceive of urban sanctuary as local policies designed to challenge federal power and, thus, fail to fully capture how sanctuary policies could actually rely on the criminalization of migration to govern cities’ political problems. Drawing upon 1,900 pages of archival materials and 100 newspaper articles, this article takes the case of Chicago to study how and why the urban sanctuary expands immigrants’ rights while reinforcing policing with punitive implications for Latino “undeserving” noncitizens. As a form of racialized governance, I argue that Chicago’s sanctuary policies activate a set of punitive exceptions that—in response to distinct political urgencies—allow law and immigration enforcement to converge and control Latino undocumented workers, “criminals,” and “gangs.” This study not only challenges the premise that sanctuary cities necessarily resist federal power but also illustrates how they could strengthen the legitimacy of the state and racialized police power.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
“You Don’t Need a Rocket Scientist to Figure Out What Could Happen”: Reasoning Practices in Police Use of Force Trials "你不需要火箭科学家也能想出可能发生的事情":警察使用武力审判中的推理实践
Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.19
Carmen Nave, Albert J. Meehan, Ann Marie Dennis
Trials involving police as defendants are rare but are significant events that give insight into police violence and its adjudication. This article explores the reasoning practices through which court actors navigate the disjunctive accounts created by competing claims of “what happened” in a police shooting. The data is drawn from trial testimony of officers and “use of force experts” in police deadly force cases in the United States. We focus on use of force experts who use a veneer of science and police logic to assert particular visions of officer “reasonableness.” We suggest that the systems of reasoning that lawyers and witnesses use in these cases create accounts of police violence that conflict with mundane reasoning and challenge credibility. We show that the proliferation of different reasoning practices and the elaboration of a “police logic” serve to insulate officers from criticism and accountability—albeit, not always successfully.
涉及警察作为被告的审判非常罕见,但却是能让人们深入了解警察暴力及其判决的重要事件。本文探讨了法庭行为者在处理警察枪击案中 "发生了什么 "这一相互竞争的说法所造成的不一致陈述时所采用的推理方法。数据来自美国警察致命武力案件中警官和 "武力使用专家 "的庭审证词。我们的研究重点是使用武力专家,他们利用科学和警察逻辑的外衣来宣称警官的 "合理性"。我们认为,律师和证人在这些案件中使用的推理系统对警察暴力的描述与普通推理相冲突,对可信度提出了挑战。我们表明,不同推理实践的扩散和 "警察逻辑 "的阐述有助于使警官免受批评和问责--尽管并非总是成功的。
{"title":"“You Don’t Need a Rocket Scientist to Figure Out What Could Happen”: Reasoning Practices in Police Use of Force Trials","authors":"Carmen Nave, Albert J. Meehan, Ann Marie Dennis","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.19","url":null,"abstract":"Trials involving police as defendants are rare but are significant events that give insight into police violence and its adjudication. This article explores the reasoning practices through which court actors navigate the disjunctive accounts created by competing claims of “what happened” in a police shooting. The data is drawn from trial testimony of officers and “use of force experts” in police deadly force cases in the United States. We focus on use of force experts who use a veneer of science and police logic to assert particular visions of officer “reasonableness.” We suggest that the systems of reasoning that lawyers and witnesses use in these cases create accounts of police violence that conflict with mundane reasoning and challenge credibility. We show that the proliferation of different reasoning practices and the elaboration of a “police logic” serve to insulate officers from criticism and accountability—albeit, not always successfully.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Legal Realists on Political Economy 政治经济学的法律现实主义者
Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.20
Dan Priel
Alongside the well-known jurisprudential ideas associated with legal realism, some scholars have highlighted the realists’ political-economic ideas. Best known among them has been Morton Horwitz, who has argued that the realists launched an “attack on the legitimacy of the market.” Other scholars challenged this view and argued that there was no significant connection between legal realism and political economic ideas. I offer a corrective to both views. I first consider the work of five legal realists (Karl Llewellyn, Adolf Berle, William O. Douglas, Jerome Frank, and Thurman Arnold) and show that all held views that were well within the political-economic mainstream of their era, which did not challenge the legitimacy of market capitalism but wanted to see markets better regulated. I also show that for many of these realists, there were important connections between their jurisprudential and political-economic ideas. I then turn to some neglected writings of Felix Cohen to show that he too saw a direct link between his legal and economic ideas. However, unlike the other legal realists discussed here, he was a radical critic of market capitalism. I use his political-economic writings for a reconsideration of his better-known jurisprudential works.
除了与法律现实主义相关的众所周知的法理学思想之外,一些学者还强调了现实主义者的政治经济思想。其中最著名的是莫顿-霍维茨(Morton Horwitz),他认为现实主义者发起了 "对市场合法性的攻击"。其他学者则对这一观点提出质疑,认为法律现实主义与政治经济学思想之间并无重要联系。我对这两种观点都进行了纠正。我首先探讨了五位法律现实主义者(卡尔-卢埃林、阿道夫-贝勒、威廉-道格拉斯、杰罗姆-弗兰克和瑟曼-阿诺德)的研究成果,并表明他们所持的观点都完全符合他们所处时代的政治经济学主流,即不挑战市场资本主义的合法性,但希望看到市场得到更好的监管。我还表明,对其中许多现实主义者来说,他们的法学思想与政治经济学思想之间存在着重要的联系。然后,我将从费利克斯-科恩(Felix Cohen)一些被忽视的著作入手,说明他也认为自己的法律思想与经济思想之间存在直接联系。然而,与本文讨论的其他法律现实主义者不同,他是市场资本主义的激进批评者。我利用他的政治经济学著作来重新审视他更为人熟知的法理学作品。
{"title":"The Legal Realists on Political Economy","authors":"Dan Priel","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.20","url":null,"abstract":"Alongside the well-known jurisprudential ideas associated with legal realism, some scholars have highlighted the realists’ political-economic ideas. Best known among them has been Morton Horwitz, who has argued that the realists launched an “attack on the legitimacy of the market.” Other scholars challenged this view and argued that there was no significant connection between legal realism and political economic ideas. I offer a corrective to both views. I first consider the work of five legal realists (Karl Llewellyn, Adolf Berle, William O. Douglas, Jerome Frank, and Thurman Arnold) and show that all held views that were well within the political-economic mainstream of their era, which did not challenge the legitimacy of market capitalism but wanted to see markets better regulated. I also show that for many of these realists, there were important connections between their jurisprudential and political-economic ideas. I then turn to some neglected writings of Felix Cohen to show that he too saw a direct link between his legal and economic ideas. However, unlike the other legal realists discussed here, he was a radical critic of market capitalism. I use his political-economic writings for a reconsideration of his better-known jurisprudential works.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The False Marking Gold Rush: A Case Study of the Private Enforcement of Public Laws 虚假标识淘金热:私人执行公共法律的案例研究
Pub Date : 2024-09-18 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.30
Zachary D. Clopton
Federal law prohibits deceiving the public by falsely marking an item as patented. The “false marking” prohibition has been enforced primarily by private lawsuits on behalf of the United States, with the party plaintiff and the government splitting the penalty. When a court decision dramatically increased the potential recovery for false marking claims, lawyers pounced immediately, filing more cases per week than had previously been filed in years. Indeed, many lawyers who did not previously work on patent cases joined the fray. Within two years, Congress eliminated this type of false marking suit and terminated all pending cases. Using empirical data, interviews with lawyers, legislative history, litigation documents, and news sources, this article tells the instructive history of false marking litigation. This history shows that the supply of private enforcement—lawsuits by private parties to enforce laws in the public interest—is sensitive to market forces. It also shows that, even when concentrated interests encourage Congress to cut back on private enforcement, Congress does not move as quickly as the bar. This matters because once Congress authorizes private enforcement, the maintenance of that system depends on judges and lawyers interpreting private enforcement statutes.
联邦法律禁止通过虚假标记专利产品来欺骗公众。一直以来,"虚假标识 "禁令主要通过代表美国的私人诉讼来执行,由原告方和政府分担罚款。当法院的一项判决大幅提高了虚假标识索赔的潜在赔偿额时,律师们立即扑了上去,每周提起的案件数量超过了多年来的最高纪录。事实上,许多以前并不受理专利案件的律师也加入了这一行列。两年内,国会取消了这类虚假标识诉讼,并终止了所有未决案件。本文利用经验数据、律师访谈、立法历史、诉讼文件和新闻来源,讲述了虚假标识诉讼的启示性历史。这段历史表明,由私人当事方为公共利益而提起的私人执法诉讼对市场力量十分敏感。它还表明,即使集中的利益集团鼓励国会减少私人执法,国会也不会像律师协会那样迅速采取行动。这一点很重要,因为一旦国会授权私人执法,该制度的维持就取决于法官和律师对私人执法法规的解释。
{"title":"The False Marking Gold Rush: A Case Study of the Private Enforcement of Public Laws","authors":"Zachary D. Clopton","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.30","url":null,"abstract":"Federal law prohibits deceiving the public by falsely marking an item as patented. The “false marking” prohibition has been enforced primarily by private lawsuits on behalf of the United States, with the party plaintiff and the government splitting the penalty. When a court decision dramatically increased the potential recovery for false marking claims, lawyers pounced immediately, filing more cases per week than had previously been filed in years. Indeed, many lawyers who did not previously work on patent cases joined the fray. Within two years, Congress eliminated this type of false marking suit and terminated all pending cases. Using empirical data, interviews with lawyers, legislative history, litigation documents, and news sources, this article tells the instructive history of false marking litigation. This history shows that the supply of private enforcement—lawsuits by private parties to enforce laws in the public interest—is sensitive to market forces. It also shows that, even when concentrated interests encourage Congress to cut back on private enforcement, Congress does not move as quickly as the bar. This matters because once Congress authorizes private enforcement, the maintenance of that system depends on judges and lawyers interpreting private enforcement statutes.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142251270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Revisiting the Concept of Voice: Expression of Grievances across the English and Welsh National Health Service 重新审视 "声音 "的概念:英国和威尔士国民健康服务中的申诉表达
Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.7
Linda Mulcahy
This article reexamines the notion of voice in law and society scholarship, which has focused on journeys to complaints and claims. Using the English and Welsh National Health Service as a case study, it argues that looking at the articulation of grievances through a large number of channels across a large service sector offers new opportunities to examine a range of different political logics underpinning voicing mechanisms. Two key arguments emerge. First, it becomes clear that expressions of dissatisfaction can be collected for a variety of purposes other than dispute resolution or conflict management. Formal grievance procedures, rendered legitimate by concepts of rights and due process, not only interact with but compete with other ways of serving the collective good. The second key finding is that when looked at in isolation, the concept of voice can usefully be studied as a discrete concept rather than just a vital component of claiming.
本文重新审视了法律与社会学术中的声音概念,该概念主要关注投诉和索赔的过程。文章以英格兰和威尔士国民健康服务作为案例研究,认为在一个庞大的服务部门中,通过大量的渠道来表达不满,为研究支撑发声机制的一系列不同的政治逻辑提供了新的机会。研究提出了两个关键论点。首先,除了解决争端或冲突管理之外,收集不满情绪还可以有其他多种目的。通过权利和正当程序概念而合法化的正式申诉程序,不仅与其他服务于集体利益的方式相互作用,而且相互竞争。第二个重要发现是,如果孤立地看,"发言权 "概念可以作为一个独立的概念来研究,而不仅仅是 "申诉 "的一个重要组成部分。
{"title":"Revisiting the Concept of Voice: Expression of Grievances across the English and Welsh National Health Service","authors":"Linda Mulcahy","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.7","url":null,"abstract":"This article reexamines the notion of voice in law and society scholarship, which has focused on journeys to complaints and claims. Using the English and Welsh National Health Service as a case study, it argues that looking at the articulation of grievances through a large number of channels across a large service sector offers new opportunities to examine a range of different political logics underpinning voicing mechanisms. Two key arguments emerge. First, it becomes clear that expressions of dissatisfaction can be collected for a variety of purposes other than dispute resolution or conflict management. Formal grievance procedures, rendered legitimate by concepts of rights and due process, not only interact with but compete with other ways of serving the collective good. The second key finding is that when looked at in isolation, the concept of voice can usefully be studied as a discrete concept rather than just a vital component of claiming.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140587249","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How the Public Became the Caller: The Emergence of Reactive Policing, 1880–1970 公众如何成为报警者:反应式警务的出现,1880-1970 年
Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.9
Jessica W. Gillooly, David Thacher
Why is the police role so broad in the United States today? Carceral state scholars have investigated how and why policymakers have treated so many social problems as policing problems, but they have not yet recognized the degree to which the call-for-service system has marginalized political control over police strategy. This Article traces the historical sources of this arrangement through extensive archival research into its evolution. We find that over the course of the twentieth century, the rise of new communications technologies gradually shifted the power to decide which problems are proper subjects of police attention to private individuals, eventually channeling their demands through centralized call centers that had been stripped of the authority and contextual knowledge needed to govern them in a meaningful way. That process fundamentally altered the character of public oversight over policing, elevating a distinctive set of individual interests as largely unchallenged determinants of the kinds of situations that are policeable. By illustrating how sociotechnical change unintentionally reallocated the authority to define the scope of an important institution’s mandate, this case sheds new light on the factors that shape the police role and the role the public plays in defining it.
当今美国的警察角色为何如此广泛?Carceral state学者已经研究了政策制定者如何以及为何将如此多的社会问题视为警务问题,但他们尚未认识到 "呼叫服务 "系统在多大程度上使政治对警察策略的控制边缘化。本文通过对这一制度演变的大量档案研究,追溯了这一制度的历史渊源。我们发现,在 20 世纪的过程中,新通信技术的兴起逐渐将决定哪些问题属于警察关注的适当对象的权力转移到了个人身上,最终通过中央呼叫中心来引导他们的需求,而这些中心已经被剥夺了以有意义的方式管理这些问题所需的权威和背景知识。这一过程从根本上改变了公众对警务监督的性质,提升了一系列独特的个人利益,使其在很大程度上决定了哪些情况是可以报警的,而这些个人利益在很大程度上是不受质疑的。通过说明社会技术变革如何无意中重新分配了界定一个重要机构任务范围的权力,该案例为警察角色的形成因素以及公众在界定警察角色中的作用提供了新的启示。
{"title":"How the Public Became the Caller: The Emergence of Reactive Policing, 1880–1970","authors":"Jessica W. Gillooly, David Thacher","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.9","url":null,"abstract":"Why is the police role so broad in the United States today? Carceral state scholars have investigated how and why policymakers have treated so many social problems as policing problems, but they have not yet recognized the degree to which the call-for-service system has marginalized political control over police strategy. This Article traces the historical sources of this arrangement through extensive archival research into its evolution. We find that over the course of the twentieth century, the rise of new communications technologies gradually shifted the power to decide which problems are proper subjects of police attention to private individuals, eventually channeling their demands through centralized call centers that had been stripped of the authority and contextual knowledge needed to govern them in a meaningful way. That process fundamentally altered the character of public oversight over policing, elevating a distinctive set of individual interests as largely unchallenged determinants of the kinds of situations that are policeable. By illustrating how sociotechnical change unintentionally reallocated the authority to define the scope of an important institution’s mandate, this case sheds new light on the factors that shape the police role and the role the public plays in defining it.","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"298 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140587033","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Patchwork Protection: The Politics of Prisoners’ Rights Accountability in the United States 拼凑保护:美国的囚犯权利问责政治
Pub Date : 2024-03-07 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.4
Heather Schoenfeld, Kimberly Rhoten, Michael C. Campbell

In recent years US prisons have failed to meet legally required minimum standards of care and protection of incarcerated people. Explanations for the failure to protect prisoners in the United States focus on the effects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and lack of adequate external oversight. However, very little scholarship empirically examines how different systems of accountability for prisoners’ rights work (or do not work) together. In this article, we introduce an accountability framework that helps us examine the prisoners’ rights “accountability environment” in the United States. We then compare two post-PLRA case studies of failure to protect incarcerated women from sexual assault in two different states. We find that the prisoners’ rights accountability environment is a patchwork of legal, bureaucratic, professional, and political systems. The patchwork accountability environment consists of a web of hierarchical and interdependent relationships that constrain or enable accountability. We argue that ultimately the effectiveness of prisoners’ rights accountability environments depends on whether protecting prisoners’ rights aligns with the priorities of dominant political officials. Our argument has implications for efforts to improve prison conditions and incarcerated people’s well-being.

近年来,美国监狱未能达到法律要求的最低标准,对被监禁者提供照顾和保护。对美国未能保护囚犯的解释主要集中在《监狱诉讼改革法案》(PLRA)的影响以及缺乏足够的外部监督。然而,很少有学者对囚犯权利的不同问责制度如何共同发挥作用(或不发挥作用)进行实证研究。在本文中,我们将介绍一个问责框架,帮助我们研究美国囚犯权利的 "问责环境"。然后,我们比较了两个不同州保护被监禁妇女免受性侵犯的失败案例研究。我们发现,囚犯权利问责环境是一个由法律、官僚、专业和政治系统组成的拼凑体。错综复杂的问责环境由层级关系和相互依存关系组成,这些关系制约或促成了问责。我们认为,囚犯权利问责环境的有效性最终取决于保护囚犯权利是否与占主导地位的政治官员的优先事项相一致。我们的论点对改善监狱条件和被监禁者福祉的努力具有启示意义。
{"title":"Patchwork Protection: The Politics of Prisoners’ Rights Accountability in the United States","authors":"Heather Schoenfeld, Kimberly Rhoten, Michael C. Campbell","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.4","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years US prisons have failed to meet legally required minimum standards of care and protection of incarcerated people. Explanations for the failure to protect prisoners in the United States focus on the effects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and lack of adequate external oversight. However, very little scholarship empirically examines how different systems of accountability for prisoners’ rights work (or do not work) together. In this article, we introduce an accountability framework that helps us examine the prisoners’ rights “accountability environment” in the United States. We then compare two post-PLRA case studies of failure to protect incarcerated women from sexual assault in two different states. We find that the prisoners’ rights accountability environment is a patchwork of legal, bureaucratic, professional, and political systems. The patchwork accountability environment consists of a web of hierarchical and interdependent relationships that constrain or enable accountability. We argue that ultimately the effectiveness of prisoners’ rights accountability environments depends on whether protecting prisoners’ rights aligns with the priorities of dominant political officials. Our argument has implications for efforts to improve prison conditions and incarcerated people’s well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140057545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Don’t Call It a Failure: Systemic Risk Governance for Complex Financial Systems 不要称之为失败:复杂金融系统的系统性风险治理
Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI: 10.1017/lsi.2024.8
Giuliano G. Castellano

The probability that an event will avalanche into an impairment of essential services constitutes a “systemic risk.” Owing to the inherent complexities of modern societies, the outbreak of a novel disease or the failure of a financial institution can rapidly escalate into an impact significantly larger than the initial event. Through the lens of complex system theory, this article draws a parallel between financial crises and disasters to contend that the regulatory framework for financial systemic risk is unequipped to address its fundamental dynamics. Epitomized by the market failure rationale, financial regulation is premised on a reductionist view that purports both systemic risk and law as external to the actions of market participants. Conversely, this article advances a twofold conceptual framework. First, it shows that systemic risk emerges from the same complex dynamics that generate the financial system. Second, it understands law as an agent of complexity, thus contributing to the emergence of finance and its inherent instability. Normatively, this conceptual framework reveals the limits of current regulatory approaches and constructs a holistic risk governance framework that is akin to the one adopted to govern disaster risks.

一个事件很可能会导致基本服务受损,这就构成了 "系统性风险"。由于现代社会固有的复杂性,一种新型疾病的爆发或一家金融机构的倒闭都可能迅速升级,造成比初始事件大得多的影响。本文通过复杂系统理论的视角,将金融危机与灾难相提并论,认为金融系统性风险的监管框架无法应对其基本动态。作为市场失灵理论的缩影,金融监管以还原论为前提,将系统性风险和法律视为市场参与者行为的外部因素。相反,本文提出了一个双重概念框架。首先,它表明系统性风险产生于金融体系的复杂动态。其次,它将法律理解为复杂性的媒介,从而促进了金融的出现及其内在的不稳定性。在规范方面,这一概念框架揭示了当前监管方法的局限性,并构建了一个整体风险治理框架,类似于治理灾害风险所采用的框架。
{"title":"Don’t Call It a Failure: Systemic Risk Governance for Complex Financial Systems","authors":"Giuliano G. Castellano","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2024.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2024.8","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The probability that an event will avalanche into an impairment of essential services constitutes a “systemic risk.” Owing to the inherent complexities of modern societies, the outbreak of a novel disease or the failure of a financial institution can rapidly escalate into an impact significantly larger than the initial event. Through the lens of complex system theory, this article draws a parallel between financial crises and disasters to contend that the regulatory framework for financial systemic risk is unequipped to address its fundamental dynamics. Epitomized by the market failure rationale, financial regulation is premised on a reductionist view that purports both systemic risk and law as external to the actions of market participants. Conversely, this article advances a twofold conceptual framework. First, it shows that systemic risk emerges from the same complex dynamics that generate the financial system. Second, it understands law as an agent of complexity, thus contributing to the emergence of finance and its inherent instability. Normatively, this conceptual framework reveals the limits of current regulatory approaches and constructs a holistic risk governance framework that is akin to the one adopted to govern disaster risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140037073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Law & Social Inquiry
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1