I am writing these notes as my Summer Quarter at California State University, East Bay, begins. Summertime also means the annual SSSP meeting. I am excited about our upcoming Law & Society Division sessions at the Annual Meeting in Las Vegas. The Summer issue of Pro Bono reflects the great work that our members are doing in the field of law and society, especially in service sociology, the theme of our annual meeting. My congratulations to Robert Vargas, a doctoral candidate in the Sociology Department at Northwestern University, for winning the Division’s Alfred R. Lindesmith Graduate Student Paper Competition. An abstract of his award-winning work appears elsewhere in this newsletter. I also would like to congratulate Michael L. Radelet, University of Colorado at Boulder, for winning the Law and Society Division’s Lifetime Achievement Award. I want to thank Cary Federman and Paul Steele for acting as judges for the Lindesmith Award competition and Richard Leo and Lloyd Klein for serving on the Lifetime Achievement Award Committee. Please be sure to attend the Division’s Business Meeting on Friday, August 21, 12:30-2:10 p.m. to meet this year’s award winners and to help plan our next meeting as well. I would like to thank Art Jipson for the invaluable assistance he has provided as Vice Chair of the Law and Society Division during the past year. Additionally, I thank Lloyd Klein for his willing assistance with division-related matters. Finally, please join me in thanking Michael Smyth for his work editing our newsletter! After three years as Editor of Pro Bono, Michael will step down from the position following publication of the current issue. Members interested in serving the Division as the new editor should contact me (morewitz@earthlink.com), Art Jipson(Arthur.Jipson@notes.udayton.edu), or Lloyd Klein (creditcardman21@yahoo.com) to apply for the position. Please be sure to join me and other Law and Society Division members at the SSSP Division-Sponsored Reception on Friday, August 19, at 6:30 PM. I am very pleased to announce that the Law and Society Division is sponsoring five sessions and co-sponsoring another five sessions for the 2011 meeting in Las Vegas: Law and Society Division Sponsored Sessions: Session 5: New Trends in Violence and Deviance, Fri., Aug. 19, 8:30 a.m., Silver Room; Session 13: Sociology of Law and Public Policy, Fri., Aug. 19, 10:30 a.m., Silver Room; Session 99: Judicial & Legislative Responses to Social Problems, Sun., Aug. 21, 8:30 a.m., Silver Room; Session 110: Law and Domestic Abuse, Sun., Aug. 21, 10:30 a.m., Cooper Room; Session 120: Sexual Victims and Sexual Victimization, Sun., Aug. 21, 12:30 p.m., Cooper Room. Law and Society Division Co-Sponsored Sessions: Session 34: Immigration Exclusion and Human Rights: Changes in State and Local Policy (co-sponsors: Community Research and Development; Conflict, Social Action, and Change; Global; Racial and Ethnic Minorities), Fri., Aug. 19, 2:30 p.m. Studio Room 2 Session 43: Immigration Exclusion and Human Rights: Changes in State and Local Policy (co-sponsors: Community Research and Development; Conflict, Social Action, and Change; Global; Racial and Ethnic Minorities), Fri., Aug. 19, 4:30 p.m. Studio 2 Room Session 52: Juvenile and Other Specialty Courts (co-sponsor: Sociology and Social Welfare), Sat., Aug. 20, 8 a.m., Cooper Room. Session 110: Law and Domestic Abuse (co-sponsor: Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; Family; Sociology and Social Welfare), Sun., Aug. 21, 10:30 a.m., Cooper Room. Session 137: Sanctions and Punishment, (co-sponsor: Social Problems Theory) Sun., Aug. 21, 4:30 p.m., Goldfield Room. I want to encourage our members to continue to collaborate in exciting projects. I am open to new forms of collaboration and ideas from our Division members. I also hope that our experienced Division members will continue to serve as mentors to our graduate students and participate actively in social and employment networking. Come to the Las Vegas to see old friends and make new ones. In solidarity, Stephen J. Morewitz Department of Nursing and Health Sciences California State University, East Bay Chair, Law & Society Division NOTES FROM THE CHAIR SUMMER 2011 VOL.17 NO. 2 1616NNO. 1 PRO BONO SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS 61TH ANNUAL MEETING SERVICE SOCIOLOGY AUGUST 19-21, 2011 HARRAH’S LAS VEGAS HOTEL 3475 LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA NOTES FROM THE CHAIR (CONTINUED) NOTES FROM THE CHAIR Page # Newsletter of the Law and Society Division Society for the Study of Social Problems PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Contents Notes from the Chair…………...….page 1 Lindesmith Award Announcement….….……....page 2 Book Review: Moral Time by Donald Black……….…..page 3 Chambliss Lifetime Achievement Award ………page 4 Recent Publications and Items of Interest…....page 5 NORTHWESTERN’S ROBERT VARGAS NAMED 2011 ALFRED R. LINDESMITH AWARD RECIPIENT Each year the Law and Society Division gives the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award to the most outstanding law-related paper submitted by a graduate student or untenured faculty member. This year, the winner is Robert Vargas, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Northwestern University for his paper titled “Locking Up Social Order: Incarceration, Organizational Leadership, and Street-Corner Violence.” An abstract of the winning paper follows. Abstract: What role do neighborhood organizations have in understanding the geographic concentration of violent crime? By focusing on organizational leadership, specifically gangs and political organizations, I show how incarceration and community development politics construct violent hot spots in a case study of Puebla, a Chicago neighborhood. Based on qualitative fieldwork of gangs, public space, and community organizations, I develop hypotheses about these processes and test them with a unique dataset of Puebla street corners (N=307). Findings suggest that organizational processes, measured through gang boundaries, addresses of FBI raids of gang leadership, and locations of surveillance cameras, are important for understanding the link between social structure and neighborhood violent crime. I conclude by suggesting that a focus on neighborhood organizational leadership may help uncover links between mass incarceration and neighborhood violent crime. Black, Donald. Moral Time. Oxford University Press, 2011. 304pp, cloth. $29.95. ISBN: 978-0-199-73714-7. Rarely does sociology produce an idea as beautiful as social time, the concept that Black introduces in this book. Social time is fluctuation in social space — a shift in structure at the micro or macro level — and Black argues that the movement of social time causes morality and moral conflicts. “The origin of morality,” he explains, “is the movement of social time” (p. 11), and “The fundamental cause of conflict is the movement of social time” (p. 4). Grievances are a response to movements in social space, and norms are attempts to prevent fluctuations in that space. When and how people respond to deviance is determined by social time. Deviance itself is a response to movements in social space, and conflict begets conflict because social control also alters social space. I had anticipated the release of Moral Time but was initially unimpressed. While reading, I often thought, “Really? That’s it?” However, the simplicity of the theory belies its power. Black provides a parsimonious theory that is nonetheless scientifically sophisticated. Black explains all sorts of conflicts in all sorts of places, and it is no small scientific task to discover an idea that is highly general, is testable, and can claim, “That’s it. It’s that simple.” Black offers an astounding variety of cases that support his theory, and his empirical descriptions are interesting by themselves. However, the true value of this book is that with a simple theory, Black explains witchcraft accusations, the Holocaust, sexual taboos, rape, responses to rape, bad manners, gang violence, racism, insanity, theft, art criticism, rebellion, legal doctrine and the application of law, juvenile delinquency, the special stigma of male homosexuality, blood feuds, suicide, scholarly argument, divorce, pornography, and many other conflicts of right and wrong. Moral Time addresses fluctuations in three dimensions of social space: intimacy, stratification, and culture. Increases in intimacy (e.g. staring) and decreases in intimacy (e.g. adultery) cause conflict. Movements up and down the social ladder cause conflicts. The appearance of cultural difference (e.g. new ideas) creates conflict, but cultural similarity (e.g. male cross-dressing) can as well. The degree of conflict in any one case, furthermore, is a function of the degree and speed of the fluctuations in social space. Most innovative, Black’s theory characterizes social time as “zero-sum.” Black provides the example of a husband who begins an extramarital affair: The husband’s intimacy with his mistress reduces his relational closeness to his wife. Also, due to the zero-sum nature of intimacy, measured as the degree of participation in another’s life, a person who ends a friendship will become closer to his or her other friends. Consequently, it appears that social time does not involve just the movement from social location A to social location B. Rather, movements of social time are distortions in the curvature of social space as a whole. Unfortunately, Black does not adequately elaborate the zero-sum principle or its consequences. This is one of many ideas he seems to have cut short or has not fully developed. The book is intended for a wide audience, who will enjoy the numerous cases and can easily get the gist of Black’s ideas. However, it must be read slowly to understand Black’s nuance, and even then I found the book difficult. Black usually gives a thorough treatment of his ideas, but Moral Time leaves many questions about how to apply the theory. For example, does the theory explain the direction of a grievance? Black spends space on witchcraft accusations at more than one point in the book, and identifies accusations toward those considered too high up the social ladder, such as those who made a suspiciously quick rise up the economic ladder. He also identifies accusations against people falling in status flung toward those lower on the social ladder. Why are some witchcraft accusations directed upward and others downward? Does the direction of grievance somehow mimic the direction of fluctuation? Do fluctuations in social space create moral gravity, so grievances are “pulled” up by rising individuals and grievances fall downward with falling individuals? Also, what is the relationship between what the substance of grievances and movements of social space? Is an actor’s subjective perception of a movement in social space causally equivalent to an objective movement? For instance, Black argues that white hostility toward American blacks in the early twentieth century occurred because whites thought blacks “seemed to be doing too well” (p. 93). According to Black, the hostility was caused by a reduction in stratification between whites and blacks. However, white perception of black advancement is somewhat a false accusation, only partially based in reality. For example, during this time period, hostility toward blacks flared when economic competition between native white and white immigrants increased (Olzak 1992: Ch. 6). It was immigrants doing too well that caused the grievance against African Americans in urban areas. How careful do we have to be in taking the contents of accusations as statements of fact about social time, or is the theory also meant as a sociology of knowledge, explaining claims involved in grievances, as well as the cause of grievances? Certainly, the book does often drift into the sociology of knowledge and culture, claiming to explain knowledge about art, science, illness, and law, for example. This is one factor that r raises the most important question about the application of Black’s theory: Is all social time moral time? He states, “Social time is moral time?” (p. xii, 4). Are we to believe that social time and conflict are synonymous? Is moral order the social order? In the conclusion, Black first introduces a set of propositions that explain the relative gravity a movement in social time will have given a particular social structure. Depending on the social structure — the relative degree of intimacy, stratification, and cultural diversity of the structure — some movements in social space will cause more conflict than others. Second, Black traces the evolution of moral time, establishing three epochs of morality. Tribal morality is fundamentally a morality of social closeness. Modern morality is a morality of distance — the right to be left alone, to end relationships, to own property individually, to believe what one wants, and to do what one wants. Postmodern morality is a morality of self-closeness and global closeness. Black explains, “Because of the zero-sum nature of intimacy, people lacking closeness to other people in their daily lives are closer not only to themselves but to the world as a whole … And because social closeness breeds altruism — help for those in need — global closeness breeds global altruism, a new and even revolutionary development in the history of humanity” (p. 149, 150). Though “not perfect or final” (p. xii), Black’s theory of moral time is elegant and imaginative. First published in 1976, Black’s Behavior of Law was re-released as a special edition last year. Beginning with that book, which provides a general explanation of law, Black has been developing a “pure sociology” modeled on physics, a sociology that produces short and testable “covering laws” of social life that refuse reference to human intention, psychology, or interpretative activity. My own sociology is much different. In my work, I do not approach people like they are atoms. I am an interpretative sociologist who is interested in historically specific processes, so I study processes Black thinks should be left out of sociology. However, Black has much to teach about social life and what good sociology looks like. Black’s theory of conflict has a “that’s it” quality that sociologists need to see more of. The simple and easily observable nature of Black’s ideas make them a valuable tools for helping us as well as our students grasp the complexities of social life. After I read the book, I could easily apply the theory. I kept thinking to myself that’s it — that’s moral time. That’s moral time when my wife is angry me because I’ve spent too much time at working at my office. That’s it when we are in bed together and in discussions at the dinner table. That’s moral time in my conflicts with my friends, parents, my colleagues, and even my infant daughter. That’s it in the stories of my student who cuts herself. That’s moral time in my neighbors’ gossip and my judgment of my neighbors for gossiping. That’s it behind the fighting in Sudan, the fights against immigration, and the fight for gay rights. When we can see the ongoing dance of moral time, life becomes more tangible, ordered, and moral. Works Cited Olzak, Susan. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition and Conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Deflem, Mathieu. 2008. Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Review by Matthew Silberman, Bucknell University Revised version of presentation at SSSP Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August 2009. Deflem presents a comprehensive review of the field, its historical roots, current theoretical trends, and major research initiatives. While modestly claiming not to cover everything, as far as this reader could tell, no major endeavor has been omitted. Deflem demonstrates how powerful the influences of Weber and Durkheim have been on the evolution of the theoretical foundation of the sociology of law as a discipline. This is an important point as Deflem notes the marginality of the discipline in relation to sociology as a whole, largely because of “guilt by association” [my term] with criminal justice, criminology as state policy, and the power of the legal profession itself to define the discipline. Deflem credits Talcott Parsons with developing a distinctive theoretical approach to the sociology of law derived from the classical traditions of Weberian [organizational] and Durkheimian [integrative] perspectives. Not ignoring the influence of Marxian doctrine, Deflem notes that Karl Marx himself had little to say about law as part of the superstructure of society. He does note, however, that critical legal studies [CLS] and conflict theoretical approaches, Marxian and non-Marxian, played an important role in shaping theoretical and empirical work in the post-Parsonian era of the late 1960s and 1970s. Chambliss’ seminal work on the history of vagrancy law was a critical turning point in the development of critical/conflict approaches to the sociology of law. Deflem describes the work of European scholars such as Petrazycki, Bourdieu, and Habermas who have had a great influence on sociolegal scholarship in Europe, but little direct impact on American sociology of law. The second half of the book highlights major empirical and theoretical developments in contemporary studies of legal institutions. The influence of Parsons on Deflem’s work is evident in the way he organizes his chapters on the “sociological dimensions of law”: concerning law and economics (“the regulation of the market”), law and politics (“the role of democratic law”), law and social integration (“the legal profession”), and law and culture. Deflem discusses the important role that neo-institutionalism as neo-Weberian organizational theory has played in understanding the diffusion of legal culture in large-scale organizations and examining the role of legal developments on organizational life. Current work on emerging markets has benefitted greatly from this work. Citing Habermas, Deflem notes that modern legal institutions require “popular legitimation in order to be recognized as valid among the subjects of law.” Reviewing the literature on the historical evolution of the legal profession from Roman times to the present, Deflem discusses the role of education, expertise, and organization on the role of the profession in meeting the needs of modern industrial societies. The discussion of law and values centers on the problem of diversity of values in contemporary society. Coupled with the increasing decentralization of social control and growing individualism, the integrative function of law becomes essential to the regulation and coordination of society. Modernity [secularization] conflicts with traditionalism in religious values, religions conflict with one another, and personal autonomy conflicts with the collective good. The final two chapters focus on “special problems” associated with the study of legality: social control and the role of law enforcement and the globalization of the rule of law. Deflem discusses both the techniques of surveillance and punishment in contemporary society that “widen the net” of social control both objectively and subjectively (transforming the self in Foucault’s terms). On the other hand, while nation-states vary in the extent to which they respond to concerns for human rights, the moral leadership that universal standards provide has begun to diffuse on a global level. Deflem, Mathieu. 2008. Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Review by Debarun Majumdar, Texas State University-San Marcos Revised version of presentation at SSSP Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August 2009. Sociology of law is an integral part of the field of sociology; yet there is a lack of complete understanding of the relevance of this area to sociology and how it differs from the study of law and legal systems per se. In chapter 1, the author brings up a very interesting point that works of important sociologists, such as Tonnies, Simmel have been somewhat overlooked compared to those of Weber and Durkheim, yet we don’t see much of an elaboration of the contribution of these more obscure sociologists in the book. At the very outset, the author points out to the different receptions that Weber and Durkheim have received regarding their relevance to the sociology of law. This is a key point, however it left me asking for more elaboration. The author mentions that Weber has received more prominence because he was “consistently and expertly involved in the study of law,” whereas to Durkheim “the proper contours of the sociological study of society were more important.” pp 73. Weber relied more on the interpretative aspect of investigating behavior, and Durkheim relied on uncovering causations employing structural-level analysis of social data. These two scholars, thus, had different methodological approaches to understanding the society, and it is not therefore surprising that they varied in their levels of appeal to sociologists. Additionally, whether or not their works appealed differently because of their difference in focus is another issue that needs further investigation. Durkheim’s emphasis on cultural differences, and Weber’s emphasis on broader “political, economic, and cultural” factors could also be reasons why these two theorists had different followings. Although the author covers these interesting points, perhaps a little more elaboration is suggested. The author does a very good job while discussing the transition from the sociology of jurisprudence to the sociology of law and the need for the separation from the study of law as we know it today and the sociology of law- where the interpretation of law is approached from sociological perspectives. That understanding of laws and legal systems cannot occur in a vacuum and that without couching them in the societal context would result in a failure in understanding the ramifications of laws have been properly emphasized in the book. The chapter on the development of the Parsonian perspective and the emergence of sociology of law in the US has been deftly handled by the author. The author clearly describes how Parson’s systems theory explains societal cohesion from a functionalist approach, despite increasing individualism in the US. However, how does this relate to the development of the sociology of law? The society comprises of inter-related parts that are integrated, and yet have different functions. What mechanisms keep these different societal parts integrated? One of the mechanisms according to Parson’s is the legal system. According to Parson’s, law is “any relatively formalized and integrated body of rules which imposes obligations which imposes obligations on persons playing particular roles in particular collectiveness.” Thus, laws provide the integrative element in a society that comprises of different autonomous systems with different functions. The author effectively brings out these points and, again effectively describes how economic and political systems can be differentiated or kept autonomous from legal systems a and how societal systems are where a robust linkage can be found between laws and the community. The social control aspect of laws and how that assists in the functioning of society is also an important element that has been brought out by the author. I feel, that the author, in the early chapters, have clearly established the importance and significance of the area of sociology of law. Sociologists, whose interests lie in other areas, such demography, social psychology, will gain an extensive view to what sociology of law is about and the uniqueness of this area in the early chapters of the book. The section on the sociological dimensions of law is a critical aspect of the book which contributes to the understanding of the field of sociology of law. In the vein of Parsons, the book focuses on economy, politics, normative integration, and culture. Of particular interest were the chapters on the law and integration and law and culture. I felt it was important to indicate the autonomy of this field that emanated from the Weberian perspective of professionalization of legal activities and the Parsonian perspective of integrative function of the law. Additionally, the movement away from a strict structural functionalist perspective to one that accommodated diverse ideas was also an important development that was highlighted in the book. This diversification led to the development of Critical Legal Studies as a field is an important step that can be seen as progress and not something that is counterproductive. In the chapter on Law and Culture, the analogy provided while outlining the shortcomings of contemporary sociology of law and that of cartography is definitely worth mentioning. Portuguese sociologist de Sousa Santos critiqued maps and applied the same criticisms to the current state of the sociology of law field. The main gist of the criticisms is the oversimplification of laws and the legal systems and the assumption that the legal systems work typically at a state level. This ignores the complexity and the layers because this approach ignores the national and international nuances and differences. The author provides an example of how these levels could be inter-related: pp209- “the suppression of a strike in a factory may violate local labor rules, national labor laws, as well as international legal codes on employment.” The author also delves into the inequalities faced by different groups in the society due to various laws, although the intended purpose of law is integration; which is indeed a paradoxical situation. This is exemplified in the lack of marital rights for same-sex couples, and the continuing debate over abortion in the US. Overall, I think that the book gives a very comprehensive view of Sociology of Law. It also addresses how important sociology of law is integral to the discipline of sociology and should not be sidelined. It is especially important because as our society diversifies and as we make progress, law and legal systems should have an integrative goal rather than exclusionary aspects in them. Deflem, Mathieu. 2008. Sociology of Law: Visions of a Scholarly Tradition. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Review by Stephen Morewitz, Stephen J. Morewitz, Ph.D. & Associates Revised version of presentation at SSSP Annual Meeting, San Francisco, August 2009. Mathieu Deflem’s Sociology of Law. Visions of a Scholarly Tradition is an excellent analysis of the contributions of Weber, Durkheim, and other scholars to to sociology of law. Sociology of Law is especially useful to scholars and students of the sociology of law, criminology, complex organizations, the sociology of the professions, and social and political theory. I found the book especially useful for a variety of courses, such as the sociology of the professions, complex organizations, criminology, victimology, criminal justice, social psychology, and other courses that cover theory-related issues and for the development of research in these fields. For example, Mathieu notes on page 137 that ethnomethodologists do not contribute to the development of sociology of law. Scholars and researchers can explore the nature of ethnomethodology and determine if future research might benefit from the insights of specialty area. Mathieu’s analysis stimulates the reader to explore the implications of the sociology of law. For example, on page 141, he discusses crime as rational choice. I wonder to what extent is crime a rational choice or is it mainly in response to broader non-rational social and cultural factors. In his analysis of the institutionalist perspective on page 153, the author notes that “organizations rely on rational myths that may not be inherently accurate but that are effective because they are widely shared.” I wonder if these rational myths are widely shared and if they are even inherently inaccurate. Organizational researchers should pursue these questions using theoretical and empirical approaches. In Chapter 9, he notes that the professionalization of the legal occupation leads to a monopolization of all legal activity, including legal scholarship. I am not sure how much professionalization actually creates monopolization because of governmental restrictions and other external factors. In his discussion of sociology of law and the antinomies of modern thought, Deflem indicates how criminology has benefited from behaviorist theorists. I would like to see more work that emphasizes the non-rational components of criminology and the sociology of law. Deflem analyzed the concept of social control in Chapter 11 and raises the issue of whether the use of the death penalty and kangaroo courts represent Durkheim’s notion of mechanical solidarity. It is interesting to view the sociology of law in terms of the transition from mechanical to organic solidarity and the persistence of mechanical solidarity in democratic societies. Author’s Response: Writing the Sociology of Law by Mathieu Deflem, University of South Carolina deflem@sc.edu Writing a book is one thing; having it read quite another. And having my published work thoughtfully reviewed is beyond my expectations. For this reason alone, I am indebted to Matthew Silberman, Debarun Majumdar, and Stephen Morewitz for having done such an admirable job of commenting on my book. I am, of course, also grateful to Michael Smyth for organizing this symposium on my work and to Cary Federman who organized the author-meets-critics session at the SSSP annual meeting in San Francisco upon which this symposium is based. In these brief comments, which cannot do full justice to some of the remarks my book has spawned, I will focus on some of the themes my work sought to address and, relatedly, discuss the published book reviews that have in the meantime appeared. Collectively, my commentators focus on several strengths and weaknesses of my work, though I was pleased to note the former are more numerous than the latter. Surely, some points in the book could have been elaborated upon or should have been better explained, an inevitable shortcoming of a book that seeks to cover a vast terrain, both temporally/intellectually (from the classics until today) and thematically (across a range of substantive interests in the sociology of law). Besides provoking a series of questions that beg for more analysis and research, it is interesting to note the observed focus on disciplinarity and inter-disciplinarity, which is indeed at the heart of my book. Briefly, my argument is not only that the sociology of law must always be, and cannot but be, a specialty in the larger discipline of sociology, but addi tionally that it is only as such, by delineating the proper contours of sociology and other relevant disciplines, that inter- disciplinary bridges can be built. Additionally, as the reviewers note, theoretical insights on the objectives of sociology (of law) as well as findings and accomplishments in research are to be addressed, especially in the present global age, through a dialogue that involves, minimally, the European and American roots and branches in the development of the sociology of law. Moreover, although such an enterprise is obviously beyond any one author, this debate needs to be broadened to include other academic voices from across the globe as well. As the reviewers astutely observe, my work has theoretically profited from the classical scholars, including Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Talcott Parsons. To somehow forget these roots or to seek to push them aside is in my view as shortsighted as it would be intellectually devastating towards building a veritable sociology of law. In fact, whatever the merits and limitations of the specific contributions of classical (and important modern) scholarship, it is the general analytical orientation towards the study of society that must remain to move and inspire us in our academic activities. For that reason, also, my book addressed the theoretical pluralism of today’s sociology as an (historical, if not always systematically justified) outcome of the classical tradition. Therefore, the obscurantism of postmodernism, for example, did not lead me to ignore the contributions of this perspective in the sociology of law (and in socio-legal studies), although I could do so only only in an appropriately nebulous narrative style. It is entirely correct, as the reviewers do, to conceive of my work in terms of its role in seeking to identify the intellectual identity of the sociology of law and its practitioners and to outline its usefulness for our teaching of this sociological specialty. For that reason also, my book is accompanied by a website with overviews of the book’s chapter and related online available readings (www.socoflaw.net). In this connection, I should stress once again that my book is not a textbook, for which reason the work nearly did not see the light of day, as the original editor assigned to this work once had different ideas (Deflem 2010). But apparently I am not always entirely inapt at the art of persuasion. Finally, in view of the central ambitions of my book, I find it amusing as well as somewhat puzzling to note that the published reviews of my book squarely fall in two camps based on the academic background of the reviewer: legal scholars do not (completely) like this book (Del Mar 2008; Tamanaha 2009), sociologists do (almost completely) like this book (Federman 2009; Light 2008). Nothing could make me happier, at least not with respect to the reception of my book. References Deflem, Mathieu. 2010. “Prologue to the Chinese edition of Sociology of Law.” Peking University Press. English version available via: www.mathieudeflem.net. Del Mar, Maksymilian. 2008. Review of ‘Sociology of Law’ by Mathieu Deflem. Cambridge Law Journal 67(3):660-662. Federman, Cary. 2009. Review of ‘Sociology of Law’ by Mathieu Deflem. Contemporary Sociology 38(3):269-270. Light, Matthew. 2008. Review of ‘Sociology of Law’ by Mathieu Deflem. Canadian Journal of Sociology 33(3):10141015. Tamanaha, Brian Z. 2009. Review of ‘Sociology of Law’ by Mathieu Deflem. American Journal of Sociology 115(3):975-977. PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # BOOK REVIEW: DONALD M. BLACK’S MORAL TIME by Justin Snyder, Ph.D. St. Francis University REVIEW: MORAL TIME(continued) PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # 2011 WILLIAM F. CHAMBLISS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD MICHAEL L. RADELET The SSSP Law and Society Division has chosen to honor an individual for a lifetime of achievement in the law and society field. The award specifically designates those individuals that have proven themselves worthy as educators, researchers, and public advocates for justice. We have chosen Michael L. Radelet, Professor of Sociology, University of Colorado-Boulder for this year’s honor. Dr.Radelet possesses all the qualifications sought to honor someone exemplifying the work of William Chambliss and other pioneers. First, Dr. Radelet is a first-rate scholar with a prodigious publication record. His work on the death penalty has served to contribute a significant focus on the questions underlying the legal status and application of capital punishment. Much of the content from his books, articles, and public statements have served to illuminate the tricky issues faced by governmental officials and the judicial system. (continued) PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # 2011 CHAMBLISS AWARD Second, Dr.Radelet focuses on social justice concerns much like the approach taken by William Chambliss. The cogent arguments brought forth in Radelet’s extensive research ask important questions about how the application of the death penalty serves to undermine social justice. His testimony at important hearings and his written statements have posed a number of related questions yet to be addressed by the legal system. Third, Dr. Radelet’s past and ongoing work reflects a dedication to public sociology. Radelet presents concerns regarding the communication of issues relevant to social justice through op-ed pieces, testimony before governmental bodies, and substantial media presence. All these factors serve to influence the application of legal standards within the public arena. Fourth, and finally, Dr. Radelet is an influential mentor guiding the initiation of his graduate students into the academic field. In a supporting letter by Dr. Kimberly Cook, Professor of Sociology, UNC-Wilmington, we learned that Dr. Radelet has been an Inspirational mentor and has helped to secure the successful professional placement of numerous graduate students. Dr. Cook’s correspondence concludes with the following statement: It is undeniable that Mike’s entire career has created ripple effects of social justice through excellence in social science research from his mentoring and advocacy. Therefore, I see Mike’s contributions to be a stellar example of what great scholars can accomplish in the tradition of William Chambliss. I believe Professor Michael Radelet is exactly the model scholar who deserves all the professional accolades we offer. I urge you to grant him this prestigious award; he is an inspiration to all of us. In this spirit, the SSSP Law and Society Division honors Dr. Michael Radelet with the William F. Chambliss Lifetime Achievement Award. Our congratulations are conveyed on his excellent work and noteworthy career achievements. ? Berard, Tim. 2010. "Hate Crimes and their Criminalization," In New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment, eds. Stacy Burns and Mark Peyrot, Vol. 17 of Research in Social Problems and Public Policy. This chapter considers overlapping legal and policy issues related to hate crimes, summarizing the problem with an emphasis on societal responses. The theoretical insight that law can be understood as an expression of societal values is combined with an emphasis on the empirical study of law in action. The approach taken is theoretical and conceptual in nature, but is also informed by relevant case law and various empirical studies and is concerned to suggest how hate crime research can address issues of both theoretical and policy significance by analyzing how hate crime law is practiced. Some of the findings are that hate crime law can be seen to express values in a wide variety of settings and to express values intentionally, neither of which has been properly acknowledged to date. It is important for public policy analysis and practice as well as for theory development to acknowledge the limitations of both rational choice/deterrence approaches and moral education theories in the hate crime policy domain. Instead of understanding criminal law as a type of threat or type of instruction, in the case of hate crimes the law may be practiced and evaluated most realistically without assuming that hate criminals will be attentive to potential legal sanctions or amenable to moral education. The discussion includes elements of literature review, policy debate, theoretical analysis, and methodological reflection suggesting how hate crime law can be analyzed as expressive law in action, providing material relevant for students, theorists, policy-makers and analysts, and researchers. ? Savelsberg, Joachim J. and Sarah M. Flood. 2011. “Collins Meets Criminology: Intellectual Change in a Policy-Oriented Field.” Sociological Forum 26(1): 21-44. Ideas from Randall Collins’s Sociology of Philosophies are applied to U.S. criminology, a policy-oriented field and one case of differentiation out of a fragmented sociological discipline. Building on previous quantitative work, in-depth interviews with eight prominent scholars provide the empirical material. As in philosophy, vertical network ties are important. Yet, they may take different forms, 2012 SSSP Annual Meeting August 16-18, 2012 The Grand Hyatt Denver Hotel Denver, CO 2013 SSSP Annual Meeting August 9-11, 2013 The Westin New York at Times Square New York, NY PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # 2011 RECENT PUBLICATIONS & ITEMS OF INTEREST and the nature of scholarship. Comparable to philosophy, horizontal network ties provide social capital and opportunities for interaction rituals that generate collective effervescence and emotional energy. Further, the nature of these interactions is dependent on the changing institutional en- vironment in which they are embedded. Such institutional settings, themselves affected by changes in the political economy, also provide material resources, constituting dependencies that produce mediated effects and, in this policy-oriented field, also direct effects on the nature of scholarship. ? Savelsberg, Joachim J. 2011. “Franz Kafka: Bureaucracy, Law and Abuses of the ‘Iron Cage’.” Pp. 45-53 in: Sociological Insights of Great Thinkers, edited by C. Edling & J. Rydgren. Santa Barbara, et al.: Praeger. This brief essay examines what lessons sociologists can draw from Franz Kafka's famous literary work, especially The Trial and The Castle. It also reviews current scholarship to examine where sociologists have already learned from Kafka and to point at future potential. It is argued that Kafka sees law and bureaucracy not so much in line with Max Weber's "iron cage" but as tools in the hands of abusive rulers and bureaucrats. The individual before the gates of the law and in the thicket of bureaucracy nevertheless desperately seeks to make sense of (to attribute meaning to) the "castle" and the "trial." ? Morewitz, S. and Klein, L. “Domestic Violence Court Judges’ Use of Discretion in Granting Petitioners’ Requests for Restraining Orders Related to Alleged Threatened and Completed Parent-Child Abductions” Little is known about how the courts respond to individuals who file restraining orders related to parental child abductions and other forms of domestic violence. Domestic violence court judges may use discretion in deciding to grant restraining orders in cases involving alleged threatened and completed parent-child abductions. The present investigation evaluates the degree to which domestic violence court judges differ in how they grant restraining orders based on self-reported threatened and actual parent-child kidnappings. A random sample of 519 newly filed domestic orders of protection was drawn from newly published domestic court case listings in two cities (Midwest and West regions) between 1997 and 1999. A domestic stalking and violence protocol was constructed to code self-report data obtained from a content analysis of the newly filed domestic orders of protection. Chi-Square and logistic regression analyses were used to test the null hypothesis that after adjusting for other predictor variables, including the domestic violence victims’ age, gender, and socioeconomic status, there is no association between the domestic violence court judges’ grant of restraining orders to petitioners who reported threatened or actual parent-child kidnappings. The null hypothesis will be rejected if there are statistical differences at the .05 level of significance. The null hypothesis was rejected based on the statistical results. The results of the study indicated that domestic violence court judges were more likely to grant restraining orders to protect petitioners with dependents if they had reported threatened or actual parent-child kidnappings (65.2%) than to those petitioners who did not make these allegations (42.9%) (Chi-Square=4.26, df=1, p<.039). This association remained statistically significant after controlling for possible predictor variables. These findings suggest that domestic violence court judges may consider the petitioners’ type of allegations, such as threatened or completed parent-child kidnapping, in granting specific protections under an order of protection. ? Richman, Kimberly. 2011. “‘By Any Other Name’: The Social and Legal Stakes of Same Sex Marriage” University of San Francisco Law Review. ... I report on and analyze same-sex couples' reasons for seeking legal marriage - as opposed to either another form of legal relationship recognition, such as domestic partnership or a non-legal wedding ritual, such as a commitment ceremony. ... This analysis of peoples' reasons for seeking marriage draws heavily on the insights of Patricia Ewick and Susan Silbey, who, in their book The Common Place of Law, give a detailed account and analysis of the range of legal consciousness among regular citizens in their day- to-day lives. ... Those who said they were marrying to provide security for their family, to access financial and legal benefits associated with marriage, or to increase the visibility of same-sex married couples (by adding to their numbers) as a form of strategy (i.e., motivated by instrumental reasons) were grouped in the category of "With the law." ... Most notably, in what was perhaps the first published study of couples married at San Francisco City Hall in a major scholarly journal, Taylor et al. reported, "the overwhelming majority of participants considered their marriages acts of protest in which they were confronting the identity categories, values, and practices of heteronormative society citation omitted by enacting marriage outside the boundaries of state sanction." ... However, the percentage of couples that named these types of changes was virtually identical in Massachusetts (9% in California and 8% in Massachusetts), where such rights were not given through prior domestic partnerships, and the legality of the marriages was not in question. ? Jenness, Valerie and Michael A. Smyth. 2011. “The Passage and Implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act: Legal Endogeniety and the Uncertain Road from Symbolic Law to Instrumental Effects.” Stanford Law and Policy Review, 22:2. The passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003 and thereafter, in 2010, the failure of the U.S. Attorney General to adopt national standards put forth by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission constitute a revealing moment in the larger history of prison reform in the modern era. This article adopts a contextual approach to understanding this particular moment as a telling instance of criminal justice policy reform that has, by and large, remained symbolic. Presenting an empirical genealogy of the politics of prison rape, we focus on the repertoire of claims that emerged at the turn of the century in public debate, law, and public policy. Our analysis of these data reveals how a particular type of endogeneity of law in the criminal justice system operates at the level of policy adoption and implementation. In theoretical terms, this article illuminates the way in which law and attendant policy are generated within the very realm that they seek to regulate—in this case the prison industry— such that symbolic law fails to produce instrumental effects. Specifically, the corrections industry has, by and large, determined the final parameters of the PREA, the content of national standards devised to regulate its implementation, and the failure of those standards to be embraced by the state as binding in any authoritative way. As Ristoph (2006) has argued, this works against the elimination of prison rape and the protection of prisoners‘ rights more generally, effectively revealing the challenge of producing real, consequential reform in corrections. ? Berard, Tim. 2009. "The Relevance of the Social Sciences for Legal Education," Legal Education Review 19(1/2). The following discussion will suggest some of the many contributions which social sciences are making with respect to legal education, which they could make much more frequently and even more effectively given increased institutional and professional support for such curricular and pedagogical innovations... the focus of this article is on suggesting how the inclusion of social scientific perspectives on law could reduce the problems and gaps which legal scholars and legal organisations have themselves noted between legal education and the expressed needs of the legal profession. The article will then specifically consider the relevance of social science instruction for teaching or facilitating civics and public service; critical scholarship and reflective legal practice; professionalism and ethics; specialisation and multi-disciplinary practice; and skills training and orientation to legal practice. ? Morewitz, Stephen J. “Age of Missing Persons and the Classification of their Behavior as Unusual in Missing Persons Reports” Individuals may go missing for many reasons. They may be injured, mentally or physically impaired, lost, or the victims of foul play. In other instances, they may go missing because they are the victims of repeated intimate partner violence and are escaping their abusers. In other instances, individuals may go missing in order to create a new life and identity for themselves in a new location. The age of missing persons may be an important factor that determines whether their behavior around the time that they were reported missing is classified as unusual. The present investigation is part of the Missing Persons Project. Based on a random sample of 138 missing-persons reports that were filed between 1991 and 2004 and published on the North American Missing Persons Network website, this study tests the null hypothesis that the missing persons’ age is not related to whether their behavior at the time that they were reported missing was categorized as unusual. Each missing-person report was coded using a 228-item protocol. The coded data were entered into a data file and Chi-Square and correlational analysis was then performed using Systat 9 for Windows program (1999). The null hypothesis was rejected. Younger aged missing-persons were more likely than older missing persons to have their behavior classified as unusual (r=-.128). These results remained statistically significant after controlling for possible intervening factors, such as the missing person’s gender and racial/ethnic background. These findings suggest that younger age individuals who are reported missing are more likely to have their behavior considered as unusual, triggering criminal justice responses than older missing persons. Age-based role stereotypes and beliefs about the increased vulnerability of younger persons and the greater likelihood that younger persons are the victims of rape, kidnapping, and other life-threatening crimes, may influence how criminal justice and injury control and emergency health services professionals respond to reports of missing persons. ? Morewitz, Stephen J. “Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Classification of Possible Foul Play in Missing Persons Reports.” Researchers are evaluating the role of social and demographic factors that may influence how law enforcement professionals classify missing persons reports. The race/ethnicity of missing persons may influence whether their missing persons reports are classified as involving possible foul play. The present investigation is part of the Missing Persons Project, which is based on a random sample of 555 missing-persons reports that were filed between 1991 and 2004 and published on the North American Missing Persons Network and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children websites. This investigation tests the null hypothesis that the missing persons’ race/ethnicity is not related to whether their missing persons reports are classified as involving possible foul play. Each missing-person report was coded using a protocol that contains 291 variables. The coded data were entered into a data file and Chi-Square and correlational analysis was then performed using Systat 9 for Windows program (1999). The null hypothesis was rejected. Missing Hispanics (29.0%) and missing whites (28.7%) were more likely than missing African-Americans (15.2%) to be classified as involving possible foul play (Chi-Square= 23.51, df=7, p<.001). These results remained statistically significant after controlling for possible intervening factors, such as the missing person’s gender. This study assesses the implications of these racial/ethnic differences for law enforcement policies and procedures. Ì Ì Ì Ì ? ? ? ? ? ? PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # PRO BONO VOL. 17, NO. 2 Page # AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE OF SERVICE EDITOR SOUGHT FOR PRO BONO THE LAW AND SOCIETY DIVISION NEWSLETTER TO APPLY FOR THIS POSITION, PLEASE CONTACT THE DIVISION CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR LAS VEGAS 2011