The social organization of criminal courts is the theme of this collection of articles. The volume provides contributions to three levels of social organization in criminal courts: (1) the macro-level involving external economic, political and social forces (Joachim J. Savelsberg; Raymond Michalowski; Mary E. Vogel; John Hagan and Ron Levi); (2) the meso-level consisting of formal structures, informal cultural norms and supporting agencies in an interlocking organizational network (Malcolm M. Feeley; Lawrence Mohr; Jo Dixon; Jeffrey T. Ulmer and John H. Kramer), and (3) the micro-level consisting of interactional orders that emerge from the social discourses and categorizations in multiple layers of bargaining and negotiation processes (Lisa Frohmann; Aaron Kupchik; Michael McConville and Chester Mirsky; Bankole A. Cole). An editorial introduction ties these levels together, relating them to a Weberian sociology of law.

Abstracts of dissertations available on microfilm or as xerographic reproductions.

This book investigates the elements that have developed as part of the definition of propriety and good behavior, and how the law has acted to protect respectable people and their reputations.

A timely update of a comprehensive & acclaimed series that was granted an Award of Merit from the American Association for State & Local History.

Plea bargaining is one of the most striking features of American courts. The vast majority of criminal convictions today are produced through bargained pleas. Where does the practice come from? Whose interests does it serve? Often plea bargaining is imagined as a corruption of the court during the post-World War II years, paradoxically rewarding those who appear guilty rather than those claiming innocence. Yet, as Mary Vogel argues in this pathbreaking history, plea bargaining's roots are deeper and more distinctly American than is commonly supposed. During the Age of Jackson, amidst crime and violence wrought by social change, the courts stepped forward as agents of the state to promote the social order. Plea bargaining arose during the 1830s and 1840s as part of this process of political stabilization and an effort to legitimate institutions of self-rule--accomplishments that were vital to Whig efforts to restore order and reconsolidate their political power. To this end, the tradition of episodic leniency from British common law was recrafted into a new cultural form--plea bargaining--that drew conflicts into the courts while maintaining elite discretion over sentencing policy. In its reliance on the mechanism of leniency, the courts were attempting a sort of social "triage"--sorting those who could be reclaimed as industrious and productive citizens from marginals and transients. The "worthy" often paid fines and were returned to their community under the watchful eyes of their intercessors and that most powerful web of social control, that of everyday life. Created during a period of social mobility, plea bargaining presumed that those with much to lose through conviction would embrace individual reform. Today, when many defendants who come before the court have much less in the way of prospects to lose, leniency may be more likely to be regarded with cynicism, as an act of weakness by the state, and plea bargaining may grow more problematic.

Of the five major sociologists whose views on Indian society are assessed in this work, originally published in 1979, Marx and Weber made a special study of the subject and had something definite to say about the future of Indian society. Herbert Spencer was primarily concerned with the effects of colonial rule on India’s progress, while Durkheim and Pareto tended to observe Indian society from a comparative point of view. However, as this study shows, all five sociologists touched on two special aspects of Indian society – Indian religion and the caste system. The other features of Indian society which they discussed in their various writings range widely from marriage and family structure, through village communities and the social structure of cities, to political organization, the educational system, economic conditions, and the future progress of Indian society. Dr Madan demonstrates the correctness of Marx’s contention that the political subordination of India was the one great hindrance to the future progress of Indian Society. He points out, though, that Marx failed to see clearly the effects of the caste system on economic development, and shows that this aspect was more correctly assessed by Max Weber. On the other hand, in Dr Madan’s view, Weber’s observation that Indian religion was ‘other-worldly’ and therefore a great obstacle to progress in Indian society lacked incisiveness. By focusing on a neglected aspect of the writings of five of the great figures in sociology, the book gives a new insight into their work, and at the same time highlights many hitherto unrecognized facets of India’s complex social structure.