The history of the modern movement for civil rights for people with mental disabilities is chronicled in the three editions of the American Bar Foundation's treatise, The Mentally Disabled and the Law. Each presents a snapshot of the status of the law at the time of its publication. Taken together, they provide an overview of the extent of the movement's successes and the speed with which they have been attained in recent years. The first edition, published in 1961, describes the law as it had developed during the years following World War II, and argues that it has been “an opportune time to re-evaluate the law” (Lindman and McIntyre, 1961: 14) and to bring it into conformity with modern scientific understanding of the nature of mental disability and contemporary public opinion concerning individual rights (Ibid.). The second edition, published in 1971, recounts the changes that had taken place in the 1960s, primarily the increasing federal activity in the field of mental disability, as well as scattered developments in state case law and legislation. But its authors again conclude that “[t]he factors conducive to a thorough examination and réévaluation of the laws as they relate to the rights of the mentally disabled exist today to a greater extent than ever before” (Brakel and Rock, 1971: 8).

Although it is beyond doubt that participation observation is one of the best methods by which to gather precise information about the role of police in Japanese society, Japanese scholars have rarely undertaken this kind of research. The sole exception has been juvenile delinquency, but even in this area Japanese scholars have failed to explore juvenile crime. Japanese police refused either to be observed or criticized by Japanese scholars, even to the point of opening the interrogation rooms, or Ryuchijyo, in police stations. Believing that the low crime rate in Japan reflected their success, police officials concluded that they had little to learn.

Since the 1940s Takeyoshi Kawashima has been Japan's most distinguished legal sociologist. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that commenting on Kawashima's contributions to the sociology of law is almost equivalent to commenting on the sociology of law in Japan itself (1982–1986). International readers have not fully appreciated his work for two reasons. First, few of his writings are in English and those pieces that are translated do not encompass his major contributions. Second, there are relatively few works published in English on the sociology of law in Japan. Those studies that have appeared stress the uniqueness of Japanese legal culture. As a result, international readers have come to consider Kawashima's scholarship (while brilliant) irrelevant to theory building in the sociology of law.

These five recent books explore important questions regarding the press and the First Amendment. With the exception of A Question of Sedition, all deal with the relationship between the press and the public, rather than the relationship between the press and the government. In the 1950s and 1960s, most First Amendment doctrines were carved out through conflicts between the government and the press. In A Question of Sedition, Washburn presents such a conventional First Amendment setting in his description of the harassment of the black press by the Roosevelt administration during World War II. Washburn tells the unsurprising story of the attempts by J. Edgar Hoover and others in the government to silence the black press and its denunciation of discrimination in both the military and in American society. The hero in Washburn's story is Attorney General Francis Biddle, who almost single-handedly prevented official government suppression of the black press during World War II. In many ways, Washburn's book is an official recognition of Biddle's “contribution to the preservation of freedom of the press” (p. 205). On a more subtle level, however, it is also a description of the antilibertarian forces at work in our society (explained more in The Tolerant Society).

In this book the author's approach to the Supreme Court differs from that of most political scientists. The book is not about what the Court does, but rather about what the Court is and, ultimately, where it is in the American polity's system of authority. Brigham observes that the Supreme Court occupies a preeminent position for other governmental institutions, the legal profession, academics, journalists, and—no less important—the public. This is so because the Court's pronouncements on the Constitution have, in practical terms, become the Constitution. Acknowledging the voice of former Attorney General Edwin Meese in dissent, Brigham argues that “we have come to speak of the Constitution as ‘what the justices say it is’ and we look for ‘it’ in their opinions. Their words are no longer authoritative gloss on the thing itself; they have become the thing itself” (p. 31).

Today, the original indigenous peoples of Australia comprise but one percent of the total population, numbering less than a quarter million. Living in rural communities, religious reserves and shanty towns, the greatest number are found in Queensland. However, in the Northern Territory, the subject of The Yolngu and their Land, the Aborigines make up twenty-five percent of the population.

In their book entitled, When Teenagers Work, Greenberger and Steinberg argue that to be meaningful, jobs for adolescents need to impart skills or knowledge valuable for adult life, contribute to the financial need of the family, and create interaction with adults who have a stake in preparing them for adulthood. These elements tend to be missing in the current adolescent workplace. As a consequence, this book questions the popular view that teenage involvement in the world of work is positive.