How well do conventional perspectives on homicide account for the social distribution of femicide, or the killing of females? An analysis of 670 cases of femicide in Toronto and Vancouver from 1921 to 1988 provides stronger support for an alternative perspective that acknowledges both the intimate, domestic character of femicide and the historically contingent nature of opportunities and motivations for femicide. Rather than coming to resemble male homicide, femicide remains as concentrated in private, domestic locations and relationships as it was seventy years ago. However, the relationships between femicide and some social statuses, such as women's employment, have changed over time.

Donald Black's theory of law states that the quantity of law can be explained in terms of stratification, morphology, culture, organization, and social control. Empirical tests of this theory have produced disparate findings. For the most part, previous tests have focused on criminal law and on the use of law to deal with personal problems. In the present study, survey data are used to test the effect of stratification, morphology, culture, organization, and social control on the willingness of people to mobilize law in response to various neighborhood problems. The only strong and consistent finding is that other social control is positively associated with mobilization of law while Black's theory predicts a negative association. We suggest a distinction between societal and personal social control to explain the pattern of results.

This article examines the work of immigration inspectors—the front-line gatekeepers at ports of entry to the United States who decide whether foreign nationals should be admitted to the country. Described are the shared categories primary inspectors use that help define travelers as referable or nonreferable for further intensive questioning. The study discusses how these judgments arise in the course of doing a distinctive organizational task that fundamentally shapes their character. The study explores the ways in which the nature of categorization and practical decisionmaking in the setting are shaped by agency concerns and the responsibilities and problems of this set of social control agents.

Deterrence models generally predict compliance patterns based solely on the subjective probability and utility of outcomes associated with alternative actions. Yet recent work in behavioral decision theory suggests that compliance decisions may also be affected by how the risks of noncompliance are described and how the decisionmaker's preferences are expressed. We report five experiments that examine how the cognitive heuristics evoked by these descriptive and procedural variables affect tax compliance. Using tax decision problems involving how to choose a tax professional, whether to take a questionable deduction, and how to approach an impending tax audit, we find that taxpayer preferences are significantly influenced by descriptive and procedural variables that traditional expected utility models ignore. We discuss the implications of these results for (1) extending compliance theory to understand a broader range of compliance behavior and (2) utilizing cognitive heuristics to predict the consequences of various enforcement policies.

Criminal prosecution of abusive men is described here as a power resource used by battered women to help bring about satisfactory arrangements for managing conjugal violence. This article examines relevant theory on exchange and power processes to explain the conditions of victim empowerment. It then describes cases of women who filed charges against their conjugal partners to show how victims may file, but later drop, charges as a rational power strategy for determining the future course of their relationships. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of prosecutorial policies that limit battered women's control over criminal justice processes.

This study examines how taxpayers evaluate the distributive justice of personal income tax burdens. Using the concept of framing from behavioral decision theory, we suggest that taxpayers employ either an outcome-processing or a norm-processing frame of tax fairness evaluation. Framing is affected by substantive tax policies and the tax situations of individuals. Taxpayers who qualify for tax deductions and other tax preferences employ an outcome-processing frame and focus on perceived abuses of government power when evaluating fairness. Those unable to claim tax breaks employ a norm-processing frame and focus on vertical social comparisons and their inability to qualify for valued tax breaks. The findings suggest that tax avoidance policies have the net effect of increasing public perceptions of unfairness in the tax system.

Concerns about the treatment of rape victims and attrition in rape cases prompted a nationwide movement to reform state rape laws. In this study we evaluate the impact of rape law reforms on reports of rape and the processing of rape cases in six urban jurisdictions—Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Houston, and Washington, D.C. Our results strongly suggest that the ability of rape reform legislation to affect case outcomes is limited. Time-series analyses revealed that predicted results were found in only one of the six jurisdictions, and there the results were limited.

Over the past decade crowded prison conditions became the subject for lawsuits across the country, resulting in restrictions on the “capacity” of prison systems in a number of states. These restrictions produced pressures throughout the criminal justice system, from arrest to release on parole. The question addressed in this research is whether these restrictions and pressures affected the probability and pattern of return to prison among parolees. Data were collected at yearly intervals from four successive cohorts of parolees in Texas. Each cohort was followed for thirty-six months to determine the pattern and probability of returning to prison. Four alternative explanations for shifts in recidivism probabilities are explored using “survival analysis” techniques. Evidence is found for reduced deterrence in addition to effects from cohort composition and administrative discretion.

Empirical research demonstrates that jurors have difficulty understanding and following traditional instructions about the law. The social science literature recommends several procedural reforms, including giving important instructions at the start of the trial and providing jurors with written instructions. This article examines changes in the law following the publication of this social science research, comparing courts, legislatures and rule-making commissions. Analysis reveals that although all three institutions are dominated by lawyers, they have acted differently. Commissions have made substantial changes in the law consistent with the recommendations of social scientists, legislatures have made few changes, and courts have changed case law in the opposite direction, suggesting support for a theory of institutional context.

This note reexamines the generally accepted belief that persons with discrimination-related grievances are much less likely to complain about their problem than are persons with grievances arising from consumer purchases, torts, or other common kinds of personal problems. We find that previously reported analyses greatly overstate the gap between complaining in discrimination problems and other kinds of problems. Drawing on data from three surveys, each conducted in a different country (the United States, Canada, and Australia), we find that for some types of discrimination problems the level of complaining in fact equals or exceeds complaining in other arenas.

In this exploratory study, we ask whether perceptions of and responses to violence in dating relationships are gendered and whether the factors that affect male perceptions also influence females. Using the social control and feminist literatures as a guide, we explore gender differences in perception of sanction risk and attitudes toward resolution of violence when it occurs. Our data reveal several differences in male and female perceptions of formal and informal sanctions (attachment to significant others and stigmatic costs)—although not always in the expected direction—and show that different factors influence male and female perceptions of sanction likelihood and costs. We also find that females are more likely than males to seek relationship termination, informal controls, or formal justice outcomes if assaulted by their partner. However, the conditions that stimulate victims to consider these decisions vary by gender. These findings are discussed, along with implications for further research.

Gibson (1989) questions whether the Supreme Court's ability to legitimate unpopular policies is based on public views that the Court is a fair decisionmaker. His claim is based on his analysis of a survey examining the ability of the Supreme Court to gain acceptance of the right of an unpopular political group to demonstrate. A reanalysis of Gibson's data using a model allowing for both direct and indirect effects of public views about the fairness of court decisionmaking procedures on acceptance does not support Gibson's conclusion that procedure has no influence on acceptance. Our results indicate that public views about the fairness of Supreme Court decisionmaking procedures have an indirect effect on acceptance through their influence on public views about the Court's legitimacy and support the suggestion of a number of studies that the legitimacy of both local and national legal institutions, and the willingness to accept their decisions, are influenced by views about the fairness of their decisionmaking procedures.

Despite the paucity of research on the death penalty and gender discrimination, it is widely supposed that women murderers are chivalrously spared the death sentence. This supposition is fueled by the relatively small number of women who are condemned. This article argues that women are represented on contemporary U.S. death rows in numbers commensurate with the infrequency of female commission of those crimes which our society labels sufficiently reprehensible to merit capital punishment. Additionally, preliminary investigation suggests that death-sentenced women are more likely than death-sentenced men to have killed intimates, although the explanation for this disparity is not yet at hand. It is further argued, on the basis of a content analysis of state capital statutes, that there is a form of gender bias inimical to the interests of women in our capital punishment law: The death penalty is a dramatic symbol of the imputation of greater seriousness to economic and other predatory murder as compared with domestic murder.

In their essay, Tom Tyler and Ken Rasinski take issue with my analysis of legitimacy and procedural justice. Although my article covered a fair number of different issues, their critique focuses on one particular conclusion. I argued that citizen perceptions of procedural fairness by the U.S. Supreme Court contributed little to the willingness of citizens to comply with unpopular court decisions. Instead, compliance (or acquiescence) was most likely when citizens accorded high levels of diffuse support to the Supreme Court. That is, those who viewed the Supreme Court as a more legitimate institution were more likely to accede to an unpopular decision. I concluded (1989:489): “Thus there is some evidence that the legitimacy of the Court, at least as reflected in levels of diffuse support, affects compliance with unpopular decisons. No such evidence exists for perceptions of procedural justice.”

This essay argues that feminist rights analysis should broaden and diversify its reach to include the rights talk from the everyday lives of all sorts of different women—to look at women's rights at least in part as practices. Women's practices within particular, local contexts become crucial to feminist interpretations of rights because here women articulate the significance of rights (and their denials) for their political and social identities and for their thoughts and acts of resistance and acquiescence to hegemonic forces. In presenting this argument, I offer an interpretation of recent Anglo-American feminist and postmodern, pluralist legal scholarship that together fosters an understanding of rights as practices, as mundane legal claims women make in their day-to-day worlds. I analyze and elaborate these views in order to develop and encourage an interpretation of rights and talk about rights as practices of different women.