Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:18:08.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pride in Criminological Dissensus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

John Braithwaite
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Commentary
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , Summer 1993 , pp. 501 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1993 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 John Braithwaite, “Beyond Positivism: Learning from Contextual Integrated Strategies,”J. Research Crime & Delinq. (forthcoming).Google Scholar

2 Elliott Currie, Conboonring Crime: An American Challenge 46 (New York: Pantheon, 1985).Google Scholar

3 See John Braithwaite, Bruce Chapman, & Cezary A. Kapuscinski, “Unemployment and Crime: Resolving the Paradox,” American Bar Foundation Working Paper No. 9201 (Chicago: American Bar Foundation, 1992).Google Scholar

4 John Braithwaite, Inequality, Crime and Public Policy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979).Google Scholar

5 Braithwaite, John, “Poverty, Power, White-collar Crime and the Paradoxes of Criminological Theory,” 24 Australian & New Zealand J. Criminology 40 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Sykes, Gresham & Matza, David, “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” 22 Am Soc. Rev. 664 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Erving Goffman, Relations in Public (New York: Basic Books, 1971).Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., Robert J. Sampson, “Communities and Crime,” in M. Gotcfredson & T. Hirschi, eds., Positive Criminology (Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1987) (“Sampson, ‘Communities and Crime’”).Google Scholar

9 Tilly, Charles, “Do Communities Act 43 Soc. Inquiry 206 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Granovetter, Mark, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” 78 Am. J. Soc. 1360 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Sampson, “Communities and Crime,” at 110.Google Scholar

12 Shearing, Clifford D. & Ericson, Richard, “Police Culture: Towards a Figurative Conception of Action,” 42 Brit. J. Soc. 481 (1991), citing Lyotard and Barthes.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Clifford Shearing, personal communication, 1992.Google Scholar

14 Toni Makkai & John Braithwaite, “Reintegrative Shaming and Compliance with Regulatory Standards” (unpublished, Australian National University).Google Scholar

15 At least never for those rights which the republican theory says should be rights. See John Braithwaite & Philip Pettit, Not Just Deserts: A Republican Theory of Criminal Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).Google Scholar

16 Id. Google Scholar

17 See David B. Moore, “Evaluating Family Group Conferences: Some Early Findings from Wagga Wagga,” Criminal Justice Planning & Coordination Conference (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1993).Google Scholar

18 John Braithwaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration 142 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 See John Braithwaite, “Inequality and Republican Criminology,”in J. Hagan &. R. Peterson, eds., Crime and Inequality (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

20 James S. Coleman, “The Rational Reconstruction of Society,” 58 Am. Soc. Rev. 1 (1993); id., Foundation of Social Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1990).Google Scholar

21 See Goodin, Robert E., “Making Moral Incentives Pay,” 12 Pol'y Sci. 131 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 See the studies cited in Ian Ayres & John Braithwaite, Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate 49–51 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

23 Id., ch. 2.Google Scholar