In Nevada, individuals me excluded from entering licensed casinos when their names have been listed by state regulatory bodies in what is popularly known as the Black Book. As a state regulatory procedure, Nevada's Black Book is officially aimed at excluding organized crime figures from the gaming industry. Beyond its manifest function, however, we believe that the drama of entering persons' names into the Black Book symbolically affirms the legitimacy of gaming and the efficacy of its regulatory body against perceived threats to the industry. Application of the procedure solely to the southern part of the state—Las Vegas— and chiefly to Italians reflects the group interests, culture conflicts, and stereotypes that underlie regulation of gaming. Central issues explored are the relationships of perceived threats to the origin and implementation of the Black Book; the perceptions of threat to the industry as emanating from those most alien to established groups; the sharp distinctions between the ethnic origins of the regulators and of those selected for inclusion in the Book; and the dramatization of the disreputability of those whose names are entered.

This article, by framing criminology and criminal law together, suggests that in the early years of the South African state both bodies of discourse served to evade reality and to construct a sense of self and other as a part of the development of the administration of South African criminal law. It considers the derivation of South African criminology from contemporary metropolitan formulations. South African legal doctrine and practice likewise depended on extra-South African sources. These imported discourses provided lenses through which a descriptive confrontation with the realities of the processes of criminalization, and the administration of criminal justice could be avoided precisely by hose “expert” in these fields. Instead, science and law, far from being pragmatic disciplines, provided the means by which to fantasize about the nature of white justice and black criminality.

How did the American legal elite come to reject the husband's privilege to rape his wife. What is the significance of that rejection. This essay traces theories justifying the marital rape exemption from the 17th century, focusing on the period following World War II. The history illustrates how the postwar legal elite's limited progressivism created inconsistent arguments that left the exemption open for attack, an attack that came from within the 1970s feminist movement. Radical feminist rhetoric about sexuality, rape, and marriage pulled away the last layer of theoretical support for the exemption and denounced the sex right it left exposed underneath. Connections in the 1970s, both literal and conceptual, between radical feminists and the legal elite allowed the feminist movement to discredit the exemption within that elite. To interpret the significance of that rejection, I consider how legal language affects people's senses of self. I argue that legal words like “rape,” “marriage,” and “husband” validate and inform people's, specifically husbands', identities in marriage. By changing the meanings of those legal words, legal reform can eventually change human behavior.