In prosecution, as in armies, prisons, and schools, organization matters. Japanese prosecutors work in an organization that differs markedly from the organizations in which their American counterparts work. This fact has important implications for how prosecutors in Japan define and perform their central tasks and thus for the quality of Japanese criminal justice. Most critically, the Japanese way of organizing prosecution enables prosecutors to effectively manage the tension between two imperatives of justice that American regard as often incompatible and always in tension: the need to individualize case dispositions and the need to treat like cases alike so as to achieve “order.” As mirror and model, Japan can teach the United States how to improve the level of order in its own systems of criminal justice.

This study adds to the limited body of empirical evidence on the effect that legitimacy and deterrence have on compliance behavior. The theoretical models of compliance behavior tested include the basic deterrence model, which focuses on the certainty and severity of sanctions as key determinants of compliance, and models which integrate economic theory with theories from social psychology to account for legitimacy, deterrence, and other motivations expected to influence individuals' decisions whether to comply. Probit and Tobit econometric estimators are used to examine the compliance behavior of 318 Peninsular Malaysian fishermen who face a regulation banning them from fishing in a zone along the coast. The results of the empirical analysis provide additional evidence on the relationship of deterrence and legitimacy to compliance. The findings are also used to draw implications for compliance policy for regulated fisheries.

Despite increasing interest in understanding patterns of criminal behavior over the life course and, especially, desistance from crime, evidence about the predictors of these experiences has been derived only from samples of male offenders. We evaluate whether there are gender differences in the predictors of both self-reported illegal earnings and arrest among samples of recently released male and female offenders. Our analysis of gender differences illustrates how both the behavior of the offender and the behavior of law shape our understanding of the transition out of crime. We analyze event history data from a large-scale social experiment that provided employment to male and female offenders. The results indicate that (1) gender differences in the predictors of desistance largely depend on the domain of behavior under consideration; (2) indicators of normative status, as opposed to the perceived risks of crime or age-graded informal controls, are particularly important determinants of women's risks of rearrest.

In this article I review court records from the early period of settlement in Puritan Massachusetts (1629–50). The study avoids the great controversies of the day, focusing instead on the patterns that appear in the adjudication of a great number of cases over time. In the first part of the study, a quantitative analysis is performed on a data set comprising crimes (the independent variable) and punishments, evaluated according to an ordinally ranked scale of severity. In the second part, I review the records in detail and suggest conclusions concerning the purposes of punishment and the organizing concepts that are shown to have governed the adjudication of cases in the early Massachusetts courts. The study finds that over a period of decades and a large number of cases (N=793), the actions perceived to be necessary for the restoration of communal order dictated the severity of punishment imposed. I argue that this pattern demonstrates impressive fidelity to the doctrinal principles that served as the public legitimating principles for these courts. These findings, in turn, encourage us to question accounts that purport to show that these principles were merely veils for religious, economic, or social aggrandizement, particularly when such accounts are based on interpretations of individual cases or events.

This article tells the story of the establishment of the Law and Society Association in the early to mid-1960s. To tell the story, the authors concentrate on the personal stories of the individuals active in that early period and on four university campus sites—the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Denver, Northwestern University, and the University of Wisconsin—at which much of the impetus was focused. They also examine key institutions that funded and/or encouraged links between law and social science—the Russell Sage Foundation, the Walter E. Meyer Research Institute of Law, and the American Bar Foundation. The article seeks also to investigate more generally the factors that came together to build a field of law and social science—which in turn helped to provide the ideas and build the institutions involved in the Johnson administration's War on Poverty. The field was created in part by a process involving both competition and cooperation between law and social science over the new terrain of social problems of racial discrimination, poverty, and crime. The authors suggest that, over time, the center of gravity of the field moved toward law, leaving the social science disciplines for the most part outside. The development of the field generally was also affected by the strong shift in the relative values of these social sciences—especially sociology—in relation to economics in the 1980s.

This article examines the overall success of 1,428 proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation's Law and Social Science Program between 1986 and 1997. On average, proposals were successful 30% of the time. The research examined a number of variables that might have influenced the success rate. The type of institution in which the Principal Investigator (PI) was employed and from which the proposal was submitted, the number of years since the PI had earned his or her Ph.D., and membership in the Law and Society Association at the time the proposal was submitted were significant factors. Variables that were not predictive of success included membership in the American Psychology-Law Society, the gender of the PI, and the type of institution from which the PI earned his or her terminal degree. Finally, persistence is a valuable strategy; proposals resubmitted for consideration after having been declined were more likely to be funded.