The law, especially Anglo-American law, gives as a rule wide latitude to the determination of the sentence that follows the conviction of a defendant. The law may set the minimum or maximum sentence for the particular crime, it may set the range, or it may allow different types of sentences (fine, prison, etc.); at the very least, it provides a choice between two alternatives, for instance, after conviction of a capital crime, it now allows in most states a finding of death or life in prison.

As a rule it is the judge who determines the sentence, but in capital cases, and in some states in other cases, it is the jury. In one state, California, it is the prison authority to whom the sentencing decision falls, the judge merely pronounces sentence in terms of the range set by the penal code. But wherever the discretionary power lies, discretion is almost unlimited. Very seldom will an appellate court impinge on this discretion and change the sentence.

The “marihuana problem” has rapidly degenerated into the “marihuana muddle.” As the use of marihuana increases, and as this use expands into the middle and upper classes, officials are increasingly confronted with questions concerning the effects and dangers of marihuana. Unfortunately, the answers that can be given are limited. We really do not know very much about marihuana. Perhaps the most decisive point that can be made is that the possession and sale of marihuana are against the law.

Laura Gómez's meditation on race invites us to think again about where we have been and where we are headed—as a professional association, as an intellectual community, and as individual scholars. Reading these pages brings back the exhilaration of the event: the sense of hearing said something that needed saying, that was possible to say without misunderstanding. The implicit “now” in that understanding reminds us how short the history of that possibility is. The personal and analytical generosity of President Gómez's address is integral to the force of its rendering visible a constitutive “we”—inclusive and yet still partially concealed to itself by virtue of the unintended consequences of standard disciplinary practices.

One welcome by-product of a major comparative study of recent state constitutional conventions has been a series of interviews with the judges who served as convention delegates. They are particularly interesting, not only because of the paucity of interviews with sitting judges, but because they permit us to directly compare the attitudes of judges with those of other political elites. To date, this has not been possible.

Estimates of the impact of personal health care services on the health levels of definite populations range widely. Whatever the figure derived, it is often surprising to discover what little effect such services have on the conditions of health. Rene Dubos offers no numerical estimate but phrases the point in this way:

What happens when the occupiers abandon the city but the forces of liberation fail to show up? What should we do when the rebels lose the people in a thicket of doctrine and become terrorists, but the empire can't imagine how to strike back except with more terror directed at the same people?

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.

Very different assumptions guide the efforts of social scientists and comparative legal scholars interested in the development process. These assumptions form paradigms; the paradigms guide and structure research problem selection, choices of concepts to be used, and even the form and content of evidence held to be admissible. For instance, a political scientist may treat the legal system of a transitional society as the outgrowth or a function of cultural, social, economic, and political environment, but the legal scholar may not be comfortable with this wholly dependent placement of his analytic slice of “reality.” Social scientists increasingly accept basic aspects of the value system of science. This requires a concern for making generalizations which may be linked to theoretical constructs, and which are empirically testable in such a way as to allow intersubjective evaluation. Description, explanation, and prediction are typically cited as a social scientist's aims. “Relevance” is a term we hear much of today, but unless a social scientist is content to ignore the imperatives of the value system of science, relevance must remain a fundamental, from that of the social scientist. A. Singham's work furnishes an opportunity to reflect on these considerations.

This article examines the interconnection between legal conflict and class structure in American agriculture. Law, as seen in the example of the California strawberry industry, is intimately involved in the transformation of economic systems and class relations and is itself affected by those changes. The impact of the law on social class varies across industrial subsectors and over time. In this case legal distinctions, in the context of changing political pressures and technoeconomic constraints on production, have encouraged the adoption of sharecropping. This form of production alters the legal status, economic interests, and subjective identification of workers, thus creating a new basis for future class interrelations.

This paper applies the methodology of economics to the analysis of resource allocation by households with actual or potential disputes. A model of household production of “legal welfare” is constructed. Household time and money investment decisions over time are analyzed within the household production framework. Finally, a simplified set of functions for measuring household demand for dispute resolution goods and services is presented and discussed.

This paper presents a discussion of the revitalization processes of the peace pact system of intervillage relations among the Kalinga mountaineers of northern Luzon by means of celebrations given by the system's key personnel, the peace pact holders. Revitalization here refers on the one hand to the ways in which these celebrations regenerate support for the peace pact system, reinforce obedience to peace pact law, and strengthen the obligations of the people to the personnel of the system. On the other hand, revitalization refers to the reaffirmation and reformulation of peace pact law, which ensures the continuing effectiveness, validity, and relevance of the peace pact system to the changing world of the Kalinga. The revitalization processes inherent in peace pact celebrations have not been studied by earlier students of the Kalinga, yet close observation reveals this built-in revitalization to be a basic feature in the operation of the system.