Search results

James J. Chriss received his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1994. He is currently Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology at Cleveland State University. His latest book is Beyond Community Policing: From Early American Beginnings to the 21st Century (Paradigm Publishers, 2010).

The concept of social control was formalized with the establishment of sociology as a scientific discipline in America in the last two decades of the 19th century. Two early American sociologists in particular, Edward A. Ross and Lester F. Ward, were instrumental in the movement to conceptualize social control and illustrate its applicability with regard to various social phenomena. During Ross's time social control has undergone extensive refinement, represented most recently in Chriss’ typology of social control consisting of informal, legal, and medical control. In this chapter, informal control is explored specifically as it relates to the control of sexual activity and food quests beginning in human antiquity.

Back in 2005 lawyers for the Milwaukee school board decided to exclude Viagra and similar erectile dysfunction (ED) drugs from health coverage for the teachers’ union because, well, they were simply too expensive.¹ And besides, so the school board explained, such drugs are used primarily for recreational sex and are not a medical necessity.

This chapter revisits some of the early contributions of classical sociologist Edward A. Ross (1866-1951) and his reflections on ecological influences in the development and progress of modern societies. Ross, who is known for his writings on social control, developed the notion that nature can strike back and thus reveal vulnerabilities of modern society. This idea is discussed to illustrate the tension between a purely sociological perspective on the natural world and attempts at integrating environmental variables into a social theory of interaction and causal influence. Building on Ross's insights, it is argued that 21st century sociological theories might consider unexpected ecological influences as unavoidable and thus as a “normal” control factor of modern society itself.

This chapter explores the competing perspectives (i.e., the “community advocates” and the “community skeptics”) on the recent move toward community in an attempt to conceptualize what this “move” means for social control. An examination of the inclusiveness of community initiatives with a focus on community policing is used to demonstrate that the move toward community contains elements of both empowerment and responsibilization. In particular, the move toward community is paradoxical in that empowerment and responsibilization occurs simultaneously and to varying degrees within inclusive community initiatives. It is argued that a socially inclusive approach to community-police partnerships works to enhance society's web of social control. However, at the same time, community members hold the potential to work together to shape this web of social control.

Purpose – This chapter considers the consequences on liberty in relationship to the development of the international problem-solving court movement.

Design/methodology/approach – The research, which relies principally on ethnographic fieldwork in six different common law countries (England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, Canada, and the United States), explores the development of local problem-solving courts in each jurisdiction. These include drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts. The ethnographic fieldwork was supplemented with data from various other sources, including government reports, parliamentary debates, evaluations of individual court programs, publications issued by various advocacy groups, media accounts, public statements and articles by problem-solving court judges, and analyses of specialty courts in law reviews and other academic journals.

Findings – The research reveal that the five countries outside of the United States demonstrate greater concern with protecting the dignity of the court, due process, and individual rights – or what the Australians refer to as open and natural justice.

Originality/value – It is the first large-scale comparative study of problem-solving courts in the common law countries where the movement is most advanced.