Reviews for Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control A Research Annual

The average rating for Research in Law, Deviance and Social Control A Research Annual based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-10-08 00:00:00 Steve Mclaughlin Pretty much all wars are made in the name of peace. Either side fighting the war, generally claim they are entering the conflict with the intention of settling issues which cannot be settled in any other way. For this reason, determining when military intervention can occur (for humanitarian reasons) is key to determining what is an act made in the name of peace and what is not. Part of the form this determination should take, is the same form that multiculturalism and democracy have found to be the most practical...in other words, determination should be as "objective" as possible, meaning that it has to be beholden to a process. And the way processes are objective is that they are the same for everyone. Thus, for Lepard, the U.N. must adopt a formalized, unambiguous process for deciding when peacekeeping measures (in the form of military intervention, perhaps) should happen! And all nations must adhere to this. In a way, Lepard wants to define when peace with military action is still peaceful, in order to do so for purely humanitarian reasons. He backs this up with several of the world's most prominent religions (though Confucianism may or may not be a religion). In the process of doing so, Lepard wishes to highlight the idealized shape that most of humankind recognizes as being necessary for good living, for proper and stable society, for how people ought to get along. In essence, this other view, is often a 3rd point of view of human reasons, in the same way that Kant used religion to seal how humans, who struggle with good and evil, should live together in a state. Religion in this sense, gives us a pre-formed image of being human so that we can all be on the same page as far as boundaries are concerned. And believe me, pretty much all human interaction has to do with defining and re-defining boundaries. Read sideways Lepard would want us to adhere to the U.N. in the guise of a religious institution... not in the sense of worship, but in the sense of allowing it have the final word on what kind of people we are to be. That's certainly not his intention though, but at the onset, he does want the U.N. to reflect the better part of humanity's values as individuals rather than what world leaders would want for the rest of us. All in all, I found his book to be a bit boring as it was highly repetitive. His language is formalistic, academic and thus not the most existing thing around. Nonetheless, I found his thoughts interesting. Given that much of the U.N.'s many articles are ambiguous or at times, lacking procedure, much of his text ends up reading as a series of "he said, she said" kind of back and forth between nations trying to save face and nations pushing for certain agendas. His thought that the permanent members vetos should be reduced in authority is well taken, as much of the other nations seem to be keenly interested in introducing verbiage that limits that power.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-07-22 00:00:00 Terry Odom We went to Mackinac Island this summer and there is a superb history of the native Americans who lived on the island, as you take the road around the island. The history pulls no punches. The U.S. promised them land, and then took it away a few years later. AJ Blackbird tells this story, which was first published in 1887. An amazing book. "A treaty was concluded in the city of Washington in the year 1836, to which my people--the Ottawas and Chippewas--were unwilling parties, but they were compelled to sign blindly and ignorant of the true spirit of the treaty and the true import of some of its conditions. They thought then when signing the treaty that they were securing reservations of lands in different localities as permanent homes for themselves and their children in the future: but before six months had elapsed from the time of signing this treaty...they were told by the white neighbors that their reservations of land would expire in five years, instead of being perpetual, as they believed."