24:I[63208,["8920","static/chunks/8920-efbff8517d590b7e.js","9097","static/chunks/9097-7e60ff382fede0de.js","5914","static/chunks/5914-356082358a498a0b.js","9903","static/chunks/9903-11222066602aad8e.js","5438","static/chunks/5438-cfc6cd3ec63ed58c.js","3851","static/chunks/3851-d9d99b9df58ccefb.js","4621","static/chunks/4621-60797c2425663d2a.js","6871","static/chunks/6871-85cb03c97585f46a.js","6736","static/chunks/6736-932312a004c99faf.js","4550","static/chunks/4550-0bf059e3050c08b3.js","688","static/chunks/688-a6a2ac7bff269cd3.js","3984","static/chunks/3984-063c0b62f32133c7.js","7038","static/chunks/7038-4f87670d4e55ef18.js","9039","static/chunks/9039-75366c62dc7d0d0e.js","4563","static/chunks/4563-ad980d1babbf7b0b.js","6761","static/chunks/6761-0c10d1446de7ae1c.js","744","static/chunks/744-1e76229abb9e297b.js","7342","static/chunks/7342-1586df78600bf911.js","3617","static/chunks/3617-1f62a097637f4747.js","5895","static/chunks/5895-caa6c774914eb108.js","7481","static/chunks/7481-3b84c503a2ebfb3f.js","3668","static/chunks/3668-7dab69e4121c33af.js","39","static/chunks/39-e93a27d0920e6d92.js","2881","static/chunks/2881-445cc2384af2c6f9.js","2364","static/chunks/2364-e83d52fb21729d99.js","3208","static/chunks/3208-e65462d166bd3688.js","7582","static/chunks/app/toc/%5Btla%5D/%5Bvolume%5D/%5Bissue%5D/page-694a0e465c2c1334.js"],"default"] 25:T4ef,

This article challenges a common view of delinquents as asocial and amoral regarding their support of other people. Support is measured through indications of the willingness to extend assistance to persons at various social and physical distances who are victims of crime. Delinquents seem indeed to be less supportive than other juveniles of people in general. However, when the nature of intervention (direct as opposed to indirect) is taken into account in situations of conflict, delinquents show more loyalty than other juveniles to family and friends. In this respect, delinquents' loyalty is undivided, suggesting that the social cohesion of delinquents may be more particularistic and intense than the more extensive and universalistic support given by other juveniles. Contact with other delinquents is directly related to in-group loyalty and may account for part, but not all, of the relationship between it and delinquency. Further analysis reveals an important departure from an additive model: Delinquents who are involved in dyadic relationships with other delinquents are “too” loyal. The findings are interpreted in terms of Simmel's view of conflict, group structure, and group cohesion.

26:T4ec,

In recent years, much of the sociological analysis concerning the relationship between punishment and social structure has centered around theories of fiscal constraint and penal discipline. The fiscal constraint model suggests that levels of imprisonment will be sensitive to levels of available public revenue. The penal discipline model posits a relationship between unemployment and imprisonment that exists independent of rates of crime. These two propositions, with controls for region, crime, race, and urbanization, are tested using a cross-sectional analysis of the 50 states for 1970 and 1980. Contrary to the two theories, the findings indicate that neither public revenue nor level of unemployment were significantly related to interstate variation in rates of imprisonment. The distinction between southern and non-southern states appeared as the most significant predictor of imprisonment. Analyses of non-southern states indicated that only the rate of violent crime and the proportion of black males in the population were significantly correlated with variations in rates of imprisonment, though the relationship between revenue and imprisonment strengthened somewhat between 1970 and 1980.

27:T432,

Community corrections acts (CCAs) have been established in several states and have become increasingly popular at a time of widespread prison overcrowding. While commu