Research Summary: To reduce individual and social harms, most nations prohibit certain psychoactive drugs. Yet, prior scholarship has suggested that prohibition reduces illicit drug sellers’ access to law and thereby increases predation against and retaliation by them. No prior study, however, has directly tested that theory by comparing drug sellers of different legal statuses operating in a single place and time. This study analyzes rates of victimization, legal mobilization, and violent retaliation in three retail drug markets in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: the legally regulated alcohol trade of cafés, the decriminalized cannabis market of “coffeeshops,” and the illegal street drug market. Results from interviews conducted with 50 sellers in each market indicate, as expected, that illicit drug dealers have the highest rates of victimization and violent retaliation and the lowest rates of legal mobilization. Contrary to expectations, we find coffeeshops experience less victimization than cafés and have similar rates of violent retaliation and legal mobilization. Policy Implications: Our findings suggest that state regulation of drug markets affects victimization and conflict management of sellers, but the relationship does not seem to be linear. Prohibition undercuts the state's regulatory capacity by producing zones of virtual statelessness in which formal means of dispute resolution are unavailable, and thus, victimization and retaliation are more common. At the other extreme is laissez faire regulation, which may make sellers more likely to address problems only after they occur (instead of preventing their occurrence). The Dutch government originally instituted coffeeshops as a harm‐reduction method meant to separate the market for cannabis from that of hard drugs. The policy also seems to work well when it comes to reducing victimization, perhaps by encouraging the use of preventive measures by coffeeshop owners and employees. The Dutch experience offers lessons for drug policy reforms elsewhere.

When we think about young people dealing drugs, we tend to picture it happening on urban streets, in disadvantaged, crime-ridden neighborhoods. But drugs are used and sold everywhere, even in upscale suburbs and top-tier high schools. Drawing on my fieldwork, Code of the Suburb examines the motives, methods, and problems of drug dealers living in a wealthy suburb of Atlanta. Why do otherwise "good kids" start selling? Who do they sell to and where? How do they prevent being victimized or getting in trouble with police and parents? What happens when such problems occur? And why do they eventually quit dealing? The book answers these questions and considers their implications for the war on drugs and more. (This is my only publication without an open access version. Truly sorry. I tried to change this, and will try again down the road.)

What follows is a selected list of books, monographs, articles, notes, and review essays related to teaching criminology and criminal justice that may be of special interest to criminology instructors. Entries are listed by 14 topics: Measures of Crime; Theories of Crime; Police; Courts/Law; Ethics; Corrections; Age, Class, Race, Gender, and Sexuality; Comparative/Historical; White Collar/State Crime; Media, Computers, and Distance Learning; Internships and Service Learning; General Curriculum; Professional Issues: Students and Faculty; Miscellaneous Assignments, Exercises, and Projects.

Early on in the process of reading all of the articles published by the BJS in the 1960s, a period of great ferment in sociology, I abandoned any hope of singling out the two ‘best’ articles from that decade. Depending on how you choose to define best, virtually every issue contains one or two pieces that might reasonably contend for that title. Instead, I decided to capitalize on the benefit of hindsight by looking for articles by young sociologists destined to go on to illustrious careers in which they set out a scholarly agenda that would open up new fields of research and forge their sociological identities in the decades to come. Even employing these strict inclusion criteria, my reading turned up a number of meritorious candidates for consideration. But I could only select two and, in the end, the choices were fairly easy: Peter Townsend's‘The meaning of poverty’ (1962) and Frances Heidensohn's‘The deviance of women’ (1968). Beyond their enduring scholarly influence, there were other reasons that these two selections seemed to me to be especially fitting for this volume. Townsend's article was published near the beginning of the decade and Heidensohn's appeared near its close, so together they nicely bookended the period. I also thought it particularly appropriate that one of the pieces was authored by a man and the other a woman as the seeds of our increased – if still far from perfect – present day sensitivity to matters of gender equity were sown in the 1960s. At the time I selected their articles, in mid-2008, both Townsend and Heidensohn remained actively engaged in the sociological enterprise, still highly productive scholars committed to the continuation of a research agenda that had defined their careers from the start. Accordingly, I decided to ask each of them to write a brief commentary to accompany the republication of their article in which they reflected on the socio-cultural context in which it was written. Both agreed to do so. Sadly, though, Townsend died unexpectedly before completing his commentary. Fortunately, Jake Rosenfeld, a young American sociologist, has contributed a very thoughtful commentary in which he assesses the legacy of Townsend's early article. This piece stands as a fine tribute to one of the giants of British sociology, a deeply committed social scientist who never lost sight of the real world implications of his research. I think that readers will be fascinated by Heidensohn's nuanced reflections on the writing of her path-breaking article, which played a key role in establishing feminist sociological criminology. That is what prompted me to select Heidensohn's article despite the fact that she currently serves as General Editor of the BJS. It is worth stressing that Heidensohn played no part in this process. Indeed, she insisted that I seek approval from the Editorial Board before reluctantly agreeing to its inclusion. Heidensohn's commentary is joined by one from Jody Miller, an eminent American feminist sociological criminologist, who considers the enduring impact of Heidensohn's call for an end to the androcentrism that characterized sociology in the 1960s (and beyond). As with the Rosenfeld commentary on Townsend, Miller's essay serves to remind us that, in the words of Isaac Newton, we stand on the shoulders of giants.

The law discriminates against low status offenders, but so too might criminologists during the course of their research. In this paper, we address the following question: Does the social status of lawbreakers have an effect on their likelihood of being recruited to offender-based research? The answer to this question is important for reasons that extend beyond academic criminology. If criminologists discriminate, then they themselves are active agents in the reproduction of social disadvantage. If criminology is to reduce inequality, the field must first identify and reduce discriminatory behavior within its own research community.

Placing the name of Jack Nichols to the left of the colon in the title implies that Nichols is the focus, and this book delivers on that promise. “Have You Heard My Message?” is largely biographica...