The Role of Law in Society - Criminal Justice

The role of law in society examines law as a mechanism of social control, legitimation, conflict resolution, and collective norm expression. Within Crime as a Social Phenomenon, the sociological analysis of law’s social functions provides the foundational institutional framework within which crime, criminal designation, and criminal justice practice are embedded. Law is not simply a set of rules (Abel, 1982) but a social institution — a complex of practices, organizations, beliefs, and cultural meanings that performs multiple social functions simultaneously and that exists in dynamic relationship with the social order it purports to regulate. Understanding crime sociologically requires understanding law sociologically (Cotterrell, 2006): as an institution whose functions, limitations, and distributional consequences are themselves objects of sociological inquiry rather than simply the backdrop against which criminal conduct occurs.

Introduction

The sociology of law, as a field of inquiry (Deflem, 2008), has developed three foundational questions about the relationship between law and society that each illuminate different dimensions of law’s role in the social organization of crime and its control. The first is functional (Ehrlich, 1936): what does law do for society, and how does it accomplish those functions? The second is structural: how is law organized as a social institution, and how does its organization shape its effects? The third is critical: whose interests does law serve, and whose interests does it systematically underserve or actively harm? These three questions have been addressed by different theoretical traditions — functionalism, legal sociology, and critical legal studies — whose answers converge and diverge in ways that the sociology of crime and criminal justice must engage.

The functionalist tradition, associated with Durkheim and Parsons, identified law as one of the primary mechanisms through which modern societies maintain social integration and manage the conflicts that social differentiation inevitably generates. As societies become more complex and differentiated (Ewick & Silbey, 1998), the dense moral consensus of the collective conscience that sustains social order in simpler societies gives way to a thinner, more formal legal order that coordinates cooperation and resolves disputes among individuals whose normative frameworks may differ substantially. Law, on this account, is a functional achievement (Unger, 1976) — a product of social evolution that enables the complex interdependence of modern social organization. The conflict tradition, associated with Marx, Weber, and their criminological heirs (Hunt, 1993), criminological heirs, challenged this functionalist account by showing that law’s social order is always order for some at the expense of others — that the formal neutrality of legal rules conceals the substantive asymmetries of power that shape both the content of law and the selective character of its enforcement.

This article examines the major theoretical accounts of law’s social functions (Luhmann, 2004) — social functions — social control, conflict resolution, legitimation, and moral expression — and their implications for understanding crime and criminal justice. It then addresses the limits of law as a social institution (Merry, 1990), social institution, the specific character of comparative legal systems and their differential crime consequences, the challenges that digital transformation and international law pose to territorial legal systems, and the conditions under which law serves as an instrument of social transformation rather than simply of social maintenance.

Law and Social Control

Classical Sociological Accounts of Legal Function

The foundational sociological accounts of law’s social functions were developed (Nonet & Selznick, 2001) in developed in direct engagement with the transformation of European societies by industrialization, urbanization, and the breakdown of traditional community bonds. Durkheim’s (1893/1984) analysis distinguished two types of law that corresponded to two forms of social solidarity: repressive law — criminal law, whose function is the collective punishment of violations of the collective conscience — and restitutive law — civil and administrative law, whose function is the restoration of disturbed social relationships rather than the expression of collective moral indignation. The transition from mechanical to organic solidarity was accompanied (Pound, 1910), on Durkheim’s account, by a shift in the relative weight of these legal forms: as societies became more differentiated, restitutive law expanded relative to repressive law, reflecting the replacement of dense moral consensus by the thinner, contractual norms of functional interdependence.

Weber’s (1922/1978) sociology of law approached legal institutions through his general framework of rationalization — the historical process through which social action becomes increasingly organized around formal, calculable rules rather than traditional authority or charismatic leadership. Modern formal legal rationality — characterized by systematic legal codes, professional legal interpretation, and procedural guarantees applied universally without reference to the substantive justice of outcomes — represented, for Weber, the legal expression of the broader rationalization of Western modernity. This formal legal rationality enables the predictability and calculability (Sarat & Kearns, 1993) that that modern capitalism requires: contractual relations depend on legal enforceability, and economic development requires that legal outcomes be foreseeable rather than dependent on the personal judgment of rulers or the substantive moral assessment of particular cases.

Parsons’s (1962) structural-functionalist account of law identified five functions that law performs for the social system: it defines the normative framework within which social action takes place; it provides mechanisms for resolving conflicts between competing normative claims; it enables the integration of different institutional spheres through legally defined roles and relationships; it promotes the legitimation of the social order by providing authoritative procedures for defining what is right and wrong; and it enables social change by providing the mechanism through which new normative settlements can be institutionalized. This functional account of law is wide-ranging in its scope (Selznick, 1969) but scope but has been criticized for its inherent conservatism — its tendency to treat existing legal arrangements as functional achievements rather than as sites of power struggle — and for its inability to account for the ways in which law systematically serves the interests of powerful groups rather than those of society as a whole.

The critical legal tradition developed from the recognition (Yngvesson, 1993) that functionalist accounts of law systematically obscure the political character of legal arrangements — the fact that legal rules reflect the outcomes of specific historical political struggles rather than timeless functional requirements. Critical legal scholars, drawing on both Marxist political economy and the deconstructive methods of literary theory, argued that the apparent neutrality and objectivity of legal reasoning is itself ideological — a mode of presenting contested political choices as logical conclusions from neutral premises. This critique has been particularly influential (Silbey, 2005) in understanding how criminal law’s apparent neutrality conceals the racially and class-structured character of its content and enforcement, as analyzed in the context of crime and power in society.

The development of feminist legal theory (Vago, 2012) from the 1970s onward added a gender dimension to the critical account of law’s social functions, showing how legal doctrines developed primarily through male-dominated institutions reflected male assumptions about the boundaries of public and private, the nature of consent and agency, and the value of different kinds of harm. MacKinnon’s (1989) argument that rape law was structured around the male point of view — around what men experience as sex rather than what women experience as violence — illustrated how law’s apparent neutrality contains a specific standpoint that is systematically biased in ways that affect its functioning across multiple legal domains.

Law and Social Control

Law’s most explicitly control-oriented function is its role as the formal apparatus of social control — the codified, institutionally administered mechanism through which the state defines behavioral limits and enforces compliance through the threat and application of sanctions. The criminal law, as analyzed throughout this collection, represents the most coercive dimension of this formal control function: it designates specific conduct as criminal, specifies the sanctions applicable to violations, and deploys the enforcement apparatus of police, prosecution, and courts to identify and process those who engage in designated criminal conduct. The deterrence doctrine that underpins the criminal law’s claim to control effectiveness asserts that the threat of legal sanction deters criminal conduct by raising its expected costs — an empirical claim that the deterrence research literature supports with substantial nuance and conditionality, finding consistent support for certainty effects and much weaker support for severity effects at already high levels.

Law’s control function extends beyond criminal law to encompass the civil, regulatory, and administrative law dimensions of social governance. Workplace safety regulations, environmental controls, financial regulation, food safety standards, and consumer protection law each represent dimensions of law’s control function applied to domains of social activity where the potential for harm — to workers, communities, consumers, and the environment — requires regulatory constraint on the conduct of powerful organizational actors. The character of legal control in these regulatory domains differs substantially from that of criminal law: it relies more heavily on administrative enforcement than on criminal prosecution, it imposes primarily civil rather than criminal sanctions, and it operates through a continuous negotiated relationship between regulated entities and regulatory agencies rather than through the episodic adversarial encounters of the criminal court. Understanding law’s social control function thus requires analyzing its regulatory dimensions alongside its criminal law dimensions rather than treating criminal law as the paradigmatic case.

Law, Conflict, and Legitimation

Law and Conflict Resolution

One of law’s most fundamental social functions is the resolution of conflicts between individuals and groups whose competing interests and claims cannot be resolved through informal negotiation or private power. Without law’s conflict resolution function — its provision of authoritative procedures for adjudicating disputes and enforcing decisions — social life would be dominated by the power of the strong over the weak, and the cooperative relationships that social life requires would be perpetually at risk from unresolved conflict. Law provides the institutional framework within which disputes can be channeled into non-violent resolution — through courts, arbitration, administrative proceedings, and other formal adjudicative mechanisms — enabling social cooperation in the absence of normative consensus on the substantive merits of competing claims.

The conflict resolution function of law is not neutral in its operation but is shaped by the power asymmetries between parties to disputes. Black’s (1976) formal theory of the behavior of law documented how the social characteristics of parties — their relative social status, their relational proximity, their cultural distance from legal institutions — systematically shape legal outcomes in ways that favor more powerful parties regardless of the legal merits of specific disputes. Legal conflict resolution operates within the context of a stratified social order, and its outcomes both reflect and reproduce the existing distribution of social resources: those with greater access to legal representation, greater organizational resources for litigation, and greater cultural familiarity with legal institutions tend to achieve more favorable outcomes in legal disputes than those without such advantages. The formal equality of legal procedure coexists with the substantive inequality of legal outcomes in ways that make law’s conflict resolution function simultaneously functional for social order and distributionally unjust in its specific outcomes.

The expansion of alternative dispute resolution — mediation, arbitration, negotiated settlement — as a complement and increasingly as a substitute for formal legal adjudication reflects both the practical limitations of court-based conflict resolution (cost, delay, adversarial character) and a theoretical reconception of what effective conflict resolution requires. Restorative justice, as analyzed in the context of crime and social identity, represents one form of alternative dispute resolution that specifically addresses the limitations of criminal adjudication in providing recognition, reparation, and social reintegration for those involved in criminal conflicts. The broader movement toward alternative dispute resolution reflects a recognition that law’s conflict resolution function is not inherently tied to formal adjudication but can be served through a range of institutional forms whose specific design shapes the quality and equity of outcomes.

Law, Legitimacy, and State Authority

Law’s legitimation function — its role in justifying the authority of the state and securing the voluntary compliance of those subject to it — is among the most theoretically contested dimensions of its social role. Legitimation, in Weber’s analysis, refers to the belief that a political authority’s commands are worthy of compliance — that they are binding not simply because of the coercive capacity behind them but because of the rightful character of the authority that issues them. Modern legal rationality, on Weber’s account, provides one of the primary sources of political legitimacy in contemporary societies: the belief that legal authority is exercised through formally rational procedures, applied without favor, and bounded by established rules provides the grounds for voluntary compliance that makes governance possible at a scale that coercion alone could not sustain.

The legitimation function of law has been critically analyzed by theorists who argue that formal legal legitimation performs an ideological function — that it secures compliance with a legal order that systematically favors some interests over others by representing that order as neutral, universal, and consistent with the common good. Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony described how the dominant social order reproduces itself not primarily through coercion but through the production of consent — through the representation of ruling-class values and legal arrangements as expressions of natural order or common sense that those subject to them come to accept as legitimate. Criminal law’s apparently universal prohibition of harm conceals the systematic class and racial structuring of which harms are criminalized and which are left unaddressed — a concealment that performs the ideological function of representing a politically structured legal order as an objective, neutral instrument of harm prevention.

Empirical research on legal legitimacy has moved beyond the theoretical debate between functionalist and critical accounts to examine the specific conditions under which legal institutions are experienced as legitimate by different populations. Tyler’s (2006) research established that procedural fairness — the belief that legal authorities act respectfully, consistently, and with genuine concern for those subject to their authority — is a more powerful predictor of legal compliance than either deterrence considerations or assessments of outcome fairness. This finding suggests that law’s legitimation function depends substantially on how legal institutions actually treat those subject to them, and that institutional reforms that improve procedural justice can strengthen legitimacy independently of changes in the substantive content of legal rules. The differential legitimacy of law across racial and class lines documented in research on legal cynicism reflects the cumulative effects of procedurally unjust treatment in ways that undermine law’s legitimation function precisely in the communities where effective legal authority is most needed for public safety.

Law as Ideological Instrument

The critical legal tradition’s central contribution to understanding law’s social role is its analysis of how legal doctrine and legal reasoning function as ideological instruments that naturalize and stabilize existing distributions of social power. Kennedy’s (1976) “fundamental contradiction” in legal thought — between the commitment to individual freedom and the recognition of social constraint — illustrated how the apparent resolution of this contradiction in specific legal doctrines reflects political choices that are concealed by the form of legal reasoning. The criminal law’s individualization of responsibility — its focus on the acts and mental states of specific offenders rather than on the structural conditions that produce criminal conduct — performs an ideological function by directing responsibility away from social structures and onto individual actors in ways that protect existing institutional arrangements from critical challenge.

The specifically racial ideology embedded in criminal law has been a central concern of critical race legal scholarship. Davis (2003) and Alexander (2010) each documented how the formal race-neutrality of criminal law coexists with racially structured enforcement and sentencing patterns that produce the mass incarceration of Black Americans — a pattern that functions ideologically by representing a racially structured outcome as the product of race-neutral procedures. The criminal law’s claim to objective, equal application provides ideological legitimation for practices of differential enforcement that would be recognizable as racial discrimination if described in explicitly racial terms, enabling the reproduction of racial inequality through criminal justice institutions that formally disclaim racial intent. Critical legal scholarship’s contribution to the sociology of crime is precisely this capacity to make visible the ideological functions of legal formalism that formal legal analysis systematically obscures.

Comparative Law and Global Dimensions

Comparative Legal Systems and Crime

The cross-national variation in legal systems provides a natural laboratory for examining how legal institutional design shapes crime rates, incarceration patterns, and criminal justice outcomes across societies with different historical, cultural, and institutional legacies. The contrast between common law systems — in which legal doctrine develops through judicial decisions in specific cases — and civil law systems — in which legal codes are legislatively established and judicial discretion is more constrained — has been related to variation in criminal justice outcomes in ways that illuminate how legal institutional design shapes the exercise of discretion at multiple points in the criminal process. Civil law systems tend to produce more constrained prosecutorial discretion, more predictable sentencing, and lower rates of mass incarceration than common law systems, reflecting the greater role of legislative specification and the lesser role of judicial and prosecutorial individual judgment in the production of criminal justice outcomes.

The comparative analysis of adversarial versus inquisitorial models of criminal procedure also illuminates how procedural design shapes criminal justice outcomes. Adversarial systems — in which the prosecution and defense contest evidentiary and legal claims before a neutral decision-maker — place a premium on advocacy skills and legal resources that are unequally distributed across defendants, producing outcomes that systematically favor better-represented parties. Inquisitorial systems — in which a neutral judge actively investigates the facts rather than simply evaluating the competing presentations of adversarial parties — are designed to reduce dependence on the quality of party advocacy and to increase the likelihood of accurate fact-finding regardless of the resources of the parties. The implications for criminal justice equity are significant: inquisitorial systems may produce less resource-dependent outcomes in criminal cases, reducing the systematic disadvantage of poorly represented defendants that adversarial systems tend to generate.

Tonry’s (2007) comparative criminological research documented how the same crime trends — including the crime decline of the 1990s and the crack cocaine epidemic — produced dramatically different policy responses and incarceration outcomes across common law and civil law jurisdictions, with the United States and United Kingdom adopting substantially more punitive responses than continental European countries. This comparative divergence cannot be explained by crime rate differences alone — it reflects the specific features of the legal and political institutions of different societies that shape how crime trends are translated into policy responses. Understanding the role of law in society thus requires attending to the specific institutional forms of different legal systems and their differential consequences for criminal justice practice, rather than treating law as a generic social institution with uniform properties across different national contexts.

Law’s Failures: Gaps, Limits, and Blind Spots

A complete sociological account of law’s role in society must attend to its failures, its limits, and the systematic gaps in its coverage that reflect not random inadequacy but the structured operation of the power relationships that shape legal institutions. The most consequential systematic gap in the criminal law’s coverage is its relative non-criminalization of the organizational harms produced by corporate and governmental actors — harms whose aggregate social costs, as the crime and power analysis documents, substantially exceed those of the street crime categories that dominate enforcement attention and public discourse. This gap is not incidental but structural: it reflects the political economy of law-making in which those with the greatest capacity to inflict organizational harm also have the greatest political resources to resist its criminalization.

The limits of law as a mechanism of social control are also illuminated by the evidence on deterrence effectiveness. The substantial body of research reviewed in the context of crime and social control consistently finds that the crime-reducing effects of marginal increases in punishment severity are small at already high levels of punishment, while the crime-reducing effects of certainty of punishment are more significant but are constrained by the practical limits of detection and enforcement rates. These findings imply that law’s social control function has inherent limits that cannot be overcome by escalating punitive intensity, and that effective crime reduction requires supplementing formal legal control with informal social control and structural prevention investments that address the conditions of criminal motivation at their root rather than through the deterrence of specific acts.

The law’s limits as a conflict resolution mechanism are also significant, particularly for the most socially consequential conflicts that involve significant power asymmetries between parties. Galanter’s (1974) foundational analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead in litigation identified the systematic advantages of repeat players — organizations that regularly participate in litigation — over one-shot players — individuals who encounter the legal system occasionally — in ways that reflect not the specific merits of specific disputes but the structural advantages of organizational resources, institutional knowledge, and strategic relationship management. These advantages accumulate across multiple interactions to produce systematic distributional biases in legal outcomes that formal procedural equality cannot remedy, positioning law’s conflict resolution function as simultaneously functional for social order and systematically biased in favor of organizational actors with the resources to exploit their structural advantages.

International Law and Legal Reform

International Law and the Limits of Legal Order

The development of international law as a system of legally binding norms applicable across national jurisdictions represents both one of the most significant legal innovations of the twentieth century and one of the most revealing illustrations of law’s inherent limits as a mechanism of social order without effective enforcement capacity. The international human rights framework — including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court — articulates a set of legally binding norms that apply to all states and their agents, creating a transnational legal order whose normative architecture substantially exceeds its enforcement capacity. The enforcement of international human rights law depends primarily on political pressure, diplomatic conditionality, and the domestic legal incorporation of international norms rather than on the kind of centralized enforcement authority that gives domestic law its coercive bite.

The International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide represents the most developed attempt to extend criminal law beyond the territorial state to create an institution capable of holding powerful actors legally accountable for the most serious violations of fundamental human rights. The court’s record since its establishment in 2002 illustrates both the potential and the limits of international criminal law as an institution: it has successfully prosecuted a number of cases involving serious atrocity crimes, demonstrating that international criminal accountability is feasible; but it has also been constrained by the non-participation of major powers, the selective character of its prosecution decisions, and the inherent difficulty of conducting criminal investigations and proceedings across international jurisdictions without the cooperation of the relevant states. The political economy of international criminal law — in which the most powerful states are largely insulated from the court’s jurisdiction while less powerful states bear the brunt of its attention — illustrates how the social functions of law at the international level are as shaped by power asymmetries as they are at the domestic level.

Braithwaite and Drahos’s (2000) analysis of global business regulation documented how international legal norms in domains from intellectual property to financial regulation are produced primarily through negotiation among powerful state and corporate actors whose interests substantially shape the content of the norms that emerge. This finding parallels the domestic critical legal scholarship account of how law’s content reflects the political power of organized interests rather than any neutral assessment of social needs or common goods. At the international level, the power asymmetries between states with different capacities to shape international norm-making produce a global legal order whose content reflects the interests of economically and militarily dominant states in ways that parallel the domestic legal order’s reflection of domestic class and racial power.

Legal Change, Reform, and Crime

Law’s role in social change is not limited to its function as a conservative force maintaining existing social arrangements but extends to its capacity as an instrument of social transformation. The legal changes produced by social movement mobilization — the expansion of civil rights, the criminalization of domestic violence, the extension of anti-discrimination law, the recognition of same-sex relationships — each represent cases in which law has functioned as a vehicle for expanding the rights and protections of previously marginalized groups in ways that substantially altered the normative landscape of social life. Understanding law’s role in society requires attending to this transformative potential alongside its conservative functions.

The relationship between legal change and behavioral change is neither simple nor direct. Legal prohibitions and requirements alter the formal normative landscape of social life without necessarily altering the informal norms and practices that shape day-to-day conduct — the “law on the books” and the “law in action” may diverge substantially in ways that limit the transformative potential of formal legal change. The abolition of formal racial segregation through civil rights legislation did not immediately alter the informal practices of racial discrimination that produced residential segregation, employment discrimination, and educational inequality — changes that required sustained enforcement attention, cultural transformation, and structural investment over several subsequent decades. Similarly, the formal criminalization of domestic violence has produced significant but incomplete reductions in intimate partner violence, with the effectiveness of criminalization depending substantially on the accompanying investments in victim services, enforcement capacity, and cultural change that determine how effectively the formal legal change is translated into practice.

Feeley and Simon’s (1992) analysis of the “new penology” identified a significant shift in the cultural logic of criminal law from the mid-twentieth century onward: a movement away from the individualized rehabilitation model — which treated crime as a product of individual deficiencies amenable to therapeutic correction — toward an actuarial risk management model — which treats crime as a statistical property of populations to be managed through classification, surveillance, and incapacitation rather than through the rehabilitation of individual offenders. This cultural shift in legal function reflects and reinforces the broader transformation of governance from welfare state provision to risk-based management of populations that social theorists have analyzed as a defining feature of neo-liberal governance. The implications for crime and criminal justice are significant: a criminal law organized around population risk management rather than individual justice is likely to produce the distributional consequences — concentration of criminal justice attention on stigmatized populations regardless of individual culpability — that the power analysis of criminal law predicts.

Legal Change, Digital Law, and Transformation

Law in the Digital Age

The digital transformation of social life presents fundamental challenges to the territorial organization of law and the institutional frameworks through which law performs its social functions. Legal systems are organized around territory — around the claim that a specific legal system exercises authority over the conduct that occurs within a defined geographic space — and this territorial organization faces systematic challenges in an environment where social interaction, economic exchange, and harmful conduct occur across territorial boundaries in ways that make it impossible for any single territorial legal system to regulate fully or effectively. Cybercrime, digital financial fraud, online harassment, and platform governance each involve activities that span multiple jurisdictions, creating regulatory gaps that territorial legal systems — designed for an era when social life was more geographically bounded — have difficulty filling.

The governance of digital platforms — the systems of rules, enforcement, and accountability that govern conduct on social media, search engines, e-commerce platforms, and other digital intermediaries — represents a form of private legal ordering that operates largely outside the framework of public law while performing functions — norm-setting, dispute resolution, conduct regulation — that are analytically analogous to those of public law institutions. Zittrain’s (2008) analysis of the “generative internet” documented how platform governance decisions about what conduct to permit, prohibit, and moderate shape the normative environment of digital social life in ways whose aggregate social significance rivals or exceeds that of public legal regulation. The accountability frameworks applicable to this private legal ordering — terms of service enforcement, transparency reporting, algorithmic accountability — are substantially less developed than those applicable to public law institutions, creating a democratic deficit in the governance of digital social life that the sociology of law is only beginning to address.

Law, Justice, and Social Transformation

The relationship between law and justice — between the formal rules of the legal system and the normative requirements of justice understood as a political and moral ideal — is simultaneously the most contested and the most politically consequential question in the sociology of law. Legal positivism — the position that law is what the legally constituted authorities have enacted, regardless of its justice — separates the descriptive question of what the law is from the normative question of what the law ought to be. Natural law theories — which hold that law’s authority depends on its conformity with higher moral principles — collapse this distinction by making justice a condition of legal validity. The sociology of law, drawing primarily on the positivist tradition, examines law as a social phenomenon without taking a position on the justice of specific legal arrangements — but this methodological agnosticism does not prevent sociological analysis from documenting the distributional consequences of existing legal arrangements and their relationship to the power structures that produce them.

Understanding law’s role in social transformation — its capacity to serve not only as a mechanism for maintaining existing social arrangements but as a vehicle for challenging and changing them — requires attending to the conditions under which law’s transformative potential can be realized against the structural pressures toward conservation that the political economy of law-making generates. The history of civil rights law in the United States illustrates both the transformative potential of legal change and its limits: formal legal equality, secured through decades of legal struggle, has not produced material equality across racial groups, reflecting the limits of legal change as a mechanism of structural transformation when the structural conditions that produce inequality remain unaddressed. But the same history illustrates that legal change can produce significant normative shifts — in what conduct is socially sanctioned, in what claims are recognized as legitimate — that create the conditions for further struggle rather than simply reproducing existing arrangements unchanged.

Conclusion

Law’s role in society is irreducibly multiple: it simultaneously controls, resolves conflicts, legitimates, expresses norms, distributes power, and provides the institutional framework within which social life is conducted. Each of these functions operates through specific social mechanisms and produces specific distributional consequences that sociological analysis can trace and evaluate without reducing law to any single function or any single beneficiary. The sociology of crime requires this multi-functional account of law precisely because criminal law performs all of these functions simultaneously — controlling through deterrence and incapacitation, resolving conflict through prosecution and adjudication, legitimating state authority through the rule of law, expressing collective moral boundaries through criminal designation and punishment, and distributing the costs and benefits of legal protection in ways that reflect and reproduce the power structure of the society that produces and enforces it.

The challenges of the twenty-first century — digital transformation, transnational criminal networks, global inequality, and the crisis of institutional legitimacy across democratic societies — each require not simply the adaptation of existing legal institutions but the rethinking of what social functions law can and cannot perform and what alternative or complementary mechanisms are needed to address the social conditions that generate crime in a transformed social environment. Criminology’s engagement with these challenges is enriched by the foundational sociological analysis of law’s role that this article has traced — an analysis that positions law not as the solution to the social conditions that generate crime but as one among multiple institutional responses to those conditions whose effectiveness, equity, and legitimacy are themselves objects of ongoing sociological scrutiny and democratic contestation.

References

Abel, R. L. (1982). The politics of informal justice. Academic Press.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. Academic Press.
Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge University Press.
Cotterrell, R. (2006). Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Ashgate.
Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? Seven Stories Press.
Deflem, M. (2008). Sociology of law: Visions of a scholarly tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Durkheim, É. (1984). The division of labor in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1893)
Ehrlich, E. (1936). Fundamental principles of the sociology of law. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1913)
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. University of Chicago Press.
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the “haves” come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95–160.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Trans.). International Publishers.
Hunt, A. (1993). Explorations in law and society: Toward a constitutive theory of law. Routledge.
Kennedy, D. (1976). Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 89(8), 1685–1778.
Luhmann, N. (2004). Law as a social system. Oxford University Press.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press.
Merry, S. E. (1990). Getting justice and getting even: Legal consciousness among working-class Americans. University of Chicago Press.
Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (2001). Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. Transaction.
Parsons, T. (1962). The law and social control. In W. M. Evan (Ed.), Law and sociology (pp. 56–72). Free Press.
Pound, R. (1910). Law in books and law in action. American Law Review, 44, 12–36.
Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Little, Brown.
Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. R. (Eds.). (1993). Law in everyday life. University of Michigan Press.
Selznick, P. (1969). Law, society, and industrial justice. Russell Sage Foundation.
Silbey, S. S. (2005). After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 323–368.
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Dryden Press.
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2001). A general jurisprudence of law and society. Oxford University Press.
Tonry, M. (2007). Determinants of penal policies. Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1–48.
Turk, A. T. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Rand McNally.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
Unger, R. M. (1976). Law in modern society: Toward a criticism of social theory. Free Press.
Vago, S. (2012). Law and society (10th ed.). Pearson.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
Yngvesson, B. (1993). Virtuous citizens, disruptive subjects: Order and complaint in a New England court. Routledge.
Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the internet and how to stop it. Yale University Press. Related Articles