Search

Historians who use administrative records for their research frequently encounter variations, inconsistencies and contradictions in personal data. These often impede linking records to a certain person (or what appears to be a person in public administration). This may not come as a surprise since administrative work should, in principle, follow rules, it should be precise, consistent, disciplined and reliable - as Weber put it in his ideal type. Yet, like any other practice it also goes along with arbitrary or involuntary deviations, it is based on improvisation and discretion, it includes pragmatism. Also, administrative work deals with clients who can provoke administrative processes, provide and coproduce information. They follow their own agendas in ways that are based on their experiences and expectations, and seem appropriate and promising to them. Nevertheless, unlike knowledge, concepts, technologies, tools of public administration, inconsistencies and contradictions in bureaucratic interactions are rarely made a subject of historiographical research. This paper builds on a systematic comparison of records of street-level bureaucracy such as criminal justice and trade administration. It addresses the terms and conditions in which inconsistencies and contradictions in personal data are produced, addressed, handled, used and sometimes ignored by the involved parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kriminologisches Journal is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Kriminologisches Journal is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Kriminologisches Journal is the property of Julius Beltz GmbH & Co. KG Beltz Juventa and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Monatsschrift fuer Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article examines theological aspects of the satisfaction theory of reconciliation. The theological theories of reconciliation of St. Anselm of Canterbury are examined, the ethical function and role of reconciliation in the modern criminal justice system are described, and the dichotomy between retribution and reconciliation is analyzed. The article discusses the roots of satisfaction theory in the Reformation and emphasizes the centrality of service to God in the theory of conflict reconciliation.