Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Crime and Criminology (Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Crime and Criminology, 5th ed)

Rating:
Summary: Common extremes
Review: I disagree with the other review of this book. The author has chosen fairly familiar viewpoints, no doubt easily recognized by most readers, and the point of the exercises is not to propose one kind of theory or another, but to make the reader think. The author is very up-front about the kinds of theories found in the examples (set forth in the introduction). Each pro and con essay about each topic sets forth a fairly biased viewpoint, and that is the purpose of the exercise. Any reader whose curiosity is piqued by the debate can extend his own knowledge by further reading, such as Stephan Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" which demolishes the bell curve argument.
The point is to enlarge the reader's interest in becoming informed, and the contrasting essays do that. The book is used as a text in a post-grad course at the University of California; it leads one to question one's own prejudices about the topics. Surely that is worthwhile!

Rating:
Summary: Common extremes
Review: I disagree with the other review of this book. The author has chosen fairly familiar viewpoints, no doubt easily recognized by most readers, and the point of the exercises is not to propose one kind of theory or another, but to make the reader think. The author is very up-front about the kinds of theories found in the examples (set forth in the introduction). Each pro and con essay about each topic sets forth a fairly biased viewpoint, and that is the purpose of the exercise. Any reader whose curiosity is piqued by the debate can extend his own knowledge by further reading, such as Stephan Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" which demolishes the bell curve argument.
The point is to enlarge the reader's interest in becoming informed, and the contrasting essays do that. The book is used as a text in a post-grad course at the University of California; it leads one to question one's own prejudices about the topics. Surely that is worthwhile!

Rating:
Summary: I was disappointed in the portion I consulted; it was biased
Review: I read the portion on the legalization of drugs where the author's bias in favor of legalization could not be more clear. Nor are the selections he has chosen to feature good representations of their positions. I recommend that in future editions he cite William Bennett or James Q. Wilson for the anti-legalization side or some research from the Family Research Council. William F. Buckley is better on pro-legalization. If the author's bias governs his choices as strongly in the other issues featured in the book, this would not be a good choice for having students look at good arguments on opposing sides.

Rating:
Summary: I was disappointed in the portion I consulted; it was biased
Review: I read the portion on the legalization of drugs where the author's bias in favor of legalization could not be more clear. Nor are the selections he has chosen to feature good representations of their positions. I recommend that in future editions he cite William Bennett or James Q. Wilson for the anti-legalization side or some research from the Family Research Council. William F. Buckley is better on pro-legalization. If the author's bias governs his choices as strongly in the other issues featured in the book, this would not be a good choice for having students look at good arguments on opposing sides.