Summarize the chapter and answer the following questions as part of your summary:
1. What was the attitude and role of Augustus’ wife in his probation work? Consider any direct or indirect references to her. Consider also the role of other women mentioned by Augustus. Augustus’ general attitude towards women, as inferred from his references to women, may be another important part of an answer to this question.
2. Augustus mentioned the number of people transported in his horse carriage. He also gave the number of clients he handled each year. There is a vast discrepancy in these two sets of numbers. What are the numbers? Based on other things in the reading, how could this discrepancy be explained?
3. Augustus gradually moved the bulk of his probation work from the Police Court to the Municipal Court. How much did he shift from one court to the other? Why? Did this affect the kinds of cases he handled? Did shifting to the Municipal Court bring a shift from probation to other work?
4. Did handling different kinds of cases require different amounts and kinds of work on the part of Augustus? What were the different kinds of cases? What did he have to do in the different kinds of cases? What differences were there in the ways he handled different kinds of cases? What consequences did this have for his own life?
5. Where did the money come from for Augustus’ probation work? Did the sources of money change as time went by? How much bail was he liable for? How much was he actually putting up? How did the expenses of probation affect his personal wealth? What assets did he have at the end?
6. Why did Augustus stop his efforts to shut down houses of prostitution? What was different about these cases? What were the special difficulties with these cases? What was the opposition in these cases? Did Augustus think that police or
other officials had connections to houses of prostitution?
A quarter century prior, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki distinguished an "emergency of majority rule government" which painted the "somber future for… government" A quarter century prior, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki distinguished an "emergency of majority rule government" which painted the "somber future for … government" as a picture of "the deterioration of common request, the breakdown of social control, the debility of pioneers, and the estrangement of subjects" (Crozier 2). While this vision of the end of vote based system seems extraordinary, there has been a sensational drop in the general population's trust in legislators and political gatherings as of late which has brought about an open embitterment with the legislature. A developing doubt among the British open has turned around the conventional yielding to political elites, and voters rush to voice their conclusions on arrangement and legislators alike. The developing discontent with the pessimism of political talk, and an absence of trust in the viability of the legislature recommends that voter separation and embitterment is a danger to the soundness of the administration, and government officials must observe and reconnect with their open. Albeit many rush to accuse the disregard of voters or the dramatist media on voter distrust, look into financed by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has discovered that charges of unfortunate behavior against individual legislators are in charge of the decrease in trust in the administration and lawmakers (Denholm). Voter lack of care is a consequence of the developing view of embarrassment among the tip top individuals from all the principle political gatherings, bringing about a lack of engagement in governmental issues when all is said in done and a negative estimation of lawmakers themselves. Because of this developing doubt, a progression of Parliamentary boards of trustees during the 1990s analyzed issues of political debasement, morals, and maltreatment of crusade back controls. The boards of trustees discovered that impression of government officials as deceitful and self-intrigued get to some extent from talk in regards to singular individuals from the first class, which raises open uneasiness about the gauges of conduct of the political tip top. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, built up by the Prime Minister in 1994, is proof itself of the mounting worries of the general population. The prologue to the Committee's first report states: We can state that direct in broad daylight life is more thoroughly investigated than it was before, that the gauges which general society requests stays high, and that the extraordinary greater part of individuals out in the open life meet those elevated requirements. Be that as it may, there are shortcomings in the methods for keeping up and implementing those guidelines. Thus individuals out in the open life are not generally as clear as they ought to be about where the limits of adequate direct lie. This we sees as the standard explanation behind open trouble (Whetnall). The decrease in trust and the comparing drop in voter movement isn't because of long haul social powers, however to later political issues, for example, claims of scum in the mid Nineties. In any case, it is difficult to pinpoint later political embarrassments as the sole reason for the drop in people in general's trust of lawmakers. There is the apparent absence of distinction in the major political gatherings after the general race of 1997, which added to bring down voter turnout and general detachment. Giddens (1998) has contended that contemporary Britain requires a governmental issues free from sharp ideological division and ill-disposed clash as a reaction to worldwide patterns, for example, globalization, detraditionalisation, expanded reflexivity, and another independence (368). This 'governmental issues without enemy' is an endeavor to speak to a more extensive scope of casting a ballot open, however as a general rule has distanced a significant part of the general population and raises questions in regards to the validity of the gathering and legislator belief system. In a meeting directed by Weltman and Billig (2001), a Conservative councilor proposes that the left/right qualification isn't longer fit for mapping the social and political world in light of the fact that the shapes of present day society have changed. Solicited whether he for the most part thinks from different individuals from the chamber as far as 'left' or 'right', he says that he 'could have utilized those words with more sense ten years back, both regarding unique individuals, councilors, and as far as dispositions' (Weltman and Billig 373). One can gather from this meeting contemporary governmental issues are separating into a non-antagonistic type of legislative issues, one with which the general population can't recognize and can't trust to authorize noteworthy change. Through an examination of the social and political occasions which have formed the present open question of government officials and political gatherings, one can reason that a significant part of the present disappointment in legislative issues and lawmakers is established without accessible political spaces for the general population. There are few practices or organizations which can react to issues of open intrigue and political contradiction, and to direct the general feeling in a compelling and important way. At present, Britain is confronting open disturb over the possibility of joining the European Union and the concurring single market economy, alongside the challenges against the inclusion of Britain in the war in Iraaq. Whatever the explanations for the drop out in the open trust in the legislature, what is clear is that the British government needs to reconsider its association with the general population in the light of an intrusive media, new innovation, a superior instructed open, and an inescapable culture of criticism. New innovation, for example, the web, offers lawmakers the chance to make an association without-of-touch voters and offers better approaches for preparing and recording mainstream supposition, an open door which couple of government officials have taken. We are entering another time of legislative issues, in which the old philosophies of 'left' and 'right', open and private, moral and unethical, are separating. General society, distanced from this new 'legislative issues without foes' and angered at the untrustworthy conduct of individual legislators, has communicated their loss of trust in the legislature. It stays up to the government officials themselves to win back the certainty of general society. Book index Crozier, M., A. Huntington, and J. Watanuki (1975) The emergency of majority rule government, New York: New York University Press Denholm, A. (2004) Public trust in government officials hit by scum guarantees, The Scotsman, Tuesday 25 May. Giddens, A. (1998) The third way: The reestablishment of social vote based system. Cambridge: Polity. Pharr, S. (2000) 25 years of declining certainty, Journal of Democracy vol. 11, no. 2, April: pp. 5-25. Weltman, D. also, M. Billig (2001) The political brain science of contemporary enemy of legislative issues: A rambling way to deal with the finish of-philosophy period, Political Psychology vol. 22, no. 2: 367-382. Whetnall, A. (1995) The administration of morals and lead in the general population benefit [online]. Contextual analysis discharged by the Cabinet Officer, Office of Public Service, United Kingdom. Accessible from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/21/2731894.htm [Accessed 15 March 2005]>GET ANSWER