Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine public perceptions and attitudes toward using artificial intelligence (AI) in the US criminal justice system.

The authors took a quantitative approach and administered an online survey using the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. The instrument was developed by integrating prior literature to create multiple scales for measuring public perceptions and attitudes.

The findings suggest that despite the various attempts, there are still significant perceptions of sociodemographic bias in the criminal justice system and technology alone cannot alleviate them. However, AI can assist judges in making fairer and more objective decisions by using triangulation – offering additional data points to offset individual biases.

Other scholars can build upon the findings and extend the work to shed more light on some problems of growing concern for society – bias and inequality in criminal sentencing. AI can be a valuable tool to assist judges in the decision-making process by offering diverse viewpoints. Furthermore, the authors bridge the gap between the fields of technology and criminal justice and demonstrate how the two can be successfully integrated for the benefit of society.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is among the first studies to examine a complex societal problem like the introduction of technology in a high-stakes environment – the US criminal justice system. Understanding how AI is perceived by society is necessary to develop more transparent and unbiased algorithms for assisting judges in making fair and equitable sentencing decisions. In addition, the authors developed and validated a new scale that can be used to further examine this novel approach to criminal sentencing in the future.

The development of electronic monitoring policy over the last decade in Scotland has contributed towards its expansion and the intensification of what McNeill (2019) refers to as mass supervision. Often posited as a solution to relieve problems in the criminal justice system such as prison overcrowding and high remand populations, electronic monitoring can be punitive and problematic, exposing more people to diffused forms of social control and functioning more as a supplementary feature of prisons as opposed to a substitution for prisons. In this chapter, I explore the existing and emerging policy landscape of penal electronic monitoring Scotland, drawing upon qualitative, experiential data about being subject to and enforcing penal electronic monitoring in Scotland (see Casey, 2021) to highlight how policy is enacted in practice. Ultimately, I argue that there are fundamental issues with how electronic monitoring is currently enacted in terms of what it promises, in terms of fairness and in relation to the potential harms of integration. I call for a fundamental and holistic reframing of policy and regulation of penal electronic monitoring in Scotland that avoids siloed approaches towards policymaking, attending to both the social and digital impacts of electronic monitoring in people’s lives, thus contributing to arguments about how ‘mass supervision’ should be moderated and resisted.

This study aims to analyze corporate mail and wire fraud penalties, using bounded rationality in decision-making and assessing internal and external influences on prosecutorial choices.

The study analyzed 467 cases from 1992 to 2019, using data from the Corporate Prosecution Registry of the University of Virginia School of Law and Duke University School of Law. It examined corporations facing mail and wire fraud charges and other fraud crimes. Multiple regression linked predictor variables to the dependent variable, total payment.

The study found that corporate penalties tend to be lower for financial institutions or corporations in countries with US free trade agreements. Conversely, penalties are higher when the company is a U.S. public company or filed in districts with more pending criminal cases.

This study’s originality lies in applying the bounded rationality model to assess corporate prosecutorial decisions, unveiling external factors’ influence on corporate penalties.

Over a decade since the Special Criminal Court (SCC) was established in Cameroon, hundreds of individuals have been indicted, tried and convicted. Sentences have been imposed, most of which include a term of imprisonment (principal punishment/penalty) and confiscation as accessory penalty or punishment. Research focus has not been directed at the sentences which, as argued in this paper, are inconsistent, incommensurate with the amounts of money stolen and a significant departure from the Penal Code. This paper aims to explore the aspect of sentencing by the SCC.

To identify, highlight and discuss the issue of sentencing, the paper looks at a blend of primary and secondary materials: primary materials here include but not limited to the judgements of the SCC and other courts in Cameroon and the Penal Code. Secondary materials shall include the works of scholars in the fields of criminal law, criminal justice and penal reform.

A few findings were made: first, the judges are inconsistent in the manner in which they determine the appropriate sentence. Second, in making that determination, the judges would have been oblivious to the prescripts in the Penal Code, which provides the term of imprisonment, and in the event of a mitigating circumstance, the prescribed minimum to be applied. Yet, the default imposition of an aggravating circumstance (being a civil servant) was not explored by the SCC. Finally, whether the sentences imposed are commensurate with the amounts of monies stolen.

This research unravels key insights into the functioning of the SCC. It advances the knowledge thereon and adds to the literature on corruption in Cameroon.

The prosecution and judges at the SCC should deepen their knowledge of Cameroonian criminal law, especially on the nature of liberty given to judges to determine within the prescribed range of the sentence to be imposed but also consider the existence of an aggravating factor – civil servant. They must also consider whether the sentences imposed befit the crime for which they are convicted.

The paper is an original contribution with new insights on the manner in which sentencing should be approached by the SCC.

The purpose of this paper is to find out what role intermediaries have in facilitating communication with victims and prisoners at Parole Board (PB) oral hearings.

A survey was designed and administered to 39 PB members to find out their perceptions of, and experiences with, the use of intermediaries. Frequency tables and verbatim quotations are used to report the results.

Overall, participants had not experienced any use of intermediaries with victims or family members presenting victim personal statements at an oral hearing. Further, there had been limited use of intermediaries for prisoners attending oral hearings. Nevertheless, there was a good recognition of a range of communication needs that a prisoner might present with at a hearing. There was also general support for the use of intermediaries with some caution about possible delays to procedural fairness.

The early identification of communication support needs for prisoners and victims attending an oral hearing is essential. The PB should raise awareness with the PB Membership about the role of intermediaries. The PB should continue to develop guidance and policy surrounding intermediaries. Prison lawyers and HM Prison and Probation Service may require specialist training in identifying communication needs in vulnerable prisoners and identifying when a communication specialist might be required for an oral hearing.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first published paper examining the role of intermediaries at PB oral hearings. It builds on the evidence base of the use of intermediaries in other criminal justice contexts.

The United Nation’s treaty from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) speaks to the assurance of rights and access to justice. To assure the rights addressed in the treaty, disability scholars have argued for a collaborative approach between police officers, mental health, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, professionals, and disability rights organisations. Internationally, we have witnessed that rights are being trampled at the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Interactions with the police and the various systems are sometimes experienced as sources of trauma, racism, disrespect, pain, and abuse by individuals living with disabilities. Allyship and organising with the community, particularly with BIPOC and other ‘minoritised’ communities, is essential for policy and other systemic change. Community conversations were done to learn how Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and allies experience and address policing and disability and act at these intersections. The advocacy and activism of Surviving Race: The Intersection of Injustice, Disability, and Human Rights served as the impetus for this study. Surviving Race was created to unite psychiatric survivors, BIPOC impacted by the mental health and disability systems, White allies, and members of the LGBQTIA+ community to stand in solidarity with activists who were demanding systemic change after the deaths of far too many. This chapter explores intersectional and cross-disability allyship, allyship to BIPOC disability, and psychiatric survivor communities. It examines how people with disabilities and allies can more effectively work at the intersection of race, rights, equity, and justice.

The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of those volunteering within a restorative justice service thus enabling an insight into their perceptions of the different methods used, their beliefs about restorative justice effectiveness, and its place within the criminal justice system. The study also sought to identify any challenges and positive experiences the participants encountered during their role as volunteers, with volunteering during the COVID-19 pandemic explored specifically.

Data was collected from the participants (n = 5) via semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis, thus enabling patterns within the experience of the volunteers to be identified.

A prior understanding and interest in restorative justice was evident within the data, with participants demonstrating a preference for direct, face-to-face mediation. The perceived lack of support from external agencies was discussed along with the role of education in their volunteering experience. Finally, it was acknowledged that although face-to-face practice was deemed the most effective overall, certain practices adopted during COVID-19 enabled aspects of the role to be carried out more efficiently and equally as effectively.

The findings from this study draw out real-world implications, producing tangible action points for restorative justice services. Some tentative suggestions for future practice are outlined.

The volunteers’ role within restorative justice is often overlooked within the literature (Paul and Borton, 2013) and time constraints can add additional barriers to a hard-to-reach population. However, volunteers play a vital role in restorative justice. By exploring and listening to the volunteers’ experience, this study expands an additional strand within the literature in terms of what makes restorative justice effective and the challenges that are faced from a volunteer perspective.

The current study sought to better understand the factors that contribute to whether officers value procedurally just interaction techniques and contribute to the limited research examining how the effects of warrior and guardian mentalities may vary based on individual officer characteristics.

Survey data collected from patrol officers in two geographically different and ethnically diverse United States police departments allowed for an examination of the generality of warrior and guardian orientations on perceptions of procedural justice across gender, race and/or ethnicity, military service, education, and experience.

There was a largely invariant effect of the mentalities on officer attitudes toward procedural justice, except for officers of color. In this sample, the guardian effect on prioritizing procedural justice was stronger for officers of color than for White officers.

This study sheds light on our theoretical understanding of the warrior/guardian framework and offers practical implications for police leaders and policymakers in their effort to improve police-community relations.

The purpose of this study is to examine Iran’s anti-money laundering (AML) system from a legal and criminal perspective and to understand the obstacles for international cooperation and the extent to which it aligns with financial action task force (FATF) standards. In this regard, three aspects are examined, namely, enforcement and guarantees of preventive measures, penalty for ML offences and the burden of proof.

This subject is examined through the legal–criminal perspective, which concentrates on the effectiveness of legal measures in tackling criminal issues by focusing on criminal law. The legal–criminal viewpoint considers criminal behaviour as a breach of societal norms and strives to combat it through legal channels.

Iran’s AML laws and regulations are partially compliant with the financial action task force (FATF) recommendations. However, the main obstacle is not the lack of sufficient laws, rather the lack of proper implementation of these laws. In addition, there are foundational shortages, such as the absence of a national risk document to guide an action based on current risks.

No comprehensive study has analysed Iran’s AML laws, referring to the three main aspects of enforcement and guarantees of preventive measures, penalties for ML offenses and the burden of proof. In general, there are few research papers on Iran’s AML laws owing to Iran’s high ranking in ML/TF. However, analysing Iran’s regulations can be helpful in taking a step towards effective international AML practices.

Following the ‘Sarkozy’ era (2007–2012), France has engaged in ‘zero-tolerance’ policies, which have brought an increasing number of people into the criminal justice system (CJS). In an already extremely impoverished CJS, these policies have led to serious financial problems and have made an already existing prison overcrowding problem worse. Consequently, the CJS has gradually opted for a McDonald (Ritzer, 2019; Robinson, 2019) type of offender processing, whether in prosecutor-led procedures (representing roughly half of all penal procedures: Ministry of Justice, 2019) or in the sentencing phase (Danet, 2013). A similar trend has been found in probation and in prisoner release (in French: ‘sentences’ management).

The prison and probation services, which merged in 1999, have since then been in a position to benefit from the 1958 French Republic Constitution, which places the executive in a dominant position and notably allows it to draft the bills presented to a rather passive legislative power (Rousseau, 2007) and even to enjoy its own set of normative powers (‘autonomous decrees’ – Hamon & Troper, 2019). By way of law reforming (2009, 2014, and 2019 laws), the prison and probation services have thus embraced the McDonaldisation ethos. Their main obsession has been to early release as many prisoners as possible in order to free space and to accommodate more sentenced people. To do so, the prison services have created a series of so-called ‘simplified’ early release procedures, where prisoners are neither prepared for nor supported through release, where they are deprived of agency and where due process and attorney advice are removed. Behind a pretend rehabilitative discourse, the executive is only interested in efficiently flushing people out of prison; not about re-entry efficacy. As Ritzer (2019) points out, McDonaldisation often leads to counter-productive or absurd consequences. In the case of early release, the stubborn reality is that one cannot bypass actually doing the rehabilitative and re-entry work. I shall additionally argue that not everything truly qualifies as an early release measure (Ostermann, 2013). Only measures which respect prisoners’ agency prepare them for their release, which support them once they are in the community, which address their socio-psychological and criminogenic needs, and which are pronounced in the context of due process and defence rights truly qualify as such. As it is, French ‘simplified’ release procedures amount to McRe-entry and mass nothingness.