Search

Studies offering curriculum framework for institutional internalisation of criminology and forensics studies and Work-Integrated Learning (WIL) within the Criminal Justice System (CJS) are scarce. This article gives a scoping review of these concepts, which are currently presented separately, as they are from distant study fields. As a result, the objective of this article is to establish the current link between criminology and forensic studies to enhance the South African CJS and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) curriculum frameworks, while integrating theory and practice. This qualitative scoping review was supported by the adapted version of methodology framework by Arksey, Hilary and O'Malley, Lisa of 2005 to search for approximately 9 031 relevant studies from fundamental databases and 139 000 internet sources focusing on South African context and other international countries. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used for data analysis, coupled with the inductive Thematic Content Analysis (TCA). This article confirmed that combining forensic criminology features could transform the South African CJS and HEIs offerings. For recommendations, the Qualifications Board should expedite the registration of forensic criminology as a profession consisting of professional qualification, guided by ethical and disciplinary rules. Overall, limited prioritisations, slow registration process to a "Scientific Board" and advancement of this discipline negatively affect immediate responses to achieve the WIL. The knowledge, attitudes, skills and values gained during participating in the South African Future Professors Programme (FPP) Phase 2 Cohort 1 2022-2023 offered contributions to the field of professorship thereof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the impact of childhood trauma, or Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), on future criminal behavior and the shortcomings of the current criminal justice system in addressing the needs of traumatized juveniles. It advocates for trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) as an evidence-based intervention to address the effects of childhood trauma and calls for a shift towards rehabilitation-focused sentencing practices and alternative models in the criminal justice system. The text also introduces the Rehabilitation Receptivity Test (RRT) as a tool to identify juvenile offenders who have experienced severe childhood trauma and are receptive to rehabilitation efforts, aiming to reduce juvenile recidivism. Additionally, it stresses the importance of further research on the impacts of childhood trauma, particularly within minority communities, and advocates for a rehabilitation-focused approach in the criminal justice system. [Extracted from the article]

Introduction: There is little evidence for what influences occupational participation for justice-involved people 'with a personality disorder' living in community contexts, and no validated occupational participation assessments specific to this group. We assessed a sample of justice-involved people 'with a personality disorder' to ascertain what influences occupational participation using commonly applied assessments and evaluated their construct validity. Method: As part of a mixed-methods study, a purposive sample of 18 justice-involved people 'with a personality disorder' were scored on the Model of Human Occupational Screening Tool and Occupational Performance History Interview–Version Two scales. Mean scores were calculated per Model of Human Occupational Screening Tool (MOHOST) item and Occupational Performance History Interview–Version Two (OPHI-II) items and scales and compared to published data. Mann–Whitney U Tests were used to identify within-sample differences based on demographic characteristics. Results: Participants had low scores on MOHOST items and OPHI-II items and scales. Differences were identified compared to published data. Within-sample differences were most apparent in comparisons by employment status and ethnicity. The OPHI-II scales did not operate as intended with this population and recommended adjustments impacted its construct validity. Conclusion: Replication is required with a larger random sample. Integrating these data with qualitative exploration would further elucidate factors influencing occupational participation in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While traditional crime rates are decreasing, cybercrime is on the rise. As a result, the criminal justice system is increasingly dealing with criminals committing cyber-dependent crimes. However, to date there are no effective interventions to prevent recidivism in this type of offenders. Dutch authorities have developed an intervention program, called Hack_Right. Hack_Right is an alternative criminal justice program for young first-offenders of cyber-dependent crimes. In order to prevent recidivism, this program places participants in organizations where they are taught about ethical hacking, complete (technical) assignments and reflect on their offense. In this study, we have evaluated the Hack_Right program and the pilot interventions carried out thus far. By examining the program theory (program evaluation) and implementation of the intervention (process evaluation), the study adds to the scarce literature about cybercrime interventions. During the study, two qualitative research methods have been applied: 1) document analysis and 2) interviews with intervention developers, imposers, implementers and participants. In addition to the observation that the scientific basis for linking specific criminogenic factors to cybercriminals is still fragile, the article concludes that the theoretical base and program integrity of Hack_Right need to be further developed in order to adhere to principles of effective interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Butterabbey gravesite is significant for its evidence of Aboriginal peoples' resistance to colonial pastoral expansion and the dispossession of land and water sources in Western Australia. It is also significant to the case of R v Mumbleby and Belo (1865) which exemplifies the experiences of Aboriginal women defendants in nineteenth-century Western Australia whose experiences in the criminal justice system were different to both non-Indigenous women and Indigenous men. This paper analyses the case of R v Mumbleby and Belo within its historical context of frontier violence to reveal the treatment of Aboriginal women accused of homicide, and determine the power struggles at play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The development of technology in the arena of organ transplantation bloomed during 1980s in India. In later years, there was a shortage of organs as the rate of cadaver donation was quite low; therefore, this led to unethical and coerced practice in organ transplantation. The socioeconomic group that was most impacted by these activities consisted of individuals in dire need of funds and were prepared to trade with important organs in return for money. Methods: The study adopts a desk-based methodology, categorized into primary and secondary data. The primary data consist of analysis of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994 read with 2011 Amendment and 2014 Rules. Further various orders and resolutions of the Government of India, and committees constituted by the Center as well as Hon'ble High Court were analyzed. The Secondary data included analysis of parliamentary questions, and numerous judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High Courts across the country. Results: Various provisions of THOTA, 1994 should be re-examined. Due to rampant poverty, illicit organ trafficking is on a rise, with women targeted the most for kidneys, thus impacting the social structure of the society. The most trafficked organ among the liver, lungs, kidney, and heart is kidney. Conclusion: There is a dire need for health legislations with provisions to increase the donor pool. It is recommended that in addition to using the cadaver organ pool through road deaths and brain-dead victims, we should transition to both the presumed consent and opt-out method of permission and creating awareness of the donation of organs among the general public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifty years of evidence documents that men represent a substantial portion of victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, studies show that there are few services available to them, and qualitative studies from Western countries worldwide show that male IPV victims report uniformly negative experiences when seeking help from various legal professionals, including police, judges, lawyers, other court personnel, and victim advocates. The current study is a quantitative investigation of male IPV victims' experiences with legal service systems across several English-speaking countries and over time. Using cross-sectional data from two samples—594 self-identified male IPV victims and 1,380 men from a crowdsourcing platform (Prolific) who reported at least one act of physical and/or sexual IPV victimization from a romantic partner—we found that men from the United States were significantly less likely to seek help from the police or legal support personnel than men from other countries, but they rated these resources' helpfulness significantly higher. Moreover, the helpfulness of these resources increased over time. On average, across countries and time periods, ratings were consistent with unhelpfulness, with the majority of men reporting that they were not provided with appropriate resources or support. Discussion focuses on explanations for these findings, implications for practice, and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Papers: Revista de Sociologia is the property of Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona 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 Ministry of Justice in England and Wales has introduced a new policy requiring mandatory mediation for debt recovery claims of £10,000 or less before going to court. This shift aims to transform how disputes are resolved and alleviate the burden on the court system. The article explores the implications of mandatory mediation, drawing comparisons to California's existing system. It discusses challenges such as public education, mediator recruitment and training, and the development of online platforms. The article also highlights the potential benefits of mandatory mediation, including efficient resolution and reduced court battles. It suggests that England and Wales can learn from California's system and encourages other states to consider adopting similar methods to address increasing backlogs. [Extracted from the article]

In his current role, Robin Seaton is the Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) for the New Prisons programme and Chief Operating Officer for the Prison Capacity Sub-Portfolio, in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). He has been in this role, and a Senior Civil Servant, for over four years, has held leadership positions in prison estate capital investment programmes for over seven years and has worked in the Criminal Justice System (CJS) since 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even more than they treasure justice, people abhor injustice. There is substance in the proposition that crime and punishment is the birthplace of judicial justice, for historicall) leaders paid more attention to suppressing offences than to 'resolving private disputes. The quality of criminal justice was a measure of the leader. Self-help between subjects was not frowned upon. But the taking of revenge by the victims of crime was always prohibited, for the taking of such revenge puts the law out of office. And it would lead to anarchy. The administration of cTiminal justice stood sorely in need of improvement. Much improvement has been made. But much more remains to be made. Two of the improvements made were surprisingly long in coming. One of these is an accused person's right to counsel. If defence counsel's incompetence depTives the accused of a fair trial, that is a ground for quashing a conviction. Prosecutors' duty is to prosecute but they must do so fairly. Their failure to do so can lead to the quashing of a conviction. The other improvement that was surprisingly late in coming is the conferring of the 7*ight of criminal appeal. Exonerating the innocent and calling the guilty to account is the objective of the criminal justice system. Convicting the innocent and letting the guilty go ftee are both abominations. But the former is the worse. The presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt are directed to avoiding it. Sentencing involves bearing in mind various different interests and sentiments. The reformation of offenders is the main, but not sole, objective of punishment. Comparing Dudley and Stephen' case with the Conjoined Twins's case as thought-provoking. Stimulating thought is one of the best ways way of teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Victims of crime are integral to and important players in the criminal justice system both as a complainant and as a witness for the prosecution. A victim of crime is a person who sets the criminal justice process in motion. Although the justice system largely counts on the victim, the law of crimes is primarily concerned with the offender and his rights ignoring those of the victim. As the government assumes responsibility of enforcing justice, the victim is left with ineffective remedies. This paper explores that there is no systematic and uniform law defining the status and the rights of victims in the legal system, nor clear guidelines for the criminal justice agencies to deal with and address their grievances. The role of a victim in the current criminal justice process is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution even though he is one who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of his fundament rights as a result of the crime. Consequently, victims are deemed to be an object and employed by criminal justice agencies to advance the prosecution case. The modern State has pushed the victim, who was once entitled to lay charges against the perpetrator, out of the justice process and made him powerless. Such an absence of an important and defined role for victim in prosecuting the offender is often the root of growing discontent among the victims of crime with common-law system of justice and a major source of secondary victimization as well. Victims of crime are persons having rights and privileges. Victims' rights are human rights. Human rights are basic rights which are inherent in a person by virtue of his birth and without which he would not be able to develop to his full potential. A crime is deemed to be an offence against the society and therefore, constitutes a violation of victims' rights as well as an act against the state. The author argues that being an individual with rights and dignity, a victim of crime requires recognition as a person before the law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces a special issue on unmasking power in the criminal legal system. It discusses the differentiation between the ideals of the criminal legal system and the reality of its practice. The issue arose from a symposium that brought scholars together to explore how power impacts the regulation of conduct and entities by the criminal legal system. The articles in the issue examine various aspects of power, including language, gender, trans rights, corporate culpability, and immigration detention. The authors argue for discursive transformations and systemic changes to address arbitrary exercises and abuses of power in the criminal justice system. [Extracted from the article]

The article "Rethinking Culpability and Wrongdoing" by T. Markus Funk explores the concept of moral culpability and its relationship to criminal behavior. The author argues that individuals who prioritize their own interests over the rights and well-being of others impose unequal standing on their victims, which is a unique injury that should be considered in the grading of offenses and determination of appropriate punishment. The text emphasizes the importance of recognizing equal standing in the justice system and daily social interactions, as it allows for appropriate labeling of conduct, analysis of criminal proscriptions, and the reinforcement of positive social norms. The article also discusses the distinction between harming and wronging, the broader pattern of antisocial tendencies displayed by individuals who engage in criminal behavior, and the importance of equal standing in maintaining a well-ordered society. It concludes by stating that criminal conduct not only infringes on others' right to equal standing but also threatens concrete harm to victims and undermines societal order. The text also discusses the need for constraints on the state when enacting new criminal offenses and the importance of a justice system that imposes state sanctions only when necessary and using the least restrictive means available. It suggests that recognizing the imposition of unequal standing as a distinct and relevant injury can help reinforce equality-supporting civic bonds and shared norms in society. [Extracted from the article]

This study examines the correlates of First Nations contact with the criminal justice system. Key risk factors include membership of the stolen generation, psychological distress, and having used illicit drugs and alcohol over the preceding 12 months. The latter increases the marginal risk of arrest by 14 percentage points. The strongest protective factors are completing school, having an income in the top four deciles, having a permanent home, being aged 51 or over and living in a remote area. Completing school is the strongest protective factor, reducing the risk of arrest by eight percentage points. Further research using a longitudinal dataset specifically designed to identify causal effects is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The modern criminal justice system in the United States is a "system of pleas." Plea bargains have largely supplanted trials as the primary method of resolving criminal proceedings in this country. Acknowledging their prevalence, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the plea-bargaining process. Thus, defendants may bring ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims for alleged ineffectiveness during the plea-bargaining phase. In two companion cases, Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Court held that its two-pronged test for IAC, laid out in Strickland v. Washington, applies when attorney ineffectiveness prevents defendants from accepting favorable plea offers and results in unfavorable convictions at trial. In proving the second prong of Strickland--the prejudice prong--in such claims, the defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for their defense counsel's ineffectiveness, the defendant, prosecution, and court all would have accepted the plea deal. Frye and Lafler inevitably raised a related question: can defendants bring a successful IAC claim on the grounds that attorney ineffectiveness precluded the extension of a plea offer by the prosecution altogether? Circuit courts have answered this question in two ways. Some have imposed a threshold requirement that a plea offer precludes any such claims outright, while others have taken a more fact-dependent approach to the question and have allowed certain claims to proceed. This Note argues that the former approach is too strict and prevents defendants who have suffered prejudice from receiving relief, but it acknowledges the flaws raised by the latter approach. To mitigate those pitfalls, this Note proposes a burden-shifting framework that requires the prosecution to show that there is a "reasonable purpose" for its decision not to offer a plea. This proposal recognizes the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal justice system while still operating within the confines of existing IAC jurisprudence as it pertains to plea bargaining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This text explores the concept of a satisfying ending in the television show "Succession." The author discusses whether the show can be classified as a tragedy or a comedy, noting that it possesses elements of both genres. They argue that while the show may be comedic in nature, the actions of the characters often lead to serious and even tragic consequences. The author also addresses the question of empathy towards the characters, suggesting that despite their flaws, viewers may develop some level of understanding and sympathy for them. The text concludes by highlighting the desire of some viewers for the siblings in the show to find a way to break free from their toxic family dynamics. [Extracted from the article]

Today, the standard for subpoenas under Rule 17(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, espoused in United States v. Nixon, provides for limited, almost useless, pretrial subpoena power for criminal defendants. When subpoenaing a third party, a defendant must show (1) relevancy, (2) admissibility, and (3) specificity for documents that they have not yet gained access to. This narrow scope of Rule 17(c) has long engendered criticism from judges, scholars, and practitioners alike. Yet, Rule 17(c) has not been changed, either by judicial opinion or amendment. Following years of criticism, the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules ("Advisory Committee") is currently considering whether and how pretrial subpoena power under Rule 17 should be expanded. This Note examines how the Advisory Committee should change Rule 17(c). In light of a recent change to government policy that recommends that prosecutors collect less information during pretrial investigations, this Note argues that Rule 17(c) should be expanded to allow parties to subpoena documents and other items that are material and relevant to preparing the prosecution or defense and that requested documents need not be admissible. Further, this Note recommends settling existing jurisdictional splits and amending Rule 17 to explicitly require parties to file a motion with the court for issuance of a subpoena but allow ex parte proceedings upon a showing of good cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People experience severe forms of harm while incarcerated, including medical neglect, prolonged solitary confinement, sexual and physical violence, and a host of other ills. But civil rights litigation under the Eighth Amendment--the most common vehicle through which people seek to redress these harms--presents significant practical and doctrinal barriers to incarcerated plaintiffs. Most notably, the Eighth Amendment's "deliberate indifference" standard asks not whether a person has been harmed, but instead requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a criminally reckless mental state on the part of prison officials. Further, Eighth Amendment remedies are limited to damages or injunctions, which may not adequately redress a specific harm that a person is suffering. For these reasons, the Eighth Amendment has often fallen far short of providing litigants adequate relief. At the same time, once a person is sentenced, the original sentencing judge generally has no control over whether a harm suffered in prison is remedied. However, since the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, people incarcerated in the federal system have a new vehicle for getting these kinds of claims into court: federal compassionate release. Compassionate release motions are heard by the original sentencing judge, who has the authority to reduce a person's sentence if they can demonstrate, among other things, "extraordinary and compelling" reasons (ECRs) that warrant relief. In November of 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and drastically expanded the ECR definition to include claims based on the types of harms that have been traditionally litigated under the Eighth Amendment. These changes represent a watershed reform to federal sentencing law and give district courts enormous discretion to reexamine federal sentences. Given the challenge of redressing harms under the Eighth Amendment, this Article argues that the expansion of compassionate release ECRs to encompass harmful conditions of confinement makes doctrinal sense and allows for a more appropriate remedy to harms done in prison than traditional civil remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public defender institution has trouble meeting its mission. This is partly because, despite the specific and clear purpose of representing indigent defendants in criminal proceedings, public defender offices rely on various centering principles to meet this objective. The institution falters if it chooses a centering principle that unwittingly complicates its ability to meet the institution's central mission. For public defender leaders tasked with developing and maintaining an institutional identity for a particular office, neither legal nor professional regulations supply the type of considerations that guarantee that an adopted identity will comply with core institutional responsibilities. This project seeks to identify the role that the legal profession's governing body should play in filling that void. It articulates three popular centering principles for public defender offices, identifies potential failures in systemic integrity and mission fulfillment that can result from each type of centering principle, and posits how professional rules and more stringent governance by the legal profession could help safeguard against such failures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although specialized sexual assault services have been established throughout the world to better meet survivors' needs, many survivors remain underserved. Survivors who are simultaneously experiencing additional adversities (e.g. survivors with mental illness and/or substance abuse) appear particularly underserved by formal support systems. The present study therefore set out to explore the formal help-seeking experiences and needs of survivors facing various adversities apart from the sexual assault. Interviews were conducted with five survivors seeking formal support for sexual assault in Denmark. Interviews were analyzed using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Five themes are presented: 1) "Sexual Assault as Lived Experience," 2) "Survivors' Needs," 3) "Accessing Sexual Assault Services," 4) "SAC-Therapy," and 5) "The Criminal Justice System." Theme 1 made evident that the experience of sexual assault and its aftermath is deeply personal and contextual. Themes 2–5 demonstrate how such personal and contextual aspects impact service utilization and needs. Implications and recommendations are provided. Above all, meeting survivors' needs will require a more person-centered approach that acknowledges the unique context of survivors' sexual assault experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The highest volume of cases in the U.S. criminal system are misdemeanors, and every day, hundreds of thousands of people are detained pretrial in such low-level cases. In policy and in politics, pretrial rules have swung between a focus on protecting constitutional rights and the public safety dangers posed by releasing arrestees. The Supreme Court's ruling in United States u. Salerno sought to promote a balance between protecting individual due process rights and public safety interests. A central constitutional and pressing policy question is what trade-off exists between pretrial liberty and reoffending. The highest profile jurisdiction to examine that question is Harris County, Texas, the third largest county in the United States, which has implemented the largest-scale and farthest-reaching constitutional remedies in a misdemeanor bail system. In 2019, after years of federal litigation and a preliminary injunction finding pervasive constitutional violations, Harris County entered a Consent Decree requiring comprehensive reform. This Article describes the constitutional remedies this novel Consent Decree set out and the implementation of those remedies. This Article also addresses the central question of bail: whether pretrial release comes at a cost to public safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our criminal justice system, to be truly democratic, should be more responsive to those most affected by it, and this calls for significant participation from citizens. Unfortunately, the state-centered, professionalized criminal justice system marginalizes citizens at every stage, depriving them of a voice and power. Instead, the system should embody and encourage criminal justice citizenship, which refers to the rights and privileges of ordinary people to participate directly in certain aspects of the criminal justice system and to deliberate in some of its workings. Such citizenship is indispensable to democracy, or rule by the people. Restorative justice, especially where it is centered in community courts, is an ideal reform to strengthen criminal justice citizenship and, therefore, democracy itself. Restorative justice seeks to address and repair crime's harm through a deliberative process that fosters mutual understanding and acceptance of responsibility and involves the stakeholders of crime directly in the process. Restorative justice strengthens democracy by fostering the following three key aspects of criminal justice citizenship. First, restorative justice can provide many opportunities for lay participation and collective civic action to address individual crimes and broader issues in a community. Second, restorative justice processes foster deliberation. These processes give voice to the key stakeholders and encourage dialogue, understanding, collaboration, and creativity in repairing harm. Third, restorative justice strengthens membership, which refers to citizens belonging to a community as civic equals. It does so by inviting key stakeholders, broadly defined, to play a role in seeking to repair the harms of crime--promoting a shared commitment to the social order and accountability to others. To realize the benefits of restorative justice as a democratic practice, reformers should continue to promote grassroots community court experiments that involve as many stakeholders as possible. These experiments can help to reduce the size of the carceral state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we offer a defense of non-punitive measures as morally justified responses to crime within a framework of society as a fair system of cooperation among free and equal individuals. Our argument proceeds in three steps. First, we elaborate on the premises of our argument: we situate criminal acts within a model of society as a fair system of cooperation, identify the types of unfair disadvantages crimes bring about, and consider the social aim of the criminal justice system. Next, we reject the claim defended by fair-play retributivists that fairness considerations make punishment a necessary response to criminal acts. In the last step, we demonstrate that it is rather non-punitive responses to crime that are warranted under the principle of fairness and, as such, are morally justified. We conclude the paper by rejecting two possible objections to our defense: the “responsibility gap” and the “victims’ claim to justice” objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I defend a deontological social contract justification of punishment for philosophers who deny free will and moral responsibility (FW/MR). Even if nobody has FW/MR, a criminal justice system is fair to the people it targets if we would consent to it in a version of original position deliberation where we assumed that we would be targeted by the justice system when the veil is raised. Even if we assumed we would be convicted of a crime, we would consent to the imprisonment of violent criminals if prison conditions were better than the state of nature but deterring enough to prevent the state of nature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Punishment involves the intentional infliction of harm and suffering. Both of the most prominent families of justifications of punishment – retributivism and consequentialism – face several moral concerns that are hard to overcome. Moreover, the effectiveness of current criminal punishment methods in ensuring society’s safety is seriously undermined by empirical research. Thus, it appears to be a moral imperative for a modern and humane society to seek alternative means of administering justice. The special issue of Diametros “The Abolition of Punishment: Is a Non-Punitive Criminal Justice System Ethically Justified?” was brought into life precisely to give the authors a platform for such progressive inquiries. And it is now safe to say that this platform has been put to excellent use, since Valerij Zisman, Alexander Stachurski, Giorgia Brucato, Perica Jovchevski, Sofia M. I. Jeppsson, Stephen G. Morris, Benjamin Vilhauer, John Lemos, Saul Smilansky, Elizabeth Shaw, Mirko Farina, Andrea Lavazza and Sergei Levin have presented such thought-provoking texts that they are bound to set the stage for debate in the years to come. This article is an introduction to this special issue and to the authors’ papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While increasing numbers of philosophers have argued for eliminating the retributivist elements of criminal justice systems, their arguments often fall short due to internal inconsistency. Some of the best known of these arguments — such as those provided by Derk Pereboom and Gregg Caruso — rely on the claim that there are moral grounds for rejecting retributivism. In defending this claim, these philosophers typically provide arguments seeking to undermine the type of agent responsibility that they believe is needed to justify retributivism. This is usually followed by an assertion that since the excessive suffering caused by retributivist punishment cannot be justified, it is therefore immoral to preserve remnants of it in our criminal justice systems. This paper — which opposes the moral case against retributivism provided by Pereboom and Caruso, and favors non-moral reasons that recommend rejecting a retributivist approach — is divided into three parts. In part one, I discuss why Pereboom and Caruso are correct in thinking that free will skepticism undercuts the moral justification for retributivism. Part two sets out to explain why their moral case against retributivism fails insofar as it runs afoul of the folk intuitions that are called upon to defend Pereboom’s account of free will skepticism. In part three, I provide a non-moral case against the retributivism that is founded on considerations of self-interest and empathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been argued that a retributivist criminal justice system treats offenders with a respect lacking in alternative criminal justice systems; retributivism presumably recognizes that offenders are fellow members of the moral community who can be held responsible for their actions. One version of the respect argument builds on P.F. Strawson’s moral responsibility theory. According to Strawson, we may take either a participant or objective attitude toward other people. The former is the default attitude when interacting with other adults, whereas the latter is fit for children and the mentally disabled or ill, whom we merely try to manage and handle as best we can. The participant attitude also involves holding people responsible when they do wrong. Supposedly, a retributivist criminal justice system functions as a natural continuation of our everyday, participant, and responsibility-holding practices, unlike alternative systems that adopt an objective attitude toward offenders. I argue that this is wrong. The participant attitude requires reciprocity and, usually, some level of equality too. Even an idealized retributivist system has little room for this, not to mention the flawed versions of this system we see in reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is an introduction to a special issue of the International Annals of Criminology dedicated to Professor David Weisburd, a renowned criminologist. It highlights Weisburd's contributions to the field of criminology, including his work on crime and place, policing, and experimental criminology. The article also emphasizes Weisburd's impact on Israeli criminology, both through his scientific research and his efforts to raise the discipline to international standards. It concludes by expressing gratitude to Weisburd for his contributions and introducing the papers in the special issue, which cover diverse topics such as public attitudes towards the criminal justice system and crime in the context of a political conflict. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of International Annals of Criminology is the property of Cambridge University Press 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 International Annals of Criminology is the property of Cambridge University Press 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 International Annals of Criminology is the property of Cambridge University Press 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.)

Dr Rosie Travers is a psychologist who has worked in criminal justice since the 1980s. She joined the Prison Service as an Applied Criminological Psychologist and worked at HMP Wandsworth for four years before moving into national research and development roles. Rosie now leads the Evidence-Based Practice Team (EBPT) at HMPPS, having been a member since its inception around ten years ago. Rosie's team sits within the Insights Group in the Strategy, Planning and Performance Directorate at HMPPS. She and her colleagues are responsible for critically evaluating the evidencebase and communicating this to colleagues to inform and direct operational policy and practice. The team is expert in sourcing, synthesising, and translating evidence to shape everyday practice in prisons, probation, and youth custody, and to inform strategic development. Where there are gaps in knowledge or understanding, the team can additionally undertake research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The College of Policing was established in 2013 as the professional body for all those working in policing and the What Works Centre (WWC) for Crime Reduction. WWCs can be distinguished from other research centres by their focus on synthesising the best-available existing evaluation evidence, generating more of this evidence, and encouraging and enabling its use in policy and practice decision-making. The College is a full and founder member of the Cabinet Office run What Works National Council. The Council's 13 centre-strong network of independent WWCs stretches across government priority areas, and our sister centres include, amongst others, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Education Endowment Foundation, the Youth Endowment Fund, the Centre for Homelessness Impact, the What Works Centre for Wellbeing, and the Centre for Ageing Better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This current edition of the Prison Service Journal has provided insights into the need for, and application of, evidence-based practice within prisons and the wider Criminal Justice System. It is clear from the articles included that if we want to improve the outcomes for the people within our care, then using evidence to inform practice and policy decisions is the best approach. While the use of evidence-based practice has gained momentum within organisations and Government departments, direct promotion to service users is less common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]