Routine activity theory has critically underappreciated the role of social structure in accounts of the incapacitation of capable guardianship. In response, this article emphasises the unanticipated macro conditions that hinder the capacities of experts to control crimes against wildlife. Routine activity theory is framed here not as a heuristic of crime prevention but as a causal mechanism integrated in a generative social context. As a metatheoretical contribution, the article develops a domain-specific ontology of how enforcement deficits can be conceptualised beyond neo-positivist accounts. The wider institutional arrangements of political economy and criminal justice policy conditions are shown to constrain the capable guardianship of wildlife on the rural frontier. The article contributes new knowledge to wildlife insecurity while advancing novel theory on structure and agency in the aetiology of crime control.

The humanization of criminal law and the reduction of the repressive nature of punishment constitute key priorities of state policy in the Republic of Uzbekistan, aimed at ensuring justice, legality, and effective protection of individual rights. Within this framework, exemption from criminal liability and punishment upon compensation for damage caused occupies an important place, as damage resulting from socially dangerous acts may be material, physical, or moral, and its nature and extent directly influence crime qualification and legal consequences. Despite extensive legislative regulation and foreign experience, compensation for damage is not systematized in Uzbek criminal law as an independent legal institution, but is mainly applied as an auxiliary element within reconciliation or genuine repentance, leading to legal ambiguities and inconsistent law enforcement practice. The study aims to analyze the theoretical and practical foundations of exemption from criminal liability and punishment upon compensation for damage, identify existing legal conflicts, and substantiate proposals for improving criminal legislation. The analysis demonstrates that full, voluntary, active, and lawful compensation for damage serves as a reliable indicator of reduced social danger and genuine remorse, while comparative analysis shows that many foreign legal systems recognize compensation as an independent ground for exemption or mitigation of punishment. The study offers a comprehensive doctrinal justification for distinguishing exemption from liability upon compensation for damage as a separate criminal-law institution, based on national legislation and comparative legal analysis. The findings support the introduction of an independent institution of exemption from criminal liability and punishment upon compensation for damage in the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, which would enhance legal certainty, strengthen victim rights protection, promote timely restoration of harm, and further advance the principles of justice and proportionality in criminal justice policy.

Abstract This article examines the United States Sentencing Commission’s obligation and authority to modify guideline provisions initially created in response to congressional directives. The analysis demonstrates that the Commission has both statutory obligation and authority to refine and adapt its implementations of legislative mandates based on empirical evidence and changed circumstances. The argument proceeds through three analytical foundations: first, explicit statutory commands under the Sentencing Reform Act requiring periodic review and revision of all guidelines regardless of origin; second, judicial recognition of this modification authority in Supreme Court precedent; and third, decades of established Commission practice modifying directive implementations when data reveals unintended or unworkable consequences. Key examples include the Commission's refinements to economic loss guidelines, sophisticated means enhancements in fraud cases, and immigration sentencing provisions—all initially promulgated pursuant to congressional directives but subsequently modified based on empirical analysis and real-world experience. The article distinguishes between general directives, which permit broad Commission discretion in ongoing refinement, and specific directives, which constrain modification authority while still allowing implementation adjustments. This framework enables the federal sentencing system to adapt to evolving circumstances while preserving fundamental congressional policy judgments. The Commission's modification authority proves essential for maintaining effective and just sentencing guidelines that reflect contemporary understanding of criminal justice policy rather than becoming an outdated collection of legislative mandates.

As domestic violence has become an increasingly urgent social issue, the introduction of a U.S.-style mandatory arrest policy has been actively debated in Korea. Domestic violence is characterized by repetition and escalation, often developing into serious offenses. Therefore, early and immediate intervention is critical for victim protection. However, current practice reveals structural limitations: non-intervention upon the victim’s request. Fears of retaliation, and the burden of maintaining family relationships often discourage victims from seeking punishment. The Domestic Violence Act’s emphasis on respecting the victim’s wishes further constrains police intervention, creating persistent calls for mechanisms that can effectively isolate offenders at the reporting stage. Mandatory arrest, introduced in the United States in the 1980s amid growing concern over intimate partner violence, requires police officers to arrest the offender regardless of the perceived severity of the incident. While this system strengthens early intervention and facilitates immediate separation of victim and offender, several challenges arise when considering its adoption in Korea. This article focuses on two central issues: (1) the compatibility of mandatory arrest with the Korean legal framework, and (2) problems revealed in the operation of the system in the United States, particularly with regard to victims’ interests. In the U.S., arrest functions as a procedural step toward judicial detention, whereas in Korea, arrest constitutes an independent and significant deprivation of liberty. This structural difference raises concerns about systemic inconsistency if the U.S. model were incorporated directly. Furthermore, empirical evidence from the U.S. shows that mandatory arrest may disregard victim autonomy, restrict police discretion, reduce reporting rates, increase dual arrests, and fail to account for the diversity of victim experiences. After examining these issues, the study explores policy alternatives more suitable for the Korean context. First, explicitly adding “victim protection” as a ground for arrest or detention may institutionalize victim safety but it also risks pushing arrest and detention beyond their original conceptual function as coercive measures, thereby warranting particularly careful scrutiny. Second, the preferred arrest model used in some U.S. jurisdictions offers a more flexible approach by mitigating the rigidity of mandatory arrest. Third, making violations of protective orders under the Domestic Violence Act a mandatory arrest trigger could provide a balanced intermediate response, enhancing on-site intervention while preventing overuse of criminal sanctions. Through a comparative and critical analysis of mandatory arrest, this study seeks to identify the conditions under which criminal justice policies aimed at victim protection can be justified and where the limits of state intervention should be drawn. The findings offer meaningful implications for the design of future policies addressing intimate partner violence more broadly.

Abstract A robust body of evidence indicates that hot spots policing is effective at reducing crime. However, relatively few studies have examined citizens’ views of the strategy, and the limited findings that do exist are mixed. Research on message framing, meanwhile, shows that the way information is presented can shape public attitudes toward criminal justice policies. As more agencies adopt hot spots approaches, this knowledge gap provides an opportunity to understand and ultimately improve community perceptions of high visibility, deterrence based hot spots policing. We conducted a preregistered survey experiment that randomly exposed respondents ( N = 2,412) to three hot spots policing frames: crime reduction effectiveness, over policing stigma, or the control. Results from the preregistered, unadjusted models indicate that the effectiveness frame significantly produced more positive attitudes toward high-visibility hot spots policing, while the stigma frame produced null results. Our results suggest that agencies should pair clear communication of crime reduction evidence with a simultaneous acknowledgment of stigma concerns when introducing hot spots strategies to the public.

After George Zimmerman was acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin in 2013, three women, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, created, in their words, “a Black-centered, political-movement-building project called #BlackLivesMatter.” Just over a decade later, this movement has grown into a powerful, decentralized coalition catalyzed by the protest actions following the deaths of Ferguson teen Michael Brown and New Yorker Eric Garner at the hands of police officers and by the worldwide response to police violence following George Floyd's choking death by Derek Chauvin in Minneapolis. This edition of Perspectives is an effort to take stock of how these events and attendant social movements have inspired change in criminal justice research, policy, and law. In particular, we were interested in how the past decade's events have influenced how we teach. We asked noted Yale Law School scholar and professor, James Forman, author of the 2018 Pulitzer Prize winning book Locking Up Our Own : Crime and Punishment in Black America , to select a group for and to guide a conversation on this topic. Professor Forman is joined by Bennett Capers (Fordham School of Law), Angela Davis (American University Washington College of Law), Erin Murphy (NYU School of Law), and Shaun Ossei-Owusu (University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School).

ABSTRACT Objective We investigate how partisanship, political context, and recipient characteristics relate to presidential pardon behavior. We ask whether Democratic and Republican administrations exhibit unique patterns in the likelihood and timing of pardons across different crime categories. Methods We analyze presidential pardons issued from 1989 to 2024. Leveraging data on the crimes for which pardons are granted, recipient characteristics, and additional factors, we estimate logit and count models controlling for demographic characteristics, crime type, and political dynamics. We also incorporate interaction terms to examine how partisan differences vary across such contexts. Results Our results suggest that presidents utilize pardons to advance criminal justice priorities while navigating political constraints. Democratic and Republican administrations behave differently in the likelihood and timing of pardons in particular crime categories. Democrats are more likely to pardon non‐Whites, women, and narcotics offenders than Republicans, but are less likely to grant pardons when facing potential electoral threat. As Democratic presidents increase their rhetorical attention to crime, they grow less likely to issue pardons. Conclusions Our findings speak to issues surrounding executive clemency, issue ownership, criminal justice policy, and partisan governance. These patterns demonstrate that pardons can operate as policy tools shaped by ideological preferences and political constraints.

This article examines the trafficking of women through a restorative justice lens, using a case study from China, to explore the complex realities of human trafficking for forced marriage. It analyses how current criminal justice policies and practices address this longstanding social ill, the search for innovative responses alongside conventional legal interventions, and the structural and ideological constraints that limit the development of restorative justice practices. The findings reveal that, while trafficking in women remains a persistent issue, official responses beyond the criminal justice system remain limited. Recent policy trends emphasising a balance between leniency and severity have not displaced the predominance of punitive approaches. While restorative programmes are readily applied to juvenile offenders, minor infractions or ‘victimless’ offences, their extension to serious and sensitive crimes – such as trafficking in women which carries harsh penalties, including capital punishment – is highly restricted. Drawing on insights from a jurisdiction where justice models are profoundly shaped by distinctive political, cultural and institutional nuances, the article contributes to scholarly debates at the intersection of human trafficking, gender-based violence and restorative justice.

This article examines the effectiveness of Aceh Qanun Number 6 of 2014 on Jinayat Law in addressing sexual violence cases by focusing on its conceptual framework and legal-political orientation. Using a qualitative method with statute and conceptual approaches, this study analyzes the structure of criminal sanctions under the Qanun, its position within Indonesia’s plural legal system, and its implementation in the context of Aceh’s asymmetric decentralization. The study finds that although the Jinayat Qanun reflects a strong political will to institutionalize Islamic criminal law as a form of regional legal identity, its effectiveness in reducing sexual violence remains limited. This limitation is evident in the predominance of retributive punishment, such as caning and imprisonment, without adequate integration of victim protection mechanisms, restitution, and perpetrator rehabilitation. By situating the Qanun within broader debates on legal politics and criminal justice policy, this research demonstrates that punitive approaches alone are insufficient to address the complex social realities of sexual violence. The novelty of this article lies in its evaluative argument that the Jinayat Qanun represents a legal-political model of punishment that prioritizes symbolic deterrence over substantive justice for victims.

The development of modern criminal law thought indicates a significant shift in the sentencing paradigm from a retributive approach toward a restorative one. The retributive paradigm, which emphasizes punishment and retaliation for criminal acts, has increasingly been criticized for its inability to deliver substantive justice for victims, offenders, and society. In contrast, restorative justice emerges as an alternative paradigm that prioritizes restoration, dialogue, and the active participation of all parties affected by crime. This article aims to analyze the shift in sentencing paradigm from retributive to restorative justice within the Indonesian criminal justice system and to examine its implications for national criminal law reform. This study employs a qualitative legal research method using normative and conceptual approaches, relying on statutory analysis, legal doctrines, and relevant criminal justice policies. The findings reveal that restorative justice has gained increasing recognition in Indonesia through recent regulations and law enforcement policies. However, its implementation still faces substantial challenges in terms of legal substance, institutional structure, and legal culture. The novelty of this article lies in its comprehensive analysis of restorative justice not merely as an alternative mechanism, but as a potential new sentencing paradigm capable of reshaping the core orientation of Indonesian criminal law.

Academic freedom, manufactured evidence, and the integrity of criminal justice policy

This pilot study evaluates three machine learning models—Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini—in parole decision-making by comparing their recommendations against human judicial decisions. Analyzing 150 cases across sexual, drug-related, and violent offenses, the study demonstrates alignment rates of 56%–68% between artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and human decisions. Findings reveal a consistent rehabilitative bias in AI recommendations, with statistical analyses indicating robust patterns across offense categories. This research establishes an empirical foundation for understanding AI’s potential as a decision-support tool in parole processes while preserving essential human judgment. While focusing on Israel, the findings offer a preliminary basis for considering similar AI integrations across different jurisdictions. These results underscore the importance of developing clear criminal justice policies and ethical frameworks to guide the responsible use of AI in parole decisions, ensuring that technological tools support rather than replace human judgment and enhance public trust in the system.

China’s New Criminal Justice Policy of Having ‘Fewer Arrests, More Careful Prosecution and Detention’: Possible Impacts

Debates surrounding capital punishment continue to influence criminal justice policy and human rights discourse globally. In South Africa, the Constitutional Court’s landmark judgment in S v. The Death Penalty declared section 277(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act unconstitutional, primarily on the basis of the rights to life, dignity, and equality. Despite the ruling and persistent high levels of violent crime, including sexual offenses and murder, there has been a renewed public and political interest in the possible reinstatement of capital punishment. This paper will undertake a critical and evidence-based examination of this debate within South Africa’s constitutional and criminological context. The analysis focuses on three core concerns that shape the contemporary discourse: the potential for wrongful convictions and the irreversible consequences of execution; the influence of bias, discrimination, and systemic inequality on sentencing outcomes; and international perspectives, particularly the normative positions of the European Union and the United Nations, which consider the death penalty incompatible with evolving human rights standards. Drawing on comparative research, crime data, and international legal developments, the paper assesses whether the reintroduction of the death penalty could have any demonstrable effect on reducing serious violent crime in South Africa. The central aim is to evaluate the criminological claim that capital punishment functions as a deterrent in cases of sexual offenses and murder while critically reflecting on whether such a measure could enhance societal safety within a constitutional democracy. Ultimately, the paper interrogates the tension between demands for harsher punitive measures and South Africa’s commitment to human rights, proportionality, and evidence-based criminal justice policy.

Aggression in offenders with mild intellectual disability (MID) poses a severe problem to forensic rehabilitation, which can lead to marginalization in the system and recidivism. The study is an evaluation of a specialized intervention, Social Information Processing (SIP), that is intended to surpass conventional punitive interventions in an attempt to affect the sequential processing of social cues encoding, intent interpretation, and response decision. With a multidisciplinary approach that combines the neurobiological understanding with forensic psychology, the research relies on virtual environments and storytelling methods to reconstruct the maladaptive social reasoning. Based on the initial statistical investigation, it was found that the participants in the SIP intervention group experienced a major decrease in reactive cases of aggression (38%) in comparison with the group under regular custodial care. Highlighting results suggest that the intervention was effective in raising the amount of latency between perceived social threats and impulsive responses, which allowed the intervention to mediate a switch in hostile attribution bias toward prosocial problem-solving. Moreover, the findings address the need for trauma-informed care and recognition of linguistic signs in the treatment of externalizing behaviors. The study finds that the proper reintegration of neurodivergent offenders is only possible when the factors that lead to the lack of social mind-reading are tackled instead of imposing behavioral compliance. This study proposes the change in the criminal justice policy towards more equitable, disability-responsive rehabilitative approaches by offering an evidence-based model of cognitive restructuring.

Abstract Criminal justice policy reform is crucial for a nation grappling with public safety concerns and decades of mass incarceration, which increased racial disparities. In this article, I develop a theory of cognitive relatedness between race and criminal justice to explain why people support different policy responses to crime. This study investigates the factors shaping public attitudes toward criminal justice policy reform, focusing on dispositional racial attitudes and political and racial group cues. Employing a conjoint design and a follow‐up survey experiment, I demonstrate that people's dispositions toward racial and political groups affect their criminal justice policy preferences. Both people of color and White respondents follow cues from Black voters, with racial attitudes playing an important moderating role. Furthermore, I find little evidence for an influence of partisan cues on support for reform. These findings have fundamental implications for political activists and their efforts to support criminal justice reform campaigns.

This study examines the criminal justice response to personal revenge homicides in Pakistan through a criminological lens, focusing on FIR No. 591/2012, the high-profile Shahzeb Khan murder case. Through a doctrinal-legal approach with added criminological theory, the study examines how Pakistan courts interpret intention and premeditation and common intention as per Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and reliance on Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Government of Pakistan, 1997) as per cases possessing personal motives. The results indicate that judicial procedures give priority to documentary, ocular, medical, and forensic evidence in order to prove culpability and a hierarchy of evidence exists. The fact that there were minor investigative lapses and this could not affect the case provided by the prosecution could demonstrate how the courts depend on the credibility of eyewitnesses and corroborative scientific evidence. Determination of age was also doctrinally informed, integrating review of documents with medical evaluation to dismiss juvenility claims. The paper also identifies a conflict between personal compromise in the context of Qisas and Diyat and official justice requirements and reflects how much the personal compromise can have an effect on the sentencing outcome by the PPC, it still does not imply that the ATA does not apply to offences that affect societal protection. The results can help to gain a better insight into how high profile personal revenge homicides are tried in Pakistan, which can be derived into criminal justice policy and legal reform, as well as criminological research.

Abstract The proportionality between crime and punishment is made, and the way it is made makes for a certain kind of criminal law. By analyzing how punitive measures are justified in Swedish criminal law and crime policy through appeals to proportionality, the Article demonstrates how proportionality has been made and remade to legitimize an increasingly punitive crime policy, obscuring the reasons for these legislative changes. The Article thus calls for the principle of proportionality to be dismantled and employs a discursive approach to reverse-engineer claims of proportionality in Swedish legislative proposals. The purpose of this approach is to make visible the meanings and limits of the contemporary crime policy understanding of crime, punishment, and a just criminal law.

While discriminatory policing elsewhere typically targets minority groups, in South Africa the majority population historically classified as Black under apartheid faces forms of social and economic exclusion that are usually associated with minorities in other contexts. This article offers a critical criminological analysis of how deterrence-based criminal justice policies, particularly policing practices and mandatory minimum sentencing, perpetuate the marginalisation of vulnerable populations, entrench structural violence, reinforce systemic inequalities and deny disadvantaged groups equitable access to justice across all stages of the criminal process. The article recommends a shift in South Africa’s criminal justice priorities by recognising structural violence as a form of social harm, integrating forensic criminologists and evidence-based risk tools into legal aid to support sentencing that redresses social marginalisation and structural violence, and strengthening Legal Aid South Africa to ensure vulnerable accused have equitable access to representation, thereby reducing penal bias and advancing constitutional commitments to justice.

The rise of vulnerability in criminal justice policy has been seen as indicative of a new paradigm centered on notions of compassion and care. My ethnographic research with professionals who respond to individuals found at risk of ‘criminal exploitation’ in the illicit street-level economy known as ‘county lines’ challenges this narrative. At the front line, professionals engage in ‘multi-agency partnerships’ to respond to those they deem vulnerable. And yet, the interventions authorized in the name of safeguarding also extend state monitoring and surveillance even where no crime has been committed. They further give rise to knowledge practices that reconceive of everyday relations among ‘vulnerable’ communities as a site of exploitation and coercion. I argue that multi-agency safeguarding practices follow the logic of pre-emptive policing that has been central to the government's domestic wars on ‘suspect’ populations. As such, the governance of vulnerability is best understood as yet another facet of liberal order building that works to securitize the daily life in racialized and working-class communities.