ABSTRACT The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into societal domains particularly the legal and criminal justice decision-making demands scrutinity of potential biases in outputs. AI tools assist predictive policing, risk assessment, sentencing recommendations and legal research. This requires ah examination of potential sources of bias in AI systems’ responses and recommendations. This study investigates prompt framing’s impact on AI sentencing recommendations and offender community threat perceptions. We systematically tested six leading AI models – Copilot, Gemini, GPT, Grok, Mistral, and Perplexity – using identical case scenarios of second-degree aggravated assault in a domestic violence contexts one featuring a male offender and one a female offender. The findings reveal that prompt framing shape AI outputs. Notably, we observed differential treatment based on offender gender, with female offenders consistently receiving lower sentencing recommendations and threat ratings despite the scenarios being factually identical. We discuss these findings in terms of the implications for the relevance of framing and the potential perpetuation of gender bias within AI systems.

ABSTRACT Many people enter addiction treatment through the criminal justice system, which has an important role in oversight, accountability, and adherence to addiction treatment. While urine drug tests (UDT) are valuable tools in addiction treatment, they are easily misinterpreted which can result in tragic legal and social consequences. Practical solutions are needed to enhance the integrity of UDT in the criminal justice system and to ensure that the twin goals of individual rehabilitation and community safety are achieved. Clinicians should remain within the scope of their training, involve the appropriate professionals, understand the limitations, and be aware of the most common areas of misinterpretation of UDT. Proper objective assessment of the data by a qualified professional is essential to avoid serious consequences to due process. Furthermore, there are no current statistics on the total numbers of people receiving UDT in the criminal justice system, resulting in a paucity of data and research on UDT and its effectiveness in addiction treatment. Due to the time needed to update and educate court professionals, practical solutions offer a bridge to solving the most common issues facing this vulnerable population. Updated guidance is needed to enhance the integrity of UDT in the criminal legal system.

ObjectivesTo compare the differences in US federal funding sources for firearm injury prevention and publications.MethodsWe extracted publications from three literature databases and grant data for five federal agencies (CDC, NIH, SAMHSA, NSF, NIJ) through federal archives from 2020 to 2022, excluding case studies, editorials, and literature reviews. Specific funding sources for publications were further extracted. We calculated funding-to-publication (F-P) ratios for federal public health, science, and criminal justice agencies and tested associations. Health agencies with grant data included the CDC, NIH, and SAMHSA and were categorized as public health agencies. The NSF was classified as science and engineering. The NIJ was classified as criminal justice.ResultsThe three largest funders were the NIH, CDC, and NIJ, and were associated with the most publications, with health agencies funding most studies (86%). Health agencies had higher F-P ratios than the NSF and NIJ. Public health funders were more likely to fund experimental studies, studies related to suicide, and unintentional firearm injury prevention. NIJ and NSF were more likely to support research on mass shootings. Most studies funded by all agencies examined community violence.ConclusionsThe NIH and CDC supported most firearm-injury-related grant funding and subsequent publications from 2020 to 2022. Differences in funding existed depending on the types of firearm injury. Federal funding is imperative to advance the science of firearm injury prevention, and future funding across federal agencies should be aligned with national public health and safety needs.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40621-025-00644-3.

The U.S. maintains some of the most punitive sentencing policies, but public opinion plays a role in justice policy. Although the public generally supports rehabilitation and less punitive sentencing for juveniles, less is known about public attitudes toward sentencing emerging adults (18-to-25-year-olds)-a population disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. This paper analyzes data from an experimental survey with factorial vignettes administered to college students to examine emerging adult age and biopsychosocial factors on sentencing punitiveness. Chi-squared and one-way ANOVAs were employed to evaluate group differences and multinomial logistic regression to examine the effects of the randomized factors on the sentence outcomes. The biological and psychological trauma experienced by the defendant convicted of homicide in this study were mitigating factors in emerging adult sentence punitiveness. The results provide insight into potential jurors' and future criminal justice professionals' consideration of biopsychosocial information in sentencing directly impacting justice-involved emerging adults.

Abstract The shifting legal landscape of drug regulation in the United States has been marked by a growing divergence between state and federal approaches to cannabis and psychedelics. In recent years, numerous states have passed laws legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana and exploring the therapeutic potential of psychedelics, such as psilocybin and MDMA. At the same time, these trends are juxtaposed against rising opposition and legislative rollback, particularly in states like Oregon, where decriminalization efforts have been reversed. This article provides a comprehensive review of current drug policy developments, focusing on cannabis and psychedelics at the state level, the evolving federal stance under the Biden administration, and the potential impact of a second Trump term. It also explores the challenges and successes of state initiatives, the FDA’s evolving role in regulating substances like MDMA and esketamine, and the broader implications for public health and criminal justice. As the country navigates the complexities of drug rescheduling and reform, future federal policies under new leadership could further reshape the landscape of drug legalization and therapy in the United States.

Evaluating Large Language Models as Judicial Decision-Makers

Abstract Over the past decade there has been a dramatic shift in rhetoric and framing of sentencing and broader criminal justice reforms from the first Trump administration to the Biden administration. Despite seemingly disparate stances on the issue, both administrations enacted progressive sentencing reforms specifically for drug offenses. As we enter a second Trump presidency, what potential reforms or rollbacks will we see for drug sentencing practices?

Psychopharmaco-psychosocial treatment for substance misuse among individuals in a Canadian forensic psychiatric program.

Abstract Despite extensive research on desistance, there remains limited understanding of how imprisoned individuals achieve successful reintegration. This study aims to advance insight on this topic by contributing to the special issue on Longitudinal and Developmental of Criminal Justice Interventions and Reintegration . For this purpose, we selected a heterogeneous sample of individuals who, after imprisonment, were serving their sentences on open regime or conditional release with a positive evolution in two locations in Spain (Barcelona and Madrid). The qualitative analysis of the 60 interviews shows that reintegration started in prison when individuals developed important cognitive transformations —such as assuming responsibility for their offences and developing a prosocial identity— and continued while in open regime or conditional release. In this latter phase, the combination of support and control enabled the reestablishment of social bonds, which in turn prevented reoffending. Consequently, this work suggests an integrative theoretical framework to understand the continuity of the reintegration process from prison to conditional release. In this sequence, rational choice and cognitive transformation theories are more relevant during imprisonment, and informal social control in the life course is more explanatory during transitional release.

In this research, we treat the “homicide gap”—discrepancies in homicides recorded as deaths by public health systems and as crimes by criminal justice systems—as an outcome to be explained. Drawing on new institutionalism theory, we argue that the level of discrepancy between homicide data from the two sources reflects the capacity of domestic institutions and the extent to which countries are embedded in globalized systems of norms and governance. Based on homicide counts from the UNODC and the WHO across 99 countries from 1991 to 2020, our Bayesian quantile regression analysis shows that countries with stronger political system capacity, more robust health systems, and greater globalization exhibit significantly smaller homicide gaps. We also find that the effect of globalization is largest in countries whose strong local institutions enable them to better actualize the benefits associated with global integration. We discuss implications for theory, method and policy.

ABSTRACT This paper uses the concept of hybridity as developed by the postcolonial theorist Homi Bhabha to critique and reconstruct the foundations of international criminal law. Examining three aspects of contemporary international criminal justice (its modes of evaluating evidence, its substantive law, and its penal practices), it argues that the system is rooted in eurocentric, liberal notions of criminal justice. In response to this problem, hybrid courts represent a normative opening where western and nonwestern justice traditions can negotiate the nature of justice and law in a fashion that is captured by Bhabha’s theory. It concludes with reflections on how hybrid courts can be strengthened to develop a more inclusive model of international criminal justice.

India’s traditional legal system was deeply rooted in its cultural fabric, reflecting the values, beliefs, and customs of its diverse communities. Justice was not merely a legal concept but a moral and social obligation intertwined with religious and customary laws. Dharma formed the centre of this system, which incorporated righteousness, duty, and justice as key principles for preserving social order. The pre-colonial legal system was the mirror of diverse cultures in India, which relied on harmony, duty, and social coherence with Hindu Dharmashastra, Islamic Sharia, and indigenous tribal traditions as its tenets. The indigenous mechanisms of dispute resolution were largely community-driven, with Panchayats, caste councils, and religious authorities playing a central role in administering justice. These focused on reconciliation and restorative justice, ensuring that legal decisions aligned with societal values and traditions. British colonization, on the other hand, introduced a centralized legal system emphasizing retributive justice, individual rights, and bureaucratic procedures, replacing India's traditional community-based mechanisms. While this shift standardized and modernized legal principles, it marginalized indigenous justice traditions. Even after independence, India retained much of the colonial framework and is still working to gradually adapt it to align with its cultural values. Indian Judiciary has ever since been working to balance western influences with India's socio-cultural realities. This paper delves into India's legal evolution, highlighting the balance between Western influences and indigenous traditions. It explores challenges in integrating imported legal principles, the impact of globalization, and the evolution of criminal laws. Ultimately, it argues for a nuanced approach to modernization that preserves cultural heritage while ensuring justice.

The reform of criminal law in Indonesia has become an increasingly urgent necessity in line with social developments, technological advancement, and the growing complexity and diversity of crime. Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the new Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/KUHP) emerges as a comprehensive effort to replace the colonial-era Criminal Code and to align the national criminal law system with the current conditions of Indonesian society. This new Criminal Code introduces several significant changes, including the regulation of cybercrime, protection of the environment, the reinforcement of humanitarian values, and the strengthening of the principle of limiting criminal sanctions on individual liberty in order to ensure the protection of human rights. This paper aims to analyze the direction and substance of the Criminal Code reform, evaluate its potential implementation, and assess the implications of these changes for criminal law enforcement practices in Indonesia. The research method employed is a literature review using a normative approach, conducted through the analysis of statutory regulations, criminal law theories, and relevant case studies. The results of the analysis indicate that the new Criminal Code provides a more adaptive and responsive legal framework to contemporary issues; however, the effectiveness of its implementation largely depends on the readiness of law enforcement authorities, the intensity of regulatory socialization, and the level of public legal awareness. This study concludes that criminal law reform represents a strategic step toward realizing a criminal justice system that is more just, effective, and aligned with the values of Pancasila.

Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) make up only 6% of the U.S. population but represent up to 40% of those incarcerated. This overrepresentation is likely due to systemic discrimination, exemplified by people with SMI being twice as likely to be arrested as those without SMI. This study continued examining this discrimination by investigating the impact of one SMI, schizophrenia, on public perceptions of crime. Participants viewed and evaluated two criminal case records where the offender either had schizophrenia or did not have schizophrenia. Contrary to hypotheses, offenders without schizophrenia were perceived more negatively and more deserving of incarceration, their crimes were perceived as more severe, and their punishments were perceived as fairer than those with schizophrenia. Results were replicated across two crime conditions. These findings contradict prior literature, capturing the current stigma surrounding schizophrenia in the criminal justice system. They have implications for policy and system reform.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs) are each independently associated with a range of adult outcomes, including mental health, substance use, and criminal justice involvement. However, few studies have examined how the balance between these experiences influences outcomes. This study explores the predictive utility of a PCE:ACE ratio. Unlike previous measures of resiliency and risk protection scales that treat risk and protective factors as parallel dimensions, the ratio is population-level heuristic intended to capture the relative balance of positive versus adverse experiences using a single relational metric. Using data from a representative sample of 1,203 adults in Northern Ireland, participants completed validated measures of 13 ACEs and 10 positive childhood experiences (PCEs) A weighted PCE:ACE ratio was calculated, and participants were categorised into high, moderate, or low ratio groups. Findings showed that a higher ratio was significantly associated with reduced odds of arrest, incarceration, school exclusion, substance use, and mental health diagnosis, even after adjusting for age, gender, and deprivation. Those in the low-ratio group had the highest rates of adverse outcomes. While the ratio offers an intuitive and accessible framework for understanding developmental balance, limitations include the potential for oversimplification of distinct ACE-PCE profiles. These findings support the feasibility of a ratio-based approach that standardises balance rather than the independent accumulation of risks and strengths, and suggests that a stronger balance of protective experiences may buffer the impact of adversity. Further research is needed to explore threshold effects and interaction dynamics. However, the ratio provides a useful metric and sound basis for capturing population health and the extent to which public investment is tipped in favour of positive or less positive outcomes.

Necropolitics and state-sponsored drug violence: the death penalty for drug offences in Indonesia.

This study investigates the psychological effects of custodial sentences and the challenges they pose to the ideal of offender rehabilitation, through the lens of the proportionality principle in criminal punishment. As contemporary criminal justice systems strive to balance the need for social protection with the imperative of individual reformation, this paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach—merging legal doctrine with psychological theory—to critically assess whether imprisonment, as traditionally applied, fulfills the rehabilitative goals embedded in modern sentencing frameworks. The primary objective of this research is to evaluate the extent to which incarceration produces adverse psychological effects that may undermine the very aims of proportional punishment. The study is guided by four main research questions: (1) What are the dominant psychological consequences of imprisonment on individual identity, autonomy, and social reintegration prospects? (2) How does the principle of proportionality accommodate—or fail to accommodate—these psychological dimensions in sentencing decisions? (3) Are there identifiable thresholds beyond which a custodial sentence becomes disproportionate due to its harmful psychological impact? (4) How do domestic courts and European human rights bodies (notably the ECtHR and CJEU) address the balance between punitive severity and mental integrity? By exploring the intersection between psychological harm and legal proportionality, this paper contributes to rethinking penal rationales in light of empirical evidence, judicial standards, and the human dignity of the offender. It calls for a recalibration of sentencing practices to ensure that the pursuit of justice does not come at the expense of long-term psychological destruction and social exclusion.

The cooperating person represents a fully legitimate procedural institute within the Slovak criminal justice system; however, testimony obtained through cooperation is inherently burdened by the individual’s personal criminal-law interest arising from the expectation of procedural or substantive benefits. This structural characteristic raises serious concerns regarding the evidentiary strength, epistemic value, and permissible limits of reliance on such testimony in criminal proceedings. The article examines the conceptual distinction between credibility and truthfulness as fundamental normative attributes of testimony provided by cooperating persons. While credibility traditionally dominates judicial assessment, it does not necessarily guarantee correspondence with objective reality, particularly where testimony is motivated by anticipated advantages. The authors analyse recent legislative developments introduced by Act No. 416/2025 Coll., which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by transforming truthfulness from a predominantly epistemic criterion into an explicit normative condition governing the admissibility of cooperation-based evidence. Through doctrinal legal analysis, normative interpretation of statutory provisions, and examination of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the article evaluates whether the Slovak legal framework adequately addresses the evidentiary risks inherent in motivated testimony. Particular attention is devoted to the requirement of independent corroboration and to the interaction between truthfulness as a threshold condition of admissibility and credibility as a subsequent evaluative criterion. The authors conclude that the legislative emphasis on truthfulness constitutes a necessary corrective to the traditional reliance on credibility alone and strengthens safeguards against convictions based on unverified or distorted testimony. At the same time, the article assesses the compatibility of the national regulation with the requirements of a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and contributes to the broader discourse on the evidentiary limits of cooperation-based testimony in criminal proceedings.

ABSTRACT Social capital has been found to be correlated with significant positive outcomes, but faces issues in competing conceptual and operational definitions. Further, social capital has yet to be studied in carceral settings as a result of the incompatibility with existing measurement approaches in environments defined by a regulated social structure. This study explores how criminal justice and social capital scholars conceptualize and operationalize social capital in carceral settings. Drawing on qualitative interviews with scholars in criminal justice and related fields, this research identifies key themes around the definition, measurement, and ethical considerations of studying social capital in carceral spaces. Results illustrate varying definitions and measurement strategies utilized by scholars, while acknowledging the challenges of applying traditional social capital frameworks to carceral environments. These findings suggest a need for a more context-specific, robust definition and measurement framework. While further research is necessary, these findings give the foundation for further scholarly work into the development of social capital research in carceral spaces.

Alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, heroin and benzodiazepines account for 95% of treatment cases in Ireland. This study examines first episode treatment data from the European Treatment Demand Protocol to examine access to services based on primary problem substance. The (N = 37,550) main presenting substances were alcohol (48.2%) and cannabis (21.4%). Alcohol had the highest proportion of women seeking treatment (37.6%) while cocaine had the lowest (19.0%). Alcohol cases were the oldest (40.7 years) while cannabis cases the youngest (22.9 years). Irish Travellers had higher rates of presentation for heroin and benzodiazepines use. Alcohol had the longest duration between first use and accessing treatment (24.2 years), while cannabis had the shortest (7.9 years); these differences were statistically different compared to all other substances. Alcohol cases were more often referred by medical sources and cannabis from criminal justice and community/social services. These findings emphasise that there were considerable periods between first use and first treatment and there are different demographic presentations between different substances.