Current legislation and safeguarding principles are bound by narrow and inflexible constructions of childhood and adulthood. The criminal age of responsibility in England and Wales has been criticised for the responsibilisation of children from age 10 years. Criticisms have also been extended to the criminal age of majority and entry into adult institutions and services at age 18 years. There is a growing evidence base demonstrating the ongoing neurological development and complex needs of young adults (aged 18–24 years), particularly for those within the criminal justice system. This situates young adults as having vulnerabilities similar to children, thus making their criminalisation and ‘adulterisation’ as harmful. Drawing on national and international literature, this article contributes to a growing literature base by critically considering an extension of the youth justice system against a distinct young adult approach.
]]>Correctional institutions generally ban consensual sexual intimacy among incarcerated people—a policy that traces historically to homophobic bias and persists today because of institutional inertia and untested claims about its security benefits. Is such sexual deprivation cruel and inhumane? Using a novel experimental method—relative harm valuation (RHV)—in two national surveys, we investigate public opinion on sex bans, quantifying the perceived suffering that would result from sexual deprivation. The results are striking. Most respondents prefer criminal victimization to the loss of sex and believe sexual deprivation is more agonizing than negative life events involving illness, injury, job loss, and infidelity. About half of respondents prefer to be flogged or caned over suffering a permanent sex ban, and one-fourth prefers to have a body part (e.g., hand) amputated. Our data also reveal that only a minority of respondents opposes allowing consensual sexual intimacy behind bars, and most believe that prohibiting sex encourages rape.
Policy makers and correctional officials should reconsider banning consensual sexual intimacy among incarcerated people for two reasons. First, it is a form of nonjudicial punishment that causes suffering and violates human dignity. Second, it is a policy that lacks empirical backing, given the absence of relevant research. We argue for a new “golden rule” of corrections: If a correctional policy, such as banning masturbation or consensual sex, inflicts suffering on incarcerated people, it should be tested experimentally to see if it has any benefits. Given that our findings (and others) show that sex is a basic human need, experiments are needed to test whether it is possible to relax prohibitions on consensual sexual intimacy (and masturbation) behind bars without compromising institutional safety.
]]>Prosecutorial discretion plays a central role in shaping criminal case outcomes, yet its influence in the context of probation, particularly during violation proceedings, remains underexplored. This paper explores how prosecutorial discretion functions within the courtroom workgroup to shape probation, from plea bargaining to responses to violations, in the context of mass supervision today. Using qualitative data from 23 in-depth interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys in a midsize U.S. jurisdiction, we analyze how institutional norms, organizational pressures, and competing logics of punishment, rehabilitation, and efficiency shape decision making. Prosecutors influence who is offered probation, what conditions are imposed, and how compliance is interpreted, often anchoring decision making through informal case “valuation” practices that reflect victim-centered, fiscal, and efficiency-oriented logics. Within the workgroup, their recommendations carry significant weight, shaping outcomes even as they are formally subject to judicial approval and adversarial negotiation.
Probation is among the most common criminal legal sanctions, and evidence suggests that violations are increasing, which can have negative implications for individuals and systems. Research has attributed increases in probation violations to the growing complexity of supervision conditions, which make compliance more challenging. The findings identify prosecutors as central, yet largely overlooked, policy actors in shaping probation outcomes at both sentencing and revocation. As such, the research underscores the need for policy changes that ‘right size’ the conditions of probation and address the organizational norms and decision-making practices of the courtroom workgroup.
]]>New Urbanist ideas promoting walkability have many benefits. But they are criticised by proponents of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), who blame street connectivity for facilitating target recognition, providing access and escape routes and weakening informal surveillance. In this article, we challenge the consensus portraying walkable neighbourhoods as criminogenic by highlighting two issues overlooked by CPTED and environmental criminology. First, the focus on crime counts which confounds crime risk with the number of human interactions in the physical world. Second, the neglect of how walkable neighbourhoods reduce crime beyond their borders, something that becomes clear once motoring offences are brought within the analytic frame. By indirectly promoting car dependency crime prevention programmes such as Secured by Design inadvertently promote criminal harm. Finally, we explore the intersections between CPTED and walkability and suggest that neighbourhoods can become more vibrant, sustainable and safe by reducing road—not street—connectivity.
]]>Existing research on plea bargaining focuses primarily on how fixed case and defendant characteristics, such as the strength of the evidence or the race of the accused, impact plea offers. Less is known about how prosecutors consider a defendant's behavior while their case is pending throughout the plea bargaining process. Drawing on an ethnographic study in two midwestern District Attorney's (DA) offices, this paper reveals how prosecutors evaluate defendants’ performances pretrial as they decide their plea offers. First, I identify four types of pretrial performances that prosecutors consider: abiding by the rules of the court, addressing the harm of the crime, engaging with social services, and demonstrating positive attitude and demeanor. Then, I demonstrate how the process through which performances shape plea offers is dynamic and interactional, as defense attorneys develop assumptions about which performances prosecutors consider and support their clients in meeting those expectations.
Defendants with fewer financial resources may face challenges in meeting pretrial performance expectations, leading to inequalities in defendants’ ability to obtain more favorable plea offers. DA's offices should consider only making specific performance demands for services that are readily available to low-income defendants, such as programs offered for free. Alternatively, prosecutors could decline to prosecute low-level cases that stem from substance use or mental health issues and encourage law enforcement to make direct referrals to social service agencies instead. Otherwise, this practice risks exacerbating inequalities as more privileged defendants have greater resources to meet the performance demands compared to disadvantaged defendants. More broadly, these findings call for policies that address the underlying inequalities in access to health-care and social services, which would reduce inequality in defendants’ ability to meet performance demands.
]]>Criminologists have long described and theorized the relationship between status, respect, and violence within urban communities. Although this finding is generally accepted within criminology, ethnographic empirical illustrations of this phenomenon are sparse. To better understand how the potential for violence shapes interactions, affords interactional privilege, and structures relative positions in the social hierarchy, we develop a theoretical framework based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Erving Goffman, and Randall Collins. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in a disadvantaged area in Copenhagen, we show that interactional boundaries—what liberties one can take with others—are contingent on familiarity and verbal skill but more fundamentally on one's violence capital (i.e., the resources, capacities, skills, and dispositions that confer advantage in exerting corporal violence against others). By empirically illustrating how interactions are structured by violence capital, we contribute to a deeper understanding of how street hierarchies are maintained and reproduced through violence.
]]>Prior research has focused on marriage as a key relationship associated with crime cessation. Yet particularly within the contemporary context, relationships with parents, peers, and other family members may also foster or inhibit progress toward desistance. We rely on a symbolic interactionist perspective on social learning that not only centers on the behaviors of these significant others but foregrounds the role of communication processes within the context of these close ties. Drawing on data from a 22-year longitudinal study, results of mixed effects models indicate that partner and peer criminal behavior are linked to within-individual variations in crime, net of traditional marriage indicators. Additionally, parents’ early antisocial behavior was a modest between-subjects predictor, and a composite measure capturing behaviors across the full network suggests a negative effect of “network encapsulation.” In-depth interviews (n = 99) with a subset of respondents, parents, and partners identify four specific dynamics related to communication across these relationships that may influence perspectives and behavioral outcomes: (1) co-constructing meanings, (2) buttressing specific hooks for change, (3) presenting possibilities for a united front, and (4) advancing cognitive contrasts. Results highlight the importance of attending to relationship assets and challenges as individuals attempt to accomplish a consistent pattern of desistance.
]]>Indiana Code allows local prosecutors to withhold prosecution and offer diversion for residents charged with low-level offenses. In doing so, prosecutors can minimize the collateral consequences of justice-system involvement. Although widely adopted as an alternative to traditional prosecution, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of prosecutor-led diversion programs. The current study builds on this area of research by evaluating two prosecutor-led diversion programs operating in one large and one moderately sized jurisdiction, highlighting their effectiveness in limiting future criminal justice contact. We examined administrative prosecution records from 2013 to 2023 in which 21,653 filed cases met statutory eligibility for diversion, and 4572 individuals accepted a diversion offer in the larger site. In the moderate-sized jurisdiction, 17,357 cases were eligible, with 6335 offers accepted. Propensity score-weighted and instrumental variable regression techniques indicate that diversion was associated with a reduced probability of a new criminal case filing 1-year after the instant case filing relative to all other eligible cases. Moreover, program participation moderated the effect of race on future criminal justice contact.
Prosecutor-led diversion programs are one strategy used to efficiently manage criminal caseloads, hold defendants accountable, temper the collateral consequences of conviction, and reduce recidivism. The findings reported here indicate that these programs are associated with lower rates of recidivism. However, the programs’ discretionary design results in case- and defendant-level sorting and selection processes that shape program efficacy. After adjusting for sorting and selection effects, associations between diversion and favorable outcomes persist but raise important questions about both equitable access to diversion programs and the reliability of previously reported diversion findings.
]]>Current theories of punishment and legal decision-making provide useful frameworks for identifying mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. However, a key limitation is that these theories typically treat factors as either mitigating or aggravating, without accounting for variables that can function as both (e.g., mental illness, pecuniary gain, or a history of abuse). At present, no comprehensive theoretical model explains why such factors are “context-dependent.” This review addresses that gap by examining three independent theories: attribution theory, rational choice theory, and focal concerns theory. Each offers valuable insight into why its respective context-dependent factor may be perceived as mitigating or aggravating, yet none alone accounts for the broader range of context-dependent factors. Building on these insights, this review introduces an integrated model of decision-making to explain how context-dependent factors influence sentencing decisions.
]]>This study investigates whether deep learning models—specifically feedforward neural networks—can enhance the prediction of new violent criminal arrests among individuals released pretrial. Using data from a large southeastern county, we evaluate four neural network configurations varying in depth, regularization, and class imbalance adjustments. Results show that incorporating class weighting and threshold tuning notably improves recall of rare violent events, with the best performing model identifying 57% of individuals arrested for violent crimes while maintaining stable false positive (FP) rates. We estimate counterfactual risk estimates among detained individuals, revealing that although some violent events may be averted through detention, this comes at the cost of detaining large numbers of FPs.
Improving the identification of individuals at risk for violent crime during pretrial release is a critical public safety priority, yet prevailing tools offer limited recall for such rare events. This study shows that neural networks, when properly calibrated, can improve detection of high-risk individuals without increasing FP rates. However, algorithmic advances alone are insufficient; progress requires modernizing criminal justice IT infrastructures to enable interagency data linkages and real-time analytics. Most current data systems lack the contextual and behavioral features necessary to capture latent risk. Ultimately, system improvement efforts should move away from mechanisms like monetary bail and toward evidence-based supervision strategies, paired with investments in data modernization and cross-agency collaboration to strengthen the predictive foundation of pretrial assessments.
]]>Wrongful convictions continue to occur at high rates. Research has revealed that negative posttraumatic cognitive changes are a risk factor for the development and maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder, yet little research has examined whether exonerees experience posttraumatic cognitive changes, such as changes to their worldview. Thus, this study aims to understand exonerees' self-reported life changes and worldview changes through the lens of the Shattered Assumptions Theory. Fifty-eight exonerees answered four open-ended questions about changes they experienced following their wrongful conviction, including changes to their worldview. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Exonerees reported a variety of positive (42.8%) and negative (78.5%) life changes, including changes to their worldview. The most commonly reported negative worldview changes included loss of faith in the legal system, people, and authority figures. Positive worldview changes included strengthened religious faith, learning that people are willing to help, and learning to control one's attitude and focus on the positive. Results identified commonly reported worldview changes in exonerees, many of which are consistent with the Shattered Assumptions Theory. These findings from the largest qualitative sample of exonerees provides preliminary evidence for areas to be targeted in cognitive therapy in exonerees.
]]>Our research explores the motivations and pathways for engaging in antifascist (Antifa) and far-left violent extremist groups. 10 current or former left-wing violent extremists in the United States participated in qualitative, in-depth, life-history interviews. Informed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Behavioral Analysis Unit 1's, “Beyond Belief: Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism in America,” this study examines leftist violent extremism in terms of common radicalization pull factors, push factors, personal factors, and pathways to engagement. Our study identifies three potential pathways to leftist violent extremism (VE) and closely examines the motivating factors of subjects' involvement. This research is relevant to counter-violent extremism (CVE) scholars, law enforcement personnel, and policymakers because it elucidates how and why some Americans become involved in left-wing VE groups, as well as the similarities and distinctions between leftist VE groups and VE groups with other ideological persuasions. By better understanding motivations and pathways to engagement in leftist VE groups, we hope to inform counter-terrorism prevention and intervention efforts.
]]>This article explores the lived experience of imprisonment in Spain's open prisons, where prisoners spend most of the day in the community and return to the institution at night. Based on semi-structured interviews with 18 people in three Spanish open prisons, it examines how this Southern European form of open conditions is experienced and situates it within broader international debates. The findings show that open imprisonment is deeply ambivalent—both liberating and painful—with narratives that diverge between predominantly positive and predominantly negative orientations. The study refines the understandings of the pains and ‘liberations’ of open prisons, showing how daily community contact fosters autonomy while generating specific challenges such as the ‘wandering situation’ and intrusive forms of supervision in personal life. It also illustrates that openness varies across and within countries, reflecting different penal logics and institutional practices that shape how freedom and control are balanced in everyday life under open conditions.
]]>