Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170866
Travis Dumsday
.
{"title":"Vigilantism and Trust in the System","authors":"Travis Dumsday","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170866","url":null,"abstract":".","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46049666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2023.2187188
B. Jones
In many jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere, the law governing deadly force by police and civilians contains a notable asymmetry. Often civilians but not police are bound by the imminence requirement—that is, a necessary condition for justifying deadly force is reasonable belief that oneself or another innocent person faces imminent threat of grave harm. In US law enforcement, however, there has been some shift toward the imminence requirement, most evident in the use-of-force policy adopted by the Department of Justice in 2022. This article defends that shift and argues that the ethical case for the imminence requirement in policing is stronger than Shannon Brandt Ford suggests in a recent article. Though the imminence requirement’s impacts on policing and public safety require ongoing study, the principle of equality before the law and the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing both provide moral grounds for this requirement, especially given the lack of evidence that the status quo helps protect life.
{"title":"Applying the Imminence Requirement to Police","authors":"B. Jones","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2187188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2187188","url":null,"abstract":"In many jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere, the law governing deadly force by police and civilians contains a notable asymmetry. Often civilians but not police are bound by the imminence requirement—that is, a necessary condition for justifying deadly force is reasonable belief that oneself or another innocent person faces imminent threat of grave harm. In US law enforcement, however, there has been some shift toward the imminence requirement, most evident in the use-of-force policy adopted by the Department of Justice in 2022. This article defends that shift and argues that the ethical case for the imminence requirement in policing is stronger than Shannon Brandt Ford suggests in a recent article. Though the imminence requirement’s impacts on policing and public safety require ongoing study, the principle of equality before the law and the Doctrine of Doing and Allowing both provide moral grounds for this requirement, especially given the lack of evidence that the status quo helps protect life.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45623771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170659
D. Courtwright
Russell Crandall. Drugs and Thugs: The History and Future of America’s War on Drugs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020, 520 pp., $44 (paperback), ISBN: 978-0-300-24034-4. Benjamin T. Smith. The Dope: The Real History of the Mexican Drug Trade. New York: W.W. Norton, 2021, 480 pp., $30 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-1-32400655-8. Sam Quinones. The Least of Us: True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl and Meth. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, 432 pp., $28 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-1-63557-435-7.
Russell Crandall。毒品与暴徒：美国禁毒战争的历史与未来。纽黑文：耶鲁大学出版社，2020年，520页，44美元（平装本），国际标准书号：978-0-300-24034-4。本杰明·T·史密斯。兴奋剂：墨西哥毒品贸易的真实历史。纽约：W.W.Norton，2021，480页，30美元（精装本），国际标准书号：978-1-32400655-8。Sam Quinones。最少的我们：芬太尼和甲基安非他明时代的美国和希望的真实故事。纽约：布鲁姆斯伯里出版社，2021，432页，28美元（精装本），国际标准书号：978-1-63557-435-7。
{"title":"Drug Wars, Drug Violence, and Drug Addiction in the Americas","authors":"D. Courtwright","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170659","url":null,"abstract":"Russell Crandall. Drugs and Thugs: The History and Future of America’s War on Drugs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020, 520 pp., $44 (paperback), ISBN: 978-0-300-24034-4. Benjamin T. Smith. The Dope: The Real History of the Mexican Drug Trade. New York: W.W. Norton, 2021, 480 pp., $30 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-1-32400655-8. Sam Quinones. The Least of Us: True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl and Meth. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021, 432 pp., $28 (hardcover), ISBN: 978-1-63557-435-7.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47621051","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144059
Garrath Williams
This lengthy, masterful monograph follows Simester’s previous joint book with Andreas von Hirsch. Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs focussed on the activities states should criminalize. Resisting “unified, grand theory,” it argued that criminal activities must combine two features: First, they must be wrongful. Second, they must be related to harm—activities need not be directly harmful, but their prohibition must prevent significant harm. Like the previous book, Fundamentals of Criminal Law holds that law is a “multi-function tool” (3). Criminal law prevents wrongs and harms; it communicates the gravity of these wrongs; it interrogates and tries suspects; it labels the guilty and imposes penalties on them. As the previous book stressed, criminal law has a distinctively moral aspect. “Whether in preventive or punitive mode, the criminal law speaks with a moral voice” (4). Those convicted are subject to “official moral condemnation” (7). But this point is logically secondary. Above all, criminal law issues moral prohibitions (72). In other words, Simester’s general approach has three features. It is instrumentalist—criminal law should be understood in terms of the functions it serves. It is pluralistic—there is no overarching function or unified theory. Not least, it claims to be deontological—the prohibition, condemnation and punishment of serious wrongs represent important functions in their own right (9). Given the previous work, Fundamentals of Criminal Law assumes that states should criminalize some activities, and instead focusses on the conditions which someone must meet, to merit the condemnation and sanctions associated with criminal conviction. The book thus concerns what legal theorists call “the general part” of criminal law—its “broad structure of responsibility, culpability, and wrongdoing” (11). This structure is
{"title":"What is Fundamental in Criminal Law?","authors":"Garrath Williams","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144059","url":null,"abstract":"This lengthy, masterful monograph follows Simester’s previous joint book with Andreas von Hirsch. Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs focussed on the activities states should criminalize. Resisting “unified, grand theory,” it argued that criminal activities must combine two features: First, they must be wrongful. Second, they must be related to harm—activities need not be directly harmful, but their prohibition must prevent significant harm. Like the previous book, Fundamentals of Criminal Law holds that law is a “multi-function tool” (3). Criminal law prevents wrongs and harms; it communicates the gravity of these wrongs; it interrogates and tries suspects; it labels the guilty and imposes penalties on them. As the previous book stressed, criminal law has a distinctively moral aspect. “Whether in preventive or punitive mode, the criminal law speaks with a moral voice” (4). Those convicted are subject to “official moral condemnation” (7). But this point is logically secondary. Above all, criminal law issues moral prohibitions (72). In other words, Simester’s general approach has three features. It is instrumentalist—criminal law should be understood in terms of the functions it serves. It is pluralistic—there is no overarching function or unified theory. Not least, it claims to be deontological—the prohibition, condemnation and punishment of serious wrongs represent important functions in their own right (9). Given the previous work, Fundamentals of Criminal Law assumes that states should criminalize some activities, and instead focusses on the conditions which someone must meet, to merit the condemnation and sanctions associated with criminal conviction. The book thus concerns what legal theorists call “the general part” of criminal law—its “broad structure of responsibility, culpability, and wrongdoing” (11). This structure is","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45703015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144058
C. Morrison
s/commission-investigateallegations-police-corruption-and-anti. Oppel Jr, Richard A., Derek Bryan Taylor, and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs. “What to Know About Breonna Taylor’s Death.” New York Times, August 23, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonnataylor-police.html?name = styln-breonna-
s / commission-investigateallegations-police-corruption-and-anti。小Oppel, Richard A.， Derek Bryan Taylor和Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs。" Breonna Taylor之死的真相"纽约时报，2022年8月23日。https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonnataylor-police.html?name = style -breonna-
{"title":"The Vanishing Promise of Police Reform","authors":"C. Morrison","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144058","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2144058","url":null,"abstract":"s/commission-investigateallegations-police-corruption-and-anti. Oppel Jr, Richard A., Derek Bryan Taylor, and Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs. “What to Know About Breonna Taylor’s Death.” New York Times, August 23, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonnataylor-police.html?name = styln-breonna-","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48415567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2143647
P. Toner
“Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws are subject to controversy within both the philosophical literature and the legal literature; and of course they are hotly debated outside of academia as well. In this paper I show that a great part of these discussions is predicated on often very serious errors about what SYG is or isn’t, and I explain them in the context of self-defense law. Though my main purpose is clarification and the correction of some errors in the literature, I close with some brief thoughts about the moral status of SYG and a proposal regarding SYG laws.
{"title":"“Stand Your Ground”: A Clarification","authors":"P. Toner","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2143647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2143647","url":null,"abstract":"“Stand Your Ground” (SYG) laws are subject to controversy within both the philosophical literature and the legal literature; and of course they are hotly debated outside of academia as well. In this paper I show that a great part of these discussions is predicated on often very serious errors about what SYG is or isn’t, and I explain them in the context of self-defense law. Though my main purpose is clarification and the correction of some errors in the literature, I close with some brief thoughts about the moral status of SYG and a proposal regarding SYG laws.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44957820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2146321
Helene O. I. Gundhus, Olav Niri Talberg, C. T. Wathne
Despite the growing body of work exploring the weaknesses of police performance systems and the displacement of their goals, less attention has been given to why police officers resist and circumvent by false reporting. Whether police report honestly on their activities is a matter of considerable significance given the role that police have in a broadly democratic society, and the overall question is whether the false reporting undermines the integrity of the police or if it is a collective coping strategy that safeguards the police ethos? This survey reveals that 25% of respondents (n = 2248) had manipulated the numbers at least once in the previous year. To identify why they did so, the variables selected for analysis are those determining their view of the Management by Objective (MBO) system, how far they have participated in the MBO process and how often they are unable to assist a member of the public. Our results show that men are more likely to manipulate the numbers than women and non-leaders are more likely to do so than leaders. Respondents were more likely to submit false reports if they had not participated in the MBO process, were not motivated by MBO goals, believed the MBO indicators misdirected their focus and frequently felt that they were forced to reject members of the public they would like to help. Our findings further show that public servants can be corrupted, though they do not “bring” vices to work with them, but rather acquire vices through what is required of them.
{"title":"False Reporting in the Norwegian Police: Analyzing Counter-productive Elements in Performance Management Systems","authors":"Helene O. I. Gundhus, Olav Niri Talberg, C. T. Wathne","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2146321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2146321","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the growing body of work exploring the weaknesses of police performance systems and the displacement of their goals, less attention has been given to why police officers resist and circumvent by false reporting. Whether police report honestly on their activities is a matter of considerable significance given the role that police have in a broadly democratic society, and the overall question is whether the false reporting undermines the integrity of the police or if it is a collective coping strategy that safeguards the police ethos? This survey reveals that 25% of respondents (n = 2248) had manipulated the numbers at least once in the previous year. To identify why they did so, the variables selected for analysis are those determining their view of the Management by Objective (MBO) system, how far they have participated in the MBO process and how often they are unable to assist a member of the public. Our results show that men are more likely to manipulate the numbers than women and non-leaders are more likely to do so than leaders. Respondents were more likely to submit false reports if they had not participated in the MBO process, were not motivated by MBO goals, believed the MBO indicators misdirected their focus and frequently felt that they were forced to reject members of the public they would like to help. Our findings further show that public servants can be corrupted, though they do not “bring” vices to work with them, but rather acquire vices through what is required of them.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42690330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
Aziz Z Huq
Jesper Ryberg and Julian Roberts teach ethics and criminology at Roskilde University and the University of Oxford respectively. In Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, they have curated a powerful and compelling collection of essays on the application of a new technology to an old problem. Their edited volume focuses on the application of predictive computational tools, often called “artificial intelligence” (AI) or “machine learning,” to the task of determining the punishment that a convicted offender will receive. As their professional orientations might lead one to expect, their book focuses on normative rather than empirical or technical questions. The resulting essays, written by scholars from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (but not the Global South), do not advance a single thesis or follow a singular argumentative thread. They instead engage with in interrelated suite of normative questions. These include due process (or the procedural obligations owed by the state to individuals); non-discrimination entitlements; and the defendant’s claims to an “accurate” judgment (so far as facts go) or the opportunity to call for “mercy” in the exercise of sentencing-related discretion. All of these issues, as I shall discuss below, are addressed at what we might call a “mid-level” of generality—i.e. by taking as the object of study institutions and practices at a certain level of abstraction. This decision results in discussion generic enough to be located in any one of a number Western European or North American jurisdictions, whether guided by civil or common law. Indeed, it is quite striking that the reader does not encounter much by way of a case study or a specific description of AI-driven sentencing for the first sixty pages of the book. When specific tools are discussed, moreover, details are also scant. For Aziz Z. Huq is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, USA. Email: huq@uchicago.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2022 Vol. 41, No. 3, 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
Jesper Ryberg和Julian Roberts分别在罗斯基勒大学和牛津大学教授伦理学和犯罪学。在《量刑与人工智能》(Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence)一书中，他们整理了一本关于新技术如何解决老问题的强大而引人注目的论文集。他们编辑的书集中在预测计算工具的应用上，通常被称为“人工智能”(AI)或“机器学习”，以确定被定罪的罪犯将受到的惩罚。正如他们的专业取向可能导致人们期望的那样，他们的书侧重于规范而不是经验或技术问题。这些论文由来自美国、加拿大、英国和欧盟(但不包括全球南方国家)的学者撰写，没有提出单一的论点，也没有遵循单一的论证思路。相反，他们关注的是一系列相互关联的规范性问题。这些包括正当程序(或国家对个人应承担的程序性义务);不歧视权利;被告要求得到“准确”的判决(就事实而言)或在行使与量刑有关的自由裁量权时要求“仁慈”的机会。所有这些问题，正如我将在下面讨论的那样，都是在我们所谓的“中等水平”的普遍性上解决的。以一定抽象层次上的制度和实践为研究对象。这一决定导致的讨论足够普遍，可以在西欧或北美的任何一个司法管辖区进行，无论是由民法还是普通法指导。事实上，在书的前60页中，读者并没有通过案例研究或对人工智能驱动的量刑的具体描述，这一点非常引人注目。此外，当讨论特定的工具时，也缺少细节。Aziz Z. Huq，美国芝加哥大学法学院教授。电子邮件:huq@uchicago.edu刑事司法伦理，2022年第41卷第3期，268-277,https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
{"title":"Can a Machine Sentence Justly?","authors":"Aziz Z Huq","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","url":null,"abstract":"Jesper Ryberg and Julian Roberts teach ethics and criminology at Roskilde University and the University of Oxford respectively. In Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, they have curated a powerful and compelling collection of essays on the application of a new technology to an old problem. Their edited volume focuses on the application of predictive computational tools, often called “artificial intelligence” (AI) or “machine learning,” to the task of determining the punishment that a convicted offender will receive. As their professional orientations might lead one to expect, their book focuses on normative rather than empirical or technical questions. The resulting essays, written by scholars from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (but not the Global South), do not advance a single thesis or follow a singular argumentative thread. They instead engage with in interrelated suite of normative questions. These include due process (or the procedural obligations owed by the state to individuals); non-discrimination entitlements; and the defendant’s claims to an “accurate” judgment (so far as facts go) or the opportunity to call for “mercy” in the exercise of sentencing-related discretion. All of these issues, as I shall discuss below, are addressed at what we might call a “mid-level” of generality—i.e. by taking as the object of study institutions and practices at a certain level of abstraction. This decision results in discussion generic enough to be located in any one of a number Western European or North American jurisdictions, whether guided by civil or common law. Indeed, it is quite striking that the reader does not encounter much by way of a case study or a specific description of AI-driven sentencing for the first sixty pages of the book. When specific tools are discussed, moreover, details are also scant. For Aziz Z. Huq is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, USA. Email: huq@uchicago.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2022 Vol. 41, No. 3, 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44988750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2141021
Seumas Miller, Marcus Smith
This article considers individual rights and fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system in the context of DNA evidence, in particular recent advancements in genomics that have significantly advanced law enforcement investigative capabilities in this area. It discusses a technique known as Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) which utilizes genomic data held by commercial direct-to-consumer ancestry and health companies to investigate the identity of suspects linked to serious crimes. Using this technique, even if only a small proportion of the population (e.g. 5%) has submitted genomic data to these companies, almost anyone in the population can be identified. We discuss this phenomenon in the context of the existing literature and arguments in relation to universal forensic DNA databases, as well as relevant recent developments in both liberal democracies and authoritarian states. We introduce the concept of a quasi-universal forensic DNA database and consider associated implications for the criminal justice system and society from the perspectives of privacy, the right not to self-incriminate, joint rights, and collective responsibility.
{"title":"Quasi-Universal Forensic DNA Databases","authors":"Seumas Miller, Marcus Smith","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2141021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2141021","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers individual rights and fundamental tenets of the criminal justice system in the context of DNA evidence, in particular recent advancements in genomics that have significantly advanced law enforcement investigative capabilities in this area. It discusses a technique known as Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG) which utilizes genomic data held by commercial direct-to-consumer ancestry and health companies to investigate the identity of suspects linked to serious crimes. Using this technique, even if only a small proportion of the population (e.g. 5%) has submitted genomic data to these companies, almost anyone in the population can be identified. We discuss this phenomenon in the context of the existing literature and arguments in relation to universal forensic DNA databases, as well as relevant recent developments in both liberal democracies and authoritarian states. We introduce the concept of a quasi-universal forensic DNA database and consider associated implications for the criminal justice system and society from the perspectives of privacy, the right not to self-incriminate, joint rights, and collective responsibility.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49647770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-04DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2022.2102837
Max de Vries, J. Bijlsma
Preventing future crime has become an increasingly dominant function of the criminal law of many liberal democracies. This “preventive turn” has led to a profound debate on the legal and ethical boundaries of the “preventive state.” However, the concept at the core of preventive justice—the dangerousness of the offender—has attracted relatively little attention in the current debate. This is remarkable, as the legal establishment of dangerousness permits intrusive preventive measures, such as preventive detention for an indeterminate period of time. In the past, various concepts of dangerousness have been developed by criminal law scholars. We discuss these concepts in a chronological order to demonstrate how the meaning of dangerousness has evolved over time, and how it has been shaped by concurrent developments in forensic psychiatry and penology. Our description of the state of the art of legal scholarship on the concept of dangerousness also shows the lack of a fully developed theory of dangerousness, and therefore the necessity of further research. We identify five “aspects” of the concept of dangerousness on which scholars have widely diverging views. These five aspects are intended to guide further research on the concept of dangerousness in preventive criminal law.
{"title":"The Elusive Concept of Dangerousness: The State of the Art in Criminal Legal Theory and the Necessity of Further Research","authors":"Max de Vries, J. Bijlsma","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2102837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2102837","url":null,"abstract":"Preventing future crime has become an increasingly dominant function of the criminal law of many liberal democracies. This “preventive turn” has led to a profound debate on the legal and ethical boundaries of the “preventive state.” However, the concept at the core of preventive justice—the dangerousness of the offender—has attracted relatively little attention in the current debate. This is remarkable, as the legal establishment of dangerousness permits intrusive preventive measures, such as preventive detention for an indeterminate period of time. In the past, various concepts of dangerousness have been developed by criminal law scholars. We discuss these concepts in a chronological order to demonstrate how the meaning of dangerousness has evolved over time, and how it has been shaped by concurrent developments in forensic psychiatry and penology. Our description of the state of the art of legal scholarship on the concept of dangerousness also shows the lack of a fully developed theory of dangerousness, and therefore the necessity of further research. We identify five “aspects” of the concept of dangerousness on which scholars have widely diverging views. These five aspects are intended to guide further research on the concept of dangerousness in preventive criminal law.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59557412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：