Urban Criminology – Criminology of the Urban

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Regulation of incivilities in the UK, Italy and Belgium: Courts as potential safeguards against legislative vagueness and excessive use of penalising powers?

In recent years, the legislators in the UK, Italy and Belgium have progressively empowered local authorities to subject sometimes already criminalised and harmful, but also some relatively harmless uncivil conduct to intrusive and punitive measures deeply affecting individuals' rights. However, judicial action in these three countries has been recently trying to restrain the (illegitimate) use of penalising powers of local authorities by delivering interesting liberty-safeguarding decisions. This paper firstly describes the (expanded) regulation of incivilities in the three aforesaid European countries. Secondly, it focuses on two criteria that inform judicial review of legislative and administrative action, namely the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality. Thirdly, it examines the case law of English, Welsh and Scottish courts, along with Italian and Belgian courts, and shows how courts can safeguard the individual's rights and freedoms against (illegitimate) penalisation of conduct that is deemed anti-social or uncivil at the local level

Security governance, harms and resistance: recalibrating security and redefining incivility through legitimacy concerns

Examining the harmful effects of some existing governance approaches to urban space and various types of resistance to them, we outline a new framework to develop and evaluate security approaches in the city – in particular, towards ‘incivilities’. This framework relies on the redefinition of security, which we extended far beyond the realm of crime to include social security and concerns around vulnerability, sustainability, inclusion and so on, and takes into account the critique of existing governance measures. Simultaneously, it relies on the rethinking of ‘incivilities’, which involves shifting the focus away from behaviour deemed ‘anti-social’ to the actions or inactions of those who decide what ‘anti-social’ is in the first place, and their harmful consequences. The framework we propose – that takes into account harms, people’s broader sensitivities around public space and pro-social alternatives to current security approaches – should hopefully contribute to a more just and legitimate urban security governance

Urban space and the social control of incivilities: perceptions of space influencing the regulationof anti-social behaviour

Contemporary cities are increasingly governed through space. In this article,we examine how urban space and perceptions thereof can influence the social control inthe area of incivilities. To this end, we first inspect the existing literature, in particularthe socio-spatial studies that emphasise the importance of culture and values in theinteraction with social control. Partly drawing on examples from our previous studies,we suggest that people’s perceptions of urban space (influenced by cultural symbols,social and media representations, aesthetics and other values) affect their perceptions ofincivilities, while the latter often determine or at least importantly contribute to theshaping of the social control of incivilities. We further highlight the role of gentrifica-tion as a medium and a tool of social control. The paper concludes by discussingimplications of this for the possible future, more integrated and interdisciplinaryresearch on the social control of incivilities in the city

Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Automated Decision-Making in Criminal Justice

Artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting our everyday lives in a myriad of ways. The use of algorithms, AI agents and big data techniques also creates unprecedented opportunities for the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences and the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Equally, however, the rapid increase of AI and big data in criminal justice raises a plethora of criminological, ethical, legal and technological questions and concerns, eg about enhanced surveillance and control in a pre-crime society and the risk of bias or even manipulation in (automated) decision-making. In view of the stakes involved, the need for regulation of AI and its alignment with human rights, democracy and the rule of law standards has been amply recognised, both globally and regionally. The lawfulness, social acceptance and overall legitimacy of AI, big data and automated decision-making in criminal justice will depend on a range of factors, including (algorithmic) transparency, trustworthiness, non-discrimination, accountability, responsibility, effective oversight, data protection, due process, fair trial, access to justice, effective redress and remedy. Addressing these issues and raising awareness on AI systems’ capabilities and limitations within criminal justice is needed to be better prepared for the future that is now upon us. This special issue on ‘Artificial intelligence, big data and automated decision-making in criminal justice’ presents topical and innovative papers on the above issues, selected following a call for papers

Preface: Capabilities and Limitations of AI in Criminal Justice

Preface to the special issue on ‘Artificial intelligence, big data and automated decision-making in criminal justice’

Preface: Capabilities and Limitations of AI in Criminal Justice

Preface to the special issue on ‘Artificial intelligence, big data and automated decision-making in criminal justice’