A ‘criminal personas’ approach to countering criminal creativity

This paper describes a pilot study of a ‘criminal personas’ approach to countering criminal creativity. The value of the personas approach has been assessed by comparing the identification of criminal opportunity, through ‘traditional’ brainstorming and then through ‘criminal personas’ brainstorming The method involved brainstorm sessions with Computer Forensics Practitioners and with Product Designers, where they were required to generate criminal scenarios, select the most serious criminal opportunities, and propose means of countering them. The findings indicated that there was merit in further research in the development and application of the ‘criminal personas’ approach. The generation of criminal opportunity ideas and proposal of counter criminal solutions were both greater when the brainstorm approach involved the group responding through their given criminal personas

Expungement and Limiting Public Access to Alaska Criminal Case Records in the Digital Age

A criminal record results in a number of different barriers to reentry into the community for former offenders. These barriers — also called collateral consequences — can be mitigated by reducing the extent to which criminal records are visible to employers, landlords, and others. This article provides an overview of the complexity involved in limiting public access to criminal records, processes adopted in other states, and recent legislative proposals and current options in Alaska.[Introduction] / Background / Criminal Records in the Digital Age: National Overview / Expungement and Criminal Records in Alaska / Going Forward // SIDEBARS / The Model Penal Code / Federal REDEEM Act of 2015 / Recent Legislative Proposals on Criminal Records in Alaska / Data on CourtView / Alaska Court Rules of Administration—Case Information / Expungement Resource

Psycho-Sociological Review of Criminal Thinking Style

Criminal thinking has been long established as a very important predictor of criminal behaviour, however far less research effort has been undertaken to understand what variables can predict the emergence of criminal thinking. Considering the importance of criminal thinking, we feel it necessary to conduct a systematic review of the literature on criminal thinking in order to bring together what is currently known regarding the factors that relate to, and predict, habitual criminal thinking styles. This paper provides a brief overview of the state of the science on criminal thinking and indicates the need for future research in this context and the areas this future research should focus upon

Why Civil and Criminal Procedure Are So Different: A Forgotten History

Much has been written about the origins of civil procedure. Yet little is known about the origins of criminal procedure, even though it governs how millions of cases in federal and state courts are litigated each year. This Article’s examination of criminal procedure’s origin story questions the prevailing notion that civil and criminal procedure require different treatment. The Article’s starting point is the first draft of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure—confidential in 1941 and since forgotten. The draft reveals that reformers of criminal procedure turned to the new rules of civil procedure for guidance. The contents of this draft shed light on an extraordinary moment: reformers initially proposed that all litigation in the United States, civil and criminal, be governed by a unified procedural code. The implementation of this original vision of a unified code would have had dramatic implications for how criminal law is practiced and perceived today. The advisory committee’s final product in 1944, however, set criminal litigation on a very different course. Transcripts of the committee’s initial meetings reveal that the final code of criminal procedure emerged from the clash of ideas presented by two committee members, James Robinson and Alexander Holtzoff. Holtzoff’s traditional views would ultimately persuade other members, cleaving criminal procedure from civil procedure. Since then, differences in civil and criminal litigation have become entrenched and normalized. Yet, at the time the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were drafted, a unified code was not just a plausible alternative but the only proposal. The draft’s challenge to the prevailing notion that civil and criminal wrongs inherently require different procedural treatment is a critical contribution to the growing debate over whether the absence of discovery in criminal procedure is justified in light of discovery tools afforded by civil procedure. The first draft of criminal procedure, which called for uniform rules to govern proceedings in all civil and criminal courtrooms, suggests the possibility that current resistance to unification is, to a significant degree, historically contingent

Issue of hiring a criminal

Hiring a criminal. Criminal refers to a person who has committed to the crime. In some other words, there is a crime that called as felony. Felony is a crime that classified as the most serious type of offenses such as fraud, physical harm or large scale of theft. Thus, hiring a criminal is defined as company wanted to hire a person who has criminal records background as an employee. Nowadays, criminal history is quite common in the country like USA, which has over 6.6 million people been under correctional supervision such as jail, prison and parole. According to Kurlychek, Bushway, & Denver (2019), employers were asked questions regarding to the criminal history and use various methods and sources to collect the criminal background information. In contrast, some companies would prefer to hire people who are nominated and found that prison record of felony convictions reduced the employer’s motivation to hire an employee (Griffith & Young, 2017). Thus, employers are making decision based on the criminal history and checks for the record to make the hiring decisions (Young & Ryan, 2019) even though the connection between the criminal records and the employment is still at the infancy stage (Griffith, Rade, & Anazodo, 2019). In recent years, the policy attention is focus on the employment for the people who has criminal background (Agan & Starr, 2017). Consequently, “Ban the Box” policies has created to revise when and how the criminal histories were disclosed to move forward to the fair chance of employment selection process (Griffith & Young, 2017) to prevent the inequalities of economics and racial problems (Agan & Starr, 2017)

Confronting Criminal Law’s Violence: The Possibilities of Unfinished Alternatives

Confronting criminal law’s violence calls for an openness to unfinished alternatives — a willingness to engage in partial, in process, incomplete reformist efforts that seek to displace conventional criminal law administration as a primary mechanism for social order maintenance. But despite all indications that the status quo in U.S. criminal law administration is profoundly dysfunctional — an institutional manifestation of the deepest pathologies in our society — contemporary criminal law reform efforts and scholarship focus almost exclusively on relatively limited modifications to the status quo. These modifications may well render criminal law administration more humane, but fail to substitute alternative institutions or approaches to realize social order maintenance goals. In particular, these reformist efforts continue to rely on conventional criminal regulatory approaches to a wide array of social concerns, with all of their associated violence: on criminalization, policing, arrest, prosecution, incarceration, probation, and parole. Thus, even as these reformist approaches may offer substantial benefits, they remain wed to institutions that perpetrate criminal law’s violence and to limited temporal and imaginative horizons. By contrast, this essay explores a series of criminal law reform alternatives that offer more fundamental substitutes for criminal law administration. More specifically, this essay focuses on the possibilities of alternatives to criminal case processing that substitute for the order-maintaining functions currently attempted through criminal law enforcement. These alternatives hold the potential to draw into service separate institutions and mechanisms from those typically associated with criminal law administration. Further, these alternatives enlist on more equal footing and invite feedback and input from persons subject to criminal law enforcement. Importantly, this latter subset of reform alternatives is decidedly unfinished, partial, in process. I will argue that this unfinished quality ought not to be denied as an embarrassment or flaw, but instead should be embraced as a source of critical strength and possibility. In this dimension, this essay is a preliminary call for more attention on the part of legal scholars and criminal law reform advocates to unfinished partial substitutes for the order-maintaining work performed by criminal law administration — a call to attend further to as yet incomplete reformist alternatives that may portend less violent and more self-determined ways of achieving some measure of social order and collective peace. I begin to develop this argument by drawing, in particular, on the work of the Norwegian social theorist and prison abolitionist Thomas Mathiesen