As compiled by Dr. Kaitlyn Quinn
LAW AND SOCIETY ASSOCIATION
Collaborative Research Network: Punishment and Society
RECENTLY PUBLISHED WORKS
ARTICLES
Barker, Vanessa. 2025. “Nationalism and Criminal Justice in Europe.” Annual Review of Criminology 9: in press. [Access it here]
Nationalism is a complex social process and has not been very well understood or utilized in criminology. This is surprising because the concept has significant explanatory power and can unlock deep and meaningful social practices in ways that competing accounts do not. Nationalism has multiple forms and configurations, as it operates as a cultural practice, ideology, institutional arrangement, social movement, and emotional register, each with implications for criminal justice, each with integrative and exclusionary elements. This review takes up salient dimensions of nationalism to show not only its relevance for criminology but also how nationalism is foundational to criminal justice itself and its contemporary transformations. European societies are facing a series of challenges in nearly all areas of social life, including demographic declines, cultural clashes over immigration, fear of crime, and unmet demands for increased security. The interplay of nationalism and criminal justice is at the center of these conflicts and possible resolutions.
Barker, Vanessa and Switzer, Ryan. 2025. “The Right Against Rights in Sweden.” Law & Society Review 60(2): 1-31. [Access it here]
We argue that the far-right is turning to law and legal institutions to institutionalize its extreme agendas but does so in the name of democratic values. Right-wing attempts to affirm and repress rights speak to the duality of democracy, often hinging on the perceived worthiness of rights along cultural and ethnic boundaries while still espousing equality for all. To understand and explain this phenomenon, we bring together socio-legal literature and far-right scholarship and focus on the understudied but significant Swedish case, often viewed as exceptional. We analyze critical events within the Swedish polity, such as the free speech crisis over the Quran burnings and recent reforms of the Tidö Agreement, the governing document of the right-wing coalition government, which is deeply influenced by the far-right Sweden Democrats. Empirical evidence shows how right-wing movements go beyond conventional right-against-rights expectations of authoritarian or strongman tactics to instead advocate for liberal values.
Brooks, Iolanthe. 2025. “Shuffling Within the System: The Pervasive Uncertainty of Prison Transfers.” Social Problems. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
Prisons presumably represent paradigms of immobility and enclosure. Yet, going “to prison” means moving between a procession of facilities. Much like other state-funded institutions, from foster care to halfway houses, forced movement is a common part of incarceration. Building on literature about cross-institutional “people exchanges,” I use the case of prison transfers in New York State to argue that incarcerated people experience within-system shuffling as punitively uncertain, both at the scale of discrete transfers and in their accumulation. Drawing first on an original dataset of transfer records, I demonstrate that within-system shuffling is a pervasive aspect of prison management, with New York averaging one transfer per person incarcerated in 2022. In interviews with 52 formerly incarcerated
people, many conceptualized transfers as flexible tools that administrators used to offload individuals whom they found difficult. Transfer experiences, however, went beyond such individual occurrences. As transfers accumulate across a sentence and in others’ moves, they destabilize incarcerated people’s relationships, with far-reaching implications for daily life, rehabilitation, and reentry. These findings demonstrate, first, the prevalence of within-system shuffling as an undertheorized aspect of state institutions; and second, how these administrative decisions reverberate and accumulate, deepening prison’s uncertainty.
Prisons presumably represent paradigms of immobility and enclosure. Yet, going “to prison” means moving between a procession of facilities. Much like other state-funded institutions, from foster care to halfway houses, forced movement is a common part of incarceration. Building on literature about cross-institutional “people exchanges,” I use the case of prison transfers in New York State to argue that incarcerated people experience within-system shuffling as punitively uncertain, both at the scale of discrete transfers and in their accumulation. Drawing first on an original dataset of transfer records, I demonstrate that within-system shuffling is a pervasive aspect of prison management, with New York averaging one transfer per person incarcerated in 2022. In interviews with 52 formerly incarcerated
people, many conceptualized transfers as flexible tools that administrators used to offload individuals whom they found difficult. Transfer experiences, however, went beyond such individual occurrences. As transfers accumulate across a sentence and in others’ moves, they destabilize incarcerated people’s relationships, with far-reaching implications for daily life, rehabilitation, and reentry. These findings demonstrate, first, the prevalence of within-system shuffling as an undertheorized aspect of state institutions; and second, how these administrative decisions reverberate and accumulate, deepening prison’s uncertainty.
Chen, Elsa, Lageson, Sarah and Adams, Ericka. “‘This is Everyone’s Issue’: Policy Entrepreneurs, Issue Framing, and Coalition Building in the Passage of Automatic Criminal Record Expungement.” Criminology & Public Policy 24(4): 655-687. [Access it here]
Research Summary: Since 2018, at least 12 U.S. states have introduced policies to expunge certain eligible arrest and criminal conviction records through automated or algorithmic means. Drawing on interviews with governmental representatives and community stakeholders, this paper identifies strategies used to pass this legislation in Pennsylvania and Utah, the first two states to enact automated expungement policies. We frame our findings around three established theoretical frameworks of public policy making—policy entrepreneurship, issue framing, and coalition building—illustrating their combined strategic importance with data gathered from those involved on the ground in the passage and adoption of automated expungement legislation. The findings add depth and nuance to the policy-making literature, along with practical implications for future criminal legal reform initiatives.
Policy Implications: Interviewees consistently described how key policy entrepreneurs played essential roles in the development, passage, and implementation of automated criminal record expungement by strategically framing the issue of criminal record discrimination around core values shared by conservatives and liberals, such as workforce development. Broad bipartisan coalition building enabled the scale-up of automated expungement policies within states where it has been adopted and has aided diffusion to new states. These findings can inform the approaches taken by advocates of automated expungement and other criminal justice reform initiatives, particularly in conservative or polarized political environments.
DeCaro, Joanne B. 2026. “Time Unbound: Nonlinear Temporality and Structural Trauma in Prison Rime.” Punishment & Society. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
A growing literature establishes the experience of prison time as cyclical and present focused, but my analysis of trauma suggests that prison time can be heavily influenced by the past, especially through social, multigenerational traumas. Drawing from oral history interviews and 5 years of ethnographic data with formerly incarcerated lifers and long-termers in California, this paper explores how pre-carceral and “compounded structural traumas” influence the experience of prison time. This paper makes three contributions to the study of the lived experience of punishment: (1) a new analysis of carceral trauma experiences to include compounded structural traumas; (2) a new temporal analysis of carceral permeability through the concept of trauma-produced prison time; (3) the use of the case study method to integrate multigenerational identity into understandings of the carceral experience.
Gottlieb, Sarah. 2026. “The Indelible Flaws of Conviction Integrity Units.” University of Colorado Law Review 97: 133-215. [Access it here]
Conviction Integrity Units within prosecutors’ offices have doubled in number over the last 10 years. Leaders of the innocence movement initially praised these units, believing they were necessary for the future of innocence work given their unique access to discovery, and scholars hoped Conviction Integrity Units would lead prosecutors away from fighting against claims of innocence to sincere and open review of wrongful convictions. But, as Conviction Integrity Units proliferated, the question of whether prosecutors can fulfill the mandate of these offices and conduct thorough review of their colleagues’ work has received insufficient inquiry, particularly given that official misconduct continues to be a leading cause of wrongful convictions. This Article is the first to conduct in-depth analysis of multiple Conviction Integrity Units and evaluate their efficacy. By analyzing three separate units in jurisdictions with the highest rates of wrongful convictions, this Article reveals that legitimate claims of innocence are often rejected and response to scandal is insufficient and slow when time is of the essence. In so doing, it lays out an inherent framework of flaws articulating why Conviction Integrity Units are not functioning as the reform many had hoped. They suffer from a lack of transparency and inconsistency in leadership that can frustrate even the best intentions. They inappropriately rely on self-policing prone to bias to fix ethical violations of the past while those in charge of the units are still engaging in prosecutorial misconduct in the present. This Article shows that Conviction Integrity Units operate
un-der the guise of a legal reform while truly functioning as a cloak of legitimacy for prosecutors and the criminal legal system. Exonerations provide a veneer of successful operation, regardless of whether the state played a meaningful role. They encourage the misperception that deeply rooted systemic problems are a deviation from the status quo, caused by single bad actors and fixable by singular exonerations. They fail to pro-vide adequate remedies for past harm, thereby failing to change current practices and prevent the same acts from occurring in the future. Conviction Integrity Units therefore perpetuate the criminal legal system’s inherent flaws. Misplaced reliance on them causes harm to individuals seeking review of their innocence claims and condones the causes of wrongful convictions they aim to undo.
Jefferis, Danielle C. 2025. “Our Progressively Brutal Constitution: A Legal Expressivist Account of the Excessive Force Doctrine.” Emory Law Journal 75(1): 1-58. [Access it here]
The Constitution forbids some forms of physical violence. However, the scope of its protection depends on the legal status of the person subjected to the violence. The Fourth Amendment protects a person outside the criminal legal system from a state actor’s “objectively unreasonable” force. A pre-trial detainee has a similar, though weaker, right under the Due Process Clause. But after conviction, a person’s right of protection from state violence has nearly vanished: the Eighth Amendment prohibits only force applied “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Rather than meaningfully limiting state violence, this doctrine constructs a constitutional framework where legal protections diminish as a person moves deeper into the criminal legal system. In doing so, it exposes a progressive brutality embedded in our constitutional order. This Article makes two primary contributions. First, it reconceptualizes the constitutional doctrine governing state violence not as a series of single- Amendment-focused decisions but as one interconnected doctrine. This doctrine is inextricably intertwined with the criminal legal system, operating within what I call the “policing-punishment pathway”—the continuum of state violence from initial police contact to post-conviction imprisonment. Second, this Article is the first to examine the force doctrine through a legal expressivist lens. In doing so, it contends that the law of force not only reflects but also reinforces a social hierarchy of bodily worth. Though framed as a safeguard for individual rights, the constitutional force doctrine rationalizes and entrenches the danger and dehumanization at the core of the criminal legal system. This Article calls for either an honest reckoning of the structural violence embedded in our constitutional framework—or a radical reimagining of the doctrine to reject its brutal logics.
Jun, Li and Jiang, Jize. 2025. “Revisiting Crime, Punishment and Deterrence in a Rapidly Changing Society: New Evidence from Panel Data Analysis in China.” Crime, Law and Social Change 83(1): 1-25. [Access it here]
China’s punitive culture of repression and severity, and its retention of the death penalty, are rooted in an entrenched belief in the deterrent value of drastic disciplinary measures. Yet this rationale, which underlies China’s continued use of harsh punishment in contemporary, rapidly changing society, has received little empirical scrutiny or systematic testing. To address this lacuna, we draw on a uniquely formulated set of provincial panel data from 2014 to 2019 to test the deterrence hypothesis with respect to Chinese harsh punishments. Overall, our results suggest that Chinese punishment has modestly deterred serious crime in recent years, but it does so primarily through the certainty component of punishment rather than the severity dimension. After controlling for severity-related variables, the speed of punishment is still found to deter the most serious violent crimes. In addition, we find that the Chinese death penalty has little significant deterrent effect on homicide or robbery rates. Research and policy implications are also discussed.
Jiang, Jize and Meng, Yuchen. 2025. “Excessive Formalism and Obsessive Security: The Organizational Logic of the Rehabilitation Disjuncture in Chinese Community Corrections.” The Prison Journal 105(5): 628-652. [Access it here]
The recent establishment of Chinese community corrections (CCC) has drawn considerable attention to the question of why offender rehabilitation remains unfulfilled in China, a phenomenon known as the “rehabilitation disjuncture.” Yet, the peculiar organizational logic of the CCC, which structures offender-officer relations and frames their interactions, has received little explicit attention regarding its relationship to the rehabilitation gap. Drawing on ethnographic data from Chinese urban community corrections settings, the study examines the organizational structure, culture, and processes that cause the operation of CCC to deviate from the rehabilitation ideal. The analysis reveals that excessive formalism, an obsession with security, and narcissistic image-building permeate the daily rehabilitation work of correctional teams, collectively undermining the institutional commitment to benevolent care
and thus compromising offender well-being. The article concludes with the argument that to truly achieve the welfarist goal, the organizational processes that underpin the practical implementation of offender rehabilitation cannot be neglected.
Jiang, Jize and Meng, Yuchen. 2025. “‘I’m Gonna Always Make Everything OK for Them’: Rehabilitative Veneer, Stability Maintenance, and Offenders’ Perceptions of Procedural (In)Justice Within Chinese Community Corrections.” Law & Policy 47(3): e70001. [Access it here]
The recent establishment of Chinese Community Corrections (CCC) has been heralded as a lenient turn in China's criminal policy, and a welfarist approach to promoting the well-being of offenders through state-sponsored rehabilitation services. Despite growing research on the operational meaning and functions of the CCC, the effect of offenders' participation in rehabilitation on their satisfaction with justice has yet to be adequately explored. Based on ethnographic observations and interviews with offenders in community corrections, and guided by the procedural justice framework, this study examines the lived experiences of offenders and the impact of their participation in rehabilitation on their perceptions of justice. The analysis reveals that offenders experience a process of what we call “manufacturing compliance,” navigating complex bureaucratic requirements derived from the state's priority of maintaining stability. This calls into question the presumed therapeutic effect of offenders' involvement in the CCC and further suggests an unintended negative impact of unmet expectations. The implications of these findings for the administration of the CCC as a genuine channel of penal welfare are discussed.
Jouet, Mugambi. 2025. “Abortion and American Exceptionalism.” Criminal Justice Law Review 9(1): 1-68. [Access it here]
This Article explores why abortion is being recriminalized in the United States in sharp contrast to the historical evolution of reproductive rights. Its thesis is that abortion exemplifies American exceptionalism in the original sense of the phrase that America is an “exception,” especially within the Western world. Yet exceptionalism should not be misunderstood as historical determinism or cultural essentialism. By the early 1970s, America was converging with peer Western democracies in liberalizing abortion. This process of convergence was ultimately halted by the mounting influence of the U.S. pro-life movement in an age when tolerance or support for reproductive rights increasingly became the norm abroad. When Dobbs overruled Roe, it not only exacerbated polarization within America, but also the divide between America and other Western democracies. This divergence was epitomized by the criticism that Dobbs garnered from U.S. allies, which led to remarkable public statements by Justice Samuel Alito defending his decision from condemnation by foreign leaders. While abortion is often analyzed in isolation, this multidisciplinary Article focuses on its interrelationship with wider features of American exceptionalism. A distinctive religious landscape sheds light on the intensity of opposition to abortion among the substantial minority of Americans who share a traditionalist worldview. The history of Catholicism and evangelicalism in America has notably diverged from fellow Western societies in ways that are largely overlooked. This unique social environment has contributed to the resilience of the U.S. anti-abortion movement, which has an outsized impact due to the exceptional weight of lobbying by special interests over American government. By holding that religious opposition to abortion can legitimately be channeled through secularized laws and policies, the U.S. Supreme Court has further enabled this movement to be highly effective. Organized opposition to abortion instead declined elsewhere in the West concurrently with the decline of organized religion, especially traditionalist conceptions of Christianity. Modern America is now an outlier, refighting and relitigating an endless battle over abortion.
Jouet, Mugambi. 2025. “A History of Post-Roe America and Canada: From Intertwined Abortion Battles to Dobbs.” Northwestern Journal of Human Rights 23(3): 187-269. [Access it here]
The changing landscape on abortion following Dobbs has not only sparked a vigorous debate in the United States, but also abroad. Its recriminalization in America led to an outcry in peer Western democracies, whose leaders widely condemned the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision. Yet the social and historical reasons for this international divide are poorly understood. This Article sheds light on the question through an in-depth comparison of America and Canada from Roe to Dobbs, as the neighboring nations’ abortion histories have been intertwined in intriguing and overlooked ways. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, it heartened Canadian reformers who repeatedly cited Roe as a model to follow. The Supreme Court of Canada would not decriminalize abortion until 1988 in its landmark Morgentaler decision—fifteen years after Roe. This history, documented with original English- and French-language sources, reveals as much about America as about Canada. If both countries had seemingly converged in liberalizing abortion once their high courts reached these seminal decisions, their paths would markedly diverge in subsequent decades. In America, the pro-choice movement increasingly was on the retreat after Roe as anti-abortion forces gained ground. In Canada, by contrast, the anti-abortion movement gradually collapsed following Morgentaler, as in much of the modern Western world. Still, in each country jurisdictions opposed to abortion tried to regulate it out of existence. It was not before 2016 that Prince Edward Island—the last Canadian province to hold out—joined the rest of the country in allowing abortion. Only a few years later, the U.S. anti-abortion movement succeeded in overturning Roe, leading to the recriminalization of abortion in over a dozen American states in stark contrast to the historical evolution of reproductive rights. Americans seeking to reinvigorate reproductive rights point to Canada as a model to follow in the post-Dobbs era. Canada now protects abortion far better than the neighbor from which it once sought inspiration. This extraordinary historical reversal and role reversal deserves closer attention, as it offers insight into numerous dimensions of the abortion debate.
Jouet, Mugambi. 2025. “Humanity, Race, and Indigeneity in Criminal Sentencing: Social Change in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.” New York University Review of Law & Social Change 48(2): 188-271. [Access it here]
The role of systemic racism in criminal justice is a growing matter of debate in modern Western democracies. The United States’ situation has garnered the most attention given the salience of its racial issues and the disproportionate attention that American society garners around the world. This has obscured major developments in Canadian society with great relevance to increasingly diverse Western democracies where minorities are highly over-incarcerated. In recent years, the landmark Anderson and Morris decisions recognized that the systemic racism that Black people face in Canada should be considered as mitigation at sentencing. These historic cases partly stem from the recognition of social-context evidence as mitigation for Indigenous defendants under a groundbreaking 1996 legislative reform that remains little known outside Canada’s borders. While Australia and New Zealand have also recognized certain mitigation principles for Indigenous defendants, Canada is arguably the country that is now making the most concerted effort to tackle systemic racism in criminal punishment. Conversely, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this approach in McCleskey v. Kemp, an influential 1987 precedent holding that statistical proof of systemic racism in sentencing is essentially irrelevant. The situation might someday change in America, as suggested by the Washington State Supreme Court’s 2018 abolition of the death penalty in State v. Gregory, which deviated from McCleskey in accepting evidence of systemic racism. However, Gregory was only decided under state law and it is too early to tell whether more American states will inch toward the developments occurring in Canada. These ongoing shifts should be situated in a wider historical context, as they do not merely reflect modern debates about systemic racism or Canada-specific matters. This Article captures how they are the next step in the long-term, incremental evolution of criminal punishment in the Western world since the Enlightenment. For generations, the principles of individualization and proportionality have enabled judges to assess mitigation by considering a defendant’s social circumstances. Considering evidence of systemic racism or social inequality as mitigation at sentencing is a logical extension of these principles. The age-old aspiration toward humanity in criminal justice may prove a stepping stone toward tackling the over-incarceration of minorities in modern Western democracies.
The role of systemic racism in criminal justice is a growing matter of debate in modern Western democracies. The United States’ situation has garnered the most attention given the salience of its racial issues and the disproportionate attention that American society garners around the world. This has obscured major developments in Canadian society with great relevance to increasingly diverse Western democracies where minorities are highly over-incarcerated. In recent years, the landmark Anderson and Morris decisions recognized that the systemic racism that Black people face in Canada should be considered as mitigation at sentencing. These historic cases partly stem from the recognition of social-context evidence as mitigation for Indigenous defendants under a groundbreaking 1996 legislative reform that remains little known outside Canada’s borders. While Australia and New Zealand have also recognized certain mitigation principles for Indigenous defendants, Canada is arguably the country that is now making the most concerted effort to tackle systemic racism in criminal punishment. Conversely, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected this approach in McCleskey v. Kemp, an influential 1987 precedent holding that statistical proof of systemic racism in sentencing is essentially irrelevant. The situation might someday change in America, as suggested by the Washington State Supreme Court’s 2018 abolition of the death penalty in State v. Gregory, which deviated from McCleskey in accepting evidence of systemic racism. However, Gregory was only decided under state law and it is too early to tell whether more American states will inch toward the developments occurring in Canada. These ongoing shifts should be situated in a wider historical context, as they do not merely reflect modern debates about systemic racism or Canada-specific matters. This Article captures how they are the next step in the long-term, incremental evolution of criminal punishment in the Western world since the Enlightenment. For generations, the principles of individualization and proportionality have enabled judges to assess mitigation by considering a defendant’s social circumstances. Considering evidence of systemic racism or social inequality as mitigation at sentencing is a logical extension of these principles. The age-old aspiration toward humanity in criminal justice may prove a stepping stone toward tackling the over-incarceration of minorities in modern Western democracies.
Jouet, Mugambi. 2025. “Theorizing American Exceptionalism: An Interdisciplinary Historiography and Intellectual History.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas 14(27): 1-75. [Access it here]
“American exceptionalism” has become a ubiquitous concept in multiple fields of research. Complicating the picture, it has distinct definitions. To many scholars, “exceptionalism” means that America is comparatively an “exception.” This non-normative definition refers to attributes interpretable positively or negatively. Conversely, many other scholars and much of the public interpret "American exceptionalism" as a faith in American superiority. However, the diverse lines of exceptionalism scholarship are organized into separate fields that are hardly in dialogue, from history to law, criminology, sociology, political science, economics, international relations, American Studies, and beyond. This article therefore offers an interdisciplinary historiography and intellectual history of American exceptionalism that connects the dots between different fields by pointing to interrelationships not always apparent at first glance. The latest research notably addresses the United States’ distinctive evolution compared to other Western democracies or the wider world, including its growing polarization over numerous fundamental issues, such as abortion, health care, religion, race, criminal justice, guns, foreign policy, and authoritarianism. The article simultaneously explores the interplay between the comparative and ideological meanings of exceptionalism. In particular, scholars have suggested that the belief that America is “exceptional” in the sense of exemplary has historically shaped distinctive behavior. Once placed in dialogue, separate fields each offer their own insights on American exceptionalism while helping nuance each other’s conclusions, thereby offering a broader understanding of a multifaceted subject.
“American exceptionalism” has become a ubiquitous concept in multiple fields of research. Complicating the picture, it has distinct definitions. To many scholars, “exceptionalism” means that America is comparatively an “exception.” This non-normative definition refers to attributes interpretable positively or negatively. Conversely, many other scholars and much of the public interpret "American exceptionalism" as a faith in American superiority. However, the diverse lines of exceptionalism scholarship are organized into separate fields that are hardly in dialogue, from history to law, criminology, sociology, political science, economics, international relations, American Studies, and beyond. This article therefore offers an interdisciplinary historiography and intellectual history of American exceptionalism that connects the dots between different fields by pointing to interrelationships not always apparent at first glance. The latest research notably addresses the United States’ distinctive evolution compared to other Western democracies or the wider world, including its growing polarization over numerous fundamental issues, such as abortion, health care, religion, race, criminal justice, guns, foreign policy, and authoritarianism. The article simultaneously explores the interplay between the comparative and ideological meanings of exceptionalism. In particular, scholars have suggested that the belief that America is “exceptional” in the sense of exemplary has historically shaped distinctive behavior. Once placed in dialogue, separate fields each offer their own insights on American exceptionalism while helping nuance each other’s conclusions, thereby offering a broader understanding of a multifaceted subject.
Kleinstuber, Ross, Coldsmith, Jeremiah and Dabbs, Ellory. 2025. “‘Life Means Life,’ But Does It Mean Less Crime? Perpetual Confinement and Violent Crime in Pennsylvania.” Contemporary Justice Review. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
In 1994, Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Tom Ridge ran on a promise to ensure ‘life means life.’ Upon taking office, he called for a special legislative session to accomplish just that, which resulted in a constitutional amendment making release nearly impossible for those sentenced to life. The expressed goal of this effort was to reduce crime. In this paper, we use interrupted-time series analyses on all four violent Part I offenses to see if this goal was met. The results of those analyses were mixed with no statistically significant change observed in the homicide rate, the three-year moving average of the homicide rate, or the rape rate; yet there were declines in both aggravated assault and robbery. Those declines, however, started at different times, suggesting that some other factor might explain them better. Our interpretation of these findings and their implications for both theory and policy are then discussed.
In 1994, Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Tom Ridge ran on a promise to ensure ‘life means life.’ Upon taking office, he called for a special legislative session to accomplish just that, which resulted in a constitutional amendment making release nearly impossible for those sentenced to life. The expressed goal of this effort was to reduce crime. In this paper, we use interrupted-time series analyses on all four violent Part I offenses to see if this goal was met. The results of those analyses were mixed with no statistically significant change observed in the homicide rate, the three-year moving average of the homicide rate, or the rape rate; yet there were declines in both aggravated assault and robbery. Those declines, however, started at different times, suggesting that some other factor might explain them better. Our interpretation of these findings and their implications for both theory and policy are then discussed.
Kuang, Kai, Jiang, Jize and Meng, Yuchen. 2025. “The Politics of Rehabilitation within Chinese Community Corrections: The Rise of an Enabling and Embedded State in a Rapidly Modernizing Society.” Punishment & Society 28(1): 109-131. [Access it here]
The sociology of punishment has long dealt with the relationship between state power and penal practices, and how this relationship defines the nature of the penal state. Literature has theorized the penal state through the lens of incarceration in affluent Western democracies. Less attention, nonetheless, has been allotted to non-custodial institutions in China with its distinctive structure of law and polity. This study, leveraging the recently established Chinese Community Corrections (CCC) as a specific site, scrutinizes how its operation articulates state power and constitutes the Chinese penal state. Drawing from ethnographic data on the CCC, we show that the organization and functioning of the CCC epitomize the rise of an enabling and embedded state in a rapidly modernizing society. The growth of such a Chinese state underlying the CCC indicates that China's march toward penal modernity is a form of pragmatism and statism. Through implementing rehabilitation, with seemingly paradoxical strategies of empowerment and entrenchment, the Chinese state is reconfiguring its penal power to adapt to major societal transformations in ways that would not undermine its governing authority and political legitimacy. Future theoretical and policy implications for the forms, functions, and foundations of the penal state in the still-evolving CCC are addressed.
The sociology of punishment has long dealt with the relationship between state power and penal practices, and how this relationship defines the nature of the penal state. Literature has theorized the penal state through the lens of incarceration in affluent Western democracies. Less attention, nonetheless, has been allotted to non-custodial institutions in China with its distinctive structure of law and polity. This study, leveraging the recently established Chinese Community Corrections (CCC) as a specific site, scrutinizes how its operation articulates state power and constitutes the Chinese penal state. Drawing from ethnographic data on the CCC, we show that the organization and functioning of the CCC epitomize the rise of an enabling and embedded state in a rapidly modernizing society. The growth of such a Chinese state underlying the CCC indicates that China's march toward penal modernity is a form of pragmatism and statism. Through implementing rehabilitation, with seemingly paradoxical strategies of empowerment and entrenchment, the Chinese state is reconfiguring its penal power to adapt to major societal transformations in ways that would not undermine its governing authority and political legitimacy. Future theoretical and policy implications for the forms, functions, and foundations of the penal state in the still-evolving CCC are addressed.
LaBranche, Jillian and Savelsberg, Joachim J. 2025. “Universal Jurisdiction and Civil Society: Institutional Learning and Knowledge About Mass Atrocity Crimes.” Sociology Compass. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
Important innovations have occurred and spread in international criminal law and justice. Arguing that they result from institutional learning, this essay focuses on universal jurisdiction, a principle of international law that invites the prosecution of perpetrators of core international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and genocide), irrespective of their nationality and the country of perpetration. It further addresses the increasing use of “crimes against humanity,” requiring proof of systematic or widespread patterns of offending against a civilian population; specialized investigatory and prosecutorial units; structural investigations; and the involvement of coordinating agencies working across national boundaries. Learning by criminal legal institutions is enhanced as civil society organizations, including ones growing out of refugee populations, discover and seize new legal opportunities to enhance accountability and a public understanding of mass atrocity crimes. Recent years have witnessed a growing body of literature on these trends, core contributions to which are reviewed in this essay.
Important innovations have occurred and spread in international criminal law and justice. Arguing that they result from institutional learning, this essay focuses on universal jurisdiction, a principle of international law that invites the prosecution of perpetrators of core international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and genocide), irrespective of their nationality and the country of perpetration. It further addresses the increasing use of “crimes against humanity,” requiring proof of systematic or widespread patterns of offending against a civilian population; specialized investigatory and prosecutorial units; structural investigations; and the involvement of coordinating agencies working across national boundaries. Learning by criminal legal institutions is enhanced as civil society organizations, including ones growing out of refugee populations, discover and seize new legal opportunities to enhance accountability and a public understanding of mass atrocity crimes. Recent years have witnessed a growing body of literature on these trends, core contributions to which are reviewed in this essay.
Lageson, Sarah and Apel, Robert. 2025. “The Mark or Trace of a Criminal Record: A Survey Experiment of Race and Criminal Record Signaling.” Criminology 63(2): 382-410. [Access it here]
Employment discrimination from a criminal record is a salient social fact, evidenced by a robust body of experimental research. In Part 1 of this study, we analyze prior criminal record hiring experiments—comprising in-person audits, online audits, and opt-in surveys—to describe patterns over time in employer receptivity to applicants of different races with criminal records. In Part 2, we use a novel experimental survey of 1080 employers to measure how differences in the signaling of a criminal record impact the criminal record–employment relationship. Our results reveal a substantial hiring penalty for an official criminal record (conveyed by a background check report), with a smaller but still significant penalty for an unofficial criminal record (an Internet search engine “hit”). The experiment also shows that the official criminal record penalty is significantly larger for White applicants than for Black
applicants. Although the latter finding was counter to expectations informed by prior studies, it is less surprising considering our Part 1 findings, which reveal a closing racial gap in the criminal record penalty during the last 20 years. We discuss how broader legal, social, and technological changes, as well as changes in methodologies, impact our understanding today of criminal records, race, and employment.
Employment discrimination from a criminal record is a salient social fact, evidenced by a robust body of experimental research. In Part 1 of this study, we analyze prior criminal record hiring experiments—comprising in-person audits, online audits, and opt-in surveys—to describe patterns over time in employer receptivity to applicants of different races with criminal records. In Part 2, we use a novel experimental survey of 1080 employers to measure how differences in the signaling of a criminal record impact the criminal record–employment relationship. Our results reveal a substantial hiring penalty for an official criminal record (conveyed by a background check report), with a smaller but still significant penalty for an unofficial criminal record (an Internet search engine “hit”). The experiment also shows that the official criminal record penalty is significantly larger for White applicants than for Black
applicants. Although the latter finding was counter to expectations informed by prior studies, it is less surprising considering our Part 1 findings, which reveal a closing racial gap in the criminal record penalty during the last 20 years. We discuss how broader legal, social, and technological changes, as well as changes in methodologies, impact our understanding today of criminal records, race, and employment.
Lageson, Sarah and Sudduth, Chloé. 2025. “Digital Punishment, Lateral Surveillance & the Sex Offense Registry.” Punishment & Society. [Access it here]
The maintenance of a public sex offense registry has been codified as a non-punitive civil policy since the 2003 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Doe. But since then, sex offense registries have transformed from a centralized state repository of information to a sprawling digital archive of personal data about people required to register. We identify and report the current technological capabilities of state-run sex offense registries through a 50-state survey and draw from the analysis to argue that the digital turn has changed the form and function of the registry. While the Court saw registries as analogous to a trip to an archive, our data show how registries now exert digital punishment and lateral surveillance through state-enabled technical capabilities on registry websites. In a departure from earlier schemes that required users to conduct a targeted search on a government-run website, registrants’ personal information is now routinely harvested and posted for profit motives in the private sector. Such shifts require a new analysis of sex offense registries; one that specifically interrogates at what point technology transforms a civil, purportedly non-punitive public policy into a decidedly punitive measure.
The maintenance of a public sex offense registry has been codified as a non-punitive civil policy since the 2003 Supreme Court case of Smith v. Doe. But since then, sex offense registries have transformed from a centralized state repository of information to a sprawling digital archive of personal data about people required to register. We identify and report the current technological capabilities of state-run sex offense registries through a 50-state survey and draw from the analysis to argue that the digital turn has changed the form and function of the registry. While the Court saw registries as analogous to a trip to an archive, our data show how registries now exert digital punishment and lateral surveillance through state-enabled technical capabilities on registry websites. In a departure from earlier schemes that required users to conduct a targeted search on a government-run website, registrants’ personal information is now routinely harvested and posted for profit motives in the private sector. Such shifts require a new analysis of sex offense registries; one that specifically interrogates at what point technology transforms a civil, purportedly non-punitive public policy into a decidedly punitive measure.
Lynch, Mona. 2025. “The Conspiracy of Drug Weight & the Case of MDLEA Defendants.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 37: 138-142. [Access it here]
The federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking offenses use the metric of drug weight as a proxy for culpability in determining the seriousness of the offense. In light of the insights offered by McSweeney et al. in their report (in this issue) on the over-punishment of “boat defendants,” this article details how drug weight fails as a metric of culpability. I first outline how drug weight generally works in the context of federal drug case sentencing, including the different kinds of weight that can get counted against a given defendant. I then highlight the problems with its operationalization in practice, including the opportunities it engenders for abuse, thereby producing inequities and injustices. Finally, I examine the specific case of those charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), typically caught transporting large amounts of cocaine in boats and other vessels on the high seas, to show how these defendants represent the culmination of problems in elevating drug weight as a key sentencing criterion.
The federal sentencing guidelines for drug trafficking offenses use the metric of drug weight as a proxy for culpability in determining the seriousness of the offense. In light of the insights offered by McSweeney et al. in their report (in this issue) on the over-punishment of “boat defendants,” this article details how drug weight fails as a metric of culpability. I first outline how drug weight generally works in the context of federal drug case sentencing, including the different kinds of weight that can get counted against a given defendant. I then highlight the problems with its operationalization in practice, including the opportunities it engenders for abuse, thereby producing inequities and injustices. Finally, I examine the specific case of those charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), typically caught transporting large amounts of cocaine in boats and other vessels on the high seas, to show how these defendants represent the culmination of problems in elevating drug weight as a key sentencing criterion.
Lynch, Mona and Laguna, Sofia. 2025. “Police Talk in the Jury Room: The Production of Race-Conscious Reasonable Doubt among Racially Diverse Jury Groups.” Law & Society Review 59: 419-448. [Access it here]
A central goal of Critical Race Theory (CRT) is to deconstruct the “jurisprudence of color-blindness” that is infused with the language of equality while operating to maintain racial hierarchies. Color-blind ideology extends to the procedures governing criminal juries, ensuring they are disproportionately white while constraining diversity of perspectives, especially regarding policing issues. In this paper, we merge CRT insights about color-blindness and race-consciousness in the criminal jury context and in the Fourth Amendment law governing policing, to advance empirical socio-legal scholarship on race and jury decision-making. We analyze deliberations data from mock jury groups that decided on verdict in a federal drug conspiracy trial, focusing on how groups talked about law enforcement testimony. We find that negative discussions of the law enforcement testimony is associated with shifts toward acquittal, there are more skeptical discussions about this testimony when the defendant is Black, and that the presence of at least one Black juror in any given group is associated with more skeptical discussions of law enforcement testimony. Our qualitative analysis illustrates how Black jurors, in particular, raised concerns about policing, including unjust treatment of Black citizens, then successfully tied those concerns to the specific legal considerations at issue in the case.
A central goal of Critical Race Theory (CRT) is to deconstruct the “jurisprudence of color-blindness” that is infused with the language of equality while operating to maintain racial hierarchies. Color-blind ideology extends to the procedures governing criminal juries, ensuring they are disproportionately white while constraining diversity of perspectives, especially regarding policing issues. In this paper, we merge CRT insights about color-blindness and race-consciousness in the criminal jury context and in the Fourth Amendment law governing policing, to advance empirical socio-legal scholarship on race and jury decision-making. We analyze deliberations data from mock jury groups that decided on verdict in a federal drug conspiracy trial, focusing on how groups talked about law enforcement testimony. We find that negative discussions of the law enforcement testimony is associated with shifts toward acquittal, there are more skeptical discussions about this testimony when the defendant is Black, and that the presence of at least one Black juror in any given group is associated with more skeptical discussions of law enforcement testimony. Our qualitative analysis illustrates how Black jurors, in particular, raised concerns about policing, including unjust treatment of Black citizens, then successfully tied those concerns to the specific legal considerations at issue in the case.
Lynch, Mona and Puretz, Danielle. 2026. “Trawling for Minnows on the High Seas: Criminal Law’s Coercive Capacities and the U.S. Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act.” Punishment & Society 28: 132-153. [Access it here]
The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) was passed in 1986 by the U.S. Congress at the height of the American drug war frenzy, further empowering the U.S. government to arrest and prosecute suspected drug traffickers nearly anywhere in the world when transporting drugs by sea. In this article, we use a case study of MDLEA prosecutions in the District of Puerto Rico to identify and delineate five distinct characteristics of criminal law's coercive capacity: (1) jurisdictional capacity; (2) defendant pool capacity; (3) charging capacity; (4) evidentiary capacity; and (5) punishment capacity. While some aspects of the MDLEA are unique, many of these capacious features are inherent to contemporary U.S. criminal law more broadly. Using data from interviews with legal actors, we show how criminal law's capacities work together to ensure convictions and long prison sentences even in the face of formal legal roadblocks. We conclude by suggesting that without scaling back the capacity of such laws, the punitive war on crime in the United States will not only persist but can easily be ramped up to serve political and/or organizational interests.
The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) was passed in 1986 by the U.S. Congress at the height of the American drug war frenzy, further empowering the U.S. government to arrest and prosecute suspected drug traffickers nearly anywhere in the world when transporting drugs by sea. In this article, we use a case study of MDLEA prosecutions in the District of Puerto Rico to identify and delineate five distinct characteristics of criminal law's coercive capacity: (1) jurisdictional capacity; (2) defendant pool capacity; (3) charging capacity; (4) evidentiary capacity; and (5) punishment capacity. While some aspects of the MDLEA are unique, many of these capacious features are inherent to contemporary U.S. criminal law more broadly. Using data from interviews with legal actors, we show how criminal law's capacities work together to ensure convictions and long prison sentences even in the face of formal legal roadblocks. We conclude by suggesting that without scaling back the capacity of such laws, the punitive war on crime in the United States will not only persist but can easily be ramped up to serve political and/or organizational interests.
Lynch, Mona and Shaw, Emily. 2025. “Downstream Effects of Frayed Relations: Juror Race, Judgment, and Perceptions of Police.” Race & Justice 15: 237-261. [Access it here]
Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how those differential views shape potential jurors’ decision-making in the context of a federal drug conspiracy case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI agent and an informant cooperating with the agent. A sample of 649 Black and White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed to the case, in which a Black defendant is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied. Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional measures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law enforcement witness as less credible, and viewed police more negatively across three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender interacted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice. We conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police.
Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how those differential views shape potential jurors’ decision-making in the context of a federal drug conspiracy case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI agent and an informant cooperating with the agent. A sample of 649 Black and White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed to the case, in which a Black defendant is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied. Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional measures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law enforcement witness as less credible, and viewed police more negatively across three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender interacted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice. We conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police.
Moore, Caylin Louis and Gleit, Rebecca D. 2025. “Policing Now, Gentrification Later? The Case of Civil Gang Injunctions in Los Angeles.” Urban Affairs Review 62(1): 254-290. [Access it here]
While most research examines how gentrification influences policing, we interrogate the opposite. Specifically, we ask whether intensified policing in a disinvested neighborhood can encourage later gentrification. To explore this, we focus on civil gang injunctions (CGIs) in the City of Los Angeles—a legal tool that targets Black and Latinx neighborhoods by criminalizing alleged gang members’ public presence. Using geospatial methods and a quasi-experimental design, we compare gentrification rates in CGI-impacted neighborhoods with observably similar non-CGI “control” neighborhoods. Our findings show that CGIs can instigate gentrification in neighborhoods with sufficient “White Visibility”—a minor but noticeable number of White residents. In these cases, policing seems to act as a buffer that draws new, higher socioeconomic status residents to disinvested neighborhoods. This article contributes to broader theories of social control and urban transformation by identifying conditions under which criminal justice policies can actively shape neighborhood change.
While most research examines how gentrification influences policing, we interrogate the opposite. Specifically, we ask whether intensified policing in a disinvested neighborhood can encourage later gentrification. To explore this, we focus on civil gang injunctions (CGIs) in the City of Los Angeles—a legal tool that targets Black and Latinx neighborhoods by criminalizing alleged gang members’ public presence. Using geospatial methods and a quasi-experimental design, we compare gentrification rates in CGI-impacted neighborhoods with observably similar non-CGI “control” neighborhoods. Our findings show that CGIs can instigate gentrification in neighborhoods with sufficient “White Visibility”—a minor but noticeable number of White residents. In these cases, policing seems to act as a buffer that draws new, higher socioeconomic status residents to disinvested neighborhoods. This article contributes to broader theories of social control and urban transformation by identifying conditions under which criminal justice policies can actively shape neighborhood change.
Pascoe, Daniel and Sato, Mai. 2025. “The Death Penalty, Due Process Violations, Murder by Decree and Extra-legal Killings: A Typology of ‘Murder by Governments.’” Oxford Death Penalty Research Unit (DPRU) Research Papers (8): 1-15.
Phelps, Michelle S. and Daniel Cueto-Villalobos. 2025. “Making Racial Demands: Tracing the Struggle over Public Safety in Minneapolis.” Social Problems. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
In May 2020, the world erupted in protest after officers with the Minneapolis Police Department murdered George Floyd. In response, abolitionist activists pushed forward a ballot initiative that would “end” the police department by creating a new Department of Public Safety. This proposal sparked fierce debate. While both sides staked their claims on what would make Black residents feel safe, their understandings of safety diverged, with charter supporters arguing
for a move away from the “police-only model” and opponents arguing for “real” police reform. Bridging racial formation theory and work on social movements, we argue that the charter debate in Minneapolis illustrates how social movement organizations work to construct public perceptions of what is in minoritized groups’ interests, a process we conceptualize as making racial demands. Analyzing campaign flyers, debates, and op-eds, we trace three steps in this process: (1) supporters and opponents positioned their side as the authentic representatives of the community; (2) each side deployed diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames to support their conceptualization of safety; and (3) both campaigns envisioned a speculative future constrained by the boundaries of racial redress. The results demonstrate the importance of considering movement, racialization, and policy development processes in tandem.
In May 2020, the world erupted in protest after officers with the Minneapolis Police Department murdered George Floyd. In response, abolitionist activists pushed forward a ballot initiative that would “end” the police department by creating a new Department of Public Safety. This proposal sparked fierce debate. While both sides staked their claims on what would make Black residents feel safe, their understandings of safety diverged, with charter supporters arguing
for a move away from the “police-only model” and opponents arguing for “real” police reform. Bridging racial formation theory and work on social movements, we argue that the charter debate in Minneapolis illustrates how social movement organizations work to construct public perceptions of what is in minoritized groups’ interests, a process we conceptualize as making racial demands. Analyzing campaign flyers, debates, and op-eds, we trace three steps in this process: (1) supporters and opponents positioned their side as the authentic representatives of the community; (2) each side deployed diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames to support their conceptualization of safety; and (3) both campaigns envisioned a speculative future constrained by the boundaries of racial redress. The results demonstrate the importance of considering movement, racialization, and policy development processes in tandem.
Piehowski, Victoria. 2025. “Medicalizing Violence: The Institutional Politics of Trauma in Veterans Treatment Courts.” Social Science & Medicine 380: 118170. [Access it here]
Criminal court actors engage in medicalization as they negotiate the balance of punitive and rehabilitative responses in their work, particularly in cases of low-level drug crime. Often, however, these legal actors regard violent crime as untreatable. This paper examines an exception to this assemblage of practice and policy: Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs). VTCs combine judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and Veterans Affairs' (VA) professionals to provide treatment-based supervision in lieu of incarceration. In Minnesotan VTCs, court actors regard violent crime as treatable-for this population. Using interview data, I analyze how court actors medicalize violence as they legitimate veterans' eligibility for the court and design their supervision. I find that court actors establish trauma as an institutional logic in ways that enable them to negotiate contradictions of contemporary rehabilitative punishment. This institutional logic is patterned by two core assumptions: first, that trauma presents a latent risk for crime, necessitating the extensive surveillance of this resource-intensive court; and second, that veteran trauma is particularly distinct from that of others in the criminal justice system, thereby justifying the provision of sentencing incentives and treatment resources to someone who would otherwise be deemed a violent offender. Viewing this dynamic as a process of stratified medicalization, I show how conflicts in contemporary criminal justice politics shape medicalization processes.
Criminal court actors engage in medicalization as they negotiate the balance of punitive and rehabilitative responses in their work, particularly in cases of low-level drug crime. Often, however, these legal actors regard violent crime as untreatable. This paper examines an exception to this assemblage of practice and policy: Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs). VTCs combine judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and Veterans Affairs' (VA) professionals to provide treatment-based supervision in lieu of incarceration. In Minnesotan VTCs, court actors regard violent crime as treatable-for this population. Using interview data, I analyze how court actors medicalize violence as they legitimate veterans' eligibility for the court and design their supervision. I find that court actors establish trauma as an institutional logic in ways that enable them to negotiate contradictions of contemporary rehabilitative punishment. This institutional logic is patterned by two core assumptions: first, that trauma presents a latent risk for crime, necessitating the extensive surveillance of this resource-intensive court; and second, that veteran trauma is particularly distinct from that of others in the criminal justice system, thereby justifying the provision of sentencing incentives and treatment resources to someone who would otherwise be deemed a violent offender. Viewing this dynamic as a process of stratified medicalization, I show how conflicts in contemporary criminal justice politics shape medicalization processes.
Rice, Orlaith, Colm Walsh and Megan Kelly. 2025. “The Underlying Needs Influencing Young Women’s Contact with the Youth Justice System: A Rapid Review.” Child & Youth Services. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
The primary aim of this review is to evidence what recent research establishes regarding the gendered needs and factors influencing girls’ and young women’s contact with the youth justice system. A rapid review of the literature in August 2024 identified 19 relevant studies investigating young women’s contact with the justice system. Four themes were constructed from the articles reviewed: (1) Persistent Abuse and Nested Harm, (2) Trauma Reactions and Coping, (3) Gendered Norms and Assumptions, and (4) Systemic Failures and Effective Solutions. This review concludes that some research gaps persist in relation to girls’ particular gendered needs.
The primary aim of this review is to evidence what recent research establishes regarding the gendered needs and factors influencing girls’ and young women’s contact with the youth justice system. A rapid review of the literature in August 2024 identified 19 relevant studies investigating young women’s contact with the justice system. Four themes were constructed from the articles reviewed: (1) Persistent Abuse and Nested Harm, (2) Trauma Reactions and Coping, (3) Gendered Norms and Assumptions, and (4) Systemic Failures and Effective Solutions. This review concludes that some research gaps persist in relation to girls’ particular gendered needs.
Rubin, Ashley T. 2025. “Normativity is Not a Replacement for Theory.” Theory & Society 54: 795-850. [Access it here]
Social science research has dramatically increased its embrace of normativity in substance and style. This paper explores the consequences of this normativity creep on the creation, application, and evaluation of theory in academic research. Using interdisciplinary punishment studies as my case, I argue that normativity is taking the place of theory: it is replacing theory and, in its importance, overtaking theory, blunting our understanding of important phenomena. Scholars are using normative pronouncements in place of theory because, for many scholars, the goals and rules of social science research have changed. The rise of new goals and rules of research represents a shift in the logic of research from a primarily science-based logic to a primarily activist-based logic. I close by discussing some of the real-world stakes of the science–activism tension affecting not only theory development but academia more generally.
Social science research has dramatically increased its embrace of normativity in substance and style. This paper explores the consequences of this normativity creep on the creation, application, and evaluation of theory in academic research. Using interdisciplinary punishment studies as my case, I argue that normativity is taking the place of theory: it is replacing theory and, in its importance, overtaking theory, blunting our understanding of important phenomena. Scholars are using normative pronouncements in place of theory because, for many scholars, the goals and rules of social science research have changed. The rise of new goals and rules of research represents a shift in the logic of research from a primarily science-based logic to a primarily activist-based logic. I close by discussing some of the real-world stakes of the science–activism tension affecting not only theory development but academia more generally.
Savelsberg, Joachim J., LaBranche, Jillian and Philips, Miray. 2025. “Prosecutorial-NGO Complex: New Legal Opportunity Structures and the Role of (I)NGOs in Universal Jurisdiction Trials on Syria.” Law & Society Review. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
Changing legal environments create new opportunities for legal mobilization by civil society groups. At stake is mobilization in Germany and Europe for the prosecution of agents of the Syrian Assad regime accused of committing
core international crimes. Changes in the legal environment include the (a) spread of universal jurisdiction; (b) increasing use of “crimes against humanity”; (c) new prosecutorial and policing units specialized in core international crimes; and (d) new prosecutorial practices, such as structural investigations. Coinciding with an influx of Syrian refugees, these opportunities give rise to a collaborative network of (I)NGOs that feed witnesses and evidence into prosecutorial agencies. Interaction between agencies and (I)NGOs contributes to the transnational ordering of criminal law and constitutes a Prosecutorial-NGO (P-NGO) Complex. (I)NGOs finally diffuse court narratives to a broad audience and shape public knowledge of grave violations of human rights. We focus on the P-NGO Complex for the al-Khatib universal jurisdiction trial before the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany. Empirical tools include an analysis of (I)NGO network structures and websites, interviews with court observers, activists, and prosecutorial staff, and an analysis of media reporting.
Changing legal environments create new opportunities for legal mobilization by civil society groups. At stake is mobilization in Germany and Europe for the prosecution of agents of the Syrian Assad regime accused of committing
core international crimes. Changes in the legal environment include the (a) spread of universal jurisdiction; (b) increasing use of “crimes against humanity”; (c) new prosecutorial and policing units specialized in core international crimes; and (d) new prosecutorial practices, such as structural investigations. Coinciding with an influx of Syrian refugees, these opportunities give rise to a collaborative network of (I)NGOs that feed witnesses and evidence into prosecutorial agencies. Interaction between agencies and (I)NGOs contributes to the transnational ordering of criminal law and constitutes a Prosecutorial-NGO (P-NGO) Complex. (I)NGOs finally diffuse court narratives to a broad audience and shape public knowledge of grave violations of human rights. We focus on the P-NGO Complex for the al-Khatib universal jurisdiction trial before the Higher Regional Court in Koblenz, Germany. Empirical tools include an analysis of (I)NGO network structures and websites, interviews with court observers, activists, and prosecutorial staff, and an analysis of media reporting.
Slee, Gillian. 2025. “Home but Not Free: Rule-Breaking, Withdrawal, and Dignity in Reentry.” Criminology 63(2): 437–71. [Access it here]
Research on reentry has documented how material hardship, network dynamics, and carceral governance impede reintegration after prison, but existing scholarship has left underdeveloped other instances in which adverse outcomes stem from the institution's socioemotional dynamics and people's practical and emotional responses to bureaucratic indignities. Drawing on more than 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork with people on parole in Philadelphia, this study analyzes three sources of adversity that occur because reentry institutions’ or actors’ practices are incompatible with the behaviors and needs of system-involved people. I demonstrate how unrecognized vulnerability, discretion's benefits and drawbacks, and risk-escalating rules contribute to adverse outcomes—withdrawal and rule-breaking—that sometimes lead to reincarceration. In failing to account for aspects of human agency and dignity, such as the ability to provide for oneself and to advance personal and familial well-being, parole guidelines often prompted withdrawal and subversion.
Research on reentry has documented how material hardship, network dynamics, and carceral governance impede reintegration after prison, but existing scholarship has left underdeveloped other instances in which adverse outcomes stem from the institution's socioemotional dynamics and people's practical and emotional responses to bureaucratic indignities. Drawing on more than 2 years of ethnographic fieldwork with people on parole in Philadelphia, this study analyzes three sources of adversity that occur because reentry institutions’ or actors’ practices are incompatible with the behaviors and needs of system-involved people. I demonstrate how unrecognized vulnerability, discretion's benefits and drawbacks, and risk-escalating rules contribute to adverse outcomes—withdrawal and rule-breaking—that sometimes lead to reincarceration. In failing to account for aspects of human agency and dignity, such as the ability to provide for oneself and to advance personal and familial well-being, parole guidelines often prompted withdrawal and subversion.
Super, Gail. 2025. “Penal Violence in Spaces of Precarity.” Social Research: An International Quarterly 91(4): 1177-1205. [Access it here]
Drawing on Walter Benjamin’s argument that liberal law is founded on and preserved through violence and on Hannah Arendt’s and Frantz Fanon’s ideas on the unpredictability of violence, this article uses the term penal violenceto highlight the violence of lawful (state) punishment and the overlaps between different forms of lawful state violence and extralegal/extrajudicial violence. Focusing on South Africa, I argue that there is an ever-present possibility of law’s (legal) violence transgressing its own fictitious boundary (of reasonableness and nonviolence) and spiraling into unlawful (excessive and visible) violence. Adopting a multiscalar spatiotemporal approach to analyze extralegal violence by civilians in informal settlements, by the police when they engage in unlawful violence, and by prison wardens when they inflict excessive violence inside prisons, I emphasize the connections between law and violence, those between punishment and vengeance, and the malleability of violence.
Drawing on Walter Benjamin’s argument that liberal law is founded on and preserved through violence and on Hannah Arendt’s and Frantz Fanon’s ideas on the unpredictability of violence, this article uses the term penal violenceto highlight the violence of lawful (state) punishment and the overlaps between different forms of lawful state violence and extralegal/extrajudicial violence. Focusing on South Africa, I argue that there is an ever-present possibility of law’s (legal) violence transgressing its own fictitious boundary (of reasonableness and nonviolence) and spiraling into unlawful (excessive and visible) violence. Adopting a multiscalar spatiotemporal approach to analyze extralegal violence by civilians in informal settlements, by the police when they engage in unlawful violence, and by prison wardens when they inflict excessive violence inside prisons, I emphasize the connections between law and violence, those between punishment and vengeance, and the malleability of violence.
Yankey, Manzah-Kyentoh. 2025. “Racism, Colorblindness, and Police Culture in Canada.” Race and Justice. OnlineFirst. [Access it here]
Despite the amount of research on police culture, little is known about how police culture reinforces systemic racism in Canadian policing. In race and policing scholarship, less is known about how women police officers perpetuate systemic racism in policing. Based on 16 interviews with women police officers from a police organization in Alberta, this study examines how police culture reinforces systemic racism in Canadian policing. Using colorblind racism and intersectionality, the findings demonstrate that officers regularly say racist jokes to normalize racialized police violence. Officers emphasize warrior police culture and suspiciousness to physically assault and racially profile Indigenous people, including those living in encampments. Officers associate Blackness with criminality by reinforcing culturally racist stereotypes about Black Canadians, such as having criminal lifestyles. Furthermore, officers hold racist and xenophobic perceptions about refugees and when refugees call the police for help, officers culturally frame them as criminals and blame all refugees for an individual’s criminal offense. White women officers were more likely than Black women and Biracial (Indigenous/White) women officers to reinforce the colorblind racist myth that racialized police violence is only an American problem, and that policing is a race-neutral practice.
Despite the amount of research on police culture, little is known about how police culture reinforces systemic racism in Canadian policing. In race and policing scholarship, less is known about how women police officers perpetuate systemic racism in policing. Based on 16 interviews with women police officers from a police organization in Alberta, this study examines how police culture reinforces systemic racism in Canadian policing. Using colorblind racism and intersectionality, the findings demonstrate that officers regularly say racist jokes to normalize racialized police violence. Officers emphasize warrior police culture and suspiciousness to physically assault and racially profile Indigenous people, including those living in encampments. Officers associate Blackness with criminality by reinforcing culturally racist stereotypes about Black Canadians, such as having criminal lifestyles. Furthermore, officers hold racist and xenophobic perceptions about refugees and when refugees call the police for help, officers culturally frame them as criminals and blame all refugees for an individual’s criminal offense. White women officers were more likely than Black women and Biracial (Indigenous/White) women officers to reinforce the colorblind racist myth that racialized police violence is only an American problem, and that policing is a race-neutral practice.
Zhang, Hanlin and Jiang, Jize. 2026. “Strategic Benevolence: The Rehabilitation Ideal and Emotional Labor of Social Workers Within Chinese Community Corrections.” Asian Journal of Criminology 21(12) 1-17. [Access it here]
The integration of service-oriented professionals, such as social workers, into the Chinese Community Corrections (CCC) epitomizes the blossoming of penal welfarism and the formation of the rehabilitation ideal in modern Chinese penality. While much research has studied varying impacts of rehabilitation delivered by social workers, little is known about the emotional lives of Chinese service providers who are tasked with implementing these rehabilitation programs in the CCC. To advance the literature on the CCC-based rehabilitation, we examine how social workers perform emotional labor when rehabilitating offenders. This study is based on data from an ethnographic study of urban community corrections in China. Our analysis reveals that social workers develop strategies to manage their emotions by adhering to their professional identity as benevolent caregivers while swimming against a labyrinth of bureaucratic and political streams. We term this process “strategic benevolence,” which is fraught with ambivalence yet morally rewarding. Our findings underscore the importance of addressing emotional dilemmas to fulfill the rehabilitative aspirations of the nascent CCC.
The integration of service-oriented professionals, such as social workers, into the Chinese Community Corrections (CCC) epitomizes the blossoming of penal welfarism and the formation of the rehabilitation ideal in modern Chinese penality. While much research has studied varying impacts of rehabilitation delivered by social workers, little is known about the emotional lives of Chinese service providers who are tasked with implementing these rehabilitation programs in the CCC. To advance the literature on the CCC-based rehabilitation, we examine how social workers perform emotional labor when rehabilitating offenders. This study is based on data from an ethnographic study of urban community corrections in China. Our analysis reveals that social workers develop strategies to manage their emotions by adhering to their professional identity as benevolent caregivers while swimming against a labyrinth of bureaucratic and political streams. We term this process “strategic benevolence,” which is fraught with ambivalence yet morally rewarding. Our findings underscore the importance of addressing emotional dilemmas to fulfill the rehabilitative aspirations of the nascent CCC.
BOOKS/BOOK CHAPTERS/EDITED COLLECTIONS
Barker, Vanessa. 2025. “Crimes against the Soul and Potential for Repair.” In: R. Bobrowicz, A. Hjälm and U. Schmiedel (eds) Living in A World of Neighbours: Activists and Academics in Conversation on Multi-Faith Refugee Relief. Church of Sweden Research Series. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Hagan, John and Savelsberg, Joachim J. 2025. “Memorializing War Crimes and How We
Remember to Forget the Vietnam War, Collective Memory and America’s Forever Wars.” In: W.C. Regoeczi and T.D. Miethe (eds) Research Handbook of Violent Crime and Society. Edward Elgar, pp. 63-83.
Remember to Forget the Vietnam War, Collective Memory and America’s Forever Wars.” In: W.C. Regoeczi and T.D. Miethe (eds) Research Handbook of Violent Crime and Society. Edward Elgar, pp. 63-83.
Shames, Michelle. 2025. “Conditions of Confinement Litigation.” In H. Pontell (ed) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. [Access it here]
Conditions of confinement litigation encompasses the legal process through which incarcerated plaintiffs can legally challenge the constitutionality of the conditions in which they are confined, often seeking injunctive relief, financial damages, and long-term policy changes. In the United States, most cases are filed in U.S. federal courts under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act by people incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Most conditions claims address 8th Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” and 14th Amendment due process rights. A wide variety of conditions in U.S. carceral institutions have been ruled unconstitutional, including but not limited to arbitrary discipline, discrimination, environmental conditions, overcrowding, physical safety, sanitation, and sensory deprivation, as well as insufficient access to legal access, medical and mental health care, and programming. While civil rights cases filed by incarcerated people, generally referenced as “prisoners’ rights” litigation, include challenges to issues other than conditions of confinement, conditions-related claims arise in many of these cases. Due to limited statistics on the specific nature of prisoners’ rights cases and varying definitions of what should be considered a conditions case, the term “prisoners’ rights” is frequently used synonymously with “conditions of confinement” in the litigation context. Records of legal challenges to conditions of confinement date back to the mid-19th century but such cases were uncommon until the 1960s. The volume of cases filed by incarcerated people increased substantially between the 1970s and 1990s. However, the 1996 passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act dramatically curbed incarcerated people’s access to the courts. Though thousands of conditions of confinement challenges are filed annually, few make it to trial and even fewer result in plaintiff successes. Between 1988 and 2020, an annual average of 85% of conditions cases were decided in favor of defendants pretrial, and only 13% of decisions favored plaintiffs, pre- or posttrial. Despite low success rates and other obstacles to reform, conditions litigation has been credited with bringing significant improvements to the treatment of incarcerated people and their conditions of confinement nationwide. Sociolegal debates about conditions of confinement litigation have focused on its long-term indirect and unintended impacts, including its role in the bureaucratization and privatization of carceral institutions, and its relationship to policies contributing to the expansion of the U.S. carceral footprint. Scholars have also highlighted the limitations of litigation-based reform.
Conditions of confinement litigation encompasses the legal process through which incarcerated plaintiffs can legally challenge the constitutionality of the conditions in which they are confined, often seeking injunctive relief, financial damages, and long-term policy changes. In the United States, most cases are filed in U.S. federal courts under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act by people incarcerated in state prisons and local jails. Most conditions claims address 8th Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” and 14th Amendment due process rights. A wide variety of conditions in U.S. carceral institutions have been ruled unconstitutional, including but not limited to arbitrary discipline, discrimination, environmental conditions, overcrowding, physical safety, sanitation, and sensory deprivation, as well as insufficient access to legal access, medical and mental health care, and programming. While civil rights cases filed by incarcerated people, generally referenced as “prisoners’ rights” litigation, include challenges to issues other than conditions of confinement, conditions-related claims arise in many of these cases. Due to limited statistics on the specific nature of prisoners’ rights cases and varying definitions of what should be considered a conditions case, the term “prisoners’ rights” is frequently used synonymously with “conditions of confinement” in the litigation context. Records of legal challenges to conditions of confinement date back to the mid-19th century but such cases were uncommon until the 1960s. The volume of cases filed by incarcerated people increased substantially between the 1970s and 1990s. However, the 1996 passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act dramatically curbed incarcerated people’s access to the courts. Though thousands of conditions of confinement challenges are filed annually, few make it to trial and even fewer result in plaintiff successes. Between 1988 and 2020, an annual average of 85% of conditions cases were decided in favor of defendants pretrial, and only 13% of decisions favored plaintiffs, pre- or posttrial. Despite low success rates and other obstacles to reform, conditions litigation has been credited with bringing significant improvements to the treatment of incarcerated people and their conditions of confinement nationwide. Sociolegal debates about conditions of confinement litigation have focused on its long-term indirect and unintended impacts, including its role in the bureaucratization and privatization of carceral institutions, and its relationship to policies contributing to the expansion of the U.S. carceral footprint. Scholars have also highlighted the limitations of litigation-based reform.
Super, Gail. 2025. “Unstable Solidarities: The Uses and Abuses of ‘Community’ in the Context of Penal Violence in South Africa.” In: S. Hassim and A. Korteweg (eds) Handbook on Politics and Society. Edward Elgar.
BOOK REVIEWS
Barker, Vanessa. 2025. “Book Review. Supply Chain Justice: The Logistics of British Border Control by Mary Bosworth.” Social Forces 104 (1) e1-e3. [Access it here]
Quinn, Kaitlyn. 2025. “Book Review. Birth Behind Bars: The Carceral Control of Pregnant Women in Prison by Rebecca M. Rodriguez Carey.” Social Forces. [Access it here]
PUBLIC SCHOLARSHIP
Velazquez, Marisela. 2025. “Propuesta de Trump: Incentivo de $5,000 para parejas que tengan hijos.” Univision Television News. April 30. [Access it here]
“Spanish speaking media appearance featured as sociologist on society news segment on the current US birth rate discussing Trump’s suggested $5,000 for women to have kids.”
Velazquez, Marisela. 2025. “Propuesta de Trump: Incentivo de $5,000 para parejas que tengan hijos.” Univision Television News. April 30. [Access it here]
“Spanish speaking media appearance featured as sociologist on society news segment on the current US birth rate discussing Trump’s suggested $5,000 for women to have kids.”
Choi, Celine, Leung, Emily and JJ Dega. 2025. “Vermont Competency Restoration: Policy Landscape and Pathways.” The Class of 1965 Policy Research Shop, Dartmouth College Policy Brief 2425-02. July 7. [Access it here]
Those involved in criminal proceedings in the United States must be "competent to stand trial," meaning they must understand their charges, the consequences of the charges, legal processes and participants, and opportunities to participate in their own defense. Individuals deemed "incompetent" to stand trial have: 1) a potential mental disorder/cognitive impairment, and 2) a resulting deficit in their ability to participate in their case. In such cases, court proceedings are suspended. Some states have implemented formal competency restoration programs as targeted interventions for those deemed incompetent while other states have pursued more informal programming. This report explores the question: What policy and program options are available to Vermont to address competency-related issues in the criminal justice system that would effectively balance legal due process requirements, clinical treatment needs, stakeholder interests, and broader public health and safety concerns? First, we discuss the context for competency restoration in Vermont, describing the current competency process and previous legislative action on competency. Next, we describe our research methodology for analysis: five case studies of forensic/competency programs utilizing comparative analyses, stakeholder interviews, and a review of public literature and data. We subsequently establish the policy landscape surrounding competency in our five case studies: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Finally, we provide 6 policy pathways for Vermont (see Figure 1), including both formal and informal competency restoration programs. Ultimately, this report describes the landscape and provides potential pathways for the Vermont House Committee on Judiciary to consider in implementing policies related to competency restoration.
