Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (2)**
– ## week5.docx
– ## ResearchPaper-Outline.docx
**## week5.docx**
1
5
530 d1 350 words
In general, there are three remedies criminal justice employees can use to their advantage when injured in the line of duty. Identify and describe these remedies, including any unique provisions. How do they apply to the criminal justice field? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861
530 d2 350 words
How does the FLSA apply to law enforcement or public safety? What is the manager’s role in applying FLSA within his or her work environment? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861)
**530 Research Paper 2: Annotated Bibliography**
**Instructions**
This preliminary bibliography must include a list of at least four sources, as well as a summary and evaluation of each source that describes what it adds to your paper and how you plan to use it to support your thesis. The bibliography must follow the most recent edition of APA format.
**Topic**
My research topic of choice is Drug Testing in Law Enforcement. I selected this topic because there are so many duties and responsibilities that the ones entrusted with the roles of the law enforcement must carry out such as professionalism – to maintain and exercise good judgement and accountability in all they do. Police officers enforce the law; carry weapons; make decisions that will have an impact on the safety of the public, whether it is an altercation and/or a more complex situation. So, they absolutely need to be physically and mentally fit to serve. Drug testing policies have therefore been put in place in many law enforcement agencies in the United States.
For my research paper, I will be looking at the legal, ethical, and Constitutional aspects related to drug testing in law enforcement jobs (Bharat et al., 2023). Drug testing programs may lead to concerns about the Fourth Amendment, particularly with respect to the unreasonable aspects of a search or seizure. Several types of random drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, and mandatory testing after incidents are explored, given privacy rights and government authority are considered (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023).
I also want to look at what some of the courts have said on the issue of drug testing when involving LEAs. Today, policies adopted by agencies are a result of, and directly influenced by, court decisions, especially the kind of testing that is deemed reasonable under the law (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023). In addition, I would like to look at the differences between agencies at the federal, state, and local levels of government and how union employment policies and the employment code affect these policies.
An area that I would like to further delve into is the effect of drug testing on officer accountability, the culture of the workplace, and the level of trust that exists between the people of the school district and the officers of the law (U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d). Everyone has a right to the law and expects officers to act responsibly, and drug-testing policies can help build trust in the system. But these policies should also be fair and recognize legal employees' rights.
Overall, I think this topic is important because it shows how the governments of individuals and businesses will need to balance public safety, employee rights to privacy, and the Constitution while operating their businesses. In conducting this research, I hope to better understand the legal and ethical questions that arise in relation to drug testing in criminal justice agencies of research.
References
Bharat, C., Webb, P., Wilkinson, Z., McKetin, R., Grebely, J., Farrell, M., Holland, A., Hickman, M., Lucy Thi Tran, Clark, B., Peacock, A., Darke, S., Li, J.-H., & Degenhardt, L. (2023). Agreement between self‐reported illicit drug use and biological samples: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.
_Addiction_,
_118_(9), 1624–1648.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200](https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200)
Mordechai-Strongin, B. (2023). Giving the Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating an Adversarial Warrant Proceeding to Protect From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
_University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform_,
_56_(3), 951–988.
[https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving](https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving)
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d).
[_Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964._](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964)
525 d1 300 words
1. Ghana has a specialized Women and Juvenile Unit that investigates cases involving women, children, and juveniles. Do you believe such a specialized unit is an appropriate way to organize a police force? What social, cultural, or economic factors existing in a country may encourage you to take a different perspective?
2. Is police misconduct indicative of something about the people choosing police work (in all countries), the result of doing police work over time (regardless of country), or maybe the management tactics typically used (again, around the world) by supervisors?
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
525 dropbox paper
Dropbox assignments are between 300-500 words and written in the
[APA format](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format). Submissions are not to exceed 550 words.
Visit the Council on Foreign Relations, read the article on
["How Police Compare in Different Democracies](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies)"
, then compare and contrast the police services in other countries.
1. Select two of the police agencies mentioned then
**write a paragraph on EACH** that gives some insight into the structure, functions, and operations of that agency. If you feel that it is appropriate, include any information or overview of the criminal justice system surrounding the police jurisdictions reviewed.
2. Read TWO of the following articles from media sources writing news stories that compare shootings by police officers in countries around the world.
**Write a paragraph** each of the two articles and summarize the points raised in each article. Be sure to provide your opinion about the article’s apparent accuracy, fairness, and the reasonableness of any suggestions in the article for change in the United States.
· The Guardian's "
[The Counted Police Killings: US vs. Other Countries](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries)"
· The Christian Science Monitor's "
[Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries)"
· The Huffington Post's "
[Why American Cops Kill So Many Compared to European Cops](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-cops-lethal_us_565cde59e4b079b2818b8870)"
525 research paper
Topic –
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process**
**Previous outline is attached as word doc**
Expand on the outline and include a writing sample of 750 to 1000 words that will be part of your final research paper. This excerpt must include references to the work cited in your literature review.
**## ResearchPaper-Outline.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process Outline**
**United Kingdom and European Union Legal Systems**
**I. Introduction**
**1. Background**
· Globalization, technology, and human rights apply more and more to criminal justice systems in present societies and demand more due process protection from one jurisdiction to the other.
· The United Kingdom and the European Union are two similar but not identical legal systems where there are variations in the application of the principles of procedural fairness, search and seizure principles, and principles of a ‘fair trial'.
· Thirdly, there is emerging scholarly discussion about the likelihood of increased phenomena of AI usage, digital evidence, and transnational offending that are creating worries with traditional safeguards afforded in criminal justice (Blount, 2021; Casino et al., 2021).
**2. Thesis Statement**
In the UK and EU criminal justice systems protections of fundamental rights and the rule of law shows some degree of convergence and divergence.
**II. Body**
**First Topic: Due Process and Procedural Fairness in Criminal Justice Systems**
**Point A: Foundations of Procedural Justice**
· In both the UK and the EU systems of investigation, prosecution or adjudication, there is a guarantee of the fairness of the process to be gone through, known as due process.
· Procedural justice focuses on the perception of having fairness and trust in the judicial system (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022).
· Structural inequality/explicit inequalities in power within institutions shape experiences of fairness in both jurisdictions.
**Point B: Pre-Trial Decision-Making and Fairness**
· Judges' decisions on (pre)trial detention is highly variable and depend on personal whims and computational powers (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU systems tend to be more important on proportionality and rules of detention in relation to rights, than are more forthright systems in the UK.
· Treatment may not be the same, and there may be interference with liberty rights, due to inconsistent decisions made.
**Second Topic: Criminal Investigation, Police Authority, and Early Justice Processes**
**Point A: Police Discretion and Investigative Fairness**
· Decision-making structures in the police and similar entities can achieve biases and lack of neutrality during investigations (Amagnya, 2022).
· Separation of investigative vs. prosecutive function is a significant due process protection.
· The level of institutional independence within a system between the police and the prosecutor varies between the UK and the EU.
**Point B: Systemic and Comparative Considerations**
· African comparative systems highlight how institutional constraints can weaken procedural fairness, offering contrast for UK and EU analysis (Winterdyk, 2022).
· Legal traditions influence how discretion is structured within policing systems.
**Third Topic: Search and Seizure**
**Point A: Traditional vs Digital Search and Seizure**
· Digital evidence and cross-border investigations is a very big challenge to search and seizure protections (Casino et al., 2022).
· Traditional legal frameworks were designed for physical evidence, not digital environments.
· Jurisdictional conflicts arise over data access and privacy protections.
**Point B: EU vs UK Evidence Standards**
· EU legal systems put more emphasis on stronger exclusionary rules for illegally obtained evidence (Panzavolta & Maes, 2022).
· The UK heavily dwells on flexible evidentiary discretion within common law traditions.
· There is tension between security interests and individual privacy rights.
**Fourth Topic: Self-Incrimination and Fair Trial Protections**
**Point A: Interrogation Rights and Due Process**
· Both systems constitute protection against self-incrimination, and neither is as effective in its application as is the Other.
· Access to legal assistance and procedural safeguards have an impact on Fair Trial rights (Amagnya, 2022).
· Case outcomes are affected – in a significant way – by early-stage procedural protections.
**Point B: Access to Legal Safeguards**
· The unequal access to counsel during initial proceedings might have an adverse impact on weakens due process protections (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU is more likely to establish a more uniform protection in the field of human rights.
· UK system is more heavily based on (national) legal principles and trends.
**Fifth Topic: Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice Decision-Making**
**Point A: AI in Criminal Justice Systems**
· Predictive policing and crime prevention (PCP) and machines that make predictions about which crimes are most likely to happen and where they will take place are increasingly employing artificial intelligence (AI) (Blount, 2022).
· Clarification is required with regards to the transparency, bias, and accountability of AI systems.
· The Opaque algorithms can challenge the right to due process protections.
**Point B: Algorithmic Governance and Regulation**
· UK criminal justice systems have vastly integrated algorithmic tools under regulatory oversight (Zilka et al., 2022).
· EU systems on the other hand puts more emphasis on transparency and human rights compliance in algorithmic decision-making.
· Lack of explainability in AI systems may violate fairness principles.
**III. Conclusion**
· Criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom and of the European Union have some common elements of due process but are not identical.
· EU systems tend to support more predictable rights protection, whilst the UK's common law tradition offers more flexible rights protection.
· New issues like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime are and will continue to affect the due process rights of both systems.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Davis, F. (2022). Judicial Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreements: A Comparative Study.
_SSRN Electronic Journal_.
[https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985)
Dhami, M. K., & van den Brink, Y. N. (2022). A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Approach to Evaluating Pre-trial Detention Decisions: Towards Evidence-Based Reform.
_European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0)
McConnell, B. (2022).
_Racial Sentencing Disparities and Differential Progression Through the Criminal Justice System: Evidence From Linked Federal and State Court Data_.
[https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282)
Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2022). Policing, punishment and comparative penality.
_British Journal of Criminology_,
_62_(5).
[https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Rose, C. (2022). Enforcing the “Community Interest” in Combating Transnational Crimes: The Potential for Public Interest Litigation.
_Netherlands International Law Review_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Winterdyk, J. (2022). Comparative Criminology and Criminal Justice within the African Continent.
_Strathmore Law Journal_,
_6_(1), 46–70.
[https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157](https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## ResearchPaper-Outline.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process Outline**
**United Kingdom and European Union Legal Systems**
**I. Introduction**
**1. Background**
· Globalization, technology, and human rights apply more and more to criminal justice systems in present societies and demand more due process protection from one jurisdiction to the other.
· The United Kingdom and the European Union are two similar but not identical legal systems where there are variations in the application of the principles of procedural fairness, search and seizure principles, and principles of a ‘fair trial'.
· Thirdly, there is emerging scholarly discussion about the likelihood of increased phenomena of AI usage, digital evidence, and transnational offending that are creating worries with traditional safeguards afforded in criminal justice (Blount, 2021; Casino et al., 2021).
**2. Thesis Statement**
In the UK and EU criminal justice systems protections of fundamental rights and the rule of law shows some degree of convergence and divergence.
**II. Body**
**First Topic: Due Process and Procedural Fairness in Criminal Justice Systems**
**Point A: Foundations of Procedural Justice**
· In both the UK and the EU systems of investigation, prosecution or adjudication, there is a guarantee of the fairness of the process to be gone through, known as due process.
· Procedural justice focuses on the perception of having fairness and trust in the judicial system (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022).
· Structural inequality/explicit inequalities in power within institutions shape experiences of fairness in both jurisdictions.
**Point B: Pre-Trial Decision-Making and Fairness**
· Judges' decisions on (pre)trial detention is highly variable and depend on personal whims and computational powers (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU systems tend to be more important on proportionality and rules of detention in relation to rights, than are more forthright systems in the UK.
· Treatment may not be the same, and there may be interference with liberty rights, due to inconsistent decisions made.
**Second Topic: Criminal Investigation, Police Authority, and Early Justice Processes**
**Point A: Police Discretion and Investigative Fairness**
· Decision-making structures in the police and similar entities can achieve biases and lack of neutrality during investigations (Amagnya, 2022).
· Separation of investigative vs. prosecutive function is a significant due process protection.
· The level of institutional independence within a system between the police and the prosecutor varies between the UK and the EU.
**Point B: Systemic and Comparative Considerations**
· African comparative systems highlight how institutional constraints can weaken procedural fairness, offering contrast for UK and EU analysis (Winterdyk, 2022).
· Legal traditions influence how discretion is structured within policing systems.
**Third Topic: Search and Seizure**
**Point A: Traditional vs Digital Search and Seizure**
· Digital evidence and cross-border investigations is a very big challenge to search and seizure protections (Casino et al., 2022).
· Traditional legal frameworks were designed for physical evidence, not digital environments.
· Jurisdictional conflicts arise over data access and privacy protections.
**Point B: EU vs UK Evidence Standards**
· EU legal systems put more emphasis on stronger exclusionary rules for illegally obtained evidence (Panzavolta & Maes, 2022).
· The UK heavily dwells on flexible evidentiary discretion within common law traditions.
· There is tension between security interests and individual privacy rights.
**Fourth Topic: Self-Incrimination and Fair Trial Protections**
**Point A: Interrogation Rights and Due Process**
· Both systems constitute protection against self-incrimination, and neither is as effective in its application as is the Other.
· Access to legal assistance and procedural safeguards have an impact on Fair Trial rights (Amagnya, 2022).
· Case outcomes are affected – in a significant way – by early-stage procedural protections.
**Point B: Access to Legal Safeguards**
· The unequal access to counsel during initial proceedings might have an adverse impact on weakens due process protections (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU is more likely to establish a more uniform protection in the field of human rights.
· UK system is more heavily based on (national) legal principles and trends.
**Fifth Topic: Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice Decision-Making**
**Point A: AI in Criminal Justice Systems**
· Predictive policing and crime prevention (PCP) and machines that make predictions about which crimes are most likely to happen and where they will take place are increasingly employing artificial intelligence (AI) (Blount, 2022).
· Clarification is required with regards to the transparency, bias, and accountability of AI systems.
· The Opaque algorithms can challenge the right to due process protections.
**Point B: Algorithmic Governance and Regulation**
· UK criminal justice systems have vastly integrated algorithmic tools under regulatory oversight (Zilka et al., 2022).
· EU systems on the other hand puts more emphasis on transparency and human rights compliance in algorithmic decision-making.
· Lack of explainability in AI systems may violate fairness principles.
**III. Conclusion**
· Criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom and of the European Union have some common elements of due process but are not identical.
· EU systems tend to support more predictable rights protection, whilst the UK's common law tradition offers more flexible rights protection.
· New issues like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime are and will continue to affect the due process rights of both systems.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Davis, F. (2022). Judicial Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreements: A Comparative Study.
_SSRN Electronic Journal_.
[https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985)
Dhami, M. K., & van den Brink, Y. N. (2022). A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Approach to Evaluating Pre-trial Detention Decisions: Towards Evidence-Based Reform.
_European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0)
McConnell, B. (2022).
_Racial Sentencing Disparities and Differential Progression Through the Criminal Justice System: Evidence From Linked Federal and State Court Data_.
[https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282)
Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2022). Policing, punishment and comparative penality.
_British Journal of Criminology_,
_62_(5).
[https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Rose, C. (2022). Enforcing the “Community Interest” in Combating Transnational Crimes: The Potential for Public Interest Litigation.
_Netherlands International Law Review_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Winterdyk, J. (2022). Comparative Criminology and Criminal Justice within the African Continent.
_Strathmore Law Journal_,
_6_(1), 46–70.
[https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157](https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## week5.docx**
1
5
530 d1 350 words
In general, there are three remedies criminal justice employees can use to their advantage when injured in the line of duty. Identify and describe these remedies, including any unique provisions. How do they apply to the criminal justice field? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861
530 d2 350 words
How does the FLSA apply to law enforcement or public safety? What is the manager’s role in applying FLSA within his or her work environment? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861)
**530 Research Paper 2: Annotated Bibliography**
**Instructions**
This preliminary bibliography must include a list of at least four sources, as well as a summary and evaluation of each source that describes what it adds to your paper and how you plan to use it to support your thesis. The bibliography must follow the most recent edition of APA format.
**Topic**
My research topic of choice is Drug Testing in Law Enforcement. I selected this topic because there are so many duties and responsibilities that the ones entrusted with the roles of the law enforcement must carry out such as professionalism – to maintain and exercise good judgement and accountability in all they do. Police officers enforce the law; carry weapons; make decisions that will have an impact on the safety of the public, whether it is an altercation and/or a more complex situation. So, they absolutely need to be physically and mentally fit to serve. Drug testing policies have therefore been put in place in many law enforcement agencies in the United States.
For my research paper, I will be looking at the legal, ethical, and Constitutional aspects related to drug testing in law enforcement jobs (Bharat et al., 2023). Drug testing programs may lead to concerns about the Fourth Amendment, particularly with respect to the unreasonable aspects of a search or seizure. Several types of random drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, and mandatory testing after incidents are explored, given privacy rights and government authority are considered (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023).
I also want to look at what some of the courts have said on the issue of drug testing when involving LEAs. Today, policies adopted by agencies are a result of, and directly influenced by, court decisions, especially the kind of testing that is deemed reasonable under the law (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023). In addition, I would like to look at the differences between agencies at the federal, state, and local levels of government and how union employment policies and the employment code affect these policies.
An area that I would like to further delve into is the effect of drug testing on officer accountability, the culture of the workplace, and the level of trust that exists between the people of the school district and the officers of the law (U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d). Everyone has a right to the law and expects officers to act responsibly, and drug-testing policies can help build trust in the system. But these policies should also be fair and recognize legal employees' rights.
Overall, I think this topic is important because it shows how the governments of individuals and businesses will need to balance public safety, employee rights to privacy, and the Constitution while operating their businesses. In conducting this research, I hope to better understand the legal and ethical questions that arise in relation to drug testing in criminal justice agencies of research.
References
Bharat, C., Webb, P., Wilkinson, Z., McKetin, R., Grebely, J., Farrell, M., Holland, A., Hickman, M., Lucy Thi Tran, Clark, B., Peacock, A., Darke, S., Li, J.-H., & Degenhardt, L. (2023). Agreement between self‐reported illicit drug use and biological samples: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.
_Addiction_,
_118_(9), 1624–1648.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200](https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200)
Mordechai-Strongin, B. (2023). Giving the Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating an Adversarial Warrant Proceeding to Protect From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
_University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform_,
_56_(3), 951–988.
[https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving](https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving)
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d).
[_Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964._](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964)
525 d1 300 words
1. Ghana has a specialized Women and Juvenile Unit that investigates cases involving women, children, and juveniles. Do you believe such a specialized unit is an appropriate way to organize a police force? What social, cultural, or economic factors existing in a country may encourage you to take a different perspective?
2. Is police misconduct indicative of something about the people choosing police work (in all countries), the result of doing police work over time (regardless of country), or maybe the management tactics typically used (again, around the world) by supervisors?
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
525 dropbox paper
Dropbox assignments are between 300-500 words and written in the
[APA format](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format). Submissions are not to exceed 550 words.
Visit the Council on Foreign Relations, read the article on
["How Police Compare in Different Democracies](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies)"
, then compare and contrast the police services in other countries.
1. Select two of the police agencies mentioned then
**write a paragraph on EACH** that gives some insight into the structure, functions, and operations of that agency. If you feel that it is appropriate, include any information or overview of the criminal justice system surrounding the police jurisdictions reviewed.
2. Read TWO of the following articles from media sources writing news stories that compare shootings by police officers in countries around the world.
**Write a paragraph** each of the two articles and summarize the points raised in each article. Be sure to provide your opinion about the article’s apparent accuracy, fairness, and the reasonableness of any suggestions in the article for change in the United States.
· The Guardian's "
[The Counted Police Killings: US vs. Other Countries](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries)"
· The Christian Science Monitor's "
[Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries)"
· The Huffington Post's "
[Why American Cops Kill So Many Compared to European Cops](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-cops-lethal_us_565cde59e4b079b2818b8870)"
525 research paper
Topic –
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process**
**Previous outline is attached as word doc**
Expand on the outline and include a writing sample of 750 to 1000 words that will be part of your final research paper. This excerpt must include references to the work cited in your literature review.
**## ResearchPaper-Outline.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process Outline**
**United Kingdom and European Union Legal Systems**
**I. Introduction**
**1. Background**
· Globalization, technology, and human rights apply more and more to criminal justice systems in present societies and demand more due process protection from one jurisdiction to the other.
· The United Kingdom and the European Union are two similar but not identical legal systems where there are variations in the application of the principles of procedural fairness, search and seizure principles, and principles of a ‘fair trial'.
· Thirdly, there is emerging scholarly discussion about the likelihood of increased phenomena of AI usage, digital evidence, and transnational offending that are creating worries with traditional safeguards afforded in criminal justice (Blount, 2021; Casino et al., 2021).
**2. Thesis Statement**
In the UK and EU criminal justice systems protections of fundamental rights and the rule of law shows some degree of convergence and divergence.
**II. Body**
**First Topic: Due Process and Procedural Fairness in Criminal Justice Systems**
**Point A: Foundations of Procedural Justice**
· In both the UK and the EU systems of investigation, prosecution or adjudication, there is a guarantee of the fairness of the process to be gone through, known as due process.
· Procedural justice focuses on the perception of having fairness and trust in the judicial system (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022).
· Structural inequality/explicit inequalities in power within institutions shape experiences of fairness in both jurisdictions.
**Point B: Pre-Trial Decision-Making and Fairness**
· Judges' decisions on (pre)trial detention is highly variable and depend on personal whims and computational powers (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU systems tend to be more important on proportionality and rules of detention in relation to rights, than are more forthright systems in the UK.
· Treatment may not be the same, and there may be interference with liberty rights, due to inconsistent decisions made.
**Second Topic: Criminal Investigation, Police Authority, and Early Justice Processes**
**Point A: Police Discretion and Investigative Fairness**
· Decision-making structures in the police and similar entities can achieve biases and lack of neutrality during investigations (Amagnya, 2022).
· Separation of investigative vs. prosecutive function is a significant due process protection.
· The level of institutional independence within a system between the police and the prosecutor varies between the UK and the EU.
**Point B: Systemic and Comparative Considerations**
· African comparative systems highlight how institutional constraints can weaken procedural fairness, offering contrast for UK and EU analysis (Winterdyk, 2022).
· Legal traditions influence how discretion is structured within policing systems.
**Third Topic: Search and Seizure**
**Point A: Traditional vs Digital Search and Seizure**
· Digital evidence and cross-border investigations is a very big challenge to search and seizure protections (Casino et al., 2022).
· Traditional legal frameworks were designed for physical evidence, not digital environments.
· Jurisdictional conflicts arise over data access and privacy protections.
**Point B: EU vs UK Evidence Standards**
· EU legal systems put more emphasis on stronger exclusionary rules for illegally obtained evidence (Panzavolta & Maes, 2022).
· The UK heavily dwells on flexible evidentiary discretion within common law traditions.
· There is tension between security interests and individual privacy rights.
**Fourth Topic: Self-Incrimination and Fair Trial Protections**
**Point A: Interrogation Rights and Due Process**
· Both systems constitute protection against self-incrimination, and neither is as effective in its application as is the Other.
· Access to legal assistance and procedural safeguards have an impact on Fair Trial rights (Amagnya, 2022).
· Case outcomes are affected – in a significant way – by early-stage procedural protections.
**Point B: Access to Legal Safeguards**
· The unequal access to counsel during initial proceedings might have an adverse impact on weakens due process protections (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU is more likely to establish a more uniform protection in the field of human rights.
· UK system is more heavily based on (national) legal principles and trends.
**Fifth Topic: Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice Decision-Making**
**Point A: AI in Criminal Justice Systems**
· Predictive policing and crime prevention (PCP) and machines that make predictions about which crimes are most likely to happen and where they will take place are increasingly employing artificial intelligence (AI) (Blount, 2022).
· Clarification is required with regards to the transparency, bias, and accountability of AI systems.
· The Opaque algorithms can challenge the right to due process protections.
**Point B: Algorithmic Governance and Regulation**
· UK criminal justice systems have vastly integrated algorithmic tools under regulatory oversight (Zilka et al., 2022).
· EU systems on the other hand puts more emphasis on transparency and human rights compliance in algorithmic decision-making.
· Lack of explainability in AI systems may violate fairness principles.
**III. Conclusion**
· Criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom and of the European Union have some common elements of due process but are not identical.
· EU systems tend to support more predictable rights protection, whilst the UK's common law tradition offers more flexible rights protection.
· New issues like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime are and will continue to affect the due process rights of both systems.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Davis, F. (2022). Judicial Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreements: A Comparative Study.
_SSRN Electronic Journal_.
[https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985)
Dhami, M. K., & van den Brink, Y. N. (2022). A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Approach to Evaluating Pre-trial Detention Decisions: Towards Evidence-Based Reform.
_European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0)
McConnell, B. (2022).
_Racial Sentencing Disparities and Differential Progression Through the Criminal Justice System: Evidence From Linked Federal and State Court Data_.
[https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282)
Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2022). Policing, punishment and comparative penality.
_British Journal of Criminology_,
_62_(5).
[https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Rose, C. (2022). Enforcing the “Community Interest” in Combating Transnational Crimes: The Potential for Public Interest Litigation.
_Netherlands International Law Review_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Winterdyk, J. (2022). Comparative Criminology and Criminal Justice within the African Continent.
_Strathmore Law Journal_,
_6_(1), 46–70.
[https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157](https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)
**## week5.docx**
1
5
530 d1 350 words
In general, there are three remedies criminal justice employees can use to their advantage when injured in the line of duty. Identify and describe these remedies, including any unique provisions. How do they apply to the criminal justice field? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861
530 d2 350 words
How does the FLSA apply to law enforcement or public safety? What is the manager’s role in applying FLSA within his or her work environment? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week5#s-lg-box-24942861)
**530 Research Paper 2: Annotated Bibliography**
**Instructions**
This preliminary bibliography must include a list of at least four sources, as well as a summary and evaluation of each source that describes what it adds to your paper and how you plan to use it to support your thesis. The bibliography must follow the most recent edition of APA format.
**Topic**
My research topic of choice is Drug Testing in Law Enforcement. I selected this topic because there are so many duties and responsibilities that the ones entrusted with the roles of the law enforcement must carry out such as professionalism – to maintain and exercise good judgement and accountability in all they do. Police officers enforce the law; carry weapons; make decisions that will have an impact on the safety of the public, whether it is an altercation and/or a more complex situation. So, they absolutely need to be physically and mentally fit to serve. Drug testing policies have therefore been put in place in many law enforcement agencies in the United States.
For my research paper, I will be looking at the legal, ethical, and Constitutional aspects related to drug testing in law enforcement jobs (Bharat et al., 2023). Drug testing programs may lead to concerns about the Fourth Amendment, particularly with respect to the unreasonable aspects of a search or seizure. Several types of random drug testing, pre-employment drug testing, and mandatory testing after incidents are explored, given privacy rights and government authority are considered (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023).
I also want to look at what some of the courts have said on the issue of drug testing when involving LEAs. Today, policies adopted by agencies are a result of, and directly influenced by, court decisions, especially the kind of testing that is deemed reasonable under the law (Mordechai-Strongin, 2023). In addition, I would like to look at the differences between agencies at the federal, state, and local levels of government and how union employment policies and the employment code affect these policies.
An area that I would like to further delve into is the effect of drug testing on officer accountability, the culture of the workplace, and the level of trust that exists between the people of the school district and the officers of the law (U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d). Everyone has a right to the law and expects officers to act responsibly, and drug-testing policies can help build trust in the system. But these policies should also be fair and recognize legal employees' rights.
Overall, I think this topic is important because it shows how the governments of individuals and businesses will need to balance public safety, employee rights to privacy, and the Constitution while operating their businesses. In conducting this research, I hope to better understand the legal and ethical questions that arise in relation to drug testing in criminal justice agencies of research.
References
Bharat, C., Webb, P., Wilkinson, Z., McKetin, R., Grebely, J., Farrell, M., Holland, A., Hickman, M., Lucy Thi Tran, Clark, B., Peacock, A., Darke, S., Li, J.-H., & Degenhardt, L. (2023). Agreement between self‐reported illicit drug use and biological samples: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.
_Addiction_,
_118_(9), 1624–1648.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200](https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16200)
Mordechai-Strongin, B. (2023). Giving the Fourth Amendment Meaning: Creating an Adversarial Warrant Proceeding to Protect From Unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
_University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform_,
_56_(3), 951–988.
[https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving](https://doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.56.3.giving)
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (n.d).
[_Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964._](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-of-1964)
525 d1 300 words
1. Ghana has a specialized Women and Juvenile Unit that investigates cases involving women, children, and juveniles. Do you believe such a specialized unit is an appropriate way to organize a police force? What social, cultural, or economic factors existing in a country may encourage you to take a different perspective?
2. Is police misconduct indicative of something about the people choosing police work (in all countries), the result of doing police work over time (regardless of country), or maybe the management tactics typically used (again, around the world) by supervisors?
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US).
[https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470](https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470)
525 dropbox paper
Dropbox assignments are between 300-500 words and written in the
[APA format](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format). Submissions are not to exceed 550 words.
Visit the Council on Foreign Relations, read the article on
["How Police Compare in Different Democracies](https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-different-democracies)"
, then compare and contrast the police services in other countries.
1. Select two of the police agencies mentioned then
**write a paragraph on EACH** that gives some insight into the structure, functions, and operations of that agency. If you feel that it is appropriate, include any information or overview of the criminal justice system surrounding the police jurisdictions reviewed.
2. Read TWO of the following articles from media sources writing news stories that compare shootings by police officers in countries around the world.
**Write a paragraph** each of the two articles and summarize the points raised in each article. Be sure to provide your opinion about the article’s apparent accuracy, fairness, and the reasonableness of any suggestions in the article for change in the United States.
· The Guardian's "
[The Counted Police Killings: US vs. Other Countries](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries)"
· The Christian Science Monitor's "
[Why Police Don't Pull Guns in Many Countries](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0628/Why-police-don-t-pull-guns-in-many-countries)"
· The Huffington Post's "
[Why American Cops Kill So Many Compared to European Cops](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-cops-lethal_us_565cde59e4b079b2818b8870)"
525 research paper
Topic –
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process**
**Previous outline is attached as word doc**
Expand on the outline and include a writing sample of 750 to 1000 words that will be part of your final research paper. This excerpt must include references to the work cited in your literature review.
**## ResearchPaper-Outline.docx**
**Comparative Criminal Justice Systems & Due Process Outline**
**United Kingdom and European Union Legal Systems**
**I. Introduction**
**1. Background**
· Globalization, technology, and human rights apply more and more to criminal justice systems in present societies and demand more due process protection from one jurisdiction to the other.
· The United Kingdom and the European Union are two similar but not identical legal systems where there are variations in the application of the principles of procedural fairness, search and seizure principles, and principles of a ‘fair trial'.
· Thirdly, there is emerging scholarly discussion about the likelihood of increased phenomena of AI usage, digital evidence, and transnational offending that are creating worries with traditional safeguards afforded in criminal justice (Blount, 2021; Casino et al., 2021).
**2. Thesis Statement**
In the UK and EU criminal justice systems protections of fundamental rights and the rule of law shows some degree of convergence and divergence.
**II. Body**
**First Topic: Due Process and Procedural Fairness in Criminal Justice Systems**
**Point A: Foundations of Procedural Justice**
· In both the UK and the EU systems of investigation, prosecution or adjudication, there is a guarantee of the fairness of the process to be gone through, known as due process.
· Procedural justice focuses on the perception of having fairness and trust in the judicial system (Schaap & Saarikkomäki, 2022).
· Structural inequality/explicit inequalities in power within institutions shape experiences of fairness in both jurisdictions.
**Point B: Pre-Trial Decision-Making and Fairness**
· Judges' decisions on (pre)trial detention is highly variable and depend on personal whims and computational powers (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU systems tend to be more important on proportionality and rules of detention in relation to rights, than are more forthright systems in the UK.
· Treatment may not be the same, and there may be interference with liberty rights, due to inconsistent decisions made.
**Second Topic: Criminal Investigation, Police Authority, and Early Justice Processes**
**Point A: Police Discretion and Investigative Fairness**
· Decision-making structures in the police and similar entities can achieve biases and lack of neutrality during investigations (Amagnya, 2022).
· Separation of investigative vs. prosecutive function is a significant due process protection.
· The level of institutional independence within a system between the police and the prosecutor varies between the UK and the EU.
**Point B: Systemic and Comparative Considerations**
· African comparative systems highlight how institutional constraints can weaken procedural fairness, offering contrast for UK and EU analysis (Winterdyk, 2022).
· Legal traditions influence how discretion is structured within policing systems.
**Third Topic: Search and Seizure**
**Point A: Traditional vs Digital Search and Seizure**
· Digital evidence and cross-border investigations is a very big challenge to search and seizure protections (Casino et al., 2022).
· Traditional legal frameworks were designed for physical evidence, not digital environments.
· Jurisdictional conflicts arise over data access and privacy protections.
**Point B: EU vs UK Evidence Standards**
· EU legal systems put more emphasis on stronger exclusionary rules for illegally obtained evidence (Panzavolta & Maes, 2022).
· The UK heavily dwells on flexible evidentiary discretion within common law traditions.
· There is tension between security interests and individual privacy rights.
**Fourth Topic: Self-Incrimination and Fair Trial Protections**
**Point A: Interrogation Rights and Due Process**
· Both systems constitute protection against self-incrimination, and neither is as effective in its application as is the Other.
· Access to legal assistance and procedural safeguards have an impact on Fair Trial rights (Amagnya, 2022).
· Case outcomes are affected – in a significant way – by early-stage procedural protections.
**Point B: Access to Legal Safeguards**
· The unequal access to counsel during initial proceedings might have an adverse impact on weakens due process protections (Dhami & van den Brink, 2022).
· EU is more likely to establish a more uniform protection in the field of human rights.
· UK system is more heavily based on (national) legal principles and trends.
**Fifth Topic: Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice Decision-Making**
**Point A: AI in Criminal Justice Systems**
· Predictive policing and crime prevention (PCP) and machines that make predictions about which crimes are most likely to happen and where they will take place are increasingly employing artificial intelligence (AI) (Blount, 2022).
· Clarification is required with regards to the transparency, bias, and accountability of AI systems.
· The Opaque algorithms can challenge the right to due process protections.
**Point B: Algorithmic Governance and Regulation**
· UK criminal justice systems have vastly integrated algorithmic tools under regulatory oversight (Zilka et al., 2022).
· EU systems on the other hand puts more emphasis on transparency and human rights compliance in algorithmic decision-making.
· Lack of explainability in AI systems may violate fairness principles.
**III. Conclusion**
· Criminal justice systems of the United Kingdom and of the European Union have some common elements of due process but are not identical.
· EU systems tend to support more predictable rights protection, whilst the UK's common law tradition offers more flexible rights protection.
· New issues like artificial intelligence, digital evidence and transnational crime are and will continue to affect the due process rights of both systems.
**References**
Amagnya, M. A. (2022). Due process in police-led prosecutions: Views of Ghanaian police prosecutors.
_International Journal of Police Science & Management_, 146135572210895.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562](https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557221089562)
Blount, K. (2022). Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice.
_AI & SOCIETY_,
_39_(1).
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01513-z)
Casino, F., Pina, C., López-Aguilar, P., Batista, E., Solanas, A., & Patsakis, C. (2022). SoK: cross-border criminal investigations and digital evidence.
_Journal of Cybersecurity_,
_8_(1), 1–18.
[https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014](https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyac014)
Davis, F. (2022). Judicial Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreements: A Comparative Study.
_SSRN Electronic Journal_.
[https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985](https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4072985)
Dhami, M. K., & van den Brink, Y. N. (2022). A Multi-disciplinary and Comparative Approach to Evaluating Pre-trial Detention Decisions: Towards Evidence-Based Reform.
_European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09510-0)
McConnell, B. (2022).
_Racial Sentencing Disparities and Differential Progression Through the Criminal Justice System: Evidence From Linked Federal and State Court Data_.
[https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282](https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2203.14282)
Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2022). Policing, punishment and comparative penality.
_British Journal of Criminology_,
_62_(5).
[https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac032)
Panzavolta, M., & Maes, E. (2022). Exclusion of evidence in times of mass surveillance. In search of a principled approach to exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases in the European Union.
_The International Journal of Evidence & Proof_, 136571272210883.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328](https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127221088328)
Rose, C. (2022). Enforcing the “Community Interest” in Combating Transnational Crimes: The Potential for Public Interest Litigation.
_Netherlands International Law Review_.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00214-0)
Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice.
_Theoretical Criminology_,
_26_(3), 136248062110566.
[https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680](https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211056680)
Winterdyk, J. (2022). Comparative Criminology and Criminal Justice within the African Continent.
_Strathmore Law Journal_,
_6_(1), 46–70.
[https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157](https://doi.org/10.52907/slj.v6i1.157)
Zilka, M., Sargeant, H., & Weller, A. (2022). Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study.
_Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society_.
[https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200](https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534200)