Executive Solution Overview
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) **files (2)** – ## week4.docx – ## LiteratureReview.docx **## week4.docx** 530 d1 350 words According to this week’s readings, a law enforcement member has rights under the Garrity Rule articulated in [Garrity v. New Jersey 38…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)
**files (2)**
– ## week4.docx
– ## LiteratureReview.docx
**## week4.docx**
530 d1 350 words
According to this week’s readings, a law enforcement member has rights under the Garrity Rule articulated in
[Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 493](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf). What are Garrity rights? Why are they so important to law enforcement members? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
Can a law enforcement member refuse to co-operate using Garrity as a shield? Be detailed in your response.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4
[https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf)
530 d2 350 words
The protections afforded to law enforcement officers under the
[Weingarten](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/420/251.html) and Loudermill decisions are important for the integrity of the Internal Affairs process. Describe both Weingarten and Loudermill in detail, and discuss the situations and conditions under which each is applicable.
How might a manager in the criminal justice system avoid making mistakes with regard to these? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html)
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4)
525 d1 300 words
1. The “You Should Know!” box titled “Proof and Truth” (page 126 of your textbook) suggests that adversarial proceedings can be distinguished as relying on the government’s ability to prove (following specific rules of criminal procedure) the defendant’s guilt, whereas the inquisitorial process spends more time on investigations to determine whether the defendant truly committed the crime.
· Do you think it is a fair distinction?
Include in your response a reference to the additional identifiers noted in the box (e.g., legal guilt versus factual guilt and due process versus crime control).
2. During the discussion of hudud and qisas crimes, it was noted that by having a category of crimes that require retaliation, Sharia law is attempting to satisfy the human tendency to retaliate.
· Discuss whether you agree that there is such a human tendency.
· If so, does the American justice system provide a mechanism to accommodate that tendency?
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)
Dropbox
Dropbox Assignment 5
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)"
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
525 research paper
Submit an outline of your research paper to the Dropbox folder. Your outline should account for at least 12 pages of content with section headings, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Incorporate the 12 sources from your literature review into your outline. Include the headings and sub-headings you anticipate for the paper. For each level 1 heading include a sentence or two to describe your anticipated content and refer to the supporting documents from your literature review.
Your outline should follow the guidelines for an
[APA Style formatted paper](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format/literature-review-student-paper.docx) including double-spaced sentences, in a 12pt. font, with 1-inch-wide margins. Points are awarded for a correctly formatted writing style.
_The more content you submit earlier on, the more feedback your instructor can provide._ This will increase your chances on a higher grade substantially.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
**## LiteratureReview.docx**
**Literature Review**
**Due Process and Comparative Criminal Justice Protections in Modern Legal Systems**
Globalization, technology and shifts in human rights norms have an impact on criminal justice in all aspects. The literature review will give a background on research studies in the domains of due process, procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and constitutional protections related to the criminal justice system across different jurisdictions. Applies to comparative legal worlds, not in the USA, and focuses on rights of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, and rights to counsel. Another area of current concern under the law highlighted in the literature is the way in which the laws are changing in response to new issues regarding artificial intelligence, digital evidence, and transnational crime.
**Due Process in Criminal Justice**
Amagnya (2022) examines police prosecutions and the possibility that hybridization of the investigator roles and the prosecutor working hand in hand can affect the rights to due process. The study indicates that the impartial investigative (as well as prosecutive) authority needed for fair trials could become more suspectable because of overlapping duties of the police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case. The study suggests that having the officer control both investigations and prosecution may make neutrality necessary for a fair trial more problematic and create the risk of bias and wrongful conviction. This is an extension of worries about the separation of powers in criminal procedure.
Similarly, Dhami & van den Brink (2022) examine the decision on pre-trial detention in jurisdictions in their study and define that there is great variation in practices regarding detention. Their study findings suggest that subjective opinions have a greater impact on detention decisions than the generally accepted legal standards, which is a concern regarding the arbitrary deprivation of freedom. They are in favor of evidence-based reforms to make the procedures consistent and are eager to safeguard the rights of the suspects during pre-trial proceedings.
In addition, Schaap & Saarikkomäki (2022) add procedural justice by critiquing versions of it that only include perceptions of fairness. True procedural justice must consider structural inequalities and inequalities in the power of institutions as well, they say. Certain values play a crucial role in comparative criminal justice analysis, which is why they are discussed here using the example of the French and German systems of norms.
**Artificial Intelligence and Due Process Protections**.
In cases where AI is increasingly being incorporated into the criminal justice systems, it raises new challenges for constitutional rights protection. As AI becomes a more common feature of criminal justice systems, constitutional rights protection presents new challenges. AI has been used in crime prevention, while it has many potential applications as described by Blount (2022). The problem with these systems is that they are often opaque and cannot be explained, and if those systems are not accountable, it might be considered a violation of due process. Bias in policing by using AI tools may reinforce the existing bias and result in discriminatory policing patterns that will adversely affect marginalized communities. Algorithmic governance in the criminal justice system in the UK is also explored by Zilka et al. (2022). They are focusing their studies on the need to be transparent, have oversight on, and be explained by algorithmic decision-making.
**Digital Evidence, Search and Seizure, and Cross-Border Challenges**
A systematic review of the challenges in the management of digital evidence from different jurisdictions has been done by Casino et al. (2022). They identified laws of access to data, data privacy provisions, and jurisdiction provisions that cause conflicts. All of these create challenges for (traditional) search and seizure procedures aimed at collecting physical evidence rather than in digital spaces.
Panzavolta & Maes (2022) tackle illegal Evidence exclusion in the era of Mass Surveillance. They find increasing tension between the security interests and individual rights in this analysis within the framework of European Union law. The authors recommend clearing out illegal evidence using inclusive rules and advocate for principled exclusionary rules to exclude evidence obtained in an illegal search, thus reinforcing the protections against illegal search and seizure.
This international aspect has been included in Rose (2022), who writes about transnational crimes and the necessity of PIL to uphold legal obligations. Crime crosses the border, bringing with it certain problems and difficulties about the boundaries of jurisdiction, but with certain respect for the standards of due process, there is a need for cooperation with other states.
**Equality Before the Law**
McConnell (2022) indicates that there are systematic discrepancies in legal decision-making, even if one's approach is formal law and has an emphasis on neutrality. Newburn and Jones (2022) show that not only is there variation in punishment practices between countries, but also differences in crime rates, which can be explained as being influenced by political, cultural, and institutional features. They found that the overall values of society affect the laws and may lead to bias and proportionality in sentencing.
Winterdyk 2022 offers a comparison and contrast of the various African criminal justice systems, with a focus on the historical, political, and economic backgrounds. This study suggests that constraints on resources and structural inequalities are a problem that commonly confronts post-colonial legal systems, and that such constraints impact upon equality of constitutional protections for fair trial rights and representation.
**Judicial Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms**
Oversight by judges is very important in guaranteeing fairness in the negotiated justice system. This article from Davis (2022) describes deferred prosecution agreements and the need to hold deferred prosecutors accountable by the judiciary. Without adequate judicial oversight, prosecutorial discretion will lead to disparity in enforcement of the law and to proffer of unclear sentencing. The effects of this do not only apply when attempting a right to counsel and equalization of treatment in plea-like proceedings in different jurisdictions, but this has far-reaching consequences.
**Right to Counsel and Fair Trial Protections**
Many of the examined studies indirectly reference legal representation in terms of fairness and procedural protections; while these are not always directly related to “right to counsel,” they appear to have a similar purpose to providing access to counsel. Amagnya (2022) and Dhami and van den Brink (2022) emphasize that there are risks in the first steps of the criminal procedure when legal protections are not equally provided. A failure to provide for legal counsel at the pre-trial stages can have a profound effect on various issues – detention, case disposition, punitive sanctions, and so forth.
The literature depicts a close relationship between access to counsel and widespread procedural justice and judicial independence at a jurisdictional level. Legal aid that is robust is more likely to offer a more level playing field in the stages of interrogation, prosecution, and trial.
**Conclusion**
It is observed that while there are legal differences between different systems and variations in national or uniform approaches, there are common problems that need to be addressed in criminal justice systems today. From jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the sophistication of technology, crime in other jurisdictions, and systemic inequality facing increased tests of due process protections, search and seizure, and the right to counsel. AI and digital evidence generate additional issues that need new legal protections for a fair and transparent justice system.
**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)
**## LiteratureReview.docx**
**Literature Review**
**Due Process and Comparative Criminal Justice Protections in Modern Legal Systems**
Globalization, technology and shifts in human rights norms have an impact on criminal justice in all aspects. The literature review will give a background on research studies in the domains of due process, procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and constitutional protections related to the criminal justice system across different jurisdictions. Applies to comparative legal worlds, not in the USA, and focuses on rights of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, and rights to counsel. Another area of current concern under the law highlighted in the literature is the way in which the laws are changing in response to new issues regarding artificial intelligence, digital evidence, and transnational crime.
**Due Process in Criminal Justice**
Amagnya (2022) examines police prosecutions and the possibility that hybridization of the investigator roles and the prosecutor working hand in hand can affect the rights to due process. The study indicates that the impartial investigative (as well as prosecutive) authority needed for fair trials could become more suspectable because of overlapping duties of the police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case. The study suggests that having the officer control both investigations and prosecution may make neutrality necessary for a fair trial more problematic and create the risk of bias and wrongful conviction. This is an extension of worries about the separation of powers in criminal procedure.
Similarly, Dhami & van den Brink (2022) examine the decision on pre-trial detention in jurisdictions in their study and define that there is great variation in practices regarding detention. Their study findings suggest that subjective opinions have a greater impact on detention decisions than the generally accepted legal standards, which is a concern regarding the arbitrary deprivation of freedom. They are in favor of evidence-based reforms to make the procedures consistent and are eager to safeguard the rights of the suspects during pre-trial proceedings.
In addition, Schaap & Saarikkomäki (2022) add procedural justice by critiquing versions of it that only include perceptions of fairness. True procedural justice must consider structural inequalities and inequalities in the power of institutions as well, they say. Certain values play a crucial role in comparative criminal justice analysis, which is why they are discussed here using the example of the French and German systems of norms.
**Artificial Intelligence and Due Process Protections**.
In cases where AI is increasingly being incorporated into the criminal justice systems, it raises new challenges for constitutional rights protection. As AI becomes a more common feature of criminal justice systems, constitutional rights protection presents new challenges. AI has been used in crime prevention, while it has many potential applications as described by Blount (2022). The problem with these systems is that they are often opaque and cannot be explained, and if those systems are not accountable, it might be considered a violation of due process. Bias in policing by using AI tools may reinforce the existing bias and result in discriminatory policing patterns that will adversely affect marginalized communities. Algorithmic governance in the criminal justice system in the UK is also explored by Zilka et al. (2022). They are focusing their studies on the need to be transparent, have oversight on, and be explained by algorithmic decision-making.
**Digital Evidence, Search and Seizure, and Cross-Border Challenges**
A systematic review of the challenges in the management of digital evidence from different jurisdictions has been done by Casino et al. (2022). They identified laws of access to data, data privacy provisions, and jurisdiction provisions that cause conflicts. All of these create challenges for (traditional) search and seizure procedures aimed at collecting physical evidence rather than in digital spaces.
Panzavolta & Maes (2022) tackle illegal Evidence exclusion in the era of Mass Surveillance. They find increasing tension between the security interests and individual rights in this analysis within the framework of European Union law. The authors recommend clearing out illegal evidence using inclusive rules and advocate for principled exclusionary rules to exclude evidence obtained in an illegal search, thus reinforcing the protections against illegal search and seizure.
This international aspect has been included in Rose (2022), who writes about transnational crimes and the necessity of PIL to uphold legal obligations. Crime crosses the border, bringing with it certain problems and difficulties about the boundaries of jurisdiction, but with certain respect for the standards of due process, there is a need for cooperation with other states.
**Equality Before the Law**
McConnell (2022) indicates that there are systematic discrepancies in legal decision-making, even if one's approach is formal law and has an emphasis on neutrality. Newburn and Jones (2022) show that not only is there variation in punishment practices between countries, but also differences in crime rates, which can be explained as being influenced by political, cultural, and institutional features. They found that the overall values of society affect the laws and may lead to bias and proportionality in sentencing.
Winterdyk 2022 offers a comparison and contrast of the various African criminal justice systems, with a focus on the historical, political, and economic backgrounds. This study suggests that constraints on resources and structural inequalities are a problem that commonly confronts post-colonial legal systems, and that such constraints impact upon equality of constitutional protections for fair trial rights and representation.
**Judicial Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms**
Oversight by judges is very important in guaranteeing fairness in the negotiated justice system. This article from Davis (2022) describes deferred prosecution agreements and the need to hold deferred prosecutors accountable by the judiciary. Without adequate judicial oversight, prosecutorial discretion will lead to disparity in enforcement of the law and to proffer of unclear sentencing. The effects of this do not only apply when attempting a right to counsel and equalization of treatment in plea-like proceedings in different jurisdictions, but this has far-reaching consequences.
**Right to Counsel and Fair Trial Protections**
Many of the examined studies indirectly reference legal representation in terms of fairness and procedural protections; while these are not always directly related to “right to counsel,” they appear to have a similar purpose to providing access to counsel. Amagnya (2022) and Dhami and van den Brink (2022) emphasize that there are risks in the first steps of the criminal procedure when legal protections are not equally provided. A failure to provide for legal counsel at the pre-trial stages can have a profound effect on various issues – detention, case disposition, punitive sanctions, and so forth.
The literature depicts a close relationship between access to counsel and widespread procedural justice and judicial independence at a jurisdictional level. Legal aid that is robust is more likely to offer a more level playing field in the stages of interrogation, prosecution, and trial.
**Conclusion**
It is observed that while there are legal differences between different systems and variations in national or uniform approaches, there are common problems that need to be addressed in criminal justice systems today. From jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the sophistication of technology, crime in other jurisdictions, and systemic inequality facing increased tests of due process protections, search and seizure, and the right to counsel. AI and digital evidence generate additional issues that need new legal protections for a fair and transparent justice system.
**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)
**## week4.docx**
530 d1 350 words
According to this week’s readings, a law enforcement member has rights under the Garrity Rule articulated in
[Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 493](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf). What are Garrity rights? Why are they so important to law enforcement members? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
Can a law enforcement member refuse to co-operate using Garrity as a shield? Be detailed in your response.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4
[https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf)
530 d2 350 words
The protections afforded to law enforcement officers under the
[Weingarten](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/420/251.html) and Loudermill decisions are important for the integrity of the Internal Affairs process. Describe both Weingarten and Loudermill in detail, and discuss the situations and conditions under which each is applicable.
How might a manager in the criminal justice system avoid making mistakes with regard to these? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html)
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4)
525 d1 300 words
1. The “You Should Know!” box titled “Proof and Truth” (page 126 of your textbook) suggests that adversarial proceedings can be distinguished as relying on the government’s ability to prove (following specific rules of criminal procedure) the defendant’s guilt, whereas the inquisitorial process spends more time on investigations to determine whether the defendant truly committed the crime.
· Do you think it is a fair distinction?
Include in your response a reference to the additional identifiers noted in the box (e.g., legal guilt versus factual guilt and due process versus crime control).
2. During the discussion of hudud and qisas crimes, it was noted that by having a category of crimes that require retaliation, Sharia law is attempting to satisfy the human tendency to retaliate.
· Discuss whether you agree that there is such a human tendency.
· If so, does the American justice system provide a mechanism to accommodate that tendency?
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)
Dropbox
Dropbox Assignment 5
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)"
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
525 research paper
Submit an outline of your research paper to the Dropbox folder. Your outline should account for at least 12 pages of content with section headings, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Incorporate the 12 sources from your literature review into your outline. Include the headings and sub-headings you anticipate for the paper. For each level 1 heading include a sentence or two to describe your anticipated content and refer to the supporting documents from your literature review.
Your outline should follow the guidelines for an
[APA Style formatted paper](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format/literature-review-student-paper.docx) including double-spaced sentences, in a 12pt. font, with 1-inch-wide margins. Points are awarded for a correctly formatted writing style.
_The more content you submit earlier on, the more feedback your instructor can provide._ This will increase your chances on a higher grade substantially.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
**## LiteratureReview.docx**
**Literature Review**
**Due Process and Comparative Criminal Justice Protections in Modern Legal Systems**
Globalization, technology and shifts in human rights norms have an impact on criminal justice in all aspects. The literature review will give a background on research studies in the domains of due process, procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and constitutional protections related to the criminal justice system across different jurisdictions. Applies to comparative legal worlds, not in the USA, and focuses on rights of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, and rights to counsel. Another area of current concern under the law highlighted in the literature is the way in which the laws are changing in response to new issues regarding artificial intelligence, digital evidence, and transnational crime.
**Due Process in Criminal Justice**
Amagnya (2022) examines police prosecutions and the possibility that hybridization of the investigator roles and the prosecutor working hand in hand can affect the rights to due process. The study indicates that the impartial investigative (as well as prosecutive) authority needed for fair trials could become more suspectable because of overlapping duties of the police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case. The study suggests that having the officer control both investigations and prosecution may make neutrality necessary for a fair trial more problematic and create the risk of bias and wrongful conviction. This is an extension of worries about the separation of powers in criminal procedure.
Similarly, Dhami & van den Brink (2022) examine the decision on pre-trial detention in jurisdictions in their study and define that there is great variation in practices regarding detention. Their study findings suggest that subjective opinions have a greater impact on detention decisions than the generally accepted legal standards, which is a concern regarding the arbitrary deprivation of freedom. They are in favor of evidence-based reforms to make the procedures consistent and are eager to safeguard the rights of the suspects during pre-trial proceedings.
In addition, Schaap & Saarikkomäki (2022) add procedural justice by critiquing versions of it that only include perceptions of fairness. True procedural justice must consider structural inequalities and inequalities in the power of institutions as well, they say. Certain values play a crucial role in comparative criminal justice analysis, which is why they are discussed here using the example of the French and German systems of norms.
**Artificial Intelligence and Due Process Protections**.
In cases where AI is increasingly being incorporated into the criminal justice systems, it raises new challenges for constitutional rights protection. As AI becomes a more common feature of criminal justice systems, constitutional rights protection presents new challenges. AI has been used in crime prevention, while it has many potential applications as described by Blount (2022). The problem with these systems is that they are often opaque and cannot be explained, and if those systems are not accountable, it might be considered a violation of due process. Bias in policing by using AI tools may reinforce the existing bias and result in discriminatory policing patterns that will adversely affect marginalized communities. Algorithmic governance in the criminal justice system in the UK is also explored by Zilka et al. (2022). They are focusing their studies on the need to be transparent, have oversight on, and be explained by algorithmic decision-making.
**Digital Evidence, Search and Seizure, and Cross-Border Challenges**
A systematic review of the challenges in the management of digital evidence from different jurisdictions has been done by Casino et al. (2022). They identified laws of access to data, data privacy provisions, and jurisdiction provisions that cause conflicts. All of these create challenges for (traditional) search and seizure procedures aimed at collecting physical evidence rather than in digital spaces.
Panzavolta & Maes (2022) tackle illegal Evidence exclusion in the era of Mass Surveillance. They find increasing tension between the security interests and individual rights in this analysis within the framework of European Union law. The authors recommend clearing out illegal evidence using inclusive rules and advocate for principled exclusionary rules to exclude evidence obtained in an illegal search, thus reinforcing the protections against illegal search and seizure.
This international aspect has been included in Rose (2022), who writes about transnational crimes and the necessity of PIL to uphold legal obligations. Crime crosses the border, bringing with it certain problems and difficulties about the boundaries of jurisdiction, but with certain respect for the standards of due process, there is a need for cooperation with other states.
**Equality Before the Law**
McConnell (2022) indicates that there are systematic discrepancies in legal decision-making, even if one's approach is formal law and has an emphasis on neutrality. Newburn and Jones (2022) show that not only is there variation in punishment practices between countries, but also differences in crime rates, which can be explained as being influenced by political, cultural, and institutional features. They found that the overall values of society affect the laws and may lead to bias and proportionality in sentencing.
Winterdyk 2022 offers a comparison and contrast of the various African criminal justice systems, with a focus on the historical, political, and economic backgrounds. This study suggests that constraints on resources and structural inequalities are a problem that commonly confronts post-colonial legal systems, and that such constraints impact upon equality of constitutional protections for fair trial rights and representation.
**Judicial Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms**
Oversight by judges is very important in guaranteeing fairness in the negotiated justice system. This article from Davis (2022) describes deferred prosecution agreements and the need to hold deferred prosecutors accountable by the judiciary. Without adequate judicial oversight, prosecutorial discretion will lead to disparity in enforcement of the law and to proffer of unclear sentencing. The effects of this do not only apply when attempting a right to counsel and equalization of treatment in plea-like proceedings in different jurisdictions, but this has far-reaching consequences.
**Right to Counsel and Fair Trial Protections**
Many of the examined studies indirectly reference legal representation in terms of fairness and procedural protections; while these are not always directly related to “right to counsel,” they appear to have a similar purpose to providing access to counsel. Amagnya (2022) and Dhami and van den Brink (2022) emphasize that there are risks in the first steps of the criminal procedure when legal protections are not equally provided. A failure to provide for legal counsel at the pre-trial stages can have a profound effect on various issues – detention, case disposition, punitive sanctions, and so forth.
The literature depicts a close relationship between access to counsel and widespread procedural justice and judicial independence at a jurisdictional level. Legal aid that is robust is more likely to offer a more level playing field in the stages of interrogation, prosecution, and trial.
**Conclusion**
It is observed that while there are legal differences between different systems and variations in national or uniform approaches, there are common problems that need to be addressed in criminal justice systems today. From jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the sophistication of technology, crime in other jurisdictions, and systemic inequality facing increased tests of due process protections, search and seizure, and the right to counsel. AI and digital evidence generate additional issues that need new legal protections for a fair and transparent justice system.
**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)
**## week4.docx**
530 d1 350 words
According to this week’s readings, a law enforcement member has rights under the Garrity Rule articulated in
[Garrity v. New Jersey 385 U.S. 493](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf). What are Garrity rights? Why are they so important to law enforcement members? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
Can a law enforcement member refuse to co-operate using Garrity as a shield? Be detailed in your response.
https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4
[https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep385/usrep385493/usrep385493.pdf)
530 d2 350 words
The protections afforded to law enforcement officers under the
[Weingarten](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/420/251.html) and Loudermill decisions are important for the integrity of the Internal Affairs process. Describe both Weingarten and Loudermill in detail, and discuss the situations and conditions under which each is applicable.
How might a manager in the criminal justice system avoid making mistakes with regard to these? Discuss fully, demonstrating your knowledge of the readings.
[https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/420/251.html)
[https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4](https://library.ccis.edu/mscj530/week4)
525 d1 300 words
1. The “You Should Know!” box titled “Proof and Truth” (page 126 of your textbook) suggests that adversarial proceedings can be distinguished as relying on the government’s ability to prove (following specific rules of criminal procedure) the defendant’s guilt, whereas the inquisitorial process spends more time on investigations to determine whether the defendant truly committed the crime.
· Do you think it is a fair distinction?
Include in your response a reference to the additional identifiers noted in the box (e.g., legal guilt versus factual guilt and due process versus crime control).
2. During the discussion of hudud and qisas crimes, it was noted that by having a category of crimes that require retaliation, Sharia law is attempting to satisfy the human tendency to retaliate.
· Discuss whether you agree that there is such a human tendency.
· If so, does the American justice system provide a mechanism to accommodate that tendency?
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)
Dropbox
Dropbox Assignment 5
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)"
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
525 research paper
Submit an outline of your research paper to the Dropbox folder. Your outline should account for at least 12 pages of content with section headings, plus title, abstract, and reference pages.
Incorporate the 12 sources from your literature review into your outline. Include the headings and sub-headings you anticipate for the paper. For each level 1 heading include a sentence or two to describe your anticipated content and refer to the supporting documents from your literature review.
Your outline should follow the guidelines for an
[APA Style formatted paper](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/paper-format/literature-review-student-paper.docx) including double-spaced sentences, in a 12pt. font, with 1-inch-wide margins. Points are awarded for a correctly formatted writing style.
_The more content you submit earlier on, the more feedback your instructor can provide._ This will increase your chances on a higher grade substantially.
Reichel, P. L. (2017). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (7th ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://ccis.vitalsource.com/books/9780134548470
**## LiteratureReview.docx**
**Literature Review**
**Due Process and Comparative Criminal Justice Protections in Modern Legal Systems**
Globalization, technology and shifts in human rights norms have an impact on criminal justice in all aspects. The literature review will give a background on research studies in the domains of due process, procedural fairness, evidentiary standards, and constitutional protections related to the criminal justice system across different jurisdictions. Applies to comparative legal worlds, not in the USA, and focuses on rights of due process, search and seizure, self-incrimination, and rights to counsel. Another area of current concern under the law highlighted in the literature is the way in which the laws are changing in response to new issues regarding artificial intelligence, digital evidence, and transnational crime.
**Due Process in Criminal Justice**
Amagnya (2022) examines police prosecutions and the possibility that hybridization of the investigator roles and the prosecutor working hand in hand can affect the rights to due process. The study indicates that the impartial investigative (as well as prosecutive) authority needed for fair trials could become more suspectable because of overlapping duties of the police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case. The study suggests that having the officer control both investigations and prosecution may make neutrality necessary for a fair trial more problematic and create the risk of bias and wrongful conviction. This is an extension of worries about the separation of powers in criminal procedure.
Similarly, Dhami & van den Brink (2022) examine the decision on pre-trial detention in jurisdictions in their study and define that there is great variation in practices regarding detention. Their study findings suggest that subjective opinions have a greater impact on detention decisions than the generally accepted legal standards, which is a concern regarding the arbitrary deprivation of freedom. They are in favor of evidence-based reforms to make the procedures consistent and are eager to safeguard the rights of the suspects during pre-trial proceedings.
In addition, Schaap & Saarikkomäki (2022) add procedural justice by critiquing versions of it that only include perceptions of fairness. True procedural justice must consider structural inequalities and inequalities in the power of institutions as well, they say. Certain values play a crucial role in comparative criminal justice analysis, which is why they are discussed here using the example of the French and German systems of norms.
**Artificial Intelligence and Due Process Protections**.
In cases where AI is increasingly being incorporated into the criminal justice systems, it raises new challenges for constitutional rights protection. As AI becomes a more common feature of criminal justice systems, constitutional rights protection presents new challenges. AI has been used in crime prevention, while it has many potential applications as described by Blount (2022). The problem with these systems is that they are often opaque and cannot be explained, and if those systems are not accountable, it might be considered a violation of due process. Bias in policing by using AI tools may reinforce the existing bias and result in discriminatory policing patterns that will adversely affect marginalized communities. Algorithmic governance in the criminal justice system in the UK is also explored by Zilka et al. (2022). They are focusing their studies on the need to be transparent, have oversight on, and be explained by algorithmic decision-making.
**Digital Evidence, Search and Seizure, and Cross-Border Challenges**
A systematic review of the challenges in the management of digital evidence from different jurisdictions has been done by Casino et al. (2022). They identified laws of access to data, data privacy provisions, and jurisdiction provisions that cause conflicts. All of these create challenges for (traditional) search and seizure procedures aimed at collecting physical evidence rather than in digital spaces.
Panzavolta & Maes (2022) tackle illegal Evidence exclusion in the era of Mass Surveillance. They find increasing tension between the security interests and individual rights in this analysis within the framework of European Union law. The authors recommend clearing out illegal evidence using inclusive rules and advocate for principled exclusionary rules to exclude evidence obtained in an illegal search, thus reinforcing the protections against illegal search and seizure.
This international aspect has been included in Rose (2022), who writes about transnational crimes and the necessity of PIL to uphold legal obligations. Crime crosses the border, bringing with it certain problems and difficulties about the boundaries of jurisdiction, but with certain respect for the standards of due process, there is a need for cooperation with other states.
**Equality Before the Law**
McConnell (2022) indicates that there are systematic discrepancies in legal decision-making, even if one's approach is formal law and has an emphasis on neutrality. Newburn and Jones (2022) show that not only is there variation in punishment practices between countries, but also differences in crime rates, which can be explained as being influenced by political, cultural, and institutional features. They found that the overall values of society affect the laws and may lead to bias and proportionality in sentencing.
Winterdyk 2022 offers a comparison and contrast of the various African criminal justice systems, with a focus on the historical, political, and economic backgrounds. This study suggests that constraints on resources and structural inequalities are a problem that commonly confronts post-colonial legal systems, and that such constraints impact upon equality of constitutional protections for fair trial rights and representation.
**Judicial Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms**
Oversight by judges is very important in guaranteeing fairness in the negotiated justice system. This article from Davis (2022) describes deferred prosecution agreements and the need to hold deferred prosecutors accountable by the judiciary. Without adequate judicial oversight, prosecutorial discretion will lead to disparity in enforcement of the law and to proffer of unclear sentencing. The effects of this do not only apply when attempting a right to counsel and equalization of treatment in plea-like proceedings in different jurisdictions, but this has far-reaching consequences.
**Right to Counsel and Fair Trial Protections**
Many of the examined studies indirectly reference legal representation in terms of fairness and procedural protections; while these are not always directly related to “right to counsel,” they appear to have a similar purpose to providing access to counsel. Amagnya (2022) and Dhami and van den Brink (2022) emphasize that there are risks in the first steps of the criminal procedure when legal protections are not equally provided. A failure to provide for legal counsel at the pre-trial stages can have a profound effect on various issues – detention, case disposition, punitive sanctions, and so forth.
The literature depicts a close relationship between access to counsel and widespread procedural justice and judicial independence at a jurisdictional level. Legal aid that is robust is more likely to offer a more level playing field in the stages of interrogation, prosecution, and trial.
**Conclusion**
It is observed that while there are legal differences between different systems and variations in national or uniform approaches, there are common problems that need to be addressed in criminal justice systems today. From jurisdiction to jurisdiction, with the sophistication of technology, crime in other jurisdictions, and systemic inequality facing increased tests of due process protections, search and seizure, and the right to counsel. AI and digital evidence generate additional issues that need new legal protections for a fair and transparent justice system.
**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)