This chapter discusses the roles of defence lawyer and prosecutor and the ethical challenges that arise in each role. In relation to defence lawyering those challenges include: advising a client about a guilty plea; acting for the ‘guilty client’; the problems of over- and under-zealous representation; questionable tactics in running a defence; the (mis)use of social media and the need for defence lawyers to maintain their independence from the client. In relation to prosecutors, ethical responsibility underpins the very decision to prosecute and the duty to disclose certain material to the defence. This chapter also discusses wrongful convictions and the imperfections they highlight in our criminal justice system. We conclude by noting the importance of individual ethics in an imperfect system.

In Leviathan Hobbes’s attention newly focuses on the practice of governing. There are five new chapters (22–-25, 27–28) on matters of government structure and policy which would concern a real ruler – in the obvious, immediate instance, Charles, the Prince of Wales. Versus the familiar theoretical question of whether Hobbes’s absolute ruler would have reason to govern well, good government is the subject of these chapters in a more practical vein. Like the policy binders prepared for incoming governments today, they advise on such domestic programmes as taxation and criminal justice and counsel the ruler to maintain control in relationships with subordinates. First, it is of interest to compare Hobbes’s ideas with Stuart and Tudor policies so as to assess their currency: How modern was his political thinking? Second, from a philosophical angle, these discussions are salient to current interpretations of Leviathan as a model of nonideal theory. Hobbes is telling rulers how to create a decent state in the context of real-world politics, a state that – albeit in necessarily imperfect ways – serves the public welfare, their subjects’ good, and their own.

This chapter applies free will skepticism to the realm of criminal justice, challenging the moral legitimacy of retributive punishment. If no one is morally responsible in the basic desert sense, then the practice of punishing wrongdoers because they deserve it is unjustified. The chapter begins by defining punishment and distinguishing legal punishment from other forms. It then presents two arguments – the skeptical and epistemic arguments – for rejecting retributivism. The author proposes an alternative model: the public health-quarantine model, which treats serious criminal behavior not with moral blame but as a threat to be contained for public safety, akin to quarantining carriers of contagious disease. This model is forward-looking, emphasizing rehabilitation, prevention, and social support rather than desert-based harm. It aims to reduce recidivism and address the social determinants of criminal behavior, such as poverty, trauma, and lack of education. The chapter also addresses objections and argues that belief in free will sustains punitive attitudes, obstructing reform. Rejecting such beliefs can foster more humane, effective, and just approaches to crime. In place of retribution, the public health-quarantine model offers a compassionate framework that prioritizes safety, healing, and systemic change.

The criminal justice system is becoming automated. At every stage, from policing to evidence to parole, AI tools and other technologies guide outcomes. Debates over the pros and cons of these technologies have overlooked a crucial issue: ownership. Developers often claim that details about how their tools work are trade secrets and refuse to disclose that information to criminal defendants or their attorneys. The introduction of intellectual property claims into the criminal justice system raises under-theorised tensions between life, liberty, and property interests. This chapter argues that trade secrets should not be privileged in criminal proceedings. A criminal trade secret privilege is ahistorical, harmful to defendants, and unnecessary to protect the interests of the secret holder. Meanwhile, compared to substantive trade secret law, the privilege overprotects intellectual property. Further, privileging trade secrets in criminal proceedings fails to serve the theoretical purpose of either trade secret law or privilege law. The trade secret inquiry sheds new light on how evidence rules do, and should, function differently in civil and criminal cases.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has started to make its way into Spanish court practice, especially in criminal justice. Furthermore, this trend has been accompanied by two new regulations: the EU AI Act, the world’s first comprehensive law on the topic, and the Spanish Royal Decree-Law No. 6 of 2023. At present, there are already several AI-based tools used by Spanish courts and the application of them proves highly beneficial, in particular in certain areas of criminal justice. Nevertheless, AI use can pose serious problems related to conflict with different fundamental rights of the accused. Therefore, its use should be considered with great caution.

People with serious mental illness (SMI) are over-represented throughout the US criminaljustice system. To address this issue, forensic assertive community treatment has recently emerged as a best-practice intervention. Also known as forensic ACT, ForACT, or most commonly as “FACT,” forensic assertive community treatment is an adaptation of the assertive community treatment (ACT) model. Unlike ACT, however, FACT is purposefully designed to prevent arrest and incarceration among people with SMI who have histories of involvement with the criminal justice system (i.e., “justice-involved” individuals). Although FACT was recognized as a best practice by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in 2019, FACT teams vary widely in their structure and daily operations. This lack of a standard FACT model continues to impede FACT program implementation and outcomes research. This article begins with a review of FACT origins, followed by a discussion of what we know (and do not know) about FACT operation and effectiveness. Based on the authors’ experience, the article then discusses key components of FACT and concludes with a discussion of current challenges and research recommendations for FACT model development.

Throughout its two and a half centuries in existence, US mental health policy has repeatedly failed people living with schizophrenia. The failures are cyclical—the inhumane conditions uncovered in the first 75 years of existence were addressed with the construction of state asylums to deliver moral treatment. One hundred years later, the asylums were themselves revealed to be inhumane. Deinstitutionalization, the response to the failure of asylums starting in the 1960s, now drives outcomes such as homelessness, incarceration, and early death for people living with psychotic illnesses. In all cases, well-intentioned policy reform has failed at the level of implementation, largely due to a lack of accountability. The result has been a consistent failureto adequately treat people living with schizophrenia, which is now understood to be a highly treatable condition. As the country passes into a quarter millennium in existence, reform is once again underway. Unlike other points in history, there is good news. Other countries, such as Italy, have successfully leveraged reform to achieve greatly improved outcomes. Understanding US history and the successful implementation of policy change in other countries is imperative and teaches us that accountability in implementation is necessary to break the cycle of policy failure.

Objective. Over the decades, research has demonstrated that Conditional Release Programs(CONREP) and Compulsory community treatment can reduce recidivism among forensic patients discharged from inpatient commitment. This study synthesizes current knowledge— including findings from a 2024 California Department of State Hospitals report—to evaluate theimpact of involuntary community treatment on recidivism and patient outcomes. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed 2613 patients discharged from California state hospitals between 2012 and 2017. Patients were either directly discharged to the community (N = 2011) or referred to CONREP (N = 602). Data on rearrests for general and violent offenses were obtained through 2018. Variables with established relationships to recidivism (e.g., commitment category, mental health diagnoses, lengths of stay) were included. Statistical analyses, including chisquare tests, Cox regression, and logistic regression, were conducted to compare recidivism rates and identify significant predictors. Results. CONREP-treated patients demonstrated dramatically lower fixed recidivism rates at 1, 3, and 5 years compared with directly discharged patients. Direct discharge was associated with up to a sevenfold increased likelihood of rearrest within 1 year. The median time to rearrest was 400 days for directly discharged patients versus 500 days for CONREP patients (p < .004). Logistic regression revealed that direct discharge, younger age, and a higher number of state hospital commitments were significant predictors of rearrest.Conclusions. Structured, court-supervised community treatment via CONREP substantially reduces recidivism among forensic patients, promoting safer community reintegration and improved outcomes. These findings support expanding CONREP services to enhance public safety and patient rehabilitation.

This chapter focuses on the production of official records of police–suspect interviews in England & Wales, and the flaws in their current use as criminal evidence. It reveals the importance of the administrative processes undergone by an interviewee’s words post-interview, revealing how they shape – indeed, create – the resulting evidential product, especially through the institutional practice of summarising parts of the interaction. The journey from ‘live’ interaction in an interview room to an official evidential record is largely taken for granted within the legal system, with little-to-no internal or external scrutiny; this chapter argues that it should instead be recognised as a substantial contribution to – and transformation of – the resulting evidence, with all the dangers that potentially entails. Using data from the ‘For The Record’ project, including interview recordings and official police records alongside focus groups with practitioners, it demonstrates the importance for practitioners and researchers alike to pay closer attention to the format of the data they are examining, and to actively reflect on and seek out the many voices and actors which have shaped it.

Clinical social workers, psychologists, counselors, and other mental health professionals play key roles in a variety of systems, many of which have a history of systematically marginalizing and disadvantaging people of color (POC), sexual and gender minorities (SGM), immigrants and refugees, individuals with disabilities, and other historically oppressed individuals and groups. While the mental health disciplines all require some training in diversity and multiculturalism, graduate-level mental health training varies widely in the extent to which it addresses systemic inequities and builds the capacities of practitioners to disrupt and repair the harm caused by these historical patterns of oppression. This chapter explores this area of focus and practice guidance in embedding anti-oppressive and intersectional concepts into mental and behavioral health practice.

Chapter 3 is a critical genealogy which rests on a history of the global project’s trajectories in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) to reevaluate contemporary conceptions of ‘Never Again’. It paints the picture of the material and ideational aspects of the transitional justice project in this country from the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 to the myriad of measures of institutional and legal reform implemented by the international community actors present in BiH in the early 2000s. The chapter opens with a brief description of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the war 1992–1995. It then illustrates the conflict resolution process and explains what kind of BiH was imagined in the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement. Next, the chapter outlines a skeleton of transitional justice in this country to show that certain areas, such as criminal justice and institutional reform, have been significantly more developed than others, putting these developments into the context of the promises of neoliberal legalism. Finally, the chapter poses questions about the end of transitional justice in BiH.

This introductory chapter first outlines the aims and history of the international project on Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. The aims have been inspired by the increasing globalisation of criminal law and criminal justice, which has led to a growing desire to develop common approaches to common problems and to learn from the diversity of current practice in different countries. This has been reinforced by the internationalisation of criminal justice in international and mixed criminal tribunals. There is now a need to engage in a multi-jurisdictional and comparative conceptual analysis not provided by previous comparative projects, which typically focus on specific topics or issues. The chapter then provides an overview of the chapters in the volume, each of which aims to uncover underlying commonalities and differences, and to explore the scope for constructive assimilation or reform. Finally, the chapter comments on plans for the future.