By Jeremy McDermott,  Steven Dudley

“Connections between European and Latin American criminal networks have surged in recent years, with drugs, gold, and human trafficking proving particularly lucrative in the European market.

The number of European citizens linked to criminal networks arrested in Latin America has increased significantly, especially in Colombia, Peru, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Argentina. The strengthening alliance between Latin American and European crime groups now poses a global threat.

Today’s Latin America’s major criminal networks, unlike the cartels of the 1980s, operate in a world of subcontracting. Groups, or nodes in the network, often specialize in specific roles or stages of the supply chain. If a node is targeted by law enforcement, the network can quickly adjust and reconfigure itself, ensuring efficiency and the uninterrupted flow of criminal commodities.

These networks pose a serious threat to the rule of law, subverting it by establishing social norms through violence to exercise control with different forms of criminal governance. In Latin America and the Caribbean, they pose the single biggest threat to democracy in the region, using corruption to penetrate the state, and violence where bribery fails. This means it is the primary motor for human rights abuses and homicides. Corruption, like cancer, is spreading through state institutions in many nations of the region. Additionally, these networks harm economic stability development, distorting local economies, deterring foreign investment and affecting international financing.

Studying these networks is crucial to understanding the flow of illicit goods from Latin America to Europe, and essential to crafting effective strategies to combat these structures. After an analysis of different variables such as their criminal economies, geographical distribution or state response, EL PACCTO 2.0 and InSight Crime, with the support of the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT), particularly within the Operational Action 8.3, of the High Risk Criminal Networks EMPACT, have ranked the 28 most active or relevant high-risk criminal networks in Latin America and the Caribbean, identifying key factors about their operations that reveal potential opportunities for combating organized crime in the region. This work has direct implications for both Latin America and Europe.

The list ranges from criminal networks with thousands of members to small brokers or gangs operating in Latin American countries, Caribbean islands or in Central America. In addition, the current report has sought to identify the connections or influence that high-risk criminal networks may have in different countries. This has led to the creation of a specific file for each criminal network with a specific individual map. Likewise, an aggregate map of all the information on the 28 criminal networks has been designed to provide a global overview.”

Washington, DC: Insight Crime, 2025. 114p

By Nicholas Barnes

Over the last decade, organized criminal violence has reached unprecedented levels and has caused as much violent death globally as direct armed conflict. Nonetheless, the study of organized crime in political science remains limited because these organizations and their violence are not viewed as political. Building on recent innovations in the study of armed conflict, I argue that organized criminal violence should no longer be segregated from related forms of organized violence and incorporated within the political violence literature. While criminal organizations do not seek to replace or break away from the state, they have increasingly engaged in the politics of the state through the accumulation of the means of violence itself. Like other non-state armed groups, they have developed variously collaborative and competitive relationships with the state that have produced heightened levels of violence in many contexts and allowed these organizations to gather significant political authority. I propose a simple conceptual typology for incorporating the study of these organizations into the political violence literature and suggest several areas of future inquiry that will illuminate the relationship between violence and politics more generally.

Perspectives on Politics. 2017;15(4):967-987.

By 

The Sentencing Council (UK)

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was established in April 2010 (under s118, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) in order to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing, while maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council is an independent, non-departmental public body which is part of the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) family of arm’s-length bodies. The Sentencing Council has statutory duties to: • develop and issue sentencing guidelines and monitor their use • assess the effect of guidelines on sentencing practice • promote awareness among the public regarding the realities of sentencing, and publish information about sentencing practice in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court The majority of sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council are ‘offence specific’, providing a step-by-step framework for sentencing a particular offence or group of offences. This begins with an initial assessment of seriousness where the sentencer will arrive at a sentence starting point outlined within the relevant guideline. The guideline then outlines possible aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to the offence or offender that a sentencer should consider, consideration of which may move the sentence starting point up or down. The guideline then provides guidance on a reduction for a guilty plea. The guideline may then include any other considerations that should be taken into account and finally the final sentence outcome. An example of an offence specific guideline can be seen for arson. Where there is no relevant offence specific guideline, the general guideline: overarching principles provides a sentencer with step-by-step guidance. The Sentencing Council also produces ‘overarching’ guidelines, which address specific issues that may arise across many different offences. These overarching guidelines do not typically follow the same format as offence guidelines. They instead contain guidance that can be applied across a range of offences and are expected to be used in conjunction withany relevant offence specific guidelines. The overarching guideline for sentencing offenders with mental disorder, developmental disorder, or neurological impairments, hereafter referred to as ‘the guideline’, was issued by the Sentencing Council in 2020 and is an example of an overarching guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and over sentenced by courts in England and Wales. In accordance with the Sentencing Council’s statutory duties to assess the effect of guidelines on sentencing practice, the Sentencing Council has conducted a research review of this guideline. This explores sentencers’ understanding and application of the guideline. The following section outlines the details of the guideline. 

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2026. 63p

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry & Hanna Hernandez

Collecting and analyzing data is essential for understanding and evaluating the court trends in Washington in past decades — as well as, at times, demographic differences such as disparities and disproportionalities — within the criminal justice system. Gaining insight into these trends and disparities is crucial for identifying and addressing criminal trends and systemic inequities. This issue continues to draw significant attention from a wide range of sources, including local, state, and federal agencies; advocacy organizations; policymakers; researchers; scholars; and community members. Ongoing evaluation of these trends and disparities is vital for promoting fairness, ensuring accountability, and advancing equity within the justice system. To respond to these impacts, the Criminal Justice Research & Statistics Center - the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2023 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to assess this work. Through data from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) maintains the Computerized Criminal History (CCH), this report evaluates the court trends in the U.S. over the past 25 years, and the underlying court trends and demographic differences that impact the criminal justice system.

Olympia: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2025. 46p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

If they are to receive justice, defendants must be able to participate effectively in court proceedings. The principle of effective participation is at the heart of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 6, defendants’ minimum rights include the right to be informed about the nature and cause of the accusation against them; to have time and facilities to prepare their defence; to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance; to examine witnesses; and to receive free assistance from an interpreter where needed. Despite the central importance of effective participation, there are multiple aspects of everyday court practice that make it a struggle for defendants to participate actively in their case. This fifth report of the Transform Justice CourtWatch London project vividly conveys the extent and nature of these barriers to participation in London magistrates’ courts. At the most basic level, defendants often find it difficult to hear, let alone understand, what is going on at court – whether they are appearing via a shaky video link, or are physically present in the court but (as is most common) seated in the secure dock at the back of the room, behind a perspex screen. Courtroom language tends to be complex, convoluted and full of jargon: not easy for any lay person to understand, and more so for people who are anxious, tired, mentally unwell or otherwise vulnerable. For those whose first language is not English, obstacles to understanding are higher still, compounded by inadequate interpreting provision. And the large minority of defendants who are unrepresented face additional challenges as they seek to navigate the court process. Participation implies not only understanding the process, but also making oneself heard. Yet defendants’ voices are frequently silenced. Opportunities to speak during proceedings are limited, and again are impeded by the practical barriers imposed by the secure dock or remote attendance. There is an essential paradox that while criminal proceedings, at their core, are about the defendant – about what they have or have not done, and what is the appropriate penalty if they did commit the alleged offence – they are often pushed to the margins of the courtroom, more an absence than a presence.Closely linked to the theme of participation is the quality of treatment defendants receive at court. Most court professionals are conscientious and respectful. The courtwatchers observed judges, magistrates, lawyers and court staff who took time to explain proceedings; responded calmly and with compassion to displays of distress, confusion and anger; and offered extensive support to unrepresented defendants. Yet good treatment of defendants is by no means universal. Court professionals are working within an overloaded, creaking and under-resourced system. They are under pressure to complete cases quickly, in order to reduce the delays that permeate all stages of the criminal justice process. Consequences include an over-emphasis on speedy ‘processing’ of many cases and inadequate consideration of individuals’ specific circumstances and needs. And while the humanity of many court professionals shines through courtwatcher accounts, it is evident also that there are judges, magistrates, lawyers and court staff who are rude, dismissive and careless in their interactions with defendants. The treatment received by people in contact with the criminal justice system has significant repercussions. We know from existing research on procedural justice that people involved in legal processes are more likely to regard those processes – and indeed the wider justice system – as trustworthy and legitimate if they feel they have been treated with dignity and respect. Also essential to perceptions of good treatment is the experience of having a ‘voice’: that is, being acknowledged as an individual and being heard by those making the decisions. In other words, quality of treatment is integral to participation, and vice versa. The findings of the CourtWatch London project resonate with research that my colleagues and I have carried out over many years at Birkbeck’s Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. In our own work spanning the criminal (magistrates’, youth and Crown), family and coroners’ courts, we have repeatedly identified barriers to court users’ understanding of and engagement with legal processes. We have also seen how respectful, humane treatment can make a profound difference to people’s experience of justice. We have noted that seemingly small acts of kindness and attention can significantly enhance the sense of being supported and included; and, conversely, that professionals’ dismissive or thoughtless behaviour can be deeply damaging. What the courtwatchers have observed in magistrates’ courts across London should therefore be understood as one part of a much greater picture of how justice is delivered and experienced. There is much that can be done to strengthen participation, good treatment and fairness in court practice, and the recommendations in this report set out important steps for achieving this. 

London: Transform Justice, 2026. 41p.

By The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime

 Years of escalating gang violence in the Western Cape has sustained the worrying upward trend of the past five years. This issue of the Western Cape Gang Monitor summarizes the factors that have driven gang dynamics in 2025 and sets out a plan to tackle the challenge in the short term. 

 As we move into 2026, this plan can help form a basis for decisive action against escalating gang violence – and support for the individuals and communities it endangers and harms.

In this issue:

• Gang dynamics: 10 trends.

• What generates clusters of violence?

• Know your enemy: the ever-shifting challenge.

• A 12-point plan for the rapid mitigation of gang violence.

This is the seventh issue of the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime’s (GI-TOC) Western Cape Gang Monitor, an output of our South Africa Organized Crime Observatory. This series of bulletins tracks developments in Western Cape gang dynamics each quarter, to provide a concise synthesis of relevant trends to inform policymakers and civil society. This is a year-in-review issue, combining analysis published by the GI-TOC throughout the year with new research. The monitor draws on information provided by field researchers working in gang-affected communities of the Western Cape. This includes interviews with current and former gang members, civil society and members of the criminal justice system.

By Sou Lee and John Leverso 

Positionality is an important consideration when carrying out research. An effective tool for understanding this process is reflexivity—a continual dialogue that explores the interplay between our identities and how data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted. These reflexive accounts have been used in various disciplines, including criminal justice and criminology. In advancing this important practice, we offer insight into our experiences studying a hard-to-reach population: gangs. Specifically, we document how our insider and outsider identities, as well as the space between facilitated access, were used strategically and informed our interpretations of data. We conclude by encouraging reflexivity within criminology broadly and specifically among scholars who study hard-to-reach populations like street gangs.

Qualitative Criminology (QC): Vol. 13: No. 2, Article 4. 2024 

By Peter Honnef

On paper, gang databases look efficient and innocuous, providing law enforcement agencies with a shortcut to identify people suspected of having a connection to gang violence. But these local databases often contain inaccurate information that, when shared widely across agencies, can have life-altering consequences. The Center for Policing Equity’s (CPE) new white paper, Gang Databases and Immigration Enforcement, explores the disproportionate impact gang databases have on marginalized communities and the increased harm from immigration enforcement. By Peter Honnef

On paper, gang databases look efficient and innocuous, providing law enforcement agencies with a shortcut to identify people suspected of having a connection to gang violence. But these local databases often contain inaccurate information that, when shared widely across agencies, can have life-altering consequences. The Center for Policing Equity’s (CPE) new white paper, Gang Databases and Immigration Enforcement, explores the disproportionate impact gang databases have on marginalized communities and the increased harm from immigration enforcement. 

Center for Policing Equity, 2026. 11p.

By William Downs

Who handles complaints against the police?

A member of the public can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police. 

There are three crucial actors in the police complaints system:

• Professional standards departments (PSDs) are specialist teams based within every police force in England and Wales. They are responsible for handling most complaints for their force.

• The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is an independent body that oversees the police complaints system. It also conducts independent investigations into some of the most serious police complaints and conduct matters.

• Local policing bodies (either the police and crime commissioner or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, depending on the area) are responsible for monitoring their force’s complaint handling and conducting some complaint reviews.

By Anna Cook, Jon Lloyd, Fablina Sharara, Jennifer Key,

When someone is in a crisis, a police response can lead to help — or harm. Across the country, communities are trying something new: sending mental health specialists, peer specialists or other trained professionals to crisis calls instead of police through alternative response programs (ARPs). Research on ARPs has focused on case studies and standout programs like CAHOOTS in Oregon and Denver STAR, but we know relatively little about the broader trends in this growing field. Comprehensive information about where and how jurisdictions are implementing ARPs is crucial so that policymakers, funders and advocates can make better informed strategic decisions regarding public safety innovation. To address this gap, we created a novel database of 216 ARPs established since the early 1970s and operational as of 2024 to produce one of the first overviews of these programs throughout the United States. By summarizing the design, scale and geographic distribution of ARPs, we provide a broad look at the field to help inform and empower community leaders to build stronger public safety systems while reducing dependence on traditional policing. Our findings underscore critical choices in how ARPs are implemented and raise important questions about their scope, accessibility and long-term potential. As policymakers, practitioners and advocates continue to explore alternatives to police response, this report provides a foundation for understanding the current landscape and identifying paths for growth. Given current gaps in ARP implementation, future research and innovation are needed to explore how these programs can evolve to handle a higher volume and wider range of calls, understand the benefits and limitations of different call lines, and expand to meet the needs of smaller or underserved communities.

 Key findings: • Recent proliferation: Public officials and other decisionmakers established nearly 120 ARPs from 2020 through 2024, reflecting a surge in interest and political willpower following national Black Lives Matter protests. • Limited scale: Most programs serving large populations respond to fewer than five calls per 1,000 residents per year. • Narrow scope: Mental and behavioral health are a stated focus for 94% of programs; far fewer are designed to address issues like traffic safety, interpersonal conflict or homelessness. • 911 reliance: Despite their focus on mental crisis calls, only 18% of ARPs use the 988 national mental health crisis line, while 50% use 911 for dispatch. • Urban concentration: Programs are concentrated in large, racially diverse, urban areas.

West Hollywood, CA,

WeWest Hollywood, CA,West Hollywood, VThe Center for Policing Equity’s (CPE) , 2025. 23p.

By Steven Schuetz, et al.

  Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.  Key Takeaways ¡ Agencies are facing increased pressure to document service weapon activity. From 2015 through 2020, on average, an estimated 1,769 people were injured annually—979 fatally and 790 nonfatally— from shootings by police in the United States.1 Because of the impact that officer-involved shootings (OISs) have on the community, law enforcement agencies are facing increased public pressure and policy mandates to document service weapon activity. ¡ There is a need for tools or technologies that can objectively detect, document, and communicate service weapon activity. OISs are stressful incidents that can occur quickly and under poor visual circumstances, which can impact accurate documentation of events. Further, obtaining reliable service weapon activity data can be challenging because of noncompliance with body-worn camera (BWC) policies, lack of BWCs, or inaccurate witness and officer accounts. ¡ There is no single commercially available product that meets service weapon activity needs. No single product can currently (1) detect service weapon activity, such as recording actual shots fired in an incident involving law enforcement weapons; (2) document the activity, such as initiating BWC recordings; and (3) communicate information about service weapon activity to police dispatchers. ¡ Agencies can rely on a suite of products to address these needs or choose specific products, each with strengths and limitations. Available technologies may be integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Weapon-integrated tools offer the most functionality to detect and document multiple types of service weapon activity during a use-of-force incident, but many of these products, such as those developed by Armaments Research Company and Yardarm, are not commercially available. These products often lack the capability to communicate updates in real-time with dispatch. Holster-integrated tools can sense officer unholstering activity, activate BWC, and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot detect activity related to pointing or firing a weapon. BWCs, activated by multiple types of triggers, can document audio and video of the incident and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot specifically detect officer firearm activities (e.g., weapon unholstering, pointing, gunshot detection). Wearable devices can detect officer firearm activities, document metadata, and communicate with dispatch, but most products are still in a development phase for law enforcement applications. Environmental sensing tools may detect and document activities transpiring within a certain area, including shots fired in an incident, and communicate information to dispatch, but they cannot detect or attribute gunshot activities specifically to an officer's service weapon. ¡ Technology advancements and independent testing, evaluation, and implementation research are needed to accelerate adoption. Technology developers are currently working through several technical hurdles and are leveraging insights from BWC to improve technology uptake. Some commercially available products have been evaluated for performance, but more studies are needed as technologies are further developed and released into the market.  

Criminal Justice Testing (and Evaluation Consortium, 2024. 15p.

By James Redden; Molly O'Donovan Dix

This technology brief is the first in a four-part series that explores artificial intelligence (AI) applications within the criminal justice system. This first brief frames AI, defines common AI terms, and offers a mental model for identifying AI use cases within the criminal justice system. While this brief provides examples of how AI might bring significant benefit to the criminal justice system, it also highlights risks that decision makers should consider when developing or deploying AI tools. Additional briefs provide greater consideration of AI in law enforcement, the criminal courts system, and corrections.   

  Key Takeaways ¡ AI will transform our personal, industrial, commercial, and civil realities in the years to come— enabling and challenging individuals involved in the justice system as well as in criminal activity. ¡ AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases; however, technical feasibility and operational realities need to be considered. ¡ AI systems carry inherent risk that decision makers need to understand. For example, AI technologies raise ethical and civil liberties questions that the criminal justice system and society at large will have to wrestle with in the years ahead. AI will bring changes to nearly every industry over the next decade. In fact, AI is already impacting our daily lives and is being built into the background of many of our daily activities—from facial recognition technologies that unlock our smartphones, to algorithms that recommend movies we might like, to virtual chatbots that handle our customer service inquiries. Forthe criminal justice system, AI presents opportunities along with significant risks. AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases. Yet many criminal justice leaders have misconceptions about the capabilities and the level of investment required to create or deploy AI solutions for specific use cases

Research Triangle Park, NC:RTI International.,   . 

2020. 10p.

By Erin Tinney and Alexandra Thompson,

This report presents statistics from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and examines victimization rates across the 22 most populous U.S. states and how reported and unreported crime levels vary across these states and over time. It analyzes selected state-level estimates of violent and property victimization for the 3-year aggregate periods of 2017–19 and 2020–22 in the 22 largest U.S. states. Findings are based on data from the NCVS, the nation’s primary source of data on criminal victimization. State-level data, available following an increase in the NCVS sample that began in 2016, can provide more detailed information than the national NCVS estimates and other NCVS estimates historically produced for BJS reports, such as regional estimates.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2025. 27p.

By National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice.

This report provides criminal justice policymakers and practitioners with a priority agenda to prepare the nation’s criminal justice system for future public health crises. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Through its recommendations, the Commission seeks to better balance the roles and responsibilities of the public health and public safety fields. Launched at the end of July, the Commission received multiple reports and extensive testimony from leading national and local experts. Key findings include: + Crime: Property crime and drug offense rates fell from 2019 to 2020, but violent crime increased significantly. In particular, homicide rates increased by 42% during the summer months (June to August) in a sample of more than 20 medium to large cities, and by 34% in the fall (September to October).1 + Prisons: Prison populations have been reduced by about 5% nationally. On average, the COVID-19 mortality rate within prisons (61.8 deaths per 100,000 people in prison) was double the mortality rate for the general population, after adjusting for the gender, age, and race/ethnicity of those incarcerated. There are also substantial differences among states in the rate of prison infections and deaths.2 + Jails: Jail populations fell by 31% in the early weeks of the pandemic but have been slowly climbing toward prior levels since May.3 During the pandemic, the rates at which people have been rebooked on new charges 30, 60, and 180 days after release remain below pre-pandemic rates. Unfortunately, data regarding COVID-related infections and deaths in jails is scarce. + Racial and Ethnic Disparities: The COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated some racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. As jail populations began to fall in March at the onset of the pandemic, there were increases in the proportion of people who were Black, who were booked on felony charges, who were male, and who were 25 or younger. These changes in the population composition persisted even as jail populations began to rise again in early May.4 + Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders: More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related fatalities since the onset of the pandemic. Mandatory lockdowns, restrictions on movement, social distancing guidelines, orders limiting access to facilities for nonessential workers, and the absence of in-person treatment have created gaps in the system's ability to identify and monitor the needs and legal 3 requirements of people with substance abuse and mental health disorders, and to intervene when they are in distress.5 + Budgets: State and local governments face daunting budget deficits that will worsen as the pandemic wears on, and unemployment levels remain high. Because criminal justice operations (law enforcement, courts, and corrections) are funded more heavily by state and local governments than most other government functions, revenue shortfalls will disproportionately damage the criminal justice system without effective policy interventions.

Washington, DC: Council on Criminal Justice. 2020, 43pg