By Alina D. Machande 

The burgeoning field of cyberdeviance lacks a unified conceptual framework, hindering classification and understanding of its subtypes and underlying psychological mechanisms. To address this gap, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 20), employing the repertory grid technique, we identified five key dimensions of cyberdeviance. In Study 2 (N = 268), participants rated 16 cyberdeviant behaviors on these dimensions, revealing three subtypes: data-oriented, interpersonal, and non-prototypical cyberdeviance. Our findings suggest a shift from singular cyberdeviance investigation toward recognition of its diverse subtypes, each necessitating tailored interventions. By adopting a dimensional approach, we transcend categorical and technocentric perspectives, enabling examination of behavior clusters across cultural and temporal contexts. Our work underscores the importance of integrating foundational deviance theories and expanding conceptual frameworks to comprehensively grasp cyberdeviance phenomena.

The Information Society, 1–19. 2025.

By Smith, J., Camello, M., & Planty, M

  Generative artificial intelligence (AI) refers to AI1 used to create content, such as text, images, music, audio, and videos.2 Generative AI offers many potential benefits, enabling users to automate, augment, and accelerate a wide range of workflows, from simple administrative tasks like transcription and translation to more-complex functions such as investigation and decision support. In the criminal justice system, generative AI offers promising solutions to address human resource and budget challenges, allowing practitioners to focus on more-impactful work. Generative AI–integrated tools may enhance data analysis, improve detection and objective assessment of evidence, and streamline administrative processes. However, its integration, particularly in the criminal justice domain, raises some concerns, including potential biases, privacy issues, and the need for rigorous oversight to ensure effective implementation. It is unclear whether these tools can deliver on their promised efficiencies in practice, as evidenced by early research evaluating time savings of implementing AI-assisted report writing software.3 These concerns highlight the necessity for addressing bias and accuracy, maintaining strict data privacy and security protocols, and promoting transparency and accountability in AI-driven decisions and processes. This report is intended to help criminal justice decision-makers do the following: ¡ Understand what generative AI is and how it relates to the criminal justice system ¡ Identify how generative AI may be applied to tasks and jobs within the criminal justice system and the potential benefits, realities, and limitations ¡ Consider the technical, operational, and governance factors that may influence adoption and implementation ¡ Understand what makes up the generative AI technology stack and how models can be trained Key Takeaways • Generative AI represents an acceleration and advancement in technological innovation that already impacts the criminal justice system and will continue to do so—it is no longer a question of if or when, but how and to what extent. • Generative AI–powered software tools may offer many potential benefits, such as improving efficiency and augmenting capabilities across an extremely broad set of applications for criminal justice system stakeholders. Although these products hold promise, little empirical evidence currently supports or refutes promised benefits from these products. • Generative AI models can be deployed in various forms, including cloud-based models that centralize data processing and federated models that enable decentralized training across multiple locations, preserving data privacy and enhancing security for sensitive criminal justice applications. • Decision-makers should be aware of the substantial technical, operational, and governance risks associated with generative AI– powered software tools prior to implementation. • Responsible use of generative AI requires addressing bias and accuracy concerns, maintaining strict data privacy and security protocols, adhering to ethics and legal standards, and promoting transparency and accountability in AI-driven decisions and processes. • Generative AI technology is evolving faster than the legal or policy environment for AI—the criminal justice community must be proactive and must implement robust internal training and policy frameworks rather than relying solely on external legal or regulatory guidance.  

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2025 28p.

By Richard A. Miech,  Lloyd D. Johnston, Megan E. Patrick, Patrick M. O’Malley

Substance use is a leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality; it is in large part why, among 17 high-income nations, people in the United States have the highest probability of dying by age 50.1,2,3 Substance use is also an important contributor to many social problems including domestic violence, violence more generally, criminal behavior, suicide, and more—and it is typically initiated during adolescence. It warrants our sustained attention. Monitoring the Future (MTF) is designed to give such attention to substance use among the nation’s youth and adults. It is an investigator-initiated study that originated with, and is conducted by, teams of research professors at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Since its onset in 1975, MTF has been funded continuously by the National Institute on Drug Abuse—one of the National Institutes of Health—under a series of peer reviewed, competitive research grants. The 2024 survey, reported here, is the 50th consecutive national survey of 12th grade students and the 34th national survey of 8th and 10th grade students (who were added to the study in 1991). MTF contains ongoing national surveys of both adolescents and adults in the United States. It provides the nation with a vital window into the important but often hidden problem behaviors of use of illegal drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and psychotherapeutic drugs used without a doctor’s orders. For nearly five decades, MTF has helped provide a clearer view of the changing topography of these problems among adolescents and adults, a better understanding of the dynamic factors that drive some of these problems, and a better understanding of some of their consequences. It has also given policymakers, government agencies, public health professionals, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the field some practical approaches for intervening. A widespread epidemic of illicit drug use emerged in the 1960s among U.S. youth, and since then dramatic changes have occurred in the use of nearly all types of illicit drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco. Of particular importance, as discussed in detail below, are the many new illicit drugs that have emerged, along with new forms of alcoholic beverages and nicotine products. Among the substances and devices that have emerged over the life of the survey are new classes of drugs that include vaping devices, hookah smoking, synthetic marijuana, and drugs taken for performance enhancement. New devices and methods for taking drugs, such as vaporizers and e-cigarettes,number of new substances added to the list over the years substantially outnumbers the number removed because so many substances remain in active use. Throughout these many changes, substance use among the nation’s youth has remained a major concern for parents, educators, health professionals, law enforcement, and policymakers, largely because substance misuse is one of the largest and yet most preventable causes of morbidity and mortality during and after adolescence. The MTF annual monograph series is a key vehicle for disseminating MTF’s epidemiological findings. In addition to this monograph, the series includes a separate, annual monograph that presents prevalence and trends among U.S. adults now ages 19 to 65, including both college students and their age peers who are not attending college (scheduled for publication this summer), as well as an additional, periodic monograph that presents information on risk and protective behaviors for HIV among young adults. All MTF publications, including press releases, are available on the project website at www.monitoringthefuture.org 

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research , 2025. 484p.

By The HIV Legal Network

In Canada, there is a growing body of evidence that indicates criminalizing simple drug possession (i.e. possessing drugs for personal use) and other activities related to drug use (e.g. activities captured by the trafficking prohibition) do not protect public health or public safety. Rather, these prohibitions have been ineffective in reducing the use and availability of criminalized drugs while contributing to profoundly negative health outcomes for people who use drugs. At the same time, criminalizing these activities has legally entrenched stigma, racism, and other forms of discrimination against people who use drugs, particularly those who are Indigenous, Black, unhoused, and poor. Acknowledging the harms of drug prohibition policymakers and other criminal legal system actors in Canada and globally have focused on the potential impacts of decriminalizing simple drug possession. Numerous United Nations bodies, for example, recommend “alternatives to conviction and punishment in appropriate cases, including the decriminalization of drug possession for personal use,” and countries across Europe and the Americas have implemented reforms regarding how simp le possession and/or personal drug use is legally defined and regulated.These changes have been implemented for diverse reasons, including to align laws and policies with public health principles and to alleviate demand on strained criminal legal systems. Yet, there has been little to no corresponding momentum to reform laws and policies when it comes to offences related to the supply and distribution of drugs (e.g. drug “trafficking”). A series of law and policy developments in Canada over the past decade have sought to mitigate some of the harms of the simple drug possession offence while directing focus towards people who supply drugs. This focus has manifested in an increase in sentences for drug trafficking across multiple jurisdictions, an approach that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. As the Court recently held, drug trafficking should be “understood as an offence of violence, even beyond the ruinous consequences it has for those who abuse drugs and in the process, destroy themselves and others” — thus warranting heavy punishment.6 Yet, research suggests that a narrow focus on decriminalizing simple drug possession and the shift towards pursuing and more severely punishing drug trafficking may exacerbate the structural vulnerability of people who use drugs while actually contributing to health and social harms, such as violence, racism, and poverty, that can push people into conflict with the law in the first place.

Toronto: HIV Legal Network, 2025. 

May Contain Markup

By Herschel, William J., Sir

Historical Development: The document details the origins of fingerprinting, highlighting Sir William J. Herschel's pioneering work in the 19th century.

Practical Applications: Herschel's use of fingerprints for identification of various official capacities, such as criminal courts and pension verification, is emphasized.

Scientific Validation: The document discusses the permanence of fingerprint patterns over time, which Herschel confirmed through repeated experiments.

Influence and Legacy: Herschel's work laid the foundation for modern fingerprint classification systems, further developed by Sir Francis Galtonand & Sir Edward Richard Henry.

DigiCat, Nov 22, 2022, 112 pages

By  J.J. van Berkel A. van Uden J.H. Goes

The Dutch Computer Crime Act III (CCIII) came into effect on 1 March 2019. Among other things, this Act introduces the power of the police to carry out hacking operations. The new Sections 126nba, 126uba, 126zpa in the Code of Criminal Procedure will allow specially authorised investigating officers to covertly and remotely intrude into computer systems under certain conditions and investigate them. The police can carry out investigative actions using technical tools. In principle, a technical device must be inspected and approved by an independent inspection service (de Keuringsdienst) prior to its use, in order to guarantee the reliability, traceability and integrity of the evidence. The Justice & Security Inspectorate (hereinafter Inspectorate) supervises the implementation of the hacking power. In its first Report in 2020, it concluded that the use of technical tools for hacking powers and the inspection of these tools were not yet proceeding as intended under the legal framework. In his response to the first Inspectorate Report, the then Minister of Justice and Security indicated that he would have an investigation into the safeguards of technical tools used by foreign police authorities. The present report is the result of this research. This report also supplements the previously published evaluation of the use of the hacking power in the Netherlands, carried out by the WODC.

The central research question for this study is as follows: What safeguards govern hacking powers abroad, more specifically the use of technical tools, and how does this compare with the Dutch situation? The central research question is answered on the basis of the following subquestions: 1 What countries allow ‘authorised hacking’ and on the basis of which legal ground can foreign police services carry out hacking operations in their own country? 2 What statutory conditions apply in other countries for police services to deploy the hacking power? 3 To what extent do other countries test technical tools and what has been laid down in legislation and regulations on this? 4 To what extent are there any other rules to ensure the reliability, traceability and integrity of data obtained with the use of technical tools? 5 How does the working method abroad compare with the Dutch working method regarding the approval of technical tools and any other safeguards to achieve data reliability, integrity and traceability?    

The Hague: Netherlands Ministry of Justice,  WODC Research and Documentation Centre , 2023. 154p