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 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 Camello, M. L., Houston-Kolnik, J. D., & Planty, M

This technology brief explores the use of chatbots within the criminal justice system. The goal of this brief is to orient the reader to chatbots, present foundational insights from real-world examples of chatbot use, highlight considerations for implementation, and discuss the future of chatbots in the criminal justice system  

  Key Takeaways ¡ There are numerous benefits to implementing chatbots, including: Ÿ improved efficiency for users accessing information, Ÿ enhanced community engagement by creating a 24/7 communications channel, Ÿ expanded access to justice through multilingual chatbot capabilities, Ÿ reduced costs by automating FAQ support traditionally done through live chat, and Ÿ reduced staff workloads. ¡ Chatbots carry inherent risks that decision-makers need to consider before implementation, including: Ÿ misinterpretation of user input leading to incorrect responses, Ÿ biased training data, and Ÿ vulnerability to hacking. ¡ Advancements in AI have enhanced and will continue to enhance chatbot capabilities and applications; however, despite these advancements, deploying AI-driven chatbots is not a “plug-and-play” opportunity for criminal justice applications

Research Triangle Park, NC:RTI International, 2021. 15p.  

By Dennis D. Hirsch,  Jared Ott, Angie Westover-Munoz, and Chris Yaluma

Federal and state criminal justice systems use algorithmic risk assessment tools extensively. Much of the existing scholarship on this topic engages in normative and technical analyses of these tools, or seeks to identify best practices for tool design and use. Far less work has been done on how courts and other criminal justice actors perceive and utilize these tools on the ground. This is an important gap. Judges’ and other criminal justice actors’ attitudes towards, and implementation of, algorithmic risk assessment tools profoundly affect how these tools impact defendants, incarceration rates, and the broader criminal justice system. Those who would understand, and potentially seek to improve, the courts’ use of these tools would benefit from more information on how judges actually think about and employ them. This article begins to fill in this picture. The authors surveyed Ohio Courts of Common Pleas judges and staff, and interviewed judges and other key stakeholders, to learn how they view and use algorithmic risk assessment tools. The article describes how Ohio Common Pleas Courts implement algorithmic risk assessment tools and how judges view and utilize the tools and the risk scores they generate. It then compares Ohio practice in this area to the best practices identified in the literature and, on this basis, recommends how the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas—and, by implication, other state and federal court systems—can better align their use of algorithmic risk assessment tools with core criminal justice values.

Legal Studies Research Paper No. 939, 2925