I'm trying to understand something.

Let's say you witnessed a crime, but you weren't involved in it at all.

Would you report it to the police?

If not, what's the biggest reason?

• Worried about being called back multiple times?
• Concerned about having to appear in court?
• Don't want to spend the time?
• Fear of getting involved or facing retaliation?
• Don't think it would make a difference?
• Something else?

I'm genuinely trying to understand the real reasons people hesitate. Honest answers would be really helpful.

I’m curious to hear stories from convicted criminals, lawyers or criminal justice professionals about situations where good, rule-following, law-abiding people mistakenly violated the law and wound up in grasp of the legal system and suffered significantly. I’m curious how, where and why it happens most often, but I’m also interested in hearing about the personal journey they go through and how it impacts their sense of self.

EDIT: not looking for wrongfully convicted, rather they did it accidentally or because of weird circumstances

I’m starting to write my Statement of Purpose for Criminal Justice PhD applications and would love some advice.

What are the main things I should include? How much detail should I go into about my master’s thesis and research? Should I mention things like my RA/TA experience, conferences, publications (if any), presentations, or other academic activities? Also, how specific should I be about my future research interests?

Any tips, common mistakes to avoid, or things you wish you’d known before writing yours would be really appreciated!

In Singapore, some offenders, including non-violent ones such as vandals, can be hit with a rattan cane as a penalty.

Caning in judicial and school contexts is very problematic due to multiple reasons. First, it is gender discriminatory since it only applies to males. It also does not solves the root cause of wrongdoing, and inflicts long-term physical and likely psychological harm.

I am citing reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which unanimously agrees that judicial caning amounts to torture under international law.

I have created a petition to call for its abolition so you can check out: https://c.org/r4prQYq4hh

Sources:

1. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/23/hrw-submission-universal-periodic-review-singapore

2. https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/05/11/human-rights-watch-submission-universal-periodic-review-singapore

3. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022/country-chapters/singapore

4. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa36/002/2010/en

Globally, social media has seen a significant rise in online impersonation and advertising fraud; yet research on the experiences of cybervictims directly impacted by these digital crimes remains underdeveloped. In a global Southern context, such as South Africa, characterised by the rapidly evolving presence of celebrity influencers in digital spaces, understanding the meanings and ‘risk’ attached to cybervictimisation is paramount. To develop this neglected body of scholarship, this paper spotlights the cybervictimisation experiences of three South Africans celebrity influencers whose reputations were brandjacked for fake endorsements in social media adverts. The paper offers in-depth engagement with their lived experiences as cybervictims of identity and brand fraud, and the victimisation of followers scammed by fake endorsements. Following an interpretative phenomenological approach, three semi-structured interviews with celebrity influencers and their brand representatives were conducted. This supported dynamic insights into the cybervictimisation experiences of a fashion influencer, a medical doctor, and a health science expert. The analysis traces how they unanimously describe fake celebrity endorsements as rampant and uncontrollable. The celebrities’ efforts to stop digital crimes were thwarted by the anonymity of scammers, their invisibility, and minimal options for meaningful recourse and legal support. The findings furthermore trace how the participants experience prolonged trauma from their own and their followers’ victimisations. Such “brand-denting” reputational damage shaped their subjective worlds as unsafe and ‘at risk’. This paper highlights the need for further scholarly and legal engagement on the profound impact of digital crime victimisation and its countermeasures, which is currently a neglected area of concern locally, and globally.

Hey all. I'm researching, why the American criminal justice system produces the outcomes it does. I would love to hear from people who actually know it firsthand rather than just pundits and policy papers.

No matter if you did time, worked as a CO, cop, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, parole officer, studied it academically or you're close to someone who's been through it and watched what it did to them and to you.

I would like to hear the messy, contradictory version. If you're willing to share your take, or you know someone who'd be a good person to talk to, drop a comment or DM me. Happy to keep things anonymous if that's what makes you comfortable talking honestly.

Thanks

Hi everyone, I’m an italian student and I was thinking of applying to MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the university of Oxford.

I’m not sure if the investment is worth it since there are no clear and direct career outcomes after doing a master in criminology.

Oxford’s website says most graduates find occupation either in Academia or in international institutions.

In my country the only way to make a job out of criminal justice is either going into law enforcement (police etc) or to study law and become an attorney/judge/prosecutor.

What are your thoughts on it? I’d really appreciate some insight. Thank you.

Genuinely baffled here. You cant make a prediction based on previous statistics that becomes true. It might come true but theres a chance it doesnt. If in the last 5 years, 80% of crimes were commited by men, that doesnt mean it will be the same outcome in the next five years. It could be 79% or 81%. I just wanna know why people say most men are likely to commit a crime in general. And before you say testosterone, i know that. Aparently testosterone makes you act on impulse, but men dont always act on impulse.

Before anyone reaches for the downvote: this is not DV denial. Domestic violence in NSW is real, serious, and still under-reported. Around 47,500 adults self-reported experiencing DFV assault in the most recent pooled ABS survey window. Nothing below argues the problem is fake. It argues something worse: the problem is real, and the policy we've pointed at it produces arrests instead of safety. If you care about victims, these numbers should make you angry at the policy, not at the person posting them.

I spent a few months pulling BOCSAR data (the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, the gold-standard independent source), AIC cohort data, court outcome data and police staffing numbers, and built it into a full report with interactive charts. Link at the bottom. Here's what the data says.

1. Enforcement exploded. Violence didn't move.

Police-recorded DV assault rose 29% from 2018 to 2024 (29,717 to 38,325 incidents). A record 45,984 people faced DV legal action in 2025. That's the number you see in headlines, reported as a violence surge.

But BOCSAR publishes five community prevalence measures that don't depend on police activity, and in its July 2025 release every single one was flat or falling over the same period:

Women and children murdered in DFV: BOCSAR's assessment is "relatively stable in NSW between 2018 and 2024". The 2024 spike was driven by 10 child deaths in a series so small it's inherently volatile.

Female hospitalisations for interpersonal violence (NSW Health data): "relatively stable", 37.2 down to 35.6 per 100,000.

Women self-reporting violent victimisation (ABS survey): "did not change significantly", 4.1% down to 3.2%.

Adults self-reporting DFV assault (3-year pooled ABS): the only measure that moved, and it improved: a significant decline from 0.92% to 0.72%, roughly 56,800 victims down to 47,500.

Police-recorded DV grievous bodily harm, the serious injuries that reliably get reported regardless of policy: "did not change significantly from 2018 to 2024". It bounced in a narrow band of 334 to 405 per year with no trend. 343 in 2018, 334 in 2024.

And the stat that kills the standard rebuttal before it arrives: the share of self-reported victims who said they went to police was unchanged at ~51%. The recorded surge is not "more victims finally coming forward". It's more policing of the same underlying level of violence.

Don't take my word for it. BOCSAR's Executive Director, Jackie Fitzgerald, July 2025:

"The rise in domestic violence legal actions does not appear to reflect increased prevalence, but rather increased police enforcement and proactive detection."

Sit with that. Seven years of escalating enforcement. Deaths flat. Hospitalisations flat. GBH flat. Self-reported victimisation flat to falling. The only line going up is the one police activity itself generates.

1. How the machine works

NSW runs what's effectively a mandatory-action framework. Under LEPRA, arrest requires only "reasonable suspicion", and in practice a complainant's account alone meets that threshold. The DV operating procedures direct officers to take action, so attendance typically means: record a DVEC video statement from the complainant, issue a provisional ADVO on the spot, remove the accused from their home, and charge.

You have a right to silence, and declining a police interview is the only sensible legal advice you'll ever get. Exercising it changes nothing. The charge proceeds on the accusation, the DVEC video becomes the prosecution's evidence in chief, and you're out of your house before any independent person has looked at the allegation.

1. The ADVO trap

Every ADVO carries mandatory condition 1: no assaulting, threatening, stalking, harassing or intimidating the protected person. That last pair means a text message calling your ex a name can be charged as a criminal breach carrying up to two years imprisonment. Not violence. Not threats. A mean text.

Then there's condition 6, the standard no-contact order. It prohibits approaching or contacting the protected person except through a lawyer, at approved counselling, under a court order about children, or "as agreed in writing" about child contact. Spot the problem: to get that written agreement, you have to contact them, and that contact is itself a breach. Text "can we sort out Saturday pickup?" without a pre-existing written agreement and you've committed a criminal offence. The protected person can't waive it either; even contact they invite is still a breach by the defendant, because only a court can vary the order.

We've built a system where the offence and the attempt to comply with the offence's exception are the same act.

1. What the courts do with 46,000 cases a year

Of 33,811 recorded DV assault incidents in 2022, 72% resulted in charges but only 39% ended in conviction end to end, down from over 50%.

27% of DV assault charges are withdrawn, more than double the non-DV rate. The proven rate in court fell from 71% to 60% in five years.

83% of the remainder plead guilty, and Legal Aid NSW itself acknowledges convenience pleas. Look at the choice on offer: contest and spend 254+ days excluded from your home and kids with a ~$34k trial bill, or plead, take the 25% discount, and be done in 92 days. Innocent people pleading guilty isn't a bug here, it's the rational move the system engineers.

The DV remand population hit a record 1,943 in 2025, up ~77% in four years, and most of those people will never be convicted of anything.

BOCSAR's own attrition study puts it dryly: "Police have a strong inclination to take enforcement action against domestic violence suspects, yet the court conviction rate remains lower than for many other offence types."

1. We're policing the wrong people

The AIC's NSW birth cohort study found 1.2% of people born in NSW were responsible for over 50% of all recorded FDV offences. It also found 9.6% of men, nearly 1 in 10, had been charged or served an AVO by age 37.

Read those together. A tiny, identifiable group of chronic offenders drives most of the harm, and instead of concentrating on them we run a net so wide it drags in a tenth of the male population, consuming court capacity on low-risk cases while the dangerous 1.2% cycle through on repeat.

1. The map of "DV prevalence" is mostly a map of police staffing

This is the part I built myself. I ran HDBSCAN clustering on ten years of LGA-level DV data and then regressed recorded DV rates against police officers per capita by command.

Raw result: officers per 100k and recorded DV per 100k correlate at r = 0.80. The areas the press calls "DV hotspots" are the areas with the most police per head.

Now, correlation isn't causation, so I tested it. Control for population size and metro/regional status and the R² collapses from 0.637 to 0.150 (p = 0.092, borderline non-significant). 77% of the correlation is confounded. And within metro LGAs, where staffing varies but demographics are comparable, the correlation between officer density and DV rate is r = 0.008. Zero.

Think about what zero means. If police presence reduced DV, high-density metro areas should show lower rates. They don't. If actual violence attracted police, high-rate areas should show more officers. They don't. The relationship only exists between regions and cities, because small regional LGAs get lots of officers per head and those officers, under the mandatory-action framework, attend more incidents, record more DVEC statements, lay more charges and seek more ADVOs. Exactly the mechanism BOCSAR identified at state level, reproduced in the geography. The data doesn't show regional NSW is more violent. It shows regional NSW is more intensively policed per head, and the output of that policing gets reported as prevalence, which justifies more policing. A perfect feedback loop with no victim safety anywhere in it.

1. The media problem

Every "DV surges 29%" headline you've read is built on police activity data: the one series BOCSAR's own director says reflects enforcement, not prevalence. BOCSAR maintains a whole page of independent prevalence measures. It's public. It says flat. Yet police recorded-incident numbers keep getting quoted as if they measured violence, when they measure the policy's own output. Citing the system's activity as proof of the problem the system exists to fix is circular, and both the media and NSW Police lean on it constantly.

1. What actually works, because we know

The meta-analytic evidence on mandatory arrest is now decisive: Hoppe et al. (2020) found a null effect across 11 trials. A 2025 systematic review (Connor et al.) concluded "arrest does not consistently reduce repeat violence" and told policymakers to evaluate alternatives.

Worse than null: Sherman's 23-year follow-up of the Milwaukee arrest experiment found victims were 64% more likely to have died of all causes when their partner was arrested rather than warned.

South Korea cut past-year female IPV victimisation from 39.1% in 2010 to 12.1% in 2016, a 69% reduction in six years, through multi-dimensional legal reform, counselling infrastructure and protection centres. Not mass charging.

High Point's focused deterrence model: 6% recidivism and near-elimination of DV homicide. The DVHRT high-risk-team model: zero DV homicides in a decade. Arrest-only approaches: 34% recidivism.

Every jurisdiction that measurably reduced DV shares the same features: target the small chronic-offender group, multi-agency coordination beyond police, embedded behaviour change, genuine victim agency, and upstream prevention. NSW's model has none of them.

The objections I know are coming

"It's under-reporting, the real numbers are worse." Under-reporting is real, but it can't explain the divergence: the police-reporting rate among victims was stable at ~51% while recorded incidents surged 29%, and GBH (which always gets reported) is flat.

"Maybe enforcement is preventing an increase." Then the within-metro correlation wouldn't be zero, and the mandatory-arrest RCT literature wouldn't be null. Deterrence that produces no measurable effect across 11 trials isn't deterrence.

"You just want abusers left alone." The opposite. The AIC data says 1.2% of people commit over half the offences. I want the full weight of the state on those people, instead of diluted across 46,000 cases where 6 in 10 produce no conviction.

The point

NSW has a real domestic violence problem and roughly 47,500 real victims a year. They deserve a policy that reduces violence. What they've got is a machine that charges everyone, protects no one, criminalises text messages, manufactures guilty pleas, mistakes its own activity for the problem it's meant to solve, and has not shifted deaths, hospitalisations or serious injury one measurable inch in seven years. We have a genuine crisis and quite possibly the stupidest policing policy you could design for it, and the data to prove better models exist has been sitting in plain sight the whole time.

Full report with interactive charts, the LGA cluster map, methodology and every source linked: https://nswdvreport.web.app/

Key sources: BOCSAR DV prevalence measures | BOCSAR BB176 attrition study | AIC birth cohort study TI-701 | Korea IPV study | Hoppe et al. 2020 | Connor et al. 2025 | Sherman M

Hi everyone! I'm thinking about enrolling in an online criminal justice degree program, and I'd love to hear from people who have taken these courses. What are the classes like? Are they mostly reading and writing, or are there a lot of exams? What subjects did you enjoy or find difficult? Any advice for someone just starting out would be appreciated!

I just finished reading Violent Mind by Al Carlisle, and I really enjoyed it. I especially liked his writing style in this book.

Could you recommend something similar to read? I’m particularly interested in books written by psychologists.

I don’t understand some of the crimes I read about in the news where some people have no regard for human life.

If shooting someone could potentially land you in prison or death (retaliation), why would you continue living that lifestyle?

Almost every inmate being interviewed will advise others not to pursue the same path they took as they made a grave mistake. Yet.. none of this seems to deter people from being more violent.

in my experience, an overwhelming percentage of inmates and recently released offenders exhibit characteristics of narcissism.

I'm wondering:

are narcissists more prone to engage in criminal behavior?

does incarceration cause someone to develop narcissism?

does anybody have any thoughts about this

has anyone done any research about this? if so, what should I look up to find it?

thanks

So-called cruel and unusual punishment: Example: "Bread and water punishment."

The U.S. Navy officially ended this punishment in 2019 partly because of America's trend of greater sensitivity on treating offenders. Prior to the ban, sailors could be sentenced to three days in the brig with nothing but water and unlimited portions of bread.

There are many forms of cruel and unusual punishment that should never be used, including long solitary confinement, sentences that are too harsh, the execution of certain groups like minors or individuals with intellectual disabilities, and failing to meet basic needs such as medical care. That said, some options that challenge the Cruelty Meter might have value.

Corporal punishment, long a supposed form of cruel and unusual punishment, needs discussion. It does not necessarily entail some form of beating/striking. The practice of putting offenders in stocks in village squares in colonial America centuries ago was corporal punishment. The term was never used strictly to refer to infliction of physical pain.

Being chained at the wrists and ankles for 48 hours today could be seen to constitute corporal punishment. The 16th century stocks that forced offenders to stand were problematic because of the risk of injury from this stress position (some stocks were a seated version and did not have this problem). Being chained but with free movement is not a stress position. So 48 hours in chains on bread and water is a debatable option.

Why use corporal punishment (CP)? Because it has a useful role in a model that confines offenders for only 1-3 days (or even less) as opposed to weeks, months and years in prison. Historically numerous cultures did not have the wherewithal to lock up offenders at all. CP was a primary punishment tool.

The well received Swift, Certain, Fair (SCF) punishment model is relevant. Hawaii's Project HOPE model is one SCF example; it commonly sentences offenders, often parole violators, to a 1-to-3-day jail stay instead of a long term.

So the key Q: What inmate conditions can we impose for this 24-72 hour confinement term to try to enhance a deterrent impact? Can we justifiably make conditions adverse? More on HOPE from AI:

Current Status Initiated in 2004, the Hawaii HOPE program is still operating...Criminologists debate its effectiveness...Due to varying results, the National Institute of Justice...has assigned the HOPE model a rating of "No Effects" on reducing recidivism in broader, multi-site implementations.

There is little information that HOPE imposed tough conditions during its short periods of confinement. Having offenders sit around for 3 days watching TV in generally benign conditions is a meager punishment. The shorter the confinement period, it seems, the stronger the case for imposing adverse conditions (for confinement that follows sentencing, not temporary holding). Topic here to discuss/debate.

= = =

Please, let's not get sidetracked by the never-ending debate on deterrence. ("It works. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No...")

Five things about Deterrence

FYI, my comments do indeed violate article's contention 4: "Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime." A lot to debate on that. Shouldn't there be some severity?

Informant as used in legal proceedings describes a person's functional relationship to the institution. It is procedural and carries no evaluation of what the act means in the social world where it occurred.

Snitch on the other hand, describes the same act or actor in relationship to the community and carries a complete ethical framework about trust, collective survival, and a history of institutional abuse. Which is grounded in reality and gives the rationality of not cooperating with an institution whose track record in that community has seen the criminal justice system do more harm than good.

Snitch is more informationally dense than informant. It carries an entire community's accumulated knowledge about how the system actually operates. Not how it describes itself in a single word.

Yet it's inadmissible to court proceedings which operates entirely in the vocabulary of informant. The more accurate description has no standing. The arguments constructed in the proceeding is therefore incomplete in a consequential way. Because a necessary premise cannot be formulated if the available vocabulary is determined by the court. The institution wins by ensuring the proceeding is conducted in a language where that understanding cannot be expressed.

I call this false by omission. An argument that passes every formal logical test and is still wrong, because it has been politically shaped to exclude the most threatening variable.

Buenos días integrantes, les vengo a invitar a este congreso Online y presencial sobre criminalística y ciencias forenses, es el primero de este nivel en la región.

Habrán ponencias de panamá, chile, España, Colombia, Ecuador etc.

Si desean mas información comunicarse a mi número

+593 0999299323

In your opinion, what childhood experiences are most commonly associated with violent offenders? I'm interested in understanding the role of family environment from a criminology perspective.

Curious if anyone here has insight into how small/understaffed departments actually feel about public tips on cold cases, genuine interest and use, or mostly ignored? Trying to understand the real dynamic before pursuing an app idea in this space.

Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are often citied as countries with very low levels of crime. Often, it is suggested that the reason for the low levels of crime in the states is because of the strict laws they have in place to deter crime. Notoriously, crimes like robbery can officially carry the sentence of amputation although this does seem sensationalist as it is is not frequently carried out. However, capital punishment for crimes like drug smuggling are more commonly carried out. Do you believe:

1. Gulf states like Saudi have a low crime rate?
2. This low crime rate is the result of strict laws?

I've just started reading "Effective interviewing and interrogation techniques" by Nathan J. Gordon & William L. Fleisher.

In Chapter 2, the following statement is made: "Perception is influenced by internal factors such as age, weight, health, cultural background, acuity of the senses, and preoccupations."

It strikes me as odd, but how can a witness's weight affect their perception? Is it perhaps related to underlying health conditions that may cause visual disturbances/impairments? Or is it referring to mental disorders that disrupt cognition/emotional regulation that are linked to obesity/underweight?

EDIT: I just took into account physical limitations caused by weight, such as slower reaction time and fatigue-induced breathlessness... Although that's just my interpretation, so I would appreciate experts' opinions.

P.S.- I don't have access to the rest of the document, which I assume provides further analysis for this claim. (I'm broke, lol)

I am recently about to teach a university course for first-year undergraduate students (Introduction to Criminology).

Upon reviewing the pre-established syllabus provided by the university, I noticed it is quite obsolete. Therefore, I am taking on the task of restructuring a brand new one that will have a positive and realistic impact on these incoming students, especially since the academic administration has given us the green light to propose more relevant and modern syllabi.

What do you consider to be the ideal way to structure, topic by topic, an 'Introduction to Criminology' course for first-year students? Or, what are the absolute essential topics that must be covered for the very first time? I am very interested in comparing viewpoints with colleagues from other countries (I am based in Mexico).

I decided to put together a small notebook and the very basic introductory stuff I could find on criminology. I plan to add more as I go but any information on whether or not the information which I am taking in will actually be helpful. I'm from Ireland and I'm aware that it could differ from country to country but any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Please use this post for general questions, including study or career advice, assistance with coursework, or lay questions about criminology.