Criminal expertise plays a crucial role in the choices offenders make when committing a crime, including their modus operandi. However, our knowledge about criminal decision making online remains limited. Drawing on insights from cyber security, we conceptualize the cybercrime commission process as the sequence of phases of the cyber kill chain that offenders go through. We assume that offenders who follow the sequence consecutively use the most efficient hacking method. Building upon the expertise paradigm, we hypothesize that participants with greater hacking experience and IT skills undertake more efficient hacks. To test this hypothesis, we analyzed data from 69 computer security and software engineering students who were invited to hack a vulnerable website in a computer lab equipped with monitoring software, which allowed to collect objective behavioral measures. Additionally, we collected individual measures regarding hacking expertise through an online questionnaire. After quantitatively measuring efficiency using sequence analysis, a regression model showed that the expertise paradigm may also apply to hackers. We discuss the implications of our novel research for the study of offender decision-making processes more broadly.
DOCUMENT
In this thesis several studies are presented that have targeted decision making about case management plans in probation. In a case management plan probation officers describe the goals and interventions that should help offenders stop reoffending, and the specific measures necessary to reduce acute risks of recidivism and harm. Such a plan is embedded in a judicial framework, a sanction or advice about the sanction in which these interventions and measures should be executed. The topic of this thesis is the use of structured decision support, and the question is if this can improve decision making about case management plans in probation and subsequently improve the effectiveness of offender supervision. In this chapter we first sketch why structured decision making was introduced in the Dutch probation services. Next we describe the instrument for risk and needs assessment as well as the procedure to develop case management plans that are used by the Dutch probation services and that are investigated in this thesis. Then we describe the setting of the studies and the research questions, and we conclude with an overview of this thesis.
DOCUMENT
This chapter explores the legal and moral implications of the use of data science in criminal justice at two levels: police surveillance and the criminal trial of a defendant. At the first level, police surveillance, data science is used to identify places and people at high risk of criminal activity, allowing police officers to target surveillance and take proactive measures to try to prevent crime (predictive policing). At the second level, the criminal trial of a defendant, data science is used to make risk assessments to support decisions about bail, sentencing, probation, and supervision and detention orders for high-risk offenders. The use of data science at these levels has one thing in common: it is about predicting risk. The uncertainty associated with risk prediction raises specific related legal and ethical dilemmas, for example in the areas of reasonable suspicion, presumption of innocence, privacy, and the principle of non-discrimination.
DOCUMENT
Background: Research into termination of long-term psychosocial treatment of mental disorders is scarce. Yearly 25% of people in Dutch mental health services receive long-term treatment. They account for many people, contacts, and costs. Although relevant in different health care systems, (dis)continuation is particularly problematic under universal health care coverage when secondary services lack a fixed (financially determined) endpoint. Substantial, unaccounted, differences in treatment duration exist between services. Understanding of underlying decisional processes may result in improved decision making, efficient allocation of scarce resources, and more personalized treatment.
DOCUMENT
Decisions made during forensic investigations are commonly based on personal knowledge, experiences and assumptions. However, forensic professionals generally do not receive feedback on the outcomes of their decisions, resulting in a deficient learning system. An imperfect individual knowledge base can lead to suboptimal decisions without professionals in the criminal justice chain being aware of it. In practice, this has led to considerable variation and lack of well-founded knowledge in the first phases of the forensic investigation process.The desired situation is that forensic professionals can make decisions based on substantiated knowledge, with transparency about the choices made, so that these decisions can be reflected upon by themselves and other actors in the criminal justice process.The aim of the project is to develop an interactive decision support tool that can assist complex decision-making within the forensic domain. This support tool can enable crime scene investigators to access and utilize data on historic cases, supplemented with results from scientific research. This knowledge can help address questions related to the likelihood of obtaining a DNA profile and its relevance to the crime. In this way, the crime scene investigation will become 'experience-and-evidence-based', meaning that both the valuable experience of crime scene investigators and the rich scientific knowledge derived from historical case data and experiments can be taken into account when making decisions.
MULTIFILE
Accurate and reliable decision-making in the criminal justice system depends on accurate expert reporting and on the correct interpretation of evidence by the judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers. The present study aims to gain insight into the judiciary's capability to assess the accuracy and reliability of forensic expert reports by first examining the extent to which criminal justice professionals are able to differentiate between an accurate (or sound) expert report and an inaccurate (or unsound) expert report. In an online questionnaire, 133 participants assessed both a sound and an unsound expert report. The findings show that, on average, participants were unable to significantly distinguish between sound and unsound forensic expert reports. Second, the study explored the influence of institutional authority on the evaluation of forensic expert reports. Reports that were not recognized as flawed—particularly those originating from well-known and reputable institutions—were subjected to less critical examination, increasing the risk of evaluation errors. These results suggest that the perceived institutional authority influences the assessment of forensic evidence. The study highlights the need for tools to support criminal justice professionals in evaluating forensic evidence, particularly when experts are unregistered. Recommendations include adhering to established quality standards, consulting counter-expert evaluations, improving courtroom communication, and enhancing forensic knowledge through training. Overall, the findings underscore the importance of critical evidence evaluation to reduce the risk of misinterpretation and wrongful convictions in the judicial process.
DOCUMENT
Dit artikel stelt dat beleidsverandering binnen de Europese Unie (EU) ook voortkomt uit besluitvorming op dagelijks niveau. Om veranderingen aan te kunnen wijzen en te verklaren dient de traditionele rationele keuzetheorie en de oriëntatie op instrumenteel-strategisch handelen te worden aangevuld met een constructivistische zienswijze op discours als bron van verandering. Met de inzichten van constructivisten en communicatiewetenschappers wordt in dit artikel gekeken naar de voorwaarden en het zich voordoen van deliberatie als discursief proces dat beleidsverandering op dagelijks niveau bevordert. In dat verband is onderzoek verricht naar een tweetal besluitvormingsprocessen op het gebied van EU-justitiesamenwerking. De ene betreft een casestudie omtrent de onderhandelingen over de totstandkoming van het Europees Bewijsverkrijgingsbevel van 2008. De ander gaat over de onderhandelingen over een Raadsbesluit betreffende de toegang van politie tot het Visa Informatie Systeem. Uit beide casestudies blijkt dat onder bepaalde omstandigheden deliberatie uitmondend in beleidsverandering zich feitelijk heeft voorgedaan. ABSTRACT This paper argues that, in addition to the practice of strategic bargaining, one may very well find in the day-to-day running of the EU decision-making instances where changes in policy outcome result from occurrences of deliberation. Occurrences have indeed been signalled in both the 'EEW' and 'VIS' cases where negotiating parties engaged in reasoned exchanges of views that resulted in position shifts and even agreements on certain issues. Analysis of both cases demonstrates that in settings where the conditions of 'insulation','intensity' or 'access of non-state actors' were prominently present, deliberation and ensuing progress towards a more reasoned understanding of the issue concerned was more likely to occur. Furthermore, a certain detachment from technical detail, yet sufficient proximity to subject matter, absence of agenda constraints and small-group dynamics made it more likely that discussants were inclined to engage in more open-minded exchanges of views based on reason and argument. On balance, clearly identifiable occurrences of deliberation-promoting progress in decisionmaking have been found in the institutionally quite diversified and multifaceted environment of the EU. They can certainly be regarded as representative of other decision-making processes operating under similar conditions, processes of which the institutionally dense EU is particularly rich. In a way, the occurrences of deliberation identified constitute a path of progressive understanding that is bound to extend beyond the temporal boundaries of a specific decision-making procedure. Reasoned understandings on certain issues achieved in either the EEW or VIS process were likely to provide a fertile basis on which further reasoned discussion can evolve into other, future decision-making processes. As such the deliberative instances found in the EEW and the VIS cases are of all periods, including the post-Lisbon period, and should be examined as alternative sources of policy change in the EU, irrespective of the timeframe.
DOCUMENT
Project objectives Radicalisation research leads to ethical and legal questions and issues. These issues need to be addressed in way that helps the project progress in ethically and legally acceptable manner. Description of Work The legal analysis in SAFIRE addressed questions such as which behavior associated with radicalisation is criminal behaviour. The ethical issues were addressed throughout the project in close cooperation between the ethicists and the researchers using a method called ethical parallel research. Results A legal analysis was made about criminal law and radicalisation. During the project lively discussions were held in the research team about ethical issues. An ethical justification for interventions in radicalisation processes has been written. With regard to research ethics: An indirect informed consent procedure for interviews with (former) radicals has been designed. Practical guidelines to prevent obtaining information that could lead to indirect identification of respondents were developed.
DOCUMENT
There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision‐making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators when the risk assessments are conducted during routine practice. We examined the field interrater reliability of the Short‐Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV). Clinicians in a Dutch secure youth care facility completed START:AV assessments as part of the treatment routine. Consistent with previous literature, interrater reliability of the items and total scores was lower than previously reported in non‐field studies. Nevertheless, moderate to good interrater reliability was found for final risk judgments on most adverse outcomes. Field studies provide insights into the actual performance of structured risk assessment in real‐world settings, exposing factors that affect reliability. This information is relevant for those who wish to implement structured risk assessment with a level of reliability that is defensible considering the high stakes.
DOCUMENT
In the present study, how crime scene investigators are informed before going to a crime scene was investigated. In order to gain more insight in the flow of information from emergency call to crime scene, semi-structured interviews were conducted in three different police regions with six crime scene investigators, six forensic team leaders, and six crime scene investigators.Results indicate that information that crime scene investigators receive before going to a crime scene is usually limited. Most information is provided on-site by the uniformed police officers, forensic medical examiner, and tactical investigation team. This information flow is underexposed, and there are no guidelines about how it is recorded.Even though all parties are provided with limited information, incidents are quickly labelled by emergency call responders and forensic team leaders. The influence of the framing process that occurs as a result is underestimated. Furthermore, emergency call responders and forensic team leaders have different goals in the investigative process and hardly take into account the specific needs of the crime scene investigator. In order to better meet the needs of crime scene investigators, further research about the content of the provided information, as well as at what moment it should be shared, is needed. Also, in order to determine afterward what role information may have played in the decision-making at the crime scene the recording of information should be better safeguarded.
DOCUMENT
