Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into sentencing within the criminal justice system. This research examines the impact of AI on sentencing, addressing the challenges and opportunities for fairness and justice. The main problem explored is AI’s potential to perpetuate biases, undermining fair-trial principles. This study intends to assess AI’s influence on sentencing, identify legal and ethical challenges, and propose a framework for equitable AI use in judicial decisions. Key research questions include: (1) How does AI influence sentencing decisions? (2) What concerns arise from AI in sentencing? (3) What safeguards can mitigate those concerns and prejudices? Utilizing qualitative methodology, including doctrinal analysis and comparative studies, the research reveals AI’s potential to enhance sentencing efficiency but also to risk reinforcing biases. The study recommends robust regulatory frameworks, transparency in AI algorithms, and judicial oversight to ensure AI supports justice rather than impedes it, advocating for a balanced integration that prioritizes human rights and fairness.

South Africa has seen a surge in child offending. Child offenders commit violent crimes such as armed robbery, housebreaking, rape and murder. Conversely, not all child offenders commit violent crimes. Many child offenders are detained for minor charges such as shoplifting, theft and possession of illegal substances. Most of these children face numerous levels of adversity, including poverty, dysfunctional households and limited parental involvement. Responses to child criminal behaviour accentuate rehabilitation through measures such as diversion. Narrative accounts of children in conflict with the law who underwent mentorship programmes, as a diversion initiative, are scarce and underrepresented. Through a qualitative inquiry, 13 children who completed the National Youth Development Outreach (NYDO) Centre’s Mentoring Diversion Programme were interviewed and data were analysed thematically. Findings provided insight into the participants’ background and context, the mentor–mentee relationship, responsibility, effectiveness of the programme, and aftercare support. This paper contributes to scientific research and is conducive to curtailing child offending.

In the twenty-first century, one of the crucial roles of the Criminal Code is to protect the rights and interests of crime victims. Criminal law is a complex field that must balance established principles with evolving societal dynamics. This involves various stakeholders, including the state, perpetrators, victims and civil society, each with differing views and implications on criminal law. The modern era, marked by post-truth narratives and a reputational society, further complicates matters. Casuistry now prevails over systematic approaches, leading to a disconnect between criminal law’s foundational principles and intended societal outcomes. Contemporary criminal law operates on multiple dimensions, addressing individual, societal and institutional levels while aiming to balance the interests of these entities. The transition from the “age of information” to the “age of reputation” underscores the importance of information subjected to external evaluation. In the context of a state of victimization and the need to harmonize Ukrainian criminal legislation with European Union and Council of Europe standards, it is vital to protect human rights. This aligns with the recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers that crime should be recognized as a wrong against society and a violation of individual rights, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding victim rights. Approaching criminal law from a victimological perspective offers unique insights into victim participation in criminal liability, crime qualification and offender culpability. This perspective encourages assessing the efficacy of Ukrainian criminal law prohibitions and promoting victim engagement in crime control on national and international levels.

This empirical study examines the potential and the obstacles of transitional justice in addressing the denial of the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar (also known as Burma). It utilizes a qualitative research approach, drawing on relevant scholarship of truth-seeking as a transitional justice mechanism, criminology and international law. Empirical data were collected through in-depth interviews with victims of the Rohingya community and key informants in two separate stages between 2022 and 2023. This study presents an interdisciplinary approach to assess the role of a truth commission – a truth-seeking tool – in confronting Myanmar’s denial of this crime. It suggests that examining amnesties, as well as disarmament, reintegration and rehabilitation programmes for the individual perpetrators within the framework of a truth commission can provide a more nuanced discourse of addressing the decades-long denial of the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar.

A change is more often than not faced with resistance from thinking minds before it is welcomed. This paper emphasizes the urgent need to scrutinize the proposed changes to the age-old Indian Penal Code to be brought about by the enactment of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It critically evaluates every such new change to resolve all doubts and apprehensions, in delving particularly into the inspection of the BNS, in a theoretical study comparing with the Indian Penal Code. The paper discusses the “legislative intent and colonial continuities”, “anti-democratic tendencies” and “general critiques” addressing the debates over “patriarchal biases, problems laden within a false promise to marriage in the BNS, linguistic imperialist connotations, and the ambiguities over punishments”. This paper aims to evaluate the premise for an overhaul of the existing penal code and to identify and correspond substantial changes suggested in the new act in light of a promised wave of decolonization.

This article examines culture, an ambiguous yet prevalent concept in comparisons of crime and justice. It investigates the extent to which culture’s application and meaning across research reflects Western-centric bias in criminological knowledge-production despite it being a concept meant to advance understanding on different groups and places beyond the “Western” worldview. The article extends the discussion on Western-centric bias but also on culture in criminology by tracing the use of this concept on East Asian populations and by identifying patterns of application and meaning in international and comparative research through a scoping review of 230 journal publications. The findings address patterns of culture’s appearance in criminology journals in the past two decades and its meaning. Similar to previous scholarship on Western-centrism in criminology, the article finds that this bias does, too, exist in uses of culture but also shows how culture’s conceptual ambiguity is conducive to this bias, in that some groups and places are given one meaning of culture while others receive another.