ТИПОЛОГИЯ ЛИЧНОСТИ ПРЕСТУПНИКОВ, СОВЕРШАЮЩИХ НАСИЛЬСТВЕННЫЕ ПОСЯГАТЕЛЬСТВА НА СОТРУДНИКОВ МЕСТ ЛИШЕНИЯ СВОБОДЫ ИЛИ СОДЕРЖАНИЯ ПОД СТРАЖЕЙ В СВЯЗИ С ИСПОЛНЕНИЕМ ИМИ СЛУЖЕБНЫХ ОБЯЗАННОСТЕЙ

This article considers the recent research carried out to assign responsibility to the importance of genetics as compared with environmental influences and other aspects such as neurological damage to an individual, which makes them susceptible to criminal type behaviour. While there is currently no gene directly linked to criminality, there are genes that are responsible for such functions as aggressiveness and impulsiveness to some degree. The area is currently undergoing considerable influence and investigation with research being carried out in seeking to deal with such diseases as cancer and a variety of mental illnesses. It is currently impossible to assign major responsibility for criminal behaviour and those traits leading to criminal behaviour through either genetics or the environment since both appear to be involved. Neurological damage, pre-natal and post-natal, as well as accidents which affect the brain tissue and many other factors are likely to predispose certain individuals to criminal behaviour. All these factors interact with one another in a variety of permutations. We will need to wait and see what other evidence is presented through the research regarding genes being responsible for criminal behaviour by which is generally meant violent and aggressive behaviour rather than white collar crimes. A major effort should currently be directed towards preventing brain damage and other neurological problems as well as dealing with families that are likely to be prone to producing children of anti-social, aggressive, and violent behaviour. In addition to the home setting, schools, society and the mass media can do much to prevent criminal demeanour as well as the preventive aspects through the police and the courts. It is almost certain that currently forensic psychology and psychiatry are unlikely to be able to rely on genetic aspects in defence of clients and their anti-social behaviour. Time and further research into the influence of genes may modify this viewpoint.

A comparison of criminal recidivism among schizophrenic and nonschizophrenic offenders

The reasons for criminal and aggressive behaviour in humans are complex and include both biological and nonbiological explanations. Twin studies estimate that up to half of the variance in aggressive behaviour can be attributed to genetic factors. Genes play a role in aggression, and both human and animal studies suggest that common gene variants predispose some people to violent actions and criminality. Several studies have found associations between aggressive behaviour in males and a low‐activity variant of the monoamine oxidase A ( maoa ) gene. These associations are often dependent on environmental insults, which dependent on maoa genotype may increase susceptibility for aggressive behaviour. These and other findings pose a challenge in determining criminal responsibility as the complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors in the aetiology of violence becomes better understood. Key Concepts: Aggression has an evolutionary basis with both positive and negative aspects. Criminal behaviour falls under a larger phenotype of antisocial and aggressive behaviour, marked by an inability to conform to social norms. Twin and adoption studies demonstrate that roughly half of the individual variance in aggressive behaviour is due to genetic factors. Despite well‐known gender differences in aggressive behaviour, biological evidence in humans tying differences in aggression to sex hormones remains equivocal. There is a robust literature demonstrating the association between serotonin and aggressive behaviour, highlighted by candidate genes along the serotonergic pathway. A number of studies have identified interactions between environmental adversity and the low‐activity variants of the MAOA gene as a predictor of aggressive behaviour.

Personality disorders (PDs) are one of the major problems for the organization of public health systems. Deepening the link between personality traits and psychopathological drifts, it seems increasingly essential for the often dramatic repercussions that PDs have on social contexts. Some of these disorders, such as borderline PD, antisocial PD, in their most tragic expression, are the basis of problems related to crime, sexual violence, abuse, and mistreatment of minors. Many authors propose a dimensional classification of personality pathology, which has received empirical support from numerous studies over the last 20 years based on more robust theoretical principles than those applied to current nosography. The present study investigates the nature of the research carried out in the last years on the personality in the clinical field exploring the contents of current research on personality relapses, evaluating, on the one hand, the emerging areas of greatest interest and others, those that they stopped generating sufficient motivations in scholars. This study evaluates text patterns regarding how the terms “personality” and “mental health” are used in titles and abstracts published in PubMed in the last 5 years. We use a topic analysis: Latent Dirichlet Allocation that expresses every report as a probabilistic distribution of latent topics that are represented as a probabilistic distribution of words. A total of 7,572 abstracts (from 2012 to 2017) were retrieved from PubMed for the query on “mental health” and “personality.” The study found 30 topics organized in eight hierarchical clusters that describe the type of current research carried out on personality and its clinical relapse. The hierarchical clusters latent themes were the following: social dimensions, clinical aspects, biological issues, clinical history of PD, internalization and externalization symptoms, impulsive behaviors, comorbidities, criminal behaviors. The results indicate that the concept of personality is associated with a wide range of conditions. The study of personality and mental health still proceeds, mainly, according to a practical-clinical approach; too little moves, however, according to an innovative research approach, but the work shows the common commitment of scholars to a new way of dealing with the study of personality.

This book is an introduction to key issues in the area of crime as it connects to society. The book is divided into three parts: Understanding Crime and Criminality: introduces topics such as the social construction of crime and deviance, social control, the fear of crime, poverty and exclusion, white collar crime, victims of crime, race/gender and crime. Types of Crime and Criminality: explores examples including human trafficking, sex work, drug crime, environmental crime, cyber crime, war crime, terrorism, and interpersonal violence. Responses to Crime: looks at areas such as crime and the media, policing, moral panics, deterrence, prisons and rehabilitation.

Electroencephalographic Cerebral Dysrhythmic Abnormalities in the Trinity of Nonepileptic General Population, Neuropsychiatric, and Neurobehavioral Disorders

Crime is not merely a legal violation, but a complex phenomenon shaped by the interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors. This study examines the role of psychopathology in criminal behavior, during incarceration, and the post-release period within the framework of current literature. Consistent findings in the literature indicate a relationship between criminal behavior and psychotic disorders, personality disorders, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and intellectual disability. Psychopathology is considered not as a direct cause of crime, but as a factor that increases an individual’s risk of engaging in criminal behavior. In particular, substance use disorders, comorbid psychiatric conditions, high psychopathy scores, and high impulsivity emerge as significant risk factors for criminal behavior. The markedly higher prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses among incarcerated individuals compared to the general population underscores the importance of diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation services within the criminal justice system. However, the inadequacy of mental health services both during incarceration and after release may contribute to increased recidivism. The literature highlights the need for holistic, individualized, and effective psychosocial intervention programs to prevent crime and reduce recidivism rates. Future research in this field is expected to contribute to evidence-based policy development.

CRIME, MOST MODERN SOCIOLOGISTS AGREE, IS BEHAVIOR THAT IS DEFINED BY THE legal codes and sanctioned by the institutions of criminal justice. It is generally agreed, moreover, that the legal definitions of crime and the criminal ultimate standards for deciding whether a scholarly work should be considered criminological. (1) Because of this, the contention that imperialist war and racism crimes is not only considered an unjustifiable imposition of values, but also an incompetent use of the notion of crime. In order to challenge this prevailing judgment, it is necessary to critically review some of the complex issues involved in a thirty-year-old controversy about the definition of crime. I. The Thirty-Year-Old Controversy Toward the end of the Great Depression, sociologists became involved in a controversy about legal definitions of crime and criminals. At least two developments stimulated the issue raised at the time: the rapid growth of a corporate liberal, sociological empiricism and the socially critical interest in white collar crime. The former gave rise to what was primarily a scientific, methodological critique of the traditional legal definition. The second generated a substantive and ethical criticism. The positivist, reformist, and traditionalist aspects of this controversy will be selectively reviewed, as were represented by three of the chief participants: Thorsten Sellin (1938), Edwin Sutherland (1945), and Paul Tappan (1947). A. Positivism and the Definition of Crime In the controversy, American sociologists and lawyers argued furiously about definitions that distinguish crimes from other types of behavior and criminals from other types of persons. It was observed that traditionally, criminologists used definitions provided by the criminal and, as a result, the domain of criminology was restricted to the study of behavior encompassed by that However, one sociologist, Thorsten Sellin, declared in 1937 that if the criminologist is interested in developing a science of criminal behavior, he must rid himself of the shackles forged by criminal Criminologists, Sellin added, should not permit nonscientists (e.g., lawyers or legislators) to fix the terms and boundaries of the scientific study of crime. Scientists have their own unique goals that include the achievement of causal theories of criminal behavior. In evaluating the usefulness of legal definitions for scientific purposes, Sellin noted that such definitions merely denote external similarities rather than natural properties of criminal behavior. The legal definitions, therefore, do not arise from the intrinsic nature of the subject matter at hand. They are, in Sellin's view, inappropriate as scientific definitions of crime (1938, 20-21). How can scientific definitions be developed? In an effort to answer this, Sellin pointed out that scientists interested in universal relationships. Since represent such relationships (they are found wherever groups found), studies of conduct norms afford a sounder basis for the development of scientific categories than a study of crime as defined by the criminal law. Such a study, Sellin added, would involve the isolation and classification of norms into universal categories, transcending political and other boundaries, a necessity imposed by the logic of science. Conduct norms transcend any concrete group or institution such as the state, in Sellin's opinion, because they not the creation of any normative group; not confined within political boundaries; not necessarily embodied in the law (1937, 30). Sellin's argument, it should be noted, was organized around the assumption that scientific definitions determined by the goals and methods of the scientist qua scientist. The limits of Sellin's critique, consequently, focused primarily on the achievement of scientific explanations. …

Several expected results from government expenditure, education, and labour market regulations are revealed when one examines the complex interaction between education, labour market mismatch, and criminal behaviour. Government spending on education is projected to increase graduation rates and student performance, among other observable advantages. The likelihood of a mismatch between job capabilities and market demand may be decreased as a result of a more trained workforce. Investments in employment agencies and job placement services may also help job seekers find positions that fit their qualifications, enhancing job satisfaction and lowering instances of labour market mismatch. Additionally, government initiatives to lessen income disparity through progressive taxation and social safety nets may improve economic stability, so averting the economic unrest that is frequently associated with criminal activity. Initiatives for preventing crime, such as counselling, assistance with finding a job, and skill-building programmes, may provide those who may otherwise turn to crime out of job dissatisfaction an alternative route to success and a decrease in criminal activity. Investments in mental health services and addiction treatment programmes are anticipated to enhance mental health and decrease substance misuse, two factors linked to criminal behaviour. By providing prisoners with the knowledge and skills they need for successful work after release, education programmes within correctional facilities are expected to lessen recidivism rates. Last but not least, government-funded research initiatives may give light on the viability of various strategies, providing a foundation for evidence-based policies that concentrate on tackling the complex problems at the confluence of education, labour markets, and criminal behaviour. Although these anticipated results present a bright image, it is important to recognize that outcomes may differ depending on implementation strategies, local socioeconomic situations, and community demographics. To effectively handle the numerous difficulties within this sector, ongoing assessment and policy improvement are essential.

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.

The purpose of a jail sentence in criminal law is to serve as a deterrent to the convicted criminal. An offender receives punished so that they may be rehabilitated and given a second chance at life in society in order to recoup the benefits of their criminal behaviour. In spite of the fact that there are no internationally agreed-upon standards for reporting recidivism, the rate of recidivism among criminals has been rising worldwide, and India gives a severely distorted image of that rate. Because of the fundamental role that incarceration plays in defining an offender's trajectory and potential responses, research on recidivism and its connections to incarceration is essential. This article aims to objectively examine the global trends of repeat offenders, their motivations for reoffending, the degree to which these factors are linked, and what can be done to reduce recidivism everywhere. It will also examine some successful approaches used in other countries.

Increases in the number of drug offenders appearing in state and federal courts, coupled with mounting evidence of both the linkages between drug use and crime and the efficacy of drug treatment programs, led many jurisdictions to implement drug treatment courts. Although these courts vary on a number of dimensions, most are designed to reduce drug use and criminal behavior among drug-involved offenders. This study evaluates the effectiveness of one drug court–the Douglas County (Omaha), Nebraska Drug Court–in reducing offender recidivism. We use a variety of analytical techniques to compare drug court participants and offenders in two matched comparison groups on a number of measures of recidivism. Our results reveal that drug court participants have substantially lower rates of recidivism than traditionally adjudicated felony drug offenders, and that the differences in recidivism rates between drug court participants and drug offenders who participated in a diversion program prior to the implementation of the drug court disappeared once we controlled for the offender's assessed level of risk, as indicated by his/her LSI score.

Instruments that assess recidivism risk in young people are used widely in the sphere of juvenile justice worldwide. Traditionally, research has focused on the study of risk factors presented by young offenders, and how these relate to criminal recidivism. In present-day research, protective factors have also come into their own, having proven to encourage non-recidivism in young offenders. This paper presents a study carried out with 594 young offenders. The instrument used for assessing risk of recidivism in young offenders was the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). In the results found here, one can observe how the young offenders who did not reoffend presented a greater level of protective factors than the repeating offenders. The youths with a prior arrest record scored higher in the risk domains than the reoffenders without a prior arrest record. The case of young repeat offenders who already had an arrest record represents a high-risk profile, or a profile of a criminal career. Crimes committed by young people can be isolated incidents in their life. In most youths, criminal behavior does not persist beyond legal age. Protective factors prove to be important in juvenile justice when planning an individualized intervention for the young offender.

The social stigma accompanying an official criminal record hinders the ability of an individual to acquire quality and stable employment, which is problematic because of the often reported nexus between unemployment and criminal behavior. Ban the box laws that limit an employer’s use of criminal background checks during the hiring process are being established across the country to help integrate ex-offenders into the labor force. The current study investigates whether Hawaii’s 1998 ban the box law reduced repeat offending in Honolulu County. Logistic regression results show that a criminal defendant prosecuted in Honolulu for a felony crime was 57 % less likely to have a prior criminal conviction after the implementation of Hawaii’s ban the box law. By mollifying the social stigma attached to a criminal record during the hiring process, Hawaii’s ban the box law proved to be extremely successful in attenuating repeat felony offending.

Little research investigates the role of rarely used drugs in criminal offending. Moreover, given research suggesting that psychedelics reduce criminal offending, more research is needed to further document connections between psychedelics and crime. This study examines the role of rarely used drugs in criminal behavior and extends previous research on psychedelics by incorporating additional substance use measures, including youth respondents, and analyzing self-reported crime as well as arrests. Using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2014-2023) (n = 544,740), a nationally representative US survey, logistic regressions were performed testing whether substance use measures predicted arrest for various offenses and self-reported crimes after controlling for multiple covariates. Use of phencyclidine (PCP), a rarely used drug, was strongly associated with arrest for serious violent offenses, assault, and sex offenses, and with attacking three or more people. Another rarely used substance, gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), was associated with arrest for several offenses. Among psychedelics, psilocybin was associated with reduced odds of several offenses, while DMT/AMT/Foxy and peyote were associated with increased odds. LSD and Salvia divinorum were associated with increased odds of some offenses but decreased odds of others. For minors, psychedelics were mainly associated with increased odds of arrest, as protective effects were almost entirely absent. Psychedelics were associated with reduced odds of arrest for whites far more than for minorities. PCP use was strongly associated with violent offending. This study's mixed findings on psychedelics indicate a need for further research to clarify causal connections between psychedelics and crime-related outcomes.