PREVENTIVE (IN)JUSTICE: THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND SOCIAL HARMS

The research is divided into the following work packages.

1. A critical examination of theories and practices of crime prevention. The first objective is to focus on key modern and postmodern criminological theories in order to gain new knowledge of preventive measures used for reducing various forms of crime and social harm. This section will include an analysis of the reasons why those measures succeeded or failed to produce results. The second objective is to explore the political context and ideology driving contemporary crime prevention policies. The third objective is to determine which criminological theories provide useful insights into how policies for the prevention of currently neglected social harms could be created. In particular, we will explore which prevention policies could be used in Slovenia.

2. 2. Crime prevention.

2.1 Predicting crime: legal and ethical issues. This part of the research aims to critically discuss the use of genetics, neuroscience, and behavioral science in crime prediction in order to address the ethical and legal issues that arise from predicting future violent behavior. The key objective is to show how crime predicting technologies undermine some key principles of criminal law and procedure. The second objective is to take a broader look at crime prediction technologies and explore how these technologies introduced a new type of surveillance.

2.2 Prevention of corruption. This part of the research aims to explore the reasons for the (in)effectiveness of the “anti-corruption bureaucracy” in order to find new solutions, or at least optimize existing solutions, for preventive action against corruption. In particular, we will try to find preventive anti-corruption solutions that may be useful to policy-makers. The research will take into consideration the difficulties that arise in measuring how much corruption can be prevented by a certain preventive activity or tool.

3. Preventive use of military force. This work package consists of three objectives. The first objective is to examine the reconceptualization of the preventive use of military force against “imminent threats” from other States. The research aims to show how the Obama administration changed preventive war by abandoning the traditional definition of imminent threat as an immediate and concrete threat. Also, we will compare the new U.S. definition of preventive war with definitions used by other States who adopted a similar preventive war doctrine (e.g., U.K., Israel, Russia, India). The second objective is to examine the reconceptualization of preventive use of force in ground combat operations, in particular in “kill-or-capture” missions carried out by US forces. The aim is to show how the new concept of preventive use of force provided U.S. troops with very broad criteria for determining which individuals represented an “imminent threat.” We will also compare the U.S. definition of preventive use of force in ground combat operations with the definitions used by other States (e.g., EU countries). The third objective is to show how the redefinitions of preventive use of force established a legal framework for a war against vaguely defined potential threats that undermined the protection of civilians.

4. Prevention and social harms.

4.1 Artificial intelligence, social harm, and prevention. The first objective of this part of the research is to examine which social harms are created by artificial intelligence used in predicting human behavior. The second objective is to find new solutions for improving the use of such technology. Scholars who have criticized this new technology have usually argued that new tools must be strictly controlled and restricted in order not to cause harm to individuals and society. However, those scholars typically based their analysis on the moral values accepted in a particular community. Given that moral values are not the same in countries around the world, invasive new technologies are now allowed in some countries, while prohibited in others. In our research, we would like to define the ethical problems of predictive analytics and other new AI-based technologies in a new way.

4.2 Consumerism, social harm, and prevention. The objective of this work package is to explore social harms produced by consumerism in order to find solutions on how to prevent such harms. The research will critically examine examples of preventive measures against crime (e.g., preventive measures against terrorism, irregular migration, and coercive measures taken on health grounds) in order to gain an understanding of how these measures came to be so widely implemented and to what extent they are (un)successful. The objective is to draw lessons for the much-needed prevention of harms stemming from socially harmful activities that are repeatedly neglected. As an example of a normalized harmful practice that would need to be addressed preventively, the phenomenon of consumerism will be more closely examined.

We expect the research to provide new insights into some under-research themes in crime prevention. The main original aspects of the research will be as follows.

(1) The analysis of theories and practices of crime prevention will provide new knowledge of the political contexts and ideology driving contemporary crime prevention policies. In addition, the research will provide a critical examination of why those measures succeeded or failed to produce results.

(2) The part of the research focusing on crime prevention will shed new light on the role that genetics, neuroscience and behavioral sciences have in crime prediction, in particular how they undermine key principles of criminal law and procedure. The research on the prevention of corruption will expose the weaknesses of current preventive anti-corruption measures (e.g., in-advance disclosure of data by individuals in corruption-sensitive positions) and provide new ideas on how to improve such preventive measures for reducing corruption.

(3) The research will provide original insights into the redefinition of the concept of preventive war by comparing various definitions adopted by a number of States. The research will also provide new knowledge about how the redefinition of preventive use of force in jus in bello increased the risk of civilians getting killed or injured in military operations.

(4) By addressing specific socially harmful activities that have not yet received adequate academic attention, the research will add to the body of knowledge of social harm, which still remains on the margins of criminology. Firstly, the research will provide new insights into social harms created by artificial intelligence used for predicting human behavior, and formulate new solutions for regulating such technology. Secondly, the research will provide new ideas on which measures could be useful to prevent social harms caused by consumerism. This part of the research will also offer new answers to an often-neglected question in criminology – that is, why some types of deviant behavior merit the attention of the wider public while others do not.

The findings of the research will be relevant for researchers in the fields of criminology and criminal justice, and in many other fields, for example, genetics, neuroscience, behavioral science, computer science, legal philosophy, sociology, and security studies. All of the findings will be useful not only for an academic audience but also for policymakers interested in crime prevention policies.