I had an LLM go through titles and abstracts of papers in Crimfest 2026 then compare it to 2017-2018. Her what it says:
First, the continuity: both study policing, prosecution, race, discretion, technology, and the gap between formal law and institutional practice. 1/6
2/6 The clearest difference is technological. In 2017–18, the focus was risk assessment, big data, encryption, and electronic monitoring—tools used by officials. In 2026, the question is increasingly what happens when AI systems and private platforms perform state functions.
3/6 The political frame is sharper. Earlier papers examined democracy, participation, and accountability. The 2026 set explicitly addresses backsliding, politicized enforcement, executive power, and populism—treating criminal law as part of democratic stability or decline.
4/6 The institutional map has widened. Earlier work often centered federal doctrine and reform of specific rules or offices. In 2026, more work follows power across state constitutions, federalism, local government, immigration, private contractors, and overlapping institutions.
5/6 The punishment lens is broader too. Earlier papers emphasized mass incarceration, sentencing, risk, and overcriminalization. The 2026 set also treats punishment as an environment: its material conditions, geography, accessibility, effects on agency, and reach beyond prison.
6/6 Both periods are empirical and interdisciplinary. But 2026 appears more concerned with boundaries—public/private, civil/criminal, state/federal, human/machine. The meaningful shift is one of scale: from particular actors and tools toward networks of coercive governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment