Jesse J. Norris

Although concerns about violence, including homicide, contributed to the criminalisation of psychedelics in the 1960s, little research about psychedelic-related violence has been published for deca...

Mystical and psychedelic-type experiences have become an important focus in contemporary psychology due to their association with enduring changes in meaning, mood, and behavior (Jungaberle et al.,...

Background: 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. Aim: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Objective: to research the common and distinctive features when sentencing in the prosecution of terrorism in the United States in 2001–2018.Methods: the article uses general dialectical method of cognition, as well as general scientific (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific (formal-legal) research methods.Results: Few studies have examined racial or other disparities in terrorism sentences. Unlike previous research, this study incorporates all types of terrorism, several severity levels, and both state and federal cases. Using a database including all US terrorism cases between 2001 and 2018 (n = 825), the authors test for sentencing disparities based on race/ethnicity, gender, citizenship, state/federal court, and type of terrorism.Scientific novelty: The results show some evidence for disparities, with foreign nationals and White supremacists receiving longer sentences and foreign non-jihadi terrorists receiving shorter sentences. The research found limited evidence for racial disparities, including longer sentences for minority defendants within some severity levels. The “liberation hypothesis” predicting greater disparities for less-serious crimes was mainly unsupported. Whether prosecution occurred in state or federal court had little effect, suggesting that states are well equipped to prosecute terrorists. Compared to jiliadi defendants, anti-government defendants received larger “discounts” between initial allegations and charges of conviction, dramatically affecting sentence length.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to criminal liability for terrorism.

Few studies have examined racial or other disparities in terrorism sentences. Unlike previous research, this study incorporates all types of terrorism, several severity levels, and both state and federal cases. Using a database including all US terrorism cases between 2001 and 2018 (n = 825), we test for sentencing disparities based on race/ethnicity, gender, citizenship, state/federal court, and type of terrorism. Our results show some evidence for disparities, with foreign nationals and White supremacists receiving longer sentences and foreign non-jihadi terrorists receiving shorter sentences. We find limited evidence for racial disparities, including longer sentences for minority defendants within some severity levels. The “liberation hypothesis” predicting greater disparities for less-serious crimes was mainly unsupported. Whether prosecution occurred in state or federal court had little effect, suggesting that states are well-equipped to prosecute terrorists. Compared to jihadi defendants, anti-government defendants received larger “discounts” between initial allegations and charges of conviction, dramatically affecting sentence length.