Christine Burkhardt

This chapter focuses on policing research, distinguishing among research conducted on, for or with the police and addresses various stages of the research process considered sensitive or crucial. For researchers, police organisations are fascinating subjects, albeit challenging to access and sometimes reluctant to scientific input. From access to the fieldwork and dissemination of findings, several challenges can arise, including those that are administrative, methodological, ethical or emotional. Anecdotes, guidelines and avenues for reflection are formulated to guide researchers in conducting applied research in policing. Although policing is a rich source for criminological studies, police science and applied research remain underexploited. Police and academia need to understand and accept each other’s competencies, resources and contributions.

Cybercrime is becoming ever more pervasive and yet the lack of consensus surrounding what constitutes a cybercrime has a significant impact on society, legal and policy response, and academic research. Difficulties in understanding cybercrime begin with the variability in terminology and lack of consistency in cybercrime legislation across jurisdictions. In this review, using a structured literature review methodology, key cybercrime definitions, typologies and taxonomies were identified across a range of academic and non-academic (grey literature) sources. The findings of this review were consolidated and presented in the form of a new classification framework to understand cybercrime and cyberdeviance. Existing definitions, typologies and taxonomies were evaluated, and key challenges were identified. Whilst conceptualizing cybercrime will likely remain a challenge, this review provides recommendations for future work to advance towards a universal understanding of cybercrime phenomena as well as a robust and comprehensive classification system.

Cet article porte sur une analyse des recours exercés par les personnes détenues en établissement pénitentiaire en France visant à contester leurs conditions de détention pendant la crise sanitaire. Grâce à un accès à la base de données Ariane archives du Conseil d’État, 117 décisions rendues par les tribunaux administratifs, les cours administratives d’appel et le Conseil d’État ont pu être recueillies. L’analyse de ces décisions met en évidence la faible concrétisation du droit à la santé des personnes détenues pendant la crise sanitaire, ainsi que les lacunes du contrôle juridictionnel exercé, le juge administratif ne prononçant quasiment jamais de mesures pour contrôler effectivement les conditions de détention, et s’en tenant aux allégations de l’administration. Ces constats viennent conforter les deux hypothèses retenues : la gestion de la COVID-19 en prison est paradigmatique des contradictions inhérentes au droit à la santé en milieu carcéral d’une part, et son contrôle révèle une hiérarchisation entre individus selon leur statut d’autre part.