Dr Richard Jones is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh, UK. He is currently Director of Postgraduate Taught Studies for the School of Law. He studied at Queen Mary, University of London (BA), the University of Edinburgh (MSc), and the University of Cambridge (PhD). At Cambridge he studied at the Institute of Criminology and Trinity Hall.
Richard is a member of the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Criminology, and for several years was also a member of the International Advisory Board of the European Journal of Criminology. He has been an External Examiner for DPhil and MPhil degrees at the University of Oxford, a Guest seminar leader on the MPhil degree in Criminology at the University of Cambridge, and an External Examiner for the MSc in Security and Risk Management degree at the University of Leicester. In 2009-2010 Richard was an Academic Visitor at the Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, and in 2003-4 he was a Visiting Academic at Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Australia. Before joining the University of Edinburgh, Richard Jones was a Research Associate at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
His research focuses on surveillance, security, cybercrime, and penal populism. He has published and given papers on topics including the electronic monitoring ('tagging') of offenders, access control, border controls, computer crime, penal populism, the media, airport security, the use of force in policing, and surveillance theory. He is interested in research collaborations and enquiries from prospective doctoral and post-doctoral researchers in relation to the following topics in particular: cryptomarkets; cyber security; surveillance; dataveillance; policing cybercrime; cryptocurrencies and the blockchain; algorithmic systems and criminal justice; policing and big data / predictive policing; situational crime prevention; resilience; social media; societal impact of surveillance technologies including on privacy and democracy; punishment and new initiatives within criminal justice.
Richard is currently a member of the Advisory Board for the EPSRC-funded project ACCEPT (Addressing Cybersecurity and Cybercrime via a co-Evolutionary aPproach to reducing human-relaTed risks). He has previously participated in the IRISS (Increasing Resilience in Surveillance Societies) Project which was a large collaborative research project on the role of surveillance and resilience in democratic societies, and was funded by the European Commission under its FP7 framework. Separately, he was also an External Expert for the FIDUCIA project (also funded under the European FP7 framework), part of which focused on cybercrime and its prevention within Europe.
Richard Jones is a member of the research group CRISP (Centre for Research on Information, Surveillance and Privacy), a collaborative group involving Edinburgh, Stirling and the Open University. Additionally, at the University of Edinburgh he is a member both of its Criminology Subject Area group and of the Centre for Law and Society. He has a long-standing interest in computers and new technology. He is a member of CeSeR (Centre for Security Research, University of Edinburgh). He tweets on the topics of surveillance, cybercrime, security and the tech industry, and can be found on Twitter as DrRichardJ.
Richard teaches both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. As part of the postgraduate MSc in Criminology and Criminal Justice, he teaches courses on Cybercrime, and on Surveillance and Security. These courses are also available to those taking the MSc in Global Crime, Justice and Security degree as well as various other Masters degrees offered in the Law School and in the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. The following Masters dissertation topics are among those that Dr Jones has recently supervised: airport security and surveilance; predictive policing; policing drugs cryptomarkets; cryptography and crime prevention; cyber-warfare and cyber security; cybercrime and cyber security in China; issues involved in intelligence agency reform; and the privacy implications of data mining and data integration by law enforcement agencies.
Cybercrime (MSc) (Course Organiser)
Global Crime and Insecurity (MSc)
Punishment and Society (Honours) (Course Organiser)
Surveillance and Security (MSc) (Course Organiser)
Theoretical Criminology (MSc) (Course Organiser)
Ben Collier 'Integrated Circuits: A Critical Development of Space and Agency in Criminological Theory of Cybercrime from Actor-Network Theory and Cyborg Theory Perspectives'
James Gacek 'Fear(ed) Agents and the Prison/Urban Core: Reimagining Relationships between Space, Criminality, and the Carceral Continuum'
Shane Horgan 'Cybercrime and Everyday Life: An exploration of public sensibilities towards the digital dimensions of crime and disorder'
Griff Williams 'Tripartite Communication under the Community Payback Order'
Books and Reports
Richard Jones, Richard Sparks, Punishment, (Routledge, 2015)
Richard Jones, , Handbook on Increasing Resilience in a Surveillance Society, (IRISS Project, 2014)
Richard Jones, Charles Raab, Ivan Szekely, 'Surveillance and resilience: Relationships, dynamics and consequences', (2018), Democracy and Security, pp 1-39
Abstract: ‘Resilience’ is a contested term with varying and ambiguous meaning in governmental, business and social discourses. Surveillance is increasingly relied upon as an instrument for resilience, enhancing the capability of anticipating, preventing or recovering from adversity, thus preserving the fabric of society and the state. However surveillance itself might undesirably erode social freedoms, rights, and other public goods. In the present study we focus on the interrelationship of surveillance and resilience. Studying the relationships between surveillance and resilience requires not only the theoretical study of possible examples but also the exploration and evaluation of the resilient entity’s core properties, strategies and tactics and the external observer’s stance towards the entity in question. Furthermore, different contexts may exhibit different effects of surveillance on resilience. For example, an increase in surveillance by a democratic state may lead to increasing resilience of the state in the face of terrorist attacks but may also lead to the decreasing resilience of that society’s ability to exercise democratic values. The various models generated by these differing relationships will be explored with relation to three examples: the surveillance of international migration, the surveillance of extremist views, and the surveillance of digital financial transactions.
Charles Raab, Richard Jones, Ivan Székely, 'Megfigyelés és reziliencia elméletben és gyakorlatban ', (2015), Replika, Vol 94, pp 63-93
Charles Raab, Richard Jones, Iván Székely, 'Surveillance and resilience in theory and practice ', (2015), Media and Communication, Vol 3, pp 21-41
Abstract: Surveillance is often used as a tool in resilience strategies towards the threat posed by terrorist attacks and other serious crime. ‘Resilience’ is a contested term with varying and ambiguous meaning in governmental, business and social discourses, and it is not clear how it relates to other terms that characterise processes or states of being. Resilience is often assumed to have positive connotations, but critics view it with great suspicion, regarding it as a neo-liberal governmental strategy. However, we argue that surveillance, introduced in name of greater security, may itself erode social freedoms and public goods such as privacy, paradoxically requiring societal resilience, whether precautionary or in mitigation of the harms it causes to the public goods of free societies. This article develops new models and extends existing ones to describe resilience processes unfolding over time and in anticipation of, or in reaction to, adversities of different kinds and severity, and explores resilience both on the plane of abstract analysis and in the context of societal responses to mass surveillance. The article thus focuses upon surveillance as a special field for conceptual analysis and modelling of situations, and for evaluating contemporary developments in ‘surveillance societies’.
David Wright, Rowena Rodrigues, Charles Raab, Richard Jones, Ivan Szekely, Kirstie Ball, Rocco Bellanova, Stine Bergersen, 'Questioning surveillance ', (2015), Computer Law & Security Review, Vol 31, pp 280-292
Abstract: The aim of this article is to make suggestions that could empower different socio-political groups to question surveillance. It does so by formulating sets of questions that different stakeholders can ask of themselves, of the private sector and of government, including intelligence agencies. It is divided into three main parts. The first part provides some background on resilience in surveillance societies. It defines the terms and identifies features of resilience and today's surveillance society. The second part lays out a set of questions addressed to each of the stakeholder groups. The questions are intended to promote consideration of a proposed or existing surveillance system, technology, practice or other initiative in terms of the necessity and proportionality of the system, and of whether stakeholders are being consulted. The third part offers a list of measures that can be taken to increase resilience in a surveillance society, to restrict the scope of surveillance systems to what can be legitimately justified, and to minimise the impacts of surveillance systems on the individual, groups and society.
Richard Jones, 'The Electronic Monitoring of Offenders: Penal Moderation or Penal Excess?', (2014), Crime, Law and Social Change, Vol 62, pp 475-488
Abstract: The technologies used in the electronic monitoring of offenders continue to develop, and next-generation “tags” will likely feature new capabilities. As the technology becomes more powerful, older criminal justice institutions and practices may appear increasingly anachronistic in one form or other, and their legitimacy called into question. Electronic monitoring systems may appear progressive alternatives to older forms of punishing. However, given the surveillant and controlling qualities of electronic monitoring systems, extending their use is in many respects troubling. This article seeks to examine the electronic monitoring of offenders in the light of the concepts of “penal moderation” and “penal excess”, as well as to reflect on this sanction at the interface of the academic fields of the sociology of punishment and surveillance studies. It is argued that issues relating to intended aims and actual effects of the electronic monitoring of offenders go to the heart of contemporary debates and contradictions regarding penal purpose, the effects of the criminal justice system, electronic surveillance, and explanations of penal change.
Richard Jones, 'The Electronic Monitoring of Serious Offenders: Is There a Rehabilitative Potential?', (2014), Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, Vol 97, pp 85-92
Abstract: Many countries around the world now electronically monitor some convicted offenders to check the offenders' compliance with court orders of different kinds. Although regarded as an intermediate penalty, to date electronic monitoring has not generally been employed for rehabilitative purposes. Electronic monitoring systems have evolved over time, however, and there is the possibility that future technologies and practices could embrace more rehabilitative goals. This article sketches out various currents of change within criminal justice, and suggests how future electronic monitoring schemes might instantiate an emergent 'new rehabilitation'.
Richard Jones, 'Towards a Global Criminology? ', (2011), Sungkyunkwan Journal of Science & Technology Law, Vol 5, pp 33-53
Abstract: The aim of this article is consider the current constitution, and likely future prospects, of the field of criminology, and to examine in particular how it might be becoming more global in nature. The term ‘criminology’ will be used broadly, referring to the academic field as a whole, and hence including the study of the causes of crime, responses to crime including criminal justice, as well as to the field’s many sub-disciplines. The article begins by considering international and comparative criminology, before reviewing previous work that has raised the prospect of a ‘global criminology.’ The focus then shifts to consideration of the question, ‘what is criminology?’ It is argued that this question usefully draws attention to certain problems currently facing Anglo-American criminology, and contends moreover that these issues are related in certain respects to issues that will face criminology as it globalises. Drawing from work by Wenger (1999) and others, a novel way of conceptualising the field of criminology is proposed, namely as a group of ‘communities of practice.’ The article shows how not only does this approach help model some of the challenges facing Anglo- American criminology both domestically and globally, but that it also suggests some practical measures that could be undertaken to help overcome these problems.
Richard Jones, 'Populist Leniency, Crime Control and Due Process ', (2010), Theoretical Criminology, Vol 14, pp 331-47
Abstract: This article identifies and discusses examples of populist calls against punishment and for leniency-a phenomenon here termed 'populist leniency'. A penal moderate might find such populist opposition to punishment superficially appealing. However, drawing from Packer's classic models of the criminal process, it is argued that both populist leniency and penal populism express 'Crime Control' values, the view that the proper role of the criminal process (and criminal justice) is to protect 'law-abiding citizens' from dangerous others. Since 'Crime Control' does not advocate any net reduction in penal power (and if anything, quite the opposite), the article asks whether Packer's other model, 'Due Process', presents a more attractive potential resource for penal moderates, since this model offers a sceptical view of criminal justice, protecting individuals from unconstrained official power.
Richard Jones, 'The Architecture of Surveillance ', (2007), Criminal Justice Matters, Vol 68, pp 33-34
Richard Jones, 'Entertaining Code: File Sharing, Digital Rights Management Regimes, and Criminological Theories of Compliance', (2005), International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, Vol 19, pp 287-303
Abstract: This article outlines some of the main types of file-sharing systems and summarizes survey findings relating to file-sharing use. Three related theoretical models of compliance seeking through the use of technology are discussed, namely Lessig's (involving ‘code’ and ‘architecture’), Bottoms' (involving ‘constraint-based compliance’) and Clarke and others' work on ‘situational crime prevention’, and each is then applied to the specific topic of the illegal and legal distribution of music and films on the Internet.
Richard Jones, 'Crime in the Digital Age by PN Grabosky and Russell G Smith...Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and the Internet by Eoghan Casey ', (2003), International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol 11, pp 98-100
Richard Jones, 'Review: The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society', (2002), Punishment & Society, Vol 4, pp 256-58
Richard Jones, 'Digital Rule: Punishment, Control and Technology', (2000), Punishment & Society, Vol 2, pp 5-22
Abstract: This article develops a theoretical model of 'digital rule'. This is a form of at-a-distance monitoring which becomes possible with the advent of certain electronic technologies. It is argued that this form of monitoring gives rise to a related form of decision-making, and to particular forms of punishment, both directly and indirectly. The article begins with a review of Foucault's work on 'discipline'. It is argued that while his general approach remains useful, his 'technology of power' model requires updating, because of certain moves within many criminal justice systems away from reliance on the disciplinary techniques Foucault associates with modernity. I argue that comments by Deleuze suggest a way of developing a theoretical adjunct to Foucault's model, and this new control form I characterize as one of 'digital rule'. Various emerging electronic technologies are examined, and it is shown how they operate specifically through restrictions specified in terms of time and space. The relationship between formal control, exclusion and punishment measures is considered, and it is concluded that in this emerging form of rule, these aspects continue to have a very close relationship, taking form here in a particular new way.
Richard Jones, 'Review - Imagining Crime ', (1997), Theoretical Criminology, Vol 1, pp 139-41
Richard Jones, 'Visual surveillance technologies ' in The Routledge Handbook of Technology, Crime and Justice (Taylor and Francis Inc. 2017) 436-450
Richard Jones, Richard Sparks, 'Introduction ' in Richard Jones, Richard Sparks (ed.) Punishment (Routledge 2015) 1-17
Richard Jones, Charles Raab, 'Good Practice in Privacy Design Some Examples' in David Wright, Reinhard Kreissl (ed.) Surveillance in Europe (Routledge 2014) 293-294
Richard Jones, 'Surveillance and Security in a Risk Society ' in Chris Hale, Keith Hayward, Azrini Wahidin, Emma Wincup (ed.) Criminology (Oxford University Press 2013) 431-52
Richard Jones, 'Digital Rule: Punishment, Control and Technology ' in Yvonne Jewkes (ed.) Crime and Media (SAGE Publications Ltd 2009)
Richard Jones, 'Surveillance ' in Chris Hale, Keith Hayward, Azrini Wahidin, Emma Wincup (ed.) Criminology (Oxford University Press 2009) 523-545
Richard Jones, 'Cybercrime and Internet Security ' in Lilian Edwards, Charlotte Waelde (ed.) Law and the Internet (Hart Publishing 2009) 601-21
Richard Jones, 'Checkpoint Security Gateways, Airports, and the Architecture of Security' in Katja Franko Aas, Helene Oppen Gundhus, Heidi Mork Lomell (ed.) Technologies of Insecurity (Routledge 2008) 81-102
Richard Jones, 'The Architecture of Policing Towards a New Theoretical Model of the Role of Constraint-Based Compliance in Policing' in Alistair Henry, David J. Smith (ed.) Transformations of Policing (Ashgate Publishing 2007) 169-90
Richard Jones, 'Digital Rule Punishment, Control and Technology' in Clive Norris, Dean Wilson (ed.) Surveillance, Crime and Social Control (Ashgate Publishing 2006) 519-36
Abstract: This is an attempt to develop a theoretical model of 'digital rule'. This is a form of at-a-distance monitoring which becomes possible with the advent of certain electronic technologies. It is argued that this form of monitoring gives rise to a related form of decision-making, and to particular forms of punishment, both directly and indirectly. The article begins with a review of Foucault's work on 'discipline'. It is argued that while his general approach remains useful, his 'technology of power' model requires updating, because of certain moves within many criminal justice systems away from reliance on the disciplinary techniques Foucault associates with modernity. I argue that comments by Deleuze suggest a way of developing a theoretical adjunct to Foucault's model, and this new control form I characterize as one of 'digital rule'. Various emerging electronic technologies are examined, and it is shown how they operate specifically through restrictions specified in terms of time and space. The relationship between formal control, exclusion and punishment measures is considered, and it is concluded that in this emerging form of rule, these aspects continue to have a very close relationship, taking form here in a particular new way.
Richard Jones, '"Architecture", Criminal Justice, and Control ' in Sarah Armstrong, Lesley McAra (ed.) Perspectives on Punishment (Oxford University Press 2006) 175-96
Richard Jones, 'Surveillance ' in Chris Hale, Keith Hayward, Azrini Wahidin, Emma Wincup (ed.) Criminology (Oxford University Press 2005) 471-92
Richard Jones, 'The Subject of Surveillance ' in Ronnie Lippens (ed.) Imaginary Boundaries of Justice (Hart Publishing 2004) 117-40
Richard Jones, 'The Electronic Monitoring of Serious Offenders: Is There a Rehabilitative Potential?' 2014
Abstract: Many countries around the world now electronically monitor some convicted offenders to check the offenders’ compliance with court orders of different kinds. Although regarded as an intermediate penalty, to date electronic monitoring has not generally been employed for rehabilitative purposes. Electronic monitoring systems have evolved over time, however, and there is the possibility that future technologies and practices could embrace more rehabilitative goals. This article sketches out various currents of change within criminal justice, and suggests how future electronic monitoring schemes might instantiate an emergent ‘new rehabilitation’.