He is Book Review Co-Editor for Theoretical Criminology journal, a member of the Editorial Board of the British Journal of Criminology, a member of the International Advisory Board of the European Journal of Criminology, and an Analysis Editor for SCRIPTed, a journal of law, technology and society. He has been the External Examiner of a DPhil and an MPhil degree at the University of Oxford, and an Examiner on an MPhil degree at the University of Cambridge. He is currently an External Examiner for the MSc in Security and Risk Management degree at the University of Leicester. In 2009-2010 Richard was a Visiting Fellow 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.

At Edinburgh, Richard Jones is a member of the Criminology group, an Associate of SCRIPT, and a member of the Centre for Law and Society. He has a long-standing interest in computers and technology. He tweets on the topics of surveillance, cybercrime, security and the tech industry, and can be found on Twitter as DrRichardJ. He was Computing Convenor in the Law School and member of the College of Humanities and Social Science's Computing Strategy Committee 2005-8. Richard is a member of the University of Edinburgh's Information Security Working Group.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This session aims to open up a dialogue about the ways in which social networking technologies might be used by the police. It outlines the nature of the technologies themselves and reviews some of the ways in which police forces have, thus far, attempted to deploy them. In so doing it presents some of the potential benefits of using social networking technologies, as well as some of the challenges and possible pitfalls.

The electronic monitoring of offenders is usually achieved by means of a device securely attached to an offender’s body, monitoring the offender’s location in order to check compliance with a home detention, attendance or exclusion order. A new generation of electronic ‘tags’ features alcohol and drug sensing. Advantages of electronic monitoring include that it is immediate and continual, and may support rehabilitation. Disadvantages include that the compliance obtained may be instrumental and of limited long-term rehabilitative effect. However, there are theoretical reasons for supposing that electronic monitoring technologies, used differently, could have greater rehabilitative potential. DiClemente and colleagues suggest that feedback, especially of a highly personalised kind, may play an important role in promoting health (and especially addictive) behaviour change. Electronic monitoring technologies make possible personalised immediate feedback of locational and biometric data, and could in theory be used for offender self-monitoring; elective as well as imposed surveillance; and the transmission of results to community networks (facilitating group support and control mechanisms). This paper suggests how such technologies might assist desistance from offending; locates them within the context of wider penal-welfare transformations; and considers some implications for the areas of desistance and compliance research, situational action theory, and surveillance studies.

This paper begins by locating certain aspects of punishment within a wider category of social regulation. It then seeks to develop a general model of modes of social regulation by drawing from, and developing, a framework devised by Lessig for understanding the limits of legal attempts to regulate the Internet. Particular attention is paid to Lessig's notion of 'architecture' as a mode of regulation. The paper then goes on to apply the resulting model to the field of punishment, showing in particular how it helps reveal certain fundamental characteristics of punitive technology.