CrimSL students and faculty shared their research at Eurocrim 2025 "Logos of Crime and Punishment," the twenty-fifth annual conference of the European Society of Criminology.
The conference took place September 3-6, 2025, in Athens, Rome. The 2025 programme and book of abstracts are available here.
PhD candidate Jona Zyfi (Supv: Professor Audrey Macklin) presented a paper on September 4, 2025, at the "Criminology of Mobility" panel session of the Immigration, Crime and Citizenship Working Group on the topic "Social Control and Criminal Justice/Crime Control and the Immigration System." The session was chaired by Mieke Kox, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Paper: "Catching the Chinook before it gets on a Vespa: Canada's automated immigration process," by Jona Zyfi, University of Toronto.
Abstract: This presentation will explore the role of Chinook, an automated tool used by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)in processing temporary resident visa (TRV) and sponsorship applications. Chinook was introduced as a means to streamline the decision-making process and improve efficiency, particularly in high-volume processing offices. While its design is intended to speed up processing times, its impact on applicants from the global south has raised concerns. By automating much of the application review, Chinook has become a key tool in decision-making, but its functionality has led to significant disparities in approval rates, with applicants from certain regions facing higher refusal rates. Despite its widespread use, much about Chinook remains shrouded in secrecy, and its full implications are still not fully understood. This presentation will critically examine Chinook’s role in IRCC’s immigration processes, highlighting its potential as an automated refusal mechanism and discussing the broader consequences of using such systems in global immigration contexts. By exploring Chinook’s design, use, and impact, we aim to spark a broader conversation about the fairness and transparency of AI-driven systems in immigration decision-making.
Jona says:
"I presented part of my doctoral research on Canada’s use of automation in immigration. I showed how IRCC’s Chinook — framed as a “processing aid” — operates as a high-volume refusal tool that shifts discretion into templates and dashboards, disproportionately impacting Global South applicants. In contrast, VESPA fast-tracks mostly Global North study-permit files, producing a digital two-tier of “credibility.” Canadian courts have largely legitimized this opacity, though cracks are beginning to show. I situated Canada in broader “digital bordering” trends and argued that calling Chinook “not AI” is governance by denial — sidestepping accountability while embedding automation."
Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat and CrimSL sessional lecturer Dr. Jihyun Kwon presented a paper on September 4, 2025, at the "Critical Approaches to Gender-Sensitive Policies in Prison Systems (I)" panel session of the Gender, Crime, and Justice Working Group on the topic "Perspectives on Crime and Criminal Behavior/Feminist Criminology." The session was chaired by Ana Ballesteros-Pena, Complutense University of Madrid.
Paper: "The elusiveness of change and unachievable ideals in the Canadian gender-sensitive penality," by Kelly Hannah-Moffat, University of Toronto; Jihyun Kwon, University of Toronto.
Abstract: Considerable hope and optimism about how women’s penal regimes could shift with new knowledge and strategies informed by feminist and Indigenous knowledges characterised mid-1990s Canadian penality. In the following decades, a logic of a gender-responsive penalty emerged alongside critical shifts in how law and penal policy understood the experiences of indigenous women, who remain disproportionately overrepresented in Canadian prisons, over classified and represent one of the fastest-growing admissions to prison. Feminist and indigenous knowledges informed a policy shift. Notwithstanding the intentions of policymakers and penal administrators little changed. Women continue to be too few to count. There remains a reluctance to shift deracialized genderneutral risk logics that inform many aspects of penal governance and female prisons remain afterthoughts. This paper retrospectively reflects on the current state of women’s punishment and examines how feminist and indigenous knowledges are subsumed and resisted but prevailing penal logics. I consider how various prisons' emphasis on risk and security hamper efforts to meaningfully change penal regimes for women and in particular Indigenous women. Concepts of racial and gender neutrality are deeply embedded in penality as a pretext of fairness and equality, nonetheless, a responsive penality must grapple with difference.
Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat chaired the panel session "Critical Approaches to Gender-Sensitive Policies in Prison Systems (II)" of the Gender, Crime and Justice Working Group on the topic "Perspectives on Crime and Criminal Behavior/Feminist" on September 4, 2025.
Abstract: Over time, growing global attention to the situation of incarcerated women has led to the proliferation of gender-sensitive policies and programs within the criminal justice system. However, analyses of these initiatives often lack a critical perspective—one that interrogates the underlying conceptions of gender equality, the inherently heteropatriarchal nature of prisons, and the paradoxes that arise when pursuing empowerment and feminist transformative goals within prison settings, among other key issues. The two panels proposed under this topic will critically examine gender-sensitive policies and programs in prison systems across different countries.
On September 5, Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat presented a paper at the "Sentencing and AI" panel session of the Sentencing and Penal Decisionmaking Working Group on the topic "Social Control and Criminal Justice/Courts and Sentencing and Penal Decision Making." The session was chaired by Monika Zalnieriute, Vilnius University.
Paper: "Predictive Justice: Examining the Role of Risk Assessments in Pretrial Decisions" by Kelly Hannah-Moffat, University of Toronto; Fernando Avila, Brock University.
Abstract: The use of risk assessments in pretrial custody determinations has expanded significantly, often eclipsing other legal considerations. Originally intended as just one factor in bail decisions, risk has become a central focus, shaping judicial outcomes in ways that remain highly contested. Methods for assessing risk vary widely, from judicial intuition to actuarial tools and more modern algorithmic models. Supporters claim that these tools enhance accuracy in predicting court appearances and public safety risks while reducing unnecessary pretrial detention. However, critics argue that there is little evidence to support these claims, pointing to systemic biases in algorithmic decision-making and the potential erosion of statutory safeguards. The increasing reliance on predictive risk assessments raises critical questions about their rolein reinforcing punitive logics, their impact on pretrial justice, and whether they truly serve the goals of fairness and efficiency.
On September 5, Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat presented a paper co-authored by PhD student Lauren Borders (Supv: Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat) and Dr. Jihyun Kwon at the "Prison policies, human rights, and the treatment of vulnerable populations" panel session of the Prisons Working Group on the topic "Social Control and Criminal Justice/Imprisonment, Prisons, Prison Life and Effects of Imprisonment." The session was chaired by Aurore Vanliefde De Keyser, KU Leuven.
Paper: "A persistent paradox: Strip-searching reform and the continuation of rights violations in Canadian women’s prisons" by Lauren Ivy Borders, University of Toronto; Kelly Hannah-Moffat,University of Toronto; Jihyun Kwon, University of Toronto.
Abstract: Despite decades of “rights-based” correctional reforms, the same problems persist for incarcerated women in Canada, and new problems have arisen. Institutional changes, while they may appear to protect prisoners’ rights, have often proven to reinforce the very issues they were meant to prevent. This paper investigates this contradictory cycle by addressing the following question: if Correctional Service Canada (CSC) claims to respond to rightsbased recommendations, why do violations persist? To accomplish this, we consider the case study of strip searches in Canadian federal prisons for women. Strip-searching women prisoners is a controversial practice, which proponents widely consider a necessary act to prevent contraband in prisons and opponents widely consider a harmful mechanism of control. Most incarcerated women have histories of sexual abuse, and strip-searching presents routine opportunities for re-traumatization. Through a gendered discourse analysis of policy and legal documents as well as government and civil society reports, this paper synthesizes criminological and risk management theory to outline how CSC and external parties conceptualize the practice of strip searching in women’s prisons. We map how CSC seeks to manage critique of strip searching as an institutional risk through changes to procedure, which enables an over-reliance on security — the central issue underpinning most problems in women’s institutions — thereby reinforcing the original dilemma through more obscured and complex means. Understanding the nature of this discourse cycle is key to interrupting it. This paper helps clarify the requirements for effective rights-based change and anticipate the outcomes of more recent reforms, such as the use of body scanners
PhD student Katerina Richard (Supv: Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat) presented a paper on September 4, 2025, at the "Situational Fear and Risk in Place and Time" panel session on the topic "Perceptions of Crime and Justice/Fear of Crime and Risk Perception." The session was chaired by Murray Lee, University of Sydney.
Paper: "Security and Discretion: The Struggles of Prison Visitors and the Politics of Control" by Katerina Richard, University of Toronto; Philip Goodman, University of Toronto.
Abstract: This paper explores the experiences of visitors seeking entry to Canadian penal facilities, focusing on the sociological and criminological implications of prison staff's regulation of contraband and visitor attire. Drawing on our collective encounters as volunteers, researchers, and educators within prisons, we critically examine the policies and practices surrounding prison visitation, with particular attention to the use of intrusive technologies and the policing of clothing. We argue that the imperative to regulate contraband — often framed as a matter of public safety — serves to legitimize harmful practices that alienate and degrade visitors. Additionally, we explore the arbitrary enforcement of dress codes, which disproportionately affect women and reinforce power imbalances within the prison system. These dress codes, ostensibly implemented to control contraband, grant considerable discretionary power to correctional staff, whose interpretations often create uncertainty and vulnerability for visitors. Through personal narratives and critical analysis, we offer insights into the broader challenges faced by those interacting with prisons, emphasizing the need to reconsider visitation practices in a way that upholds dignity, transparency, and the potential for positive connections between incarcerated individuals and their visitors. This paper contributes to ongoing discussions on the tensions between security measures and human rights within prison systems.
Professor Matthew Light presented a paper on September 5, 2025, at the "Police under shocks. Studying police systems in crisis comparatively" panel session of the Quantitative Methods Working Group on the topic "Comparative and Historical Perspectives/Cross-National Comparisons of Crime and Justice." The session was chaired by Sebastian Roche, Sciences-Po Grenoble.
Paper: "Contested municipal policing in Ukraine since 2014" by Matthew Light, University of Toronto.
Abstract: The paper examines debates on police decentralization in Ukraine since 2014, when Russia first attacked Ukraine and seized portions of its territory following the ouster of the Yanukovych dictatorship, with attention to the period since February 2022, when the current full-scale invasion began. Although Ukraine’s constitution vests all public security functions in the central government and does not provide for any form of local policing authority, recent years have seen more and more municipalities creating their own de facto local police forces, known as ‘municipal guards.’ There is considerable variation in the duties and composition of these forces, which have sprung up without any formal recognition from the central government. The paper analyzes this variation and also considers how the experiences of war and democratic transition have contributed to bring debates about policing decentralization onto the political agenda in Ukraine, in contrast to nearly all its neighbours in the post-Soviet region, with the goal of shedding light on the forces that stimulate and impede such decentralization more generally.
Professor Matthew Light also contributed on September 5, 2025, as a critic at the session "Unraveling the Crime-Development Nexus: What might the future hold for global crime governance?" of the Organized Crime Working Group on the topic "Comparative and Historical Perspectives/TransnationalCrime and Justice." The panel also included critics Jay Albanese, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Annette Hübschle, University of Cape Town, along with book authors: Jarrett Blaustein, Australian National University, and Nathan W. Pino, Texas State University.
Abstract: Published in 2022, Unraveling the Crime-Development Nexus by Jarrett Blaustein, Tom Chodor and Nathan W. Pino interrogates the claim that crime represents a significant threat to economic development. Combining historical analysis with a unique empirical perspective based on interviews with highlevel international crime policy insiders, it provides an interdisciplinary account of how and why the ‘crime-development nexus’ has been invoked by international actors, including the United Nations, to advance and secure variations of a global capitalist development agenda since the 19th Century. The critical analysis reveals that the international crime policy agenda remains overwhelmingly responsive to those who benefit from the further expansion of neoliberal globalisation, while simultaneously marginalising subordinate actors throughout the ‘developing’ world. These structural dynamics were institutionalised within the Sustainable Development Goals, most notably through Sustainable Development Goal 16 which deals with ‘Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions’. Fast forward to 2025. Recent geopolitical developments and the proliferation of disruptive technologies represent unprecedented sources of change and instability for an already precarious global liberal order. The relevance of the Sustainable Development Goals together with the institutional power of the United Nations appear to be in decline. What do these shifts mean for the future of global crime governance as a field of policy and practice? Are the authors’ prescriptions for change (reforming the United Nations system, facilitating greater civil societyparticipation, and shifting our focus from ‘crime and development’ to ‘harm and sustainability’) still meaningful? What might a fractured international system mean for international attempts to prevent and combat illicit and harmful activities, and how might we start to theorise the implications of these shifts from various vantage points?