Positive criminology is a new conceptual perspective of criminology, encompassing several theories and models. Positive criminology refers to a focus on individuals' encounters with forces and influences that are experienced as positive, which distance them from deviance and crime, whether by means of formal and informal therapy programs and interventions, such as self-help groups; through emphasis of positive social elements, such as exposure to goodness, social acceptance, and reintegrative shaming; or based on positive personal traits, such as resilience and coherence. The perspective of positive criminology broadens that of traditional criminology, which focuses mainly on understanding the factors and processes that lead individuals and groups to what is defined as deviant and criminal behavior. Positive criminology is implemented in treatment and rehabilitation of individuals and groups that have demonstrated deviant and criminal behavior, by emphasizing positive experiences that may potentially prevent or discourage continued criminal behavior. Positive criminology is also expressed in prevention based on a positive approach.

No abstract

Fifteen inmates from Ayalon prison, a maximum-security prison in Israel, who were convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter of their female intimate partner, have participated in a study designed to examine integrated variables-personal, interpersonal, and environmental-familial-connected with this phenomenon. Analyses of the in-depth interviews demonstrate that despite the different motivations the perpetrators displayed with regard to the murder, they share some common themes. On the basis of these themes, three primary types of female intimate partner murderers have been identified; each of them represents a personal narrative as follows: the betrayed, the abandoned, and the tyrant. The proposed typology might be used for establishing a common language among researchers, scholars, and workers in this field. It can also contribute to the existing clinical tools in terms of prediction, prevention, and treatment initiatives that currently focus on violence.

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine.

The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.