Current Research in Law & Practice

Knife-Related Crime in Poland (2011–2023): A Criminological Analysis of Social, Situational, and Legal Factors

Angelika E. Jaroń — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0800

Over the past decade, Poland has experienced a notable prevalence of knife-related crimes. Forensic and criminological analyses indicate that knives remain among the most frequently used dangerous tools in violent offences, alongside blunt instruments and firearms. Despite this, Polish law does not classify knives as weapons under the Act on Weapons and Ammunition, resulting in limited preventive regulation. This article examines knife-related crime in Poland between 2011 and 2023 from a criminological, legal, and situational perspective. The study integrates official statistical data with criminological theory in order to interpret broader social and institutional contexts associated with knife-related violence. The analysis focuses not only on statistical trends but also on legal ambiguities, preventive challenges, migration-related pressures, situational opportunity structures, and patterns of violent interpersonal behaviour. The central research question of this study is: How can long-term trends in knife-related crime in Poland between 2011 and 2023 be interpreted in light of selected criminological theories and socio-legal factors? The study is based on the following hypothesis: Long-term trends in knife-related crime in Poland may be interpreted through criminological frameworks emphasizing situational opportunities, social control, urban concentration, and preventive legal regulation, while broader socio-demographic processes, including migration-related pressures, provide important contextual considerations. The findings indicate that although Poland maintains relatively lower levels of knife-related violence than several Western European countries, important legal and preventive challenges remain and warrant continued criminological and policy attention.

Regulating Bundled Consent in Digital Services

Yang Jianing — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0800

Bundled consent is a common problem in digital services. Users are often asked to accept several data processing activities through one general consent button, including account registration, personalized recommendation, marketing, and third-party sharing. Although this form of consent appears lawful, it may weaken users’ real choice when necessary and non-essential processing are tied together. Based on the legal principles of informed consent, necessity, separate consent, and the right to withdraw consent, this paper examines how bundled consent should be regulated. It argues that the law should not focus only on whether users have clicked “agree,” but should also consider whether consent is voluntary, specific, separable, and easy to withdraw. Digital service providers should distinguish necessary authorization from optional authorization, provide clearer notices, and allow users to refuse non-essential processing without losing access to basic services.

Face Authentication and Access to Welfare Services

Kavita V. Nair — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0800

Face authentication is becoming part of welfare service delivery in India through the Aadhaar system. It may help confirm identity, reduce paperwork, and support people who cannot easily use fingerprints or OTP-based verification. Yet welfare services are closely linked to basic needs such as food, pension, health care, subsidies, and cash support. When face authentication fails, the result may be more than a technical delay. It may stop an eligible person from receiving support. This paper examines face authentication from the perspective of welfare access, privacy, equality, and dignity. It argues that face authentication should remain one method of identity checking, not the only door to public benefits. A fair welfare system must provide backup methods, clear exception handling, simple complaint channels, and strict limits on data use. The main question is not only whether the technology can identify a person, but whether it helps eligible people receive welfare without fear, delay, or exclusion.