Why RCTs? Part 5 continued

Learning and Changing in Response to RCTs… Challenges Remain

Mastectomies have become more and more openly discussed over the past decade, as celebrities have spoken about their experiences and more women are screened for breast cancer. During their lifetimes, 12% of women in the U.S. will develop invasive breast cancer, and the rate of women choosing mastectomies after a positive diagnosis rose from 2% in 1998 to 11% in 2011. Recently the number of women who have opted for double mastectomies has increased despite recent research showing that the procedure does not improve one’s chances of survival or quality of life.

[…]

Making A2J an Evidence-Based Endeavor

Implications of Inconvenient Truths about A2J

justicescalesOn September 27, 2015, the United Nations adopted something called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, setting forth 17 Sustainable Development Goals intended to address world poverty.  The Goals apply to all countries.  Goal 16 focuses on, among other things, “providing access to justice for all.”  The White House’s Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable (“LAIR”), an effort of the UDSOJ Office for Access to Justice, took a role in coordinating the federal government’s response on Goal 16.  The National Center for Access to Justice, newly moved to Fordham Law School, recently convened a “Civil Society Consultation” to provide public comment to LAIR, and the A2J Lab accepted the National Center’s invitation to contribute a comment.  Our comment focuses on making access to justice an evidence-based endeavor.  What do you think of what we wrote?  Here it is:

[…]

Fear and Loathing over Risk Assessments Part 2

How Should We Think about Racial Disparities?

In a previous post, I considered some of the less convincing critiques of pretrial and sentencing risk assessments that sound in the ecological fallacy. The fallacy argument mistakenly targets risk scores as applying only group inferences to individual case decision-making. The takeaway was straightforward. A comprehensive understanding of actuarial tools must include rigorous counterfactual thinking about a state of the world in which they aren’t available. In this follow-up, I discuss an even more serious claim: that actuarial tools might lead to unjustifiable racial disparities in criminal justice outcomes.

[…]

Why RCTs? Part 4

To Fitbit or Not to Fitbit- Does It Make a Difference?

Wearable Fitness Trackers may make us lose less weight

fitbitimageA blasphemous claim, perhaps, considering how attached we can be to these devices. How could you not lose weight clocking more and more steps each day? Don’t Fitbits and other similar trackers give a point and meaning to our exercise or daily routine? What did we do before this technology, which seems beneficial yet all of sudden life-encompassing? (David Sedaris lamented the death of his Fitbit, “Walking twenty-five miles, or even running up the stairs and back, suddenly seemed pointless, since, without the steps being counted and registered, what use were they?”)

[…]

Transaction Costs

 Transaction costs, or, What matters more: your brain or your wallet?

Image of John Lennon's mind. "Mind Games" by Derek Davalos.

Mind Games” by Derek Davalos / CC 3.0

What motivates people to settle their lawsuits once a case is open?

Courts across the United States are experimenting with different models to nudge parties toward resolving disputes short of trial. One model mandates that parties attend a “settlement day” prior to their scheduled trial date. Unlike other mandatory court-affiliated settlement, however, there is no prescribed mediation or conference before the judge or other judicial officer. The only difference between settling in court and settling out of court is just that: the court.

The economic theory of transaction costs posits that a variety of obstacles (e.g., time, finances, reputation) can impede mutually beneficial agreements. One of its main lessons is that two parties will always reach an agreement—regardless of who holds a legal right—when transaction costs are zero. In courts and other public policy decisions, the goal is often to minimize transaction costs to facilitate negotiation. By extension, under this line of thinking, raising transaction costs would make an agreement less likely.

The mandatory settlement day effectively represents one of those transaction costs to the parties, who are otherwise free to negotiate and settle without taking the time off work to travel to court and spend the day in the courthouse. This is particularly true in eviction cases, where both parties clearly are familiar with one another and at least one party quite literally knows where the other party lives.
[…]