Criminal record clearing has become a prominent policy tool for improving individuals’ employment, housing, and reentry outcomes. However, too often, eligibility does not translate into actual access or successful uptake. But why? A look at the trials and tribulations of the expungement process in Kansas offers insight into the design of criminal law institutions as a whole.
A landmark study on Michigan’s expungement system found that criminal record clearing was linked to low recidivism rates, no compromise to public safety, and better outcomes for the recipients. But what does it say about the process when those promising results are not enough to entice eligible individuals?
Federal regulations impose additional requirements and restrictions on any Institutional Review Board-approved research that involves incarcerated individuals as subjects. These rules are designed to protect prisoners, a population which has too-often throughout history been taken advantage of by researchers. But how do Subpart C’s extra protections work—and do they even make sense?
Conflicting research exists to address whether consumers who “agree” to mandatory arbitration clauses have worse outcomes compared to consumers who are free to litigate in courts. Courts typically assume that by entering a contract mandating arbitration, each party freely bargained for that clause. While there are concerns about how knowingly consumers agree to arbitration clauses, HLS J.D. candidate Rachel Barkin writes about consumer outcomes, based on the dispute resolution process, and potential areas for future research.
The A2J Lab’s Mandy Mobley Li, Assistant Director of Research Innovations, was one of the future-focused visionaries featured in Bonnie D. Graham’s podcast, “Technology Revolution: The Future of Now.” Take a listen to her 2026 predictions for AI in the access-to-justice space.
Life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is often considered a better alternative to capital punishment. But death sentences carry certain safeguards to minimize error rates including counsel at all stages of the criminal process, federal scrutiny of sentences, appeals at the state level, pro bono firm support, and media attention. And yet, about 40 percent of death sentences in a 22-year time frame were overturned. Without those same safeguards, LWOP would likely have at least similar error rates—if only we knew. HLS student Kristen Arnold argues for evidence-based research to determine whether the absence of counsel and appeals reveal errors worth reforming procedural protections for those sentenced to life without parole.
In a Harvard Law Review article last June, three authors wrote about their empirical research on how judicial review of warrants work in practice and whether such submission and reviews of warrants offer a meaningful check on police power or simply a system of rubber stamps. While the data analysis proved to be complex in determining best practices, it revealed some troubling patterns.
Texas’s 2023 “Family Miranda” law requires child welfare investigators to inform parents of their due process rights at the beginning of an investigation. The intent is to reduce unnecessary state intervention, trauma, and coercion. The law passed with bipartisan support and ultimately clarifies existing law, rather than creates new law. In this “Student Voices” blog, HLS student Julia Saltzman calls for a randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of the law in improving fairness and reducing unnecessary interventions.
The U.S. has embraced a ‘tough on crime’ narrative since the 1980s, and it’s reflected in the tripling of the nation’s jail population since that time. Most of the increase in jail population growth, however, is due to those detained pretrial. The courts explain this as a necessity to deterring failure to appear and new criminal activity by the individual. The data offers a different argument.
In 1987, the Supreme Court held that pretrial detention did not violate due process and is therefore constitutional. However, pretrial detention continues to raise humanitarian and justice concerns while also imposing serious and quantifiable costs on detained individuals, which, in turn, imposes economic and social costs on communities.
