In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Spencer Thieme discusses interrogation rooms and the effect of a physical environment on stress, memory, disclosure, and false confessions. She also considers potential randomized controlled trials for studying interrogation room design.
File this one under “historic laws in need of modernizing.” Civil forfeiture—the act of seizing and forfeiting physical property, regardless of whether an individual has been charged with a crime — has its roots in customs and piracy cases. But today, in addition to serving as a tool to pad police department’s budgets, it more often keeps cars, cash, and possessions out of the hands of potentially innocent individuals with no guarantee of legal representation. The result is an access to justice failure, as reported by HLS student Joe Liberman in this week’s “Student Voices” blog and podcast episode.
“Replacing cash bail: Fairer justice or robopocalypse?” This headline from a 2020 California news article encapsulates the rhetoric at the time surrounding Proposition 25, a California referendum to eliminate cash bail and provide judges making pretrial release decisions with a risk assessment instrument.
The association of ending cash bail with algorithmic decision-making embodies a complexity that members of the bail reform movement everywhere can examine in future efforts to bring greater access to justice for pretrial detainees.
What if thousands, perhaps millions, of people could stop their past—their criminal record, that is—from following them in job interviews and housing applications? What if some barriers to record clearing could be improved by policy, and not by an individual’s circumstances? Would that improve uptake in expungement? A 2025 article in the North Dakota Law Review addresses the possibilities by examining the current state of record clearing in Pennsylvania and Kansas and potential policy reforms in both states that would produce the greatest number of eligible records for clearing.
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?
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.
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.
