The pervasiveness of AI has every industry looking closely at it. But are public perceptions of AI equal across industries? In this “Student Voices” blog, HLS J.D. candidate Strong Ma compares law and medicine, examining the different views of fairness when an algorithm, and not a human, makes a decision.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
While specialized “problem-solving” courts have become common, there is still no equivalent civil mental health court in Massachusetts to handle complex issues like civil commitment and involuntary psychiatric treatment. The gap exposes the potential for the Commonwealth to learn from other states leading reform of the civil judicial system in this area and to pilot such a court and evaluate its impact through a randomized controlled trial.
Rogers hearings, the Massachusetts ruling designed to protect patient autonomy in involuntary psychiatric treatment, often cause harmful delays in treatment. Two reforms that propose shifting responsibility to Administrative Law Judges and to mental health professionals respectively, however, could help bring timely treatment and better advocacy.
In Massachusetts, involuntarily committed psychiatric patients with schizophrenia often face systemic barriers to timely treatment from procedural inefficiencies that prioritize legal formalities over patient well-being. To address this access to justice challenge, the Commonwealth could implement reforms to streamline the legal process while preserving patient rights.
