Read on Twitter
THREAD: there is much left intentionally unsaid in this piece about efforts at HLS and elsewhere to run RCTs in the criminal legal system, deceptively & inaccurately framed as applying scientific rigor to tricky public policy unknowns. Let's talk about it. https://www.law360.com/access-to-justice/articles/1347474/studying-justice-or-hurting-it-the-fight-over-a2j-research
Many of these studies are not exploring true unknowns and therefore lack equipoise, a fundamental precondition for an ethical RCT.
When we already know that access to counsel at arraignment improves outcomes for people, how does an IRB approve this study? https://twitter.com/houstoninst/status/1108097308288344068?s=20
When we already know that access to counsel at arraignment improves outcomes for people, how does an IRB approve this study? https://twitter.com/houstoninst/status/1108097308288344068?s=20
Our concerns here extend beyond equipoise.
There is a constitutional right to counsel at critical stages of prosecution.
Billionaire funders supporting elite universities to randomize access to lawyers for poor people questions whether poor people deserve constitutional rights.
There is a constitutional right to counsel at critical stages of prosecution.
Billionaire funders supporting elite universities to randomize access to lawyers for poor people questions whether poor people deserve constitutional rights.
"[W]e don’t need a randomized study to prove our moral views to ourselves."
These studies enact harm in substance & process. Technocratic researchers ignoring impacted people & consulting with system actors for "reform" is anti-democratic & disempowering. https://twitter.com/PrisonPolicy/status/1108415262846607360?s=20
!["[W]e don’t need a randomized study to prove our moral views to ourselves."These studies enact harm in substance & process. Technocratic researchers ignoring impacted people & consulting with system actors for "reform" is anti-democratic & disempowering. https://twitter.com/PrisonPolicy/status/1108415262846607360?s=20](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EssMyKpW4AA_MW9.png "\"[W]e don’t need a randomized study to prove our moral views to ourselves.\"These studies enact harm in substance & process. Technocratic researchers ignoring impacted people & consulting with system actors for \"reform\" is anti-democratic & disempowering. https://twitter.com/PrisonPolicy/status/1108415262846607360?s=20")
These studies enact harm in substance & process. Technocratic researchers ignoring impacted people & consulting with system actors for "reform" is anti-democratic & disempowering. https://twitter.com/PrisonPolicy/status/1108415262846607360?s=20
This article sweeps away our critiques and those of @bailfundnetwork as the concerns of "activists."
The article even gives space to "researcher" rebuttals without (1) inviting comment from *any* directly impacted people or (2) including our rebuttals. https://twitter.com/SatterthwaiteML/status/1353736692671385603?s=20
The article even gives space to "researcher" rebuttals without (1) inviting comment from *any* directly impacted people or (2) including our rebuttals. https://twitter.com/SatterthwaiteML/status/1353736692671385603?s=20
We've posted the full written responses we gave the reporter to write this story.
Instead of exploring our layered critique, he highlighted one central idea (ethical concerns about the lack of equipoise in the studies).
But our concerns are multifaceted. https://charleshamiltonhouston.org/news/2021/01/fools-gold-how-rct-research-harms-communities-impacted-by-criminal-punishment/
Instead of exploring our layered critique, he highlighted one central idea (ethical concerns about the lack of equipoise in the studies).
But our concerns are multifaceted. https://charleshamiltonhouston.org/news/2021/01/fools-gold-how-rct-research-harms-communities-impacted-by-criminal-punishment/
For example, one of the rebuttals—taken at its word without inquiry—was that researchers obtain consent from studied incarcerated people.
But, as we problematized, how does one obtain meaningful consent, freely given, from a detained person for a 50% chance at freedom?
But, as we problematized, how does one obtain meaningful consent, freely given, from a detained person for a 50% chance at freedom?
As our Managing Director, David Harris, says "To argue that a 50-50 chance of obtaining relief is informed consent is cynical at best, bordering on cruel."
A reprise of his comment was part of the responses we gave the reporter, but unfortunately was excluded from the article.
A reprise of his comment was part of the responses we gave the reporter, but unfortunately was excluded from the article.
Feigning ignorance of the coercive power dynamics at play here cannot wipe them away.
This kind of research on disparately poor people & people of color, Black people in particular, reproduces indefensible power hierarchies.
We must seek solutions from directly impacted people.
This kind of research on disparately poor people & people of color, Black people in particular, reproduces indefensible power hierarchies.
We must seek solutions from directly impacted people.
Further, the comparison to medical RCTs is inapt. When a person is ravaged by disease, and we truly do not know how to stop it, RCTs are necessary to learn whether a particular intervention may heal or treat their ailment. There, harm is only being caused by a natural phenomen.
But public policy is different. We may not know precisely the most efficient way to bring people back to court. But we do know interventions like court reminders are empirically backed. AND we know that jail itself causes harm which is entirely within our control to alleviate.
Therefore, in this scenario, Greiner and others are not only "randomizing people away from potentially life-saving treatments."
They are also randomizing people INTO avertable death-making institutions. Literally, death-making. Especially during COVID. https://twitter.com/mdawriter/status/1340723470834028544?s=20
They are also randomizing people INTO avertable death-making institutions. Literally, death-making. Especially during COVID. https://twitter.com/mdawriter/status/1340723470834028544?s=20
We have the power to stop that harm by getting people out of jail & investing in community needs. So our work should center on getting people out of jail & implementing as widely as possible already proven, community-backed reforms to shrink the racist criminal punishment system.
This brings us back to the funders.
RCT researchers in the access to justice space often speak about using "natural" experiments.
But there aren't natural experiments in the realm of public policy. All public policy is mutable and philanthropic investment can change it quickly.
RCT researchers in the access to justice space often speak about using "natural" experiments.
But there aren't natural experiments in the realm of public policy. All public policy is mutable and philanthropic investment can change it quickly.
Finally, there was no similar call for causal evidence for mass incarceration and criminalization.
That researchers and funders now require causal evidence from experimental RCTs to undo a non-research-based system is itself a form of structural racism. https://twitter.com/houstoninst/status/1108097297265627136?s=20
That researchers and funders now require causal evidence from experimental RCTs to undo a non-research-based system is itself a form of structural racism. https://twitter.com/houstoninst/status/1108097297265627136?s=20
