New technologies should not expand the reach of the criminal legal system.
From pretrial to parole, we seek to limit the role of technologies that can expand the reach and impact of the criminal legal system. We advocate against legal rules that insulate technologies from scrutiny at the cost of constitutionally protected rights. From pretrial risk assessment instruments to probabilistic genotyping systems, we oppose the use of technologies in criminal courts that jeopardize people’s freedom and widen the criminal legal system. In the past, we have worked extensively across the nation to advocate against the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments. We’ve also worked to ensure that secretive new technologies, like probabilistic genotyping systems, do not garner more legal protections than the accused.
Emily Paul, Logan Koepke, Urmila Janardan, Aaron Rieke, and Natasha Duarte
Working with the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard Law School, we filed a brief in New Jersey v. Pickett supporting the defense’s request to fully examine TrueAllele, the probabilistic DNA analysis software used in the case, in order to assess its reliability.Read more
Latest work in this issue areaAll work in this issue area
We called on the Attorney General to rescind guidance which said that only individuals assessed as minimum risk by PATTERN should receive “priority treatment” for release during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, arguing that the Court should not order the implementation of a pretrial risk assessment instrument as a bail reform measure in Philadelphia.
We co-led the Pretrial Risk Management Project of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; as part of this project, we published a critical issue brief on pretrial risk assessment instruments and civil rights concerns.
We filed comments with the Judicial Council of California on two of its proposed new court rules. We argued that the proposed rules on how courts use pretrial risk assessment tools need significant modifications in order to be constitutionally defensible and to protect civil rights.
Selected press and events
Our paper “offers a powerful defense of the civil rights critique, mustering arguments that suggest even the most carefully calibrated algorithms ultimately are weakened by the structural inequalities that have long beset the U.S. criminal justice system.”
Logan Koepke is quoted on police genetic profiling via consumer DNA services.
In Cook County, Illinois, 99 percent of defendants deemed ‘high risk’ for pretrial violence don’t reoffend.
The Atlantic explains pretrial algorithms, with input from Logan Koepke, Senior Policy Analyst.