Law professor calls for 'evidence-based justice' to fix systemic assumptions in criminal system
Loading...
Summary
Adam Benferrado argued that many failures in the U.S. criminal justice system stem from incorrect assumptions about human behavior and urged reforms including blind evidence procedures, conviction integrity units, open files, and expanded empirical testing.
Adam Benferrado, a law professor and author of Unfair, told a symposium audience that many failings in the U.S. criminal justice system flow from mistaken assumptions about how people think and act. "Until we understand what's really moving our legal actors, our policies, our procedures, our practices are gonna fail to achieve their ends," he said.
Benferrado framed his remarks around three common myths. First, he said, the system does not treat "all victims equally," illustrating that with the death of journalist David Rosenbaum, who was initially labeled as a "drunk" and whose subsequent treatment by emergency responders and clinicians delayed identification of a fatal head injury. He argued that such early labels filter later evidence and can determine whether investigators follow standard protocols.
Second, Benferrado challenged the belief that judicial bias is subject to introspection and easy control, citing research — including a parole study — showing outcomes can hinge on factors such as time of day rather than case facts. He warned that perspective and identity shape how the same video or evidence is interpreted.
Third, he disputed the "bad apples" explanation for attorney misconduct, drawing on a New Orleans prosecutor's case to argue that situational incentives and office culture can produce repeated violations rather than isolated incidents.
As remedies, Benferrado urged a shift to evidence-based practices: expanding data collection, funding field experiments with jurors, judges and police, and piloting blind procedures in forensic work and prosecutorial decision-making. He recommended conviction integrity units in prosecutors' offices and open access to prosecution files and crime-lab findings as ways to reduce opportunities for nondisclosure and to increase accountability.
Benferrado also urged the legal community to consider bolder steps beyond incremental reforms. He noted small changes (lineup tweaks, allowing juror notes, recording interrogations) have value but risk reifying outdated assumptions when treated as sufficient. He called for concurrent experimentation with larger reimaginings of adjudication — including procedural blinding and more rigorous empirical evaluation of reforms — while acknowledging questions about feasibility and legal constraints.
He closed by urging those in attendance, particularly scientists and practitioners, to lead on collecting evidence and testing reforms so the law can be rebuilt on realistic models of human behavior.
