What Can the Legal Profession Do For Us? Formerly Incarcerated Attorneys and the Practice of Law as a Strengths-Based Endeavour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the concept of strengths-based reentry has gained increased attention from scholars and commentators.Proponents of the strengths-based paradigm argue that the formerly incarcerated are far more than a collection of needs and risks.Rather, we bring unique skills to the reentry process that can be utilized to engage in generative activities that serve to diminish the stigma of a criminal history and to promote post-release success.Drawing on my own journey from prison to practicing attorney, this article contemplates the legal profession as one such generative activity.By serving clients at risk of criminal justice system involvement and organizing to promote experiential diversity at law schools and in the bar, many formerly incarcerated attorneys are engaged, often subconsciously, in ongoing stigma/shame management at the micro and macro levels respectively.For these reasons, this paper contends that the legal profession ought to be considered a viable, realistic option for formerly incarcerated students, as they possess the empathy to excel as attorneys and to use the law as a means of transforming their own self concept.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".