Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few of the criminal justice system’s problems are new. Indigenous and racialized persons continue to be over-represented in the criminal justice system. Pretrial detention rates have increased significantly during the past 30 years. The criminal law is still used to regulate social problems — poverty, homelessness, and substance use — that it cannot fix. Although law reform happens with some frequency, these underlying problems persist. This article advances a transformative agenda for criminal justice reform. It argues that law reform fails to address three mutually reinforcing features of the criminal justice system that exacerbate its persisting problems. First, reform efforts accord insufficient importance to rehabilitation and reintegration. Second, reform initiatives do not address the growth of police powers that lack adequate transparency and oversight. Third, existing reforms ignore how the justice system increasingly allocates power towards prosecutors and the police, while removing that power from judges. This article’s core argument is that the criminal justice system must be completely transformed in order to address its underlying issues. It contends that meaningful criminal justice reform must take place across four dimensions: (1) substantive criminal law reform; (2) sentencing reform; (3) criminal procedure reform; and (4) institutional reform. It concludes by providing an agenda for criminal justice reform, which includes a set of concrete proposals in each of these four dimensions. Ultimately, this article shows why transformative law reform is necessary to treat individuals with greater dignity, foster rehabilitation and reintegration, and combat the criminal justice system’s worst tendencies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".