can science save justice?

Failures are expected events to be learned from, not embarrassments to be hidden from view. [...]it's worth noting that those who argue against evidence-based change on the grounds that the underlying scientific evidence is not yet ripe are often arguing for a status quo that is based on no science. [...]having collected data, we must adopt empirically-grounded best practices. According to the company, replacing traditional résumé review has boosted the proportion of people of color, women, nonIvy League students, and those with disabilities landing a first-round interview from roughly 20 percent to more than 60 percent.31 More broadly, one of the reasons that medicine has made such leaps in safety and effectiveness in recent decades is that it is now settled practice that neither the administrators nor the participants know the critical aspects of the research study. Some have lobbied for abolishing mandatory minimums, repealing three-strikes laws, and reducing prison assaults by increasing monitoring. Since having a job correlates with a decrease in recidivism, others have pushed for new job-training programs for convicts and fought to end "checkthe-box" rules that prevent those with criminal records from gaining employment.48 As data shows that increasing the perception that perpetrators will be caught is a much more effective deterrent than increasing the harshness of punishment, advocates also have pushed to shift resources away from prisons and toward bolstering police presence.49 Many of these efforts are likely to play an important role in making our justice system more just and our cities safer.