As the eyes of the nation increasingly focus on improving the criminal justice system increases, the possibilities and risks of emerging technologies are affecting all aspects of the administration of justice. Join the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the Law School as we host an interdisciplinary group of nationally recognized thought leaders in criminal justice, computer technology, and law on May 12-13 to discuss such questions as:
- How is technology is changing the administration of justice?
- What are areas of excitement and concern?
- What can criminal justice learn from other systems about deploying technology in ways that will improve our ability to prevent errors?
This program has been approved for 12.0 substantive CLE credits for Pennsylvania lawyers. CLE credit may be available in other jurisdictions as well. Attendees seeking CLE credit should bring separate payment in the amount of $240.00 ($120.00 public interest/non-profit attorneys) cash or check made payable to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
The symposium itself is free of charge and open to the public.
|
THURSDAY, MAY 12
|
8:00 – 8:30 am |
Breakfast |
|
|
8:30 – 10:00 am |
Risk Assessment Tools: Capabilities, Benefits and Risks |
Moderator: |
Sandra G. Mayson, Quattrone Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Richard Berk, University of Pennsylvania Criminology |
|
Sonja Starr, Michigan Law |
|
Ezekiel Edwards, ACLU |
|
|
10:15 – 11:45 am |
Predictive Policing |
Moderator: |
John MacDonald, University of Pennsylvania Criminology and Fels Institute of Government |
Panelists: |
George Tita, University of California, Irvine |
|
Jerry Ratcliffe, Temple University |
|
Andrew Ferguson, UDC David A. Clarke School of Law |
|
John Hollywood, RAND Corporation |
|
|
11:45 – 12:15 pm |
Lunch Pick up |
12:15 – 1:15 pm |
Keynote: Technology in Policing – Benefits and Challenges |
|
Commissioner Richard Ross, Philadelphia Police Department |
|
|
1:30 – 3:00 pm |
Participatory Justice in the Digital Age |
Moderator: |
Megan Stevenson, Quattrone Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Raj Jayadev, Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project, Silicon Valley DeBug |
|
Jason Van Anden, Quadrant 2, Inc. |
|
Desmond Patton, Columbia University |
|
|
3:15 – 4:45 pm |
Video in Criminal Justice Investigation and Administration |
Moderator: |
Regina Austin, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Tom Nestel, Chief of Police, SEPTA |
|
Ingrid Eagly, UCLA School of Law |
|
Capt. Fran Healey, Philadelphia Police Department |
|
Christina Swarns, NAACP Legal Defense Fund |
|
|
4:45 – 6:00 pm |
Reception |
|
|
|
FRIDAY, MAY 13
|
8:00 – 8:30 am |
Breakfast |
|
|
8:30 – 10:00 am |
Data as Evidence: Challenges of translating statistical data for purposes of legal standards of proof |
Moderator: |
Paul Heaton, Quattrone Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Michael Rich, Elon University School of Law |
|
Andrea Roth, UC Berkeley School of Law |
|
Greg Hampikian, Ph.D., Boise State University, Idaho innocence Project |
|
|
|
10:15 – 11:45 am |
Science in the Courtroom: Making sense of emerging technologies |
Moderator: |
David Rudovsky, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Joe Cecil, Federal Judicial Center |
|
Jules Epstein, Temple Beasley School of Law |
|
Chris Fabricant, The Innocence Project |
|
Judge Nancy Gertner, Harvard Law School |
|
|
|
11:45 – 12:00 pm |
Lunch pick-up |
12:00 – 1:00 pm |
Keynote |
|
Christopher Soghoian, American Civil Liberties Union |
|
|
1:00 – 2:30 pm |
Forensic Technologies In Flux |
Moderator: |
John Hollway, Quattrone Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Law |
Panelists: |
Lynn Robitaille Garcia, Texas Forensic Commission |
|
Dr. Mark W. Perlin, Cybergenetics |
|
John Lentini, Scientific Fire Analysis, LLC |
|
Erin Murphy, NYU School of Law |
This program has been approved for 12.0 substantive CLE credits for Pennsylvania lawyers. CLE credit may be available in other jurisdictions as well. Attendees seeking CLE credit should bring separate payment in the amount of $240.00 ($120.00 public interest/non-profit attorneys) cash or check made payable to The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
The symposium itself is free of charge and open to the public.
THURSDAY, MAY 12 th
Risk Assessment Tools: Capabilities, Benefits and Risks
Richard Berk, Forecasting Methods in Crime and Justice, 4 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. 219 (2008). Available here.
Richard Berk et al., Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions, 13 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 94 (2016). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Richard Berk et al., Forecasting Murder within a Population of Probationers and Parolees: A High Stakes Application of Statistical Learning, 172 J. Royal Stat. Soc’y (Series A) 191 (2009). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Sandra G. Mayson, Collateral Consequences and the Preventive State, 91 Notre Dame L. Rev. 301 (2015). Available here.
Andrea L. Roth & Edward J. Ungvarsky, Book Review, 8 Law Prob. & Risk 55 (2009) (reviewing Carole McCartney, Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk (2006)). Available here.
Sonja B. Starr, Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 803 (2014). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Predictive Policing
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Big Data and Predictive Reasonable Suspicion, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 327 (2015). Available here.
______, Big Data Distortions: Exploring the Limits of the ABA LEATPR Standards, 66 Okla. L. Rev. 831 (2014). Available here.
______, Crime Mapping and the Fourth Amendment: Redrawing ‘High Crime Areas’, 63 Hastings L.J. 179 (2011). Available here.
______, Predictive Policing and Reasonable Suspicion, 62 Emory L.J. 259 (2012). Available here.
Cory P. Haberman & Jerry H. Ratcliffe, The Predictive Policing Challenges of Near Repeat Armed Street Robberies, 6 Policing: J. Pol’y & Prac. 151 (2012). Available here.
Priscilla Hunt et al., Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment (Rand Corporation RR531, 2014). Available here.
G. O. Mohler et al., Randomized Controlled Field Trials of Predictive Policing, 110 J. Am. Stat. Ass’n 512 (2015). Available here.
Jerry H. Ratcliffe, Intelligence-Led Policing(2008). Available at Van Pelt call # HV7935 .R233 2008.
“There’s an App for That”: Participatory Justice in the Digital Age
David Bornstein, Guiding Families to a Fair Day in Court, N.Y. Times, May 29, 2015, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/guiding-poor-families-to-a-fair-day-in-court/?_r=0.
Albert W. Dzur, Participatory Democracy and Criminal Justice, 6 Crim. L. & Phil. 115 (2012). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Tony Ganzer, YouTube’s Crime-Fighting Potential Put to Test, NPR, Jan. 23, 2008, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18334702.
Raj Jayadev, “Participatory Defense”—Transforming the Courts through Family and Community Organizing, Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project (Oct. 17, 2014), https://acjusticeproject.org/2014/10/17/participatory-defense-transforming-the-courts-through-family-and-community-organizing-by-raj-jayadev/.
Janet Moore et al., Make Them Hear You: Participatory Defense and the Struggle for Criminal Justice Reform, 78 Albany L. Rev. 1281 (2015). Available here.
Gene Stephens, Participatory Justice: The Politics of the Future, 3 Just. Q. 67 (1986). Available here.
Video in Criminal Justice Investigation and Administration
José F. Anderson, Reflections on Standing: Challenges to Searches and Seizures in a High Technology World, 75 Miss. L.J. 1099 (2006). Available here.
Celine Cocq & Francesca Galli, The Use of Surveillance Technologies for the Prevention, Investigation and Prosecution of Serious Crime, EUI Dept. of Law Res. Paper No. 2015/41 (2015). Available here.
David A. Harris, Picture This: Body-Worn Video Devices (Head Cams) as Tools for Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance by Police, 43 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 357 (2010). Available here.
Anne Poulin, Criminal Justice and Videoconferencing Technology: The Remote Defendant, 78 Tulane L. Rev. 1089 (2004). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Justin T. Ready & Jacob T. N. Young, The Impact of On-Officer Video Cameras on Police-Citizen Contacts: Findings from a Controlled Experiment in Mesa, AZ, 11 J. Experimental Criminology 445 (2015). Available here.
FRIDAY, MAY 13 th
Data as Evidence: Challenges of Translating Statistical Data for Purposes of Legal Standards of Proof
Itiel Dror & Greg Hampikian, Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation, 51 Sci. & Just. 204 (2011). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Luis Garicano & Paul S. Heaton, Computing Crime: Information Technology, Police Effectiveness and the Organization of Policing (CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5837, Sept. 2006). Available here.
Greg Hampikian et al., The Genetics of Innocence: Analysis of 194 U.S. DNA Exonerations, 12 Ann. Rev. Genomics and Human Genetics 97 (2011). Available here.
John S. Hollywood & Zev Winkelman, Improving Information-Sharing across Law Enforcement: Why Can’t We Know? (RAND Corporation, 2015). Available here.
Frederika Kaestle et al., Database Limitations on the Evidentiary Value of Forensic Mitochondrial DNA Evidence, 43 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 53 (2006). Available here.
Michael Rich, Machine Learning, Automated Suspicion Algorithms, and the Fourth Amendment, U. Pa. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2016). Available here.
Technology in the Courtroom: Making Sense of Emerging Technologies
Jules Epstein, The NAS Report: An Evidence Professor’s Perspective, It’s Evident (July 2009), http://www.ncstl.org/evident/July,%202009%20Epstein%20SPOTLIGHT.
______, Preferring the ‘Wise Man’ to Science: The Failure of Courts and Non-Litigation Mechanisms to Demand Validity in Forensic Matching Testimony, 20 Widener L. Rev. 81 (2014). Available here.
Andrea L. Roth, Safety in Numbers?: Deciding When DNA Alone Is Enough to Convict, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1130 (2010). Available here.
______, Trial by Machine, 104 Geo. L.J. 5 (2016). Available here.
Rick Visser & Greg Hampikian, When DNA Won’t Work, 49 Idaho L. Rev. 39 (2012). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Forensic Technologies in Flux
Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009). Available here.
M. Chris Fabricant & William Tucker Carrington, The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences’s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law, 4 Va. J. Crim. L. 1 (2016). Available here.
Ryan M. Goldstein, Note, Improving Forensic Science through State Oversight, 90 Tex. L. Rev. 225 (2011). Available here (with Pennkey login).
Juan Hinojosa & Lynn Garcia, Response, Improving Forensic Science through State Oversight: The Texas Model, 91 Tex. L. Rev. See Also 19 (2012). Available here.
Erin Murphy, The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence, 95 Calif. L. Rev. 721 (2007). Available here.
Mark W. Perlin et al., TrueAllele® Genotype Identification on DNA Mixtures Containing up to Five Unknown Contributors, 60 J. Forensic Sci. 857 (2015). Available here.