Criminal-Justice Reformers, Take Note

The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice, by Jennifer Doleac (Henry Holt & Co., 267 pp., $29.99)

In contemporary criminal-justice debates, the term “second chances” seems to have lost much of its meaning. The U.S. dedicates the month of April to the idea that we systematically deny second chances to people who come into contact with the criminal-justice system. This is a strange claim, given that the typical state prisoner in America has approximately ten prior arrests and five prior convictions—meaning that he probably received far more than just a “second” chance.

Nevertheless, in her new book, The Science of Second Chances, economist, recovering academic, and philanthropic executive Jennifer Doleac argues that these second chances won’t be “real” until America calibrates its criminal-justice policies “to put people on a better path going forward.” Tempting though it may be to reject the premise outright, Doleac’s thesis is worth engaging seriously. While she’s not always right, the conversation would be more productive if reformers sounded more like her.

Over the last two decades, criminal-justice policy has swung hard toward leniency—with dire consequences. That shift was in part the work of scholars and activists who pushed a far more extreme agenda than Doleac’s, often relying on shockingly little evidence.

Doleac, by contrast, makes the case for a more incrementalist, science-backed approach to criminal-justice policymaking. The moderation is apparent in her choice to, for example, refer to the “justice system,” rather than opting for the “progressive”-approved “criminal legal or penal system.” She also readily acknowledges that for “the most violent of offenders, whose violent impulses may be impossible to change,” the “best option is to remove them from society for a very long time.”

But Doleac nonetheless establishes her bona fides as a reform advocate. She quickly lets the reader know that the least reformable, most violent offenders are “the exception to the rule,” given that most people arrested or criminally cited are accused of minor offenses and only rarely reoffend. She suggests that even those “who cycle through our justice system again and again” are not “inevitably” dangerous.

The book takes readers through miniature, digestible literature reviews of interventions that Doleac characterizes as small, evidence-based changes likely to break the cycle of reoffending. Examples include expanding DNA databases (increasing the likelihood of getting caught, thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending), or redesigning criminal summonses and texting offenders court-date reminders (reducing failures to appear).

Doleac does take some frustrating swipes at those to her right, however. She writes, for example, that “proponents of the broken windows approach” to policing want not just “to arrest people for their bad behavior” but also “to throw the book at them.” This is such a mischaracterization of both the approach and its proponents that I can almost hear my late mentor, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow George Kelling, grumbling about it from the grave.

And while Doleac effectively marshals evidence to support more leniency for certain offenders, as well as investments in the quality and safety of prisons, she fails to grapple with contrary evidence in a number of cases.

For example, consider Doleac’s treatment of Hawaii’s HOPE program, which tried to deter drug-using criminals from reoffending using short, high-certainty jail spells for those who violate the terms of a specialized probation program. A 2009 study found the program caused a significant reduction in the share of participating probationers returning to prison (13 percent) compared with regular probationers (27 percent). Doleac leans heavily on the 2009 study but neglects a 2016 Criminology paper that reported not only on some of the other follow-ups but also on the results of a four-site, randomized controlled trial that failed to find any meaningful differences between HOPE-style probation and the ordinary kind.

Another example is Doleac’s treatment of a Canadian cognitive behavioral therapy program that, according to a researcher she interviewed, proves “that human behavior can change.” Some CBT interventions can work, but a substantial body of evidence shows that profoundly changing human behavior through therapy—especially for criminal populations in which antisocial personality disorders are incredibly common—is nearly impossible, especially at scale.

To her credit, Doleac does push back on some unhelpful progressive criminal-justice reform priorities. Her chapter covering so-called “Ban The Box” initiatives—aimed at blocking employers from accessing the criminal histories of applicants—is a thorough illustration of how progressive approaches can have unintended consequences that undermine their own goals—in the case of that program, by reducing employment among black men whose race employers use as a proxy for criminality.

The Science of Second Chances, though measured in its outlook, is still a book with a point of view. Those who share it will find useful guidance and an example of how responsibly to approach debates when both life and death hang in the balance. Even those who don’t entirely agree with Doleac can learn from her clear explanations of what reliable evidence looks like. Here’s hoping that this book sets a new standard for those trying to convince policymakers that fundamental changes to our criminal-justice system are needed.