How Would You Reform One Law to Create a More Just Society?

This system has numerous detrimental consequences:  

• Presumption of Innocence Undermined: Jailing individuals before they have been convicted treats them as guilty until proven innocent, directly contradicting a cornerstone of a fair legal system.
• Exacerbation of Poverty: Losing one's job, housing, and family support while incarcerated pre-trial can push individuals and their families further into poverty, regardless of the case's outcome.
• Coercion into Plea Deals: Individuals facing lengthy pre-trial detention may be pressured to plead guilty to lesser charges, even if they are innocent, simply to secure their release.  
• Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Due to systemic inequalities in wealth accumulation, people of color are disproportionately affected by cash bail, leading to higher rates of pre-trial detention compared to their white counterparts.  
• Increased Likelihood of Conviction and Harsher Sentences: Studies have shown that individuals detained pre-trial are more likely to be convicted and receive harsher sentences than those released on bail, even when controlling for the severity of the charges.  

Proposed Reform: Implementing a Risk-Based Assessment System:

To create a more just system, I propose replacing cash bail with a risk-based assessment system. This system would evaluate an individual's likelihood of appearing in court and their potential risk to public safety based on objective, evidence-based factors, rather than their ability to pay.

Key components of this reformed system would include:

1. Comprehensive Risk Assessment Tools: Utilizing validated actuarial tools that consider factors such as prior criminal history (excluding minor offenses and focusing on violent crimes), pending charges, employment status, community ties (residency, family in the area), and history of court appearances. These tools would generate a risk score indicating the individual's likelihood of flight or danger.
2. Tiered Release Conditions: Based on the risk assessment, individuals would be assigned to different tiers with corresponding release conditions:
   • Low Risk: Released on their own recognizance (promise to appear) or with minimal conditions like check-ins or electronic reminders.
   • Moderate Risk: Released with non-monetary conditions such as regular reporting to a pretrial services officer, electronic monitoring, travel restrictions, or substance abuse treatment.
   • High Risk: Considered for pre-trial detention, but only after a judicial determination that no combination of non-monetary conditions can reasonably ensure court appearance and public safety. This decision would require clear and convincing evidence.
3. Judicial Oversight and Due Process: While risk assessment tools provide valuable information, judicial discretion would remain crucial. Judges would review the risk assessment and consider any additional relevant information presented by the defense and prosecution before making a release decision. Defendants would have the right to legal representation and the opportunity to argue for their release under the least restrictive conditions necessary.
4. Robust Pretrial Services: Expanding and adequately funding pretrial services agencies to supervise released individuals, provide support services (e.g., reminders for court dates, assistance with accessing social services), and monitor compliance with release conditions.
5. Regular System Review and Data Collection: Implementing mechanisms for ongoing review of the risk assessment tools and the overall system to identify and address any biases or unintended consequences. Comprehensive data collection on pre-trial detention rates, court appearance rates, and rearrest rates would be essential for evaluating the effectiveness and fairness of the reformed system.

Reasoning and Examples:

The shift to a risk-based assessment system is grounded in the principle that freedom should not be contingent on wealth. Numerous jurisdictions and even the federal system have successfully implemented or experimented with similar reforms. For example, Washington D.C. largely eliminated cash bail and implemented a risk-based system, resulting in high court appearance rates and low rates of rearrest for violent crimes among those released pre-trial. New Jersey's bail reform efforts have also shown promising results in reducing pre-trial detention without compromising public safety.  

By focusing on objective risk factors rather than financial capacity, this reformed system would:

• Uphold the Presumption of Innocence: Allowing more low-risk individuals to remain free while awaiting trial.
• Reduce Economic Hardship: Preventing unnecessary job loss, housing instability, and family separation caused by pre-trial detention due to poverty.  
• Promote Fairness and Equity: Mitigating the disproportionate impact of cash bail on marginalized communities.  
• Improve Public Safety: Focusing detention resources on individuals who truly pose a significant risk to the community, rather than those who are simply poor.

Reforming the cash bail system to a risk-based assessment model is a crucial step towards creating a more just society where liberty is not determined by financial means but by a fair and evidence-based evaluation of risk.

Arguing Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

If I could argue one case from history, it would undoubtedly be Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). This landmark Supreme Court case, which declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional, represents a pivotal moment in the struggle for civil rights and racial equality in the United States.  

Why This Case is Compelling:

• Moral Imperative: The case directly addressed the deeply ingrained and morally reprehensible system of racial segregation, which denied basic human dignity and equal opportunity to millions of African American children. The inherent injustice of "separate but equal" was finally challenged at the highest legal level.
• Social Transformation: Brown v. Board was not just a legal victory; it served as a catalyst for profound social change. It galvanized the Civil Rights Movement, paving the way for further legislative and social reforms aimed at dismantling segregation in all areas of American life.  
• The Power of Legal Argument: The case showcased the power of legal reasoning, social science evidence, and persuasive advocacy in challenging deeply entrenched discriminatory practices. The arguments presented by the NAACP legal team, led by Thurgood Marshall, were meticulously crafted and ultimately swayed the Supreme Court.
• Enduring Relevance: Despite the legal victory, the legacy of segregation and systemic racism continues to impact American society. Understanding the arguments and the context of Brown v. Board remains crucial for addressing contemporary issues of racial inequality and striving for true equality of opportunity.

My Argument:

If I had been part of the NAACP legal team, my argument would center on the fundamental principle of equal protection under the law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I would emphasize the following points:

1. The Inherent Inequality of Segregation: Building upon the social science evidence presented in the actual case (e.g., the "doll test" demonstrating the psychological harm of segregation on Black children), I would argue that segregation, by its very nature, creates a system of inherent inequality. Separate facilities, regardless of their physical condition, communicate a message of inferiority and marginalization, inflicting psychological and emotional damage on the segregated group. As the Court ultimately stated, "To separate [children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone."  
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: I would argue that access to education is a fundamental right essential for individual development and participation in a democratic society. Denying children equal access to education based on their race violates this fundamental right and perpetuates a cycle of disadvantage.  
3. Undermining Democratic Principles: Segregation undermines the core principles of equality and justice upon which the United States is founded. A system that explicitly classifies and treats citizens differently based on race is antithetical to the ideals of a free and equal society.
4. The Fourteenth Amendment's Intent: I would argue that while the historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment might have been debated, its overarching purpose was to ensure equality before the law for all citizens, particularly newly freed slaves. The "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) fundamentally misinterpreted and undermined this intent by allowing for state-sponsored discrimination.  
5. The Need for a Just and Unified Society: I would conclude by emphasizing the societal benefits of desegregation and integration. Creating a unified educational system where children of all races learn together fosters understanding, empathy, and a more just and equitable society for all.

Broader Significance and Connection to My Interest in Law:

Brown v. Board stands as a powerful testament to the transformative potential of law in addressing deeply entrenched social injustices. It highlights the crucial role of legal advocacy in challenging discriminatory practices and pushing society towards a more just future. My interest in law stems from a belief in its capacity to be a force for positive change. Cases like Brown v. Board inspire me because they demonstrate how thoughtful legal arguments, grounded in principles of equality and justice, can dismantle oppressive systems and create opportunities for marginalized communities. The case underscores the importance of interpreting legal principles in light of evolving social understanding and the need for the law to reflect the fundamental values of equality and human dignity. Studying Brown v. Board reinforces my commitment to using legal knowledge and skills to advocate for fairness, equity, and the protection of fundamental rights for all members of society.