What If Nothing Works? On Crime Licenses, Recidivism, and Quality of Life

­­­­

We accept uncritically the “recidivist premium,” which is the notion that habitual offenders are particularly blameworthy and should be punished harshly. In this Article, I question that assumption and propose a radical alternative. Consider the individual punished repeatedly for hopping subway turnstiles. As convictions accumulate, sentences rise—to weeks and ultimately months in jail. At some point, criminality comes to signal something other than the need for punishment. It signals the presence of need. Perhaps, the recidivist was compelled by economic or social circumstances. Perhaps, he was internally compulsive or cognitively impaired. The precise problem matters less than the fact that there was one. No rational actor of freewill would continue to recidivate in the face of such substantial and increasing sentences. My claim is that, in these circumstances, it would be better to just stop punishing.

To that end, I offer a counterintuitive proposal, which is to provide “crime licenses” to recidivists. But I limit this prescription model to only a collection of quality-of-life offenses, like drug possession, vagrancy, and prostitution. My goals are at once narrow and broad. I present the crime license as a modest opportunity to test bolder concepts like legalization, prison abolition, and defunding police. I situate the provocative proposal within a school of social action called “radical pragmatism,” which teaches that radical structural change is achievable, incrementally. I draw upon successful prescription-based, radical-pragmatic reforms, like international addiction-maintenance clinics, where habitual drug users receive free heroin in safe settings. I endorse “harm reduction,” the governance philosophy that grounds those reforms. And I imagine our system reoriented around harm reduction, with crime licenses as one pragmatic, experimental step in that direction.

Introduction

Speaking on the subject of prison-based rehabilitation, the influential sociologist, Robert Martinson, famously proclaimed that “nothing works.”1.Robert Martinson, What Works?—Questions and Answers About Prison Reform, Nat’l Affs., Spring 1974, at 22, 48.Show More Martinson would eventually take a rosier view.2.Robert Martinson, New Findings, New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform, 7 Hofstra L. Rev. 243, 244 (1979).Show More But the slogan took on a life of its own. Over the past half century, the mantra that “nothing works” has served as something of an indictment of the entire enterprise of rehabilitation and most other innovative attempts to reshape the criminal-legal system.3.Franklin E. Zimring, The Great American Crime Decline 28, 192–93 (2007) (“Dr. Martinson’s message, ‘Nothing Works,’ became not simply a description of the impacts of correctional programming but a default characterization of most governmental efforts to cope with the crime problem.”).Show More

I am not so sure that Martinson was wrong, however. Or, rather, he might have been right in a wholly unappreciated way. Consider the proclamation that nothing works. My claim is not that no reform works, but that there is a particular form of negative reform—simply put, doing nothing—that might work surprisingly well. At least in some contexts, a viable first step forward could be for the criminal-legal system to just stop—to stand down, to do nothing, to let go. And, controversially, doing nothing could work best for the very offenders our criminal-legal system currently hits hardest—longtime recidivists.

My claim, here, is contingent and almost wholly unproven. I do not mean to announce authoritatively: Doing nothing works! To the contrary, I merely pose the question of whether doing nothing could work—and when, why, and for whom.4.Infra Parts III–IV.Show More More to the point, I provide moral and prudential reasons to doubt our prevailing premises about the “recidivist premium,”5.Infra Part III; see, e.g., George P. Fletcher, The Recidivist Premium, 1 Crim. Just. Ethics 54, 55 (1982) (using the term “recidivist premium” to describe the sentencing enhancement for repeat offenders); see also Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in the Age of Broken Windows 159–62 (2019) (using the term “additive imperative” for the same concept).Show More and I offer ideas to test my hypothesis naturally.6.Infra Part IV.Show More Concretely, I propose crime licenses—prescriptions for longtime offenders to engage in conduct otherwise criminally proscribed.7.Infra Part IV.Show More But I limit my analysis and proposal to one set of crimes only—low-level, quality-of-life offenses, including recreational drug possession and use, panhandling, vagrancy, subway turnstile hopping, unlicensed vending, and prostitution.8.Infra Part I.Show More In sum, my novel contribution is the counterintuitive claim that we could all be made better by immunizing some recidivists against arrest, prosecution, and punishment—and, perhaps more surprisingly, that the circumstances under which crime licenses are likeliest to work are somewhat obvious and predictable.9.To my knowledge, only one scholar has argued for anything even analogous to the immediate proposal. In a forthcoming article, Christopher Lewis pushes for a recidivist sentencing discount, based on prevailing inequities and criminogenic social conditions. Christopher Lewis, The Paradox of Recidivism, 70 Emory L.J. (forthcoming 2021). To a degree, Lewis’s article and my own are compatible, and we have traded drafts. In the places where our ideas overlap, I cite him accordingly. Our reasoning is often different. And I go substantially further than him in advocating for categorical immunity to commit certain crimes. More importantly, we adopt different conceptual frames for our respective claims, though we both briefly draw on the reasoning of the “capabilities approach.” Infra notes 254–66 and accompanying text. But I build my reforms principally around theories of harm reduction and radical pragmatism, upon which Lewis does not rely. Finally, my analysis is limited to the special context of quality-of-life enforcement and adjudication, whereas Lewis is concerned principally with felony convictions and traditional sentences of imprisonment.Show More

* * *

Quality-of-life offenses typically involve malum prohibitum (or, at most, relatively trivial and largely victimless malum in se) conduct over which reasonable minds disagree already.10 10.See Josh Bowers & Paul H. Robinson, Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: The Shared Aims and Occasional Conflicts of Legitimacy and Moral Credibility, 47 Wake Forest L. Rev. 211, 279–80 & n.318 (2012) (discussing disagreement over the blameworthiness of malum prohibitum conduct); Josh Bowers, Legal Guilt, Normative Innocence, and the Equitable Decision Not to Prosecute, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1655, 1666–67 n.44 (2010) (discussing offenses that “lack inherent blameworthiness” and noting that “a community is more likely to demand criminal condemnation for a given killer than a given graffiti artist, prostitute, drug possessor, turnstile hopper, or public urinator”); infra note 352 and accompanying text (discussing shifting conceptions of disorder).Show More Plausible policy perspectives range from legalization or decriminalization to heavy-handed enforcement. And, at least with respect to marijuana policy, current approaches span the spectrum—not only across jurisdictions but also sometimes within a given jurisdiction longitudinally. New York City, for instance, has observed such a shift. During the Giuliani and first Bloomberg mayoral administrations, authorities concentrated enforcement energies on the localized practice of full-custodial arrest for marijuana offenses.11 11.Infra notes 56–60 and accompanying text (discussing “broken windows” policing).Show More But, over the past few years, the city has almost abandoned its reliance on arrest (at least for simple possession of marijuana).12 12.Infra note 136 and accompanying text.Show More And, of course, as of this writing, several jurisdictions have legalized recreational marijuana altogether.13 13.See, e.g., infra notes 309–14 and accompanying text (discussing marijuana reform).Show More With respect to a borderline offense like marijuana possession, a licensing regime could serve as a pilot program, enabling a jurisdiction to test run decriminalization, without adopting the policy categorically.

It might seem strange to decriminalize criminal conduct for a finite population only—particularly for only the most noncompliant offenders. But it is not so farfetched. There are even existing models to which we could look for guidance. At the beginning of the twentieth century, American municipalities established addiction-maintenance clinics, where doctors were authorized to prescribe opiates to recreational drug users in safe settings.14 14.Josh Bowers & Daniel Abrahamson, Kicking the Habit: The Opioid Crisis, America’s Addiction to Punitive Prohibition, and the Promise of Free Heroin, 80 Ohio St. L.J. 787, 794–95 (2019) (discussing historical addiction-maintenance programs).Show More Indeed, the medical community considered this palliative approach to be the standard of care—at least once other interventions failed. The operating philosophy was harm reduction, not law enforcement.15 15.Infra notes 210–12 and accompanying text (describing harm reduction).Show More And, though the existing data are limited, it seemed to have worked well until it was abandoned in favor of a criminal war on drugs.16 16.Infra notes 315–17 and accompanying text.Show More

More to the point, internationally, a number of cities and countries have updated the addiction-maintenance model. In Vancouver, Canada, and throughout Switzerland and Portugal, government-run clinics provide patients with free, uncontaminated, and comparatively safe narcotics for use in sterile, medically supervised facilities.17 17.Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 797–804.Show More The data-keeping is robust, and the results are remarkable.18 18.Id.Show More Communities have enjoyed an uptick in quality of life in neighborhoods where illegal drug markets formerly flourished.19 19.Id. at 804.Show More Overdose deaths have dropped dramatically.20 20.Id. at 801.Show More And drug-dependent individuals have more readily managed to remain socially integrated—less affected by the most destructive aspects of not only drug abuse but also the criminal-legal war against it.21 21.Id. at 805.Show More

There is nothing obviously exceptional about drug policy. Just as the contemporary American drug war is counterproductive and even criminogenic, so too other forms of “punitive prohibition” are counterproductive and criminogenic.22 22.Infra note 141 and accompanying text (discussing criminogenic consequences of quality-of-life policing and adjudication). See Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine, Punitive Prohibition in America, in Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice 321–33 (Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine eds., 1997).Show More Isolation and othering produce antisocial behavior. And blame and shame produce isolation and othering. A prescription model, by contrast, holds promise as a problem-solving approach—as problem-solving crime, if you will. The starting point is an understanding that “what we did before simply was not working.”23 23.James L. Nolan, Jr., Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement 106 (2001).Show More The means are grassroots political action, self-help, and a tolerance for offending. And the primary end is harm reduction.

* * *

Normative and instrumental concerns remain, of course. On the one side, there are the conventional law-and-order objections. Why give crime licenses to the very offenders who violate law most frequently—to the purportedly unmanageable recidivists who are (perceived to be) most deserving of punishment? Would crime licenses, in turn, engender resentment and resistance from law-abiding laypeople? Could crime licenses cause popular confusion about the legality of conduct? And what of moral hazard?24 24.Infra notes 391–405 and accompanying text (responding to objections).Show More Take the last objection, for instance. Arguably, habitual offenders would have strong and perverse incentives to commit more crimes to earn crime licenses. But there are ways, as I detail, for regulators to design a particular crime license such that recipients remain unaware of it.25 25.Infra notes 412–18 and accompanying text (discussing “acoustic separation” and crime licenses).Show More In any event, the concern could be addressed adequately simply by setting licensing prices high enough. At the right price, no rational offenders would calculate the benefit of a crime license to outweigh the punishment costs—the cumulative lifetime penalty—that must be prepaid to receive it.26 26.Infra notes 393–94 and accompanying text (discussing price setting).Show More

Consider, for instance, the seed of this project—a case from my former career as a public defender in Bronx County, New York. I had a client who had amassed well over thirty prior misdemeanor convictions for subway turnstile hopping (or “theft of services”). Theft of services is an A-level misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail.27 27.N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15(3) (McKinney 2018).Show More However, offenders rarely face much, if any, time. Initial offenses tend to result in noncriminal dispositions. Subsequent offenses lead to misdemeanor convictions and days or, at most, weeks in jail. The longest sentences—months behind bars—are reserved for those few offenders, like my client, who do not (or cannot) stop. This is the “recidivist premium” in action. Escalation is the rule.

For my client, this translated to a plea offer of nine months. After pushing unsuccessfully for less, I quipped in frustration: “We would all be better off if the city would just give my client a lifetime transit pass.” It was a joke. But it was also true. My client and his community would have been better off, and the system and society would have been better off. Deterrence had not worked. Incapacitation had cost the city tens of thousands of dollars and had imposed serious social consequences. And, unsurprisingly, the city’s infamously harsh jails had failed to do anything to rehabilitate him.28 28.See, e.g., Torture Island’s Final Sentence: Rikers, One of America’s Most Notorious Jails, is to Close, Economist (Oct. 26, 2019), https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/10/26/rikers-one-of-americas-most-notorious-jails-is-to-close [https://perma.cc/PAR8-S84X] (describing conditions at New York City’s “most notorious jail”). See generally Daniel S. Nagin, Francis T. Cullen & Cheryl Lero Jonson, Imprisonment & Reoffending, 38 Crime & Just. 115, 116, 121 (2009) (discussing criminogenic effects of incarceration); Don Stemen, The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer, Vera Inst. Just. 2–3 (July 2017) (same); Benjamin Ewing, Prior Convictions as Moral Opportunities, 46 Am. J. Crim. L. 283, 330 (2019) (same).Show More More to the point, in order to rehabilitate my client, the system would have had to reckon with what was wrong and how to fix it. The retributive assumptions of the recidivist premium dictate that my client was a willing scofflaw or worse—that he was on notice of what the law forbade, and still he persisted.29 29.Infra notes 124–34 and accompanying text (discussing rationales for the recidivist premium).Show More He needed to be taught a lesson, and it was his responsibility to learn from it. But recidivism does not inexorably screen for blameworthiness. At a certain point, it screens for the precise opposite.30 30.Infra notes 228–31 and accompanying text (discussing recidivism as a screen for socioeconomic deprivation or internal compulsion or irrationality).Show More

Why had legal coercion—in the form of increasingly punitive carceral sticks—failed to cow my client? The least plausible explanation is human agency and corresponding poor choice—that my client elected freely to break the rules. Likelier, he suffered from a pressing constraint on his will—some form of internal compulsion or situational duress. Why was his “crime-resistance capital” so low?31 31.Louis Michael Seidman, Entrapment and the “Free Market” for Crime, in Criminal Law Conversations 493, 499–500 (Paul H. Robinson, Stephen P. Garvey & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan eds., 2009); see also infra notes 222–27 and accompanying text (discussing luck, freewill, and the “American Dream”).Show More Why did he shell out so much (repeated and ever-longer stints in jail) for seemingly so little (free transit rides)? Simply put, at a certain point (reached long before he became my client), his crimes stopped paying. And that is precisely the point. Logically, his particular course of recidivism screened optimally for a crime license.32 32.See infra notes 374–90 and accompanying text (discussing optimal screening).Show More It demonstrated the ineffectiveness and injustice of his personal cycle of crime, capture, and escalating punishment.

To be sure, an optimal screen is not a perfect screen. Even a well-designed crime license would leave room for some games-playing at the margins. But “Blackstone’s Ratio” teaches us that a just system abhors inappropriate penalties more than unwarranted windfalls.33 33.Infra notes 407–10 and accompanying text (discussing “Blackstone’s Ratio” and unwarranted windfalls).Show More And this concern with inappropriate punishment is of particular relevance in the context of quality-of-life policing. Much of the work of many modern police departments consists of state attempts to use stops and arrests for low-level offenses to maintain public order and exert social control over predominately poor and minority populations.34 34.See, e.g., Josh Bowers, Punishing the Innocent, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1117, 1119, 1122 (2008) (observing that most criminal court cases are petty nonfelony cases); Alec Karakatsanis, Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System 39, 59 (2019) (noting that nationally more people are arrested for marijuana offenses than all violent crimes combined); Malcolm M. Feeley, The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court 40–42 tbl.2.1 (1979) (describing study of Connecticut criminal court in which 58% of cases were “crimes against public morality” or “crimes against public order”).Show More These groups disproportionately shoulder the significant costs and very real dangers of inequitable and coercive policies and practices.35 35.Infra notes 99–109 and accompanying text; Paul Heaton, Sandra Mayson & Megan Stevenson, The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention, 69 Stan. L. Rev. 711 (2017) (discussing disparate impact and “downstream consequences” of quality-of-life policing, prosecution, and punishment).Show More It is no coincidence that so many infamous police killings started with efforts to combat perceived low-level disorder and rule-breaking. Officers suspected Eric Garner of selling loose cigarettes without a tax stamp and George Floyd of passing a counterfeit bill.36 36.See Al Baker, J. David Goodman & Benjamin Mueller, Beyond the Chokehold: The Path to Eric Garner’s Death, N.Y. Times (June 13, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/‌nyregion/eric-garner-police-chokehold-staten-island.html [https://perma.cc/6A7S-TRT2] (“This was not a chance meeting on the street. It was a product of a police strategy to crack down on the sort of disorder that, to the police, Mr. Garner represented.”); see also Josh Bowers, Annoy No Cop, 166 U. Pa. L. Rev. 129, 210–11 (2017) (discussing the death of Eric Garner); Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2071 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.”).Show More These are the stakes of petty-crime enforcement.

But these tragic incidents (and our current cultural moment) raise the contrary objection that my crime-license proposal would be piddling—too little, too late. I am sensitive to the worry. Today, we find ourselves in a moment of movement, with growing consciousness and even modest enthusiasm for radical ideas, like “defunding police” and “abolishing prisons.”37 37.See Dorothy E. Roberts, The Supreme Court, 2018 Term—Foreword: Abolition Constitutionalism, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7–8 (2019); Paul Butler, Abolition Is Better Than Reform, and It Is Not Dangerous (Aug. 4, 2020) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author); Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 83 (endorsing “abolition of the police, closing jails and prisons, reparations, new paradigms of restorative justice, and broader economic divestment from punishment”).Show More So, why am I shying away from big steps now? I am on the record, almost a decade ago, calling for the wholesale decriminalization of malum prohibitum conduct.38 38.Bowers & Robinson, supra note 10, at 279–80 n.318; see also Alexandra Natapoff, Misdemeanor Decriminalization, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1055, 1058 (2015) (overviewing rationales for the decriminalization of misdemeanors).Show More Why not argue for at least as much here? Why settle for the incremental approach? The answer is that it is easy enough to get on a soapbox and demand sweeping structural reform when there is little hope of it happening. But, especially in times like these, when the doors of opportunity pry open, the need grows to lay the appropriate groundwork—to determine what works and what does not and to push to persuade the unpersuaded-but-persuadable.39 39.See Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1385–86 (1988) (“[U]ntil whites recognize the hegemonic function of racism and turn their efforts toward neutralizing it, African-American people must develop pragmatic political strategies. . . . It is a struggle to create a new status quo through the ideological and political tools that are available . . . maneuvering within and expanding the dominant ideology to embrace the potential for change.”); see also Richard Delgado, The Ethereal Scholar: Does Critical Legal Studies Have What Minorities Want?, 22 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 301, 307 (1987) (arguing that structural change is sometimes best achieved incrementally and that “[t]he CLS critique of piecemeal reform is familiar, imperialistic and wrong”).Show More Pragmatism counsels a measure of caution.40 40.Infra notes 157–64 and accompanying text (discussing classical and radical pragmatism); see also Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel, A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 267, 284 (1998) (discussing experimentalism as a means for the “incremental realization” of social goals).Show More Social movements depend upon political will, and political will is shaped by proof of success.41 41.Infra notes 432–40 and accompanying text (discussing pragmatic efforts to build political support).Show More

But there is likewise a danger of missing the moment. So, small steps must be taken deliberately, with an appropriate focus on radical change. Roberto Mangabeira Unger sketched an attractive frame for this approach to social action, which he labeled “radical pragmatism”—a style of “political experimentalism” or “existential bootstrapping” that consists of “using the smaller variations that are at hand to produce the bigger variations that do not yet exist.”42 42.Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound 8, 43 (2007).Show More According to Unger, “it is about changing the context of established arrangement and assumed belief, little by little and step by step, as we go about our business.”43 43.Id. at 43; see also Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement 110 (1986) (discussing “opportunities for experimental revisions of social life in the direction of the ideals we defend,” pursued “piecemeal rather than only all at once”).Show More He distinguished this form of incrementalism from the incrementalism characteristic of classical American pragmatism—a “shrunken pragmatism” that, per Unger, too often leads only to “standing and waiting” and “singing in our chains.”44 44.Unger, supra note 42, at 1, 6.Show More Instead, the aim is to keep the radical objective always in sight while relying upon “piecemeal, experimental revision” to “shorten the distance” to structural reformation and to define more sharply the appropriate contours of the radical agenda and reformation.45 45.Id. at 7 (“[O]ur societies and cultures may be so arranged as to facilitate and to organize their own piecemeal, experimental revision. We then shorten the distance between routine moves within a framework and exceptional moves about the framework.”).Show More In a nutshell:

Society and culture may be so arranged as either to extend or to narrow the distance . . . . Our interest is to narrow this distance . . . . [T]he primary mode of transformative politics is radical reform, the piecemeal transformation of the structure that may nevertheless become radical in outcome if cumulatively pursued under a certain conception . . . . [W]hat this goal entails is a high-energy democracy—a democracy that raises the temperature and hastens the pace of politics and that multiplies occasions for the creation of counter models of the future in different localities and sectors.46 46.RSA, Freedom, Equality, and a Future Political Economy, YouTube (Dec. 11, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CBW3aFvxVs&ab [https://perma.cc/2DBE-ZV3G] (emphasis added) (beginning at 4:36 and continuing at 5:02, 8:37, and 16:37).Show More

Today, we have just such a “high-energy democracy,” but we do not quite know what to do with it.47 47.Id. at 16:37.Show More We do not know precisely what we want. There is no generally accepted understanding of what it means to, say, defund the police or abolish prisons.48 48.See Butler, supra note 37, at 20 (“[A]bolition remains under-theorized, including on the important question of precisely what it is that its advocates want to abolish . . . . And what will the police do, if ‘locking people up’ is no longer part of their job description?”); Roberts, supra note 37, at 6 (“It is hard to pin down what prison abolition means.”).Show More Radical activists and sympathetic academics offer a range of prescriptions, often rooted in notions of harm reduction or adjacent theories.49 49.See, e.g., Allegra M. McLeod, Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156, 1156 (2015) (arguing in favor of “gradual decarceration”); Butler, supra note 37, at 20–21 (distinguishing between different conceptions of abolition and different types of abolitionists, including “justice abolitionists” and “instrumental abolitionists”); Roberts, supra note 37, at 7–8 (noting that abolition is premised upon the notion that “we can imagine and build a more humane and democratic society that no longer relies on caging people to meet human needs and solve social problems”); Allegra McLeod, Envisioning Abolition Democracy, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1613, 1615 (2019) (“Justice for abolitionists is an integrated endeavor to prevent harm, intervene in harm, obtain reparations, and transform the conditions in which we live.”).Show More Short of categorically closing down institutions, dismantling police forces, or entirely stripping department budgets, these movements need test cases to determine, in the offing, what is practical and appropriate. This is hard work. But, consistent with the virtues of federalism, we may experiment with the “creation of counter models of the future in different localities and sectors” in efforts to discern the shape of ideas in practice.50 50.RSA, supra note 46, at 16:48; see also Patrick Sharkey, Why Do We Need the Police?, Wash. Post (June 12, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/12/defund-police-violent-crime/ [https://perma.cc/6UMK-NLBH] (proposing “a demonstration project that is both more cautious and more radical than the call to defund the police,” and demanding “rigorous testing” of the pilot program); infra notes 419–27 and accompanying text (discussing radical experimentation, localism, and the virtues of federalism).Show More

In this vein, my proposal for crime licenses is akin to the now-defunct Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (“CHAZ”) in Seattle, Washington. The CHAZ was a grassroots experiment in eliminating police from a particular geographic area; my proposal would be an experiment in eliminating enforcement against a particular population. At the time I initially drafted this Article, the future of the CHAZ remained unclear. I predicted that the collective would likely collapse under its own anarchic weight.51 51.And it arguably did. After a series of shootings, the mayor issued a dispersal order and the police moved in. Brendan Kiley, Ryan Blethen, Sydney Brownstone & Daniel Beekman, Seattle Police Clear CHOP Protest Zone, Seattle Times (July 1, 2020), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-police-clearing-chop-protest-zone/ [https://perma.cc/5P8P-UW4R]. We can debate whether law enforcement intervention constitutes a collapse or dismantlement. In any event, the CHAZ had its problems and is now no more.Show More But, even so, I noted that we could learn from the effort. The alternative, I suggested, was that the CHAZ might thrive and reveal a viable, unorthodox social order. Obviously, that did not happen. But, even so, I imagine that some former participants still perceive the experiment as other than a total failure—that they experienced moments of beauty where others saw only disorder and violence. This is the nature (and virtue) of experimentation. We take risks and then track and learn from substantive and tactical missteps and successes. We anticipate what we can; we prepare for pitfalls; we wish for the best; and we debate, democratically, about our means, ends, and results.52 52.Infra notes 196–204 and accompanying text (discussing radical pragmatism).Show More

This is not to say that anything goes—just that the radical pragmatist need only formulate a hypothesis, develop plausible means to test it, and establish criteria to evaluate progress toward the preestablished revolutionary goal. For this project, the hypothesis is that sometimes the best first step to promote a healthy social order is to stop ordering people around. The means are to transition resources and authority (somewhat) from law enforcement to social services. And the goal is to replace (to the extent possible) entrenched structures of hierarchy with a commitment to individual and collective wellbeing.53 53.Sharkey, supra note 50 (“The idea that residents and local organizations can play a central role in creating safe and strong communities is not new, and it is not particularly controversial. And yet we have never made the same commitment to these groups that we make to law enforcement . . . . We have models available, but we’ve made commitments only to the police and the prison system.”).Show More It would be a mistake, of course, to stop with crime licenses, autonomous zones, or anything else. All such proposals are, at best, fragments of a mosaic—piecemeal reforms designed to close the gap between here and there. Thus, the Movement for Black Lives has not only deemphasized policing but also highlighted the significance of social work.54 54.Phillipe Copeland, Let’s Get Free: Social Work and the Movement for Black Lives, 5 J. Forensic Soc. Work 3 (2016).Show More A holistic methodology demands negation and addition—a pull back from criminal legalism and a commitment to alternative harm-reduction measures.55 55.Infra Sections III.C–D.Show More On this reading, a prescription model would constitute only a part of a broader social movement, consisting of much more than tolerance for rule breaking. In fact, a holistic reform agenda would lay bare an ugly truth about the prevailing paradigm’s relationship to the very idea of tolerance: it is punitive prohibition that is the too-tolerant regime—too tolerant of fractured lives and fractured communities, of food and housing insecurity, of employment and education inequities, of economic and racial subordination. Ours is a system that tolerates all but tolerance for those who offend the status quo.

* * *

This Article proceeds in four parts. In Part I, I examine “broken windows” policing theory and its entrenched assumptions about supposedly appropriate or preordained meanings of disorder and quality of life. I discuss the manner by which legal officials, in fact, use crime-making and discretion to settle upon and coercively impose subjective conceptions of these contested concepts. I then trace New York City’s recent history with broken windows policing. I look to the city’s experience because it is a paradigmatic example of quality-of-life policing in practice and, more to the point, because data are there. In Part II, I situate quality-of-life policing within the dominant landscape of crime-control governance. And I explain what it means to be a recidivist within that archetype. In Part III, I sketch alternative modes of social organization, oriented principally around harm reduction and related ideas, like forgiveness, human capabilities, autonomy, public health, social solidarity, and human flourishing. I survey positive examples of radical-pragmatic experiments—particularly international and domestic drug reforms. And I compare the results with conventional criminal-legal approaches. In Part IV, I examine the parameters of a defensible crime license. And I outline three potentially effective designs. I then return to New York City to discuss a grassroots radical-pragmatic experiment already underway. Finally, in the conclusion, I visit the question of whether the upheavals of our current historical moment have made radical-pragmatic structural reform more or less viable.

 

  1. * F.D.G. Ribble Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law. Many thanks to Rebecca Rubin for her exceptional research assistance. Thanks also to Dan Abrahamson, Charles Barzun, Naomi Cahn, Anne Coughlin, Josh Fischman, Kim Forde-Mazrui, Thomas Frampton, Mike Gilbert, Andrew Hayashi, Rich Hynes, Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Adi Leibovitch, Christopher Lewis, Gabe Mendlow, Fred Schauer, Micah Schwartzman, Jeff Sovern, and Ekow Yankah. I received constructive comments and questions at the University of Virginia Faculty Workshop Series, the Law & Society Annual Meeting, the University of Virginia Summer Workshop Series, and the St. John’s University Faculty Workshop Series.

  2. Robert Martinson, What Works?—Questions and Answers About Prison Reform, Nat’l Affs., Spring 1974, at 22, 48.

  3. Robert Martinson, New Findings, New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform, 7 Hofstra L. Rev. 243, 244 (1979).

  4. Franklin E. Zimring, The Great American Crime Decline 28, 192–93 (2007) (“Dr. Martinson’s message, ‘Nothing Works,’ became not simply a description of the impacts of correctional programming but a default characterization of most governmental efforts to cope with the crime problem.”).

  5. Infra Parts III–IV.

  6. Infra Part III; see, e.g., George P. Fletcher, The Recidivist Premium, 1 Crim. Just. Ethics 54, 55 (1982) (using the term “recidivist premium” to describe the sentencing enhancement for repeat offenders); see also Issa Kohler-Hausmann, Misdemeanorland: Criminal Courts and Social Control in the Age of Broken Windows 159–62 (2019) (using the term “additive imperative” for the same concept).

  7. Infra Part IV.

  8. Infra Part IV.

  9. Infra Part I.

  10. To my knowledge, only one scholar has argued for anything even analogous to the immediate proposal. In a forthcoming article, Christopher Lewis pushes for a recidivist sentencing discount, based on prevailing inequities and criminogenic social conditions. Christopher Lewis, The Paradox of Recidivism, 70 Emory L.J. (forthcoming 2021). To a degree, Lewis’s article and my own are compatible, and we have traded drafts. In the places where our ideas overlap, I cite him accordingly. Our reasoning is often different. And I go substantially further than him in advocating for categorical immunity to commit certain crimes. More importantly, we adopt different conceptual frames for our respective claims, though we both briefly draw on the reasoning of the “capabilities approach.” Infra notes 254–66 and accompanying text. But I build my reforms principally around theories of harm reduction and radical pragmatism, upon which Lewis does not rely. Finally, my analysis is limited to the special context of quality-of-life enforcement and adjudication, whereas Lewis is concerned principally with felony convictions and traditional sentences of imprisonment.

  11. See Josh Bowers & Paul H. Robinson, Perceptions of Fairness and Justice: The Shared Aims and Occasional Conflicts of Legitimacy and Moral Credibility, 47 Wake Forest L. Rev. 211, 279–80 & n.318 (2012) (discussing disagreement over the blameworthiness of malum prohibitum conduct); Josh Bowers, Legal Guilt, Normative Innocence, and the Equitable Decision Not to Prosecute, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1655, 1666–67 n.44 (2010) (discussing offenses that “lack inherent blameworthiness” and noting that “a community is more likely to demand criminal condemnation for a given killer than a given graffiti artist, prostitute, drug possessor, turnstile hopper, or public urinator”); infra note 352 and accompanying text (discussing shifting conceptions of disorder).

  12. Infra notes 56–60 and accompanying text (discussing “broken windows” policing).

  13. Infra note 136 and accompanying text.

  14. See, e.g., infra notes 309–14 and accompanying text (discussing marijuana reform).

  15. Josh Bowers & Daniel Abrahamson, Kicking the Habit: The Opioid Crisis, America’s Addiction to Punitive Prohibition, and the Promise of Free Heroin, 80 Ohio St. L.J. 787, 794–95 (2019) (discussing historical addiction-maintenance programs).

  16. Infra notes 210–12 and accompanying text (describing harm reduction).

  17. Infra notes 315–17 and accompanying text.

  18. Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 797–804.

  19. Id.

  20. Id. at 804.

  21. Id. at 801.

  22. Id. at 805.

  23. Infra note 141 and accompanying text (discussing criminogenic consequences of quality-of-life policing and adjudication). See Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine, Punitive Prohibition in America, in Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice 321–33 (Craig Reinarman & Harry G. Levine eds., 1997).

  24. James L. Nolan, Jr., Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement 106 (2001).

  25. Infra notes 391–405 and accompanying text (responding to objections).

  26. Infra notes 412–18 and accompanying text (discussing “acoustic separation” and crime licenses).

  27. Infra notes 393–94 and accompanying text (discussing price setting).

  28. N.Y. Penal Law § 165.15(3) (McKinney 2018).

  29. See, e.g., Torture Island’s Final Sentence: Rikers, One of America’s Most Notorious Jails, is to Close, Economist (Oct. 26, 2019), https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/10/26/rikers-one-of-americas-most-notorious-jails-is-to-close [https://perma.cc/PAR8-S84X] (describing conditions at New York City’s “most notorious jail”). See generally Daniel S. Nagin, Francis T. Cullen & Cheryl Lero Jonson, Imprisonment & Reoffending, 38 Crime & Just. 115, 116, 121 (2009) (discussing criminogenic effects of incarceration); Don Stemen, The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer, Vera Inst. Just. 2–3 (July 2017) (same); Benjamin Ewing, Prior Convictions as Moral Opportunities, 46 Am. J. Crim. L. 283, 330 (2019) (same).

  30. Infra notes 124–34 and accompanying text (discussing rationales for the recidivist premium).

  31. Infra notes 228–31 and accompanying text (discussing recidivism as a screen for socioeconomic deprivation or internal compulsion or irrationality).

  32. Louis Michael Seidman, Entrapment and the “Free Market” for Crime, in Criminal Law Conversations 493, 499–500 (Paul H. Robinson, Stephen P. Garvey & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan eds., 2009); see also infra notes 222–27 and accompanying text (discussing luck, freewill, and the “American Dream”).

  33. See infra notes 374–90 and accompanying text (discussing optimal screening).

  34. Infra notes 407–10 and accompanying text (discussing “Blackstone’s Ratio” and unwarranted windfalls).

  35. See, e.g., Josh Bowers, Punishing the Innocent, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1117, 1119, 1122 (2008) (observing that most criminal court cases are petty nonfelony cases); Alec Karakatsanis, Usual Cruelty: The Complicity of Lawyers in the Criminal Injustice System 39, 59 (2019) (noting that nationally more people are arrested for marijuana offenses than all violent crimes combined); Malcolm M. Feeley, The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court 40–42 tbl.2.1 (1979) (describing study of Connecticut criminal court in which 58% of cases were “crimes against public morality” or “crimes against public order”).

  36. Infra notes 99–109 and accompanying text; Paul Heaton, Sandra Mayson & Megan Stevenson, The Downstream Consequences of Misdemeanor Pretrial Detention, 69 Stan. L. Rev. 711 (2017) (discussing disparate impact and “downstream consequences” of quality-of-life policing, prosecution, and punishment).

  37. See Al Baker, J. David Goodman & Benjamin Mueller, Beyond the Chokehold: The Path to Eric Garner’s Death, N.Y. Times (June 13, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/‌nyregion/eric-garner-police-chokehold-staten-island.html [https://perma.cc/6A7S-TRT2] (“This was not a chance meeting on the street. It was a product of a police strategy to crack down on the sort of disorder that, to the police, Mr. Garner represented.”); see also Josh Bowers, Annoy No Cop, 166 U. Pa. L. Rev. 129, 210–11 (2017) (discussing the death of Eric Garner); Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056, 2071 (2016) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“They are the canaries in the coal mine whose deaths, civil and literal, warn us that no one can breathe in this atmosphere.”).

  38. See Dorothy E. Roberts, The Supreme Court, 2018 Term—Foreword: Abolition Constitutionalism, 133 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7–8 (2019); Paul Butler, Abolition Is Better Than Reform, and It Is Not Dangerous (Aug. 4, 2020) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author); Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 83 (endorsing “abolition of the police, closing jails and prisons, reparations, new paradigms of restorative justice, and broader economic divestment from punishment”).

  39. Bowers & Robinson, supra note 10, at 279–80 n.318; see also Alexandra Natapoff, Misdemeanor Decriminalization, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1055, 1058 (2015) (overviewing rationales for the decriminalization of misdemeanors).

  40. See Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law, 101 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1385–86 (1988) (“[U]ntil whites recognize the hegemonic function of racism and turn their efforts toward neutralizing it, African-American people must develop pragmatic political strategies. . . . It is a struggle to create a new status quo through the ideological and political tools that are available . . . maneuvering within and expanding the dominant ideology to embrace the potential for change.”); see also Richard Delgado, The Ethereal Scholar: Does Critical Legal Studies Have What Minorities Want?, 22 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 301, 307 (1987) (arguing that structural change is sometimes best achieved incrementally and that “[t]he CLS critique of piecemeal reform is familiar, imperialistic and wrong”).

  41. Infra notes 157–64 and accompanying text (discussing classical and radical pragmatism); see also Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel, A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 267, 284 (1998) (discussing experimentalism as a means for the “incremental realization” of social goals).

  42. Infra notes 432–40 and accompanying text (discussing pragmatic efforts to build political support).

  43. Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound 8, 43 (2007).

  44. Id. at 43; see also Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Critical Legal Studies Movement 110 (1986) (discussing “opportunities for experimental revisions of social life in the direction of the ideals we defend,” pursued “piecemeal rather than only all at once”).

  45. Unger, supra note 42, at 1, 6.

  46. Id. at 7 (“[O]ur societies and cultures may be so arranged as to facilitate and to organize their own piecemeal, experimental revision. We then shorten the distance between routine moves within a framework and exceptional moves about the framework.”).

  47. RSA, Freedom, Equality, and a Future Political Economy, YouTube (Dec. 11, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CBW3aFvxVs&ab [https://perma.cc/2DBE-ZV3G] (emphasis added) (beginning at 4:36 and continuing at 5:02, 8:37, and 16:37).

  48. Id. at 16:37.

  49. See Butler, supra note 37, at 20 (“[A]bolition remains under-theorized, including on the important question of precisely what it is that its advocates want to abolish . . . . And what will the police do, if ‘locking people up’ is no longer part of their job description?”); Roberts, supra note 37, at 6 (“It is hard to pin down what prison abolition means.”).

  50. See, e.g., Allegra M. McLeod, Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice, 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156, 1156 (2015) (arguing in favor of “gradual decarceration”); Butler, supra note 37, at 20–21 (distinguishing between different conceptions of abolition and different types of abolitionists, including “justice abolitionists” and “instrumental abolitionists”); Roberts, supra note 37, at 7–8 (noting that abolition is premised upon the notion that “we can imagine and build a more humane and democratic society that no longer relies on caging people to meet human needs and solve social problems”); Allegra McLeod, Envisioning Abolition Democracy, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1613, 1615 (2019) (“Justice for abolitionists is an integrated endeavor to prevent harm, intervene in harm, obtain reparations, and transform the conditions in which we live.”).

  51. RSA, supra note 46, at 16:48; see also Patrick Sharkey, Why Do We Need the Police?, Wash. Post (June 12, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/12/defund-police-violent-crime/ [https://perma.cc/6UMK-NLBH] (proposing “a demonstration project that is both more cautious and more radical than the call to defund the police,” and demanding “rigorous testing” of the pilot program); infra notes 419–27 and accompanying text (discussing radical experimentation, localism, and the virtues of federalism).

  52. And it arguably did. After a series of shootings, the mayor issued a dispersal order and the police moved in. Brendan Kiley, Ryan Blethen, Sydney Brownstone & Daniel Beekman, Seattle Police Clear CHOP Protest Zone, Seattle Times (July 1, 2020), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-police-clearing-chop-protest-zone/ [https://perma.cc/5P8P-UW4R]. We can debate whether law enforcement intervention constitutes a collapse or dismantlement. In any event, the CHAZ had its problems and is now no more.

  53. Infra notes 196–204 and accompanying text (discussing radical pragmatism).

  54. Sharkey, supra note 50 (“The idea that residents and local organizations can play a central role in creating safe and strong communities is not new, and it is not particularly controversial. And yet we have never made the same commitment to these groups that we make to law enforcement . . . . We have models available, but we’ve made commitments only to the police and the prison system.”).

  55. Phillipe Copeland, Let’s Get Free: Social Work and the Movement for Black Lives, 5 J. Forensic Soc. Work 3 (2016).

  56. Infra Sections III.C–D.

  57. James Q. Wilson & George L. Kelling, Broken Windows, Atlantic, Mar. 1982, at 29.

  58. Id. at 31; see also Wesley G. Skogan, Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods 10–11 (1990) (“[W]hatever the link between [disorder and crime] is, it is powerful. . . . [A] neighborhood’s reputation for tolerating disorder invites outside troublemakers. . . . [A] concentration of supposedly ‘victimless’ disorders can soon flood an area with serious, victimizing crime.”).

  59. Wilson & Kelling, supra note 56; John Calvin Jeffries, Jr., Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev. 189, 215 (1985).

  60. Zimring, supra note 3, at 35.

  61. Skogan, supra note 57, at 9; see also id. at 5 (rejecting “the popular view [that] disorder is not immutable, and that it has reflected ethnic and class cleavages in society”); id. at 52 (rejecting the notion that “conventional definitions of order merely reflect the distribution of white, middle-class views about public deportment”).

  62. Donald Braman, Dan M. Kahan & David A. Hoffman, Some Realism About Punishment Naturalism, 77 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1531, 1557 (2010) (discussing offenses on the “periphery of crime . . . outside of the ‘core’ of wrongdoing”).

  63. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 265.

  64. Braman, Kahan & Hoffman, supra note 61, at 1535 (“Punishment Naturalists . . . perceive not conflict but consensus, not cultural heterogeneity but biological uniformity. As they read the evidence . . . ‘human intuitions of justice about core wrongdoing . . . are deep, predictable, and widely shared.’” (quoting Paul H. Robinson & Robert Kurzban, Concordance and Conflict in Intuitions of Justice, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1829, 1892 (2007))). See generally Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law, at xv (1995) (reporting studies of community intuitions about culpability).

  65. Skogan, supra note 57, at 7 (quoting Harvey Cox, The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective 43 (1966)); see also Richard Sennett, The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity & City Life, at xvi (1970) (arguing that, as compared with the “self-imposed tyranny” and “safe and secure slavery” of conventional life, “dense, disorderly, overwhelming cities can become the tools to teach men to live with this new freedom”). See generally Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities 15 (1961) (criticizing as paternalistic the efforts of urban planners to enforce their own notions of order apart from the needs of city dwellers).

  66. Skogan, supra note 57, at 5 (“[U]rban utopians argue that city dwellers have a positive taste for disorder, and that it is an aspect of life worth celebrating.”).

  67. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 (1972) (Douglas, J.) (“If some carefree type of fellow is satisfied to work just so much, and no more, as will pay for one square meal, some wine, and a flophouse daily, but a court thinks this kind of living subhuman, the fellow can be forced to raise his sights or go to jail as a vagrant.” (quoting Anthony G. Amsterdam, Federal Constitutional Restrictions on the Punishment of Crimes of Status, Crimes of General Obnoxiousness, Crimes of Displeasing Police Officers, and the Like, 3 Crim. L. Bull. 205, 226 (1967))); see also Tom Waits, Heart of a Saturday Night, on Heart of a Saturday Night (Asylum Records 1974); John Steinbeck, Cannery Row (1945); Nelson Algren, The Texas Stories of Nelson Algren (1995); W.H. Davies, The Autobiography of a Super-Tramp (1908). Significantly, there is an entire popular music genre—punk—that fetishizes the disordered life. The Talking Heads, Don’t Worry About the Government, on Talking Heads: 77 (Sire Records 1977) (sarcastically: “My building has every convenience/It’s gonna make life easy for me/It’s gonna be easy to get things done.”); Iggy Pop, Lust for Life, on Lust for Life (RCA Records 1977) (“Here comes Johnny Yen again/With the liquor and drugs and a flesh machine/He’s gonna do another striptease.”). See generally Michael Azerrad, Our Band Could Be Your Life: Scenes from the American Indie Underground 1981–1991 (2001) (examining hardcore punk movement).

  68. Justice Douglas once recast perceived vagrancy in just such a way: “These unwritten amenities have been in part responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. These amenities have dignified the right of dissent and have honored the right to be nonconformists and the right to defy submissiveness. They have encouraged lives of high spirits rather than hushed, suffocating silence.” Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 164.

  69. Henry David Thoreau, Walden (1854); Donovan Hohn, Everybody Hates Henry, New Republic (Oct. 21, 2015), https://newrepublic.com/article/123162/everybody-hates-henry-david-thoreau [https://perma.cc/ZYR6-G3LQ] (discussing Thoreau’s laundry).

  70. Papachristou, 405 U.S. at 164.

  71. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 115 (1999) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

  72. Amanda Y. Agan, Jennifer L. Doleac & Anna Harvey, Misdemeanor Prosecution 37 (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Rsch., Working Paper No. 28600, 2021) (finding, contrary to conventional wisdom, that “not prosecuting marginal nonviolent misdemeanor defendants substantially reduces their subsequent criminal justice contact”); Mychal Denzel Smith, Incremental Change Is a Moral Failure: Mere Reform Won’t Fix Policing, Atlantic (Sept. 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/police-reform-is-not-enough/614176 [https://perma.cc/XR69-RWH5] (rejecting the proposition that “in order to stop the violence of the hood you must impose the violence of the state . . . to protect the people from themselves, to enforce the discipline their culture lacks”).

  73. See Tracey L. Meares & Tom R. Tyler, The First Step Is Figuring out What Police Are for, Atlantic (June 8, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/first-step-figuring-out-what-police-are/612793/ [https://perma.cc/5W23-TKEE] (endorsing a “new focus [that] should include state support for activities that may not be called ‘policing,’ but that every citizen of this country deserves”); Smith, supra note 71 (“The city could put more trash cans here, if keeping this neighborhood . . . clean . . . were important.”); infra notes 255–56 and accompanying text (discussing the literature on the “capabilities approach”).

  74. Bowers, supra note 36, at 131 (“The state manages my existence in public spaces. It picks sides.”).

  75. See generally Frederick Schauer, Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life (1991) (providing a positivist understanding of how rules and sanctions compel behavior).

  76. Jeremy Waldron, The Concept and the Rule of Law, 43 Ga. L. Rev. 1, 13–14 (2008) (“Not every system of command and control that calls itself a legal system is a legal system. We need to scrutinize it a little—to see how it works—before we bestow . . . the appellation [of] ‘law.’”).

  77. A. John Simmons, Moral Principles and Political Obligations 17 (1979).

  78. Id. at 17–18; see also id. at 23 (“[T]he fact that I have a ‘legal obligation’ or a ‘duty of citizenship’ will be a morally neutral fact; nothing will follow from this fact about any moral constraints on my actions. . . . If I am morally bound to obey the law or to be a good citizen, the ground of this bond will be independent of the legal and political institutions in question . . . .”).

  79. Lewis, supra note 9 (manuscript at 38–39) (“[T]here is no clear consensus on the true nature of wellbeing. And there may be good reasons for governments and government officials to remain neutral between competing conceptions of the good.”).

  80. Cf. infra notes 287–93 and accompanying text (discussing the importance of individualization to evaluate demands of justice, mercy, and “normative guilt and innocence”).

  81. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 307 (1979).

  82. See, e.g., Paul Butler, The System Is Working the Way It Is Supposed to: The Limits of Criminal Justice Reform, 104 Geo. L.J. 1419, 1442 (2016). See generally Duncan Kennedy, Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy (1983) (arguing that a legal education reproduces existing social hierarchies by inculcating law students into particular political attitudes and by preparing them to participate in the hierarchical role of the lawyer).

  83. The satirical newspaper, The Onion, recently published a piece poking fun at just such a dichotomy. Protestors Criticized for Looting Businesses Without Forming Private Equity Firm First, Onion (May 28, 2020), https://www.theonion.com/protestors-criticized-for-looting-businesses-without-fo-1843735351 [https://perma.cc/6P25-G4LR]. For a more sophisticated evaluation of violent political protests, see generally Avia Pasternak, Political Rioting: A Moral Assessment, 46 Phil. & Pub. Affs. 384 (2019) (arguing that political riots can take permissible forms even in democratic states).

  84. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 32 (“[O]ne cannot typically be prosecuted for [racial discrimination or sexual harassment], even though it might cause a lot of harm. The political system has chosen to pursue these other important goals without resort to the criminal system.”); Bernard E. Harcourt, Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing 17 (2001) (“Everyday forms of tax evasion . . . are also disorderly. Insider trading, insurance misrepresentation, police corruption, and police brutality: these are all disorderly. Yet they figure nowhere in the theory of order-maintenance policing.”).

  85. Harcourt, supra note 83, at 210–11 (“The harm principle . . . does not address the relative importance of harms. . . . [W]e inevitably must look beyond the harm principle. . . . We must access larger debates in ethics, law, and politics—debates about power, autonomy, identity, human flourishing, equality, freedom. . . .”).

  86. Skogan, supra note 57, at 5; see also Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 26 (“[P]olitical power influences what we decide to criminalize. . . . [O]ur criminal laws are not an objective mechanism for increasing overall well-being by efficiently reducing harmful behavior. . . . [T]hey reflect our demons, past and present.”).

  87. Feeley, supra note 34, at 23–25 (“Decisions made under a strict application of rules often lead to outcomes that few find palatable.”); William J. Stuntz, The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 505, 519 (2001) (“Broad criminal law . . . means that the law as enforced will differ from the law on the books.”).

  88. William J. Stuntz, Plea Bargaining and Criminal Law’s Disappearing Shadow, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2548, 2563 (2004); James Vorenberg, Decent Restraint of Prosecutorial Power, 94 Harv. L. Rev. 1521, 1531 (1981) (discussing prevalence of discretion “when dealing with minor offenses”); Wayne A. Logan, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders: Police Power Takes a More Intrusive Turn, 46 Akron L. Rev. 413, 431 (2013) (“Florence, when combined with other Supreme Court decisions[,] afford[s] executive actors expansive discretionary power in their handling of low-level offenders.”).

  89. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 170 (1972) (Douglas, J.) (observing that, under open-ended vagrancy laws, “poor people, nonconformists, dissenters, [and] idlers . . . may be required to comport themselves according to the lifestyle deemed appropriate by the Jacksonville police and the courts”); Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 260 (“People are no longer arrested for status offenses such as being a vagrant, drunk, prostitute, drug addict, or unemployed. But for some people, the iterative logic of the [contemporary misdemeanor] model has functional similarities to the way vagrancy statutes were enforced in prior eras.”). See generally Risa Goluboff, Vagrant Nation: Police Power, Constitutional Change, and the Making of the 1960s, at 1–4 (2016) (discussing how vagrancy laws “represented an approach to policing, [and] a vision of society”).

  90. Stephanos Bibas, Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 911, 932–33 (2006) (“[C]riminal laws do not create binding obligations but rather a menu of options for [law-enforcement] insiders.”); see also Abraham S. Goldstein, The Passive Judiciary: Prosecutorial Discretion and the Guilty Plea 3 (1981) (noting that legal officials “choose[] from a mass of overlapping and redundant criminal statutes”).

  91. Stuntz, supra note 86, at 519 (“Because criminal law is broad, prosecutors cannot possibly enforce the law as written: there are too many violators. Broad criminal law thus means that the law as enforced will differ from the law on the books.”); see also Kenneth Culp Davis, Discretionary Justice 87 (1969) (“[L]egislation has long been written in reliance on the expectation that law enforcement officers will correct its excesses through administration.”).

  92. New York Police Department, Police Strategy No. 5: Reclaiming the Public Spaces of New York 4–5 (1994); see also New York City Police Department, Tackling Crime, Disorder, and Fear: A New Policing Model 2 (2015) (defining quality-of-life policing as “enforcing a variety of laws against street drug dealing, public drinking, public marijuana smoking, open-air prostitution, and other minor offenses”); Harcourt, supra note 83, at 47–49; Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 25. In addition to these offenses, the Inspector General of the New York Police Department has included the following: drug offenses, tobacco and alcohol offenses, offenses involving property damage, trespass, lewdness, disorderly conduct, unlicensed vending, jaywalking, loitering, urinating in public, spitting, resisting arrest, and petty theft, including turnstile hopping. Mark G. Peters & Philip K. Eure, New York City Department of Investigation, Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD, An Analysis of Quality-of-Life Summonses, Quality-of-Life Misdemeanor Arrests, and Felony Crime in New York City, 2010–2015, at 13–14, 81–82 (June 22, 2016). But, as I indicate, the relevant category of quality-of-life offenses consists of just whichever plausible examples of such offenses the department chooses to enforce.

  93. Harcourt, supra note 83, at 48, 252 (describing “an aggressive policy of misdemeanor arrests in the subways,” relying upon a “Bust Bus . . . retrofitted . . . into an arrest-processing center” (quoting William Bratton, Turnaround 155 (1998))).

  94. Alison Mitchell, Giuliani Appoints Bostonian to Run New York’s Police, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 1993, at A1, B4.

  95. New York Police Department, Police Strategy No. 5, supra note 91, at 7.

  96. Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 47–49; Meredith Patten et al., Misdemeanor Just. Project, Trends in Misdemeanor Arrests in New York, 1980 to 2017, at 15 (2018).

  97. Patten et al., supra note 95, at 46.

  98. Id. at 49; William J. Bratton, N.Y. Police Dep’t, Broken Windows and Quality-of-Life Policing in New York City 18 (2015) (noting that, by 2009, “officers were making more than 20,000 arrests per year for criminal trespass”). The city’s trespass policies and practices demand special attention as a particularly noxious form of social control of underprivileged people. Under a policy titled, alternatively, the “Clean Halls Program” or the “Trespass Affidavit Program,” officers would stake out public housing and some predominantly low-income private buildings, relying on often obsolete tenant rosters to round up the “usual suspects” who could not persuasively offer lawful reasons for their presence. See NYCLU Posts Notice of Ligon Settlement, N.Y.C. Liberties Union, https://www.nyclu.org/en/cleanhalls [https://perma.cc/U5NF-H6KR] (last visited Feb. 14, 2021) (describing the Ligon v. City of New York settlement agreement, which changed NYPD policies related to the Trespass Affidavit Program); see also Bowers, supra note 34, at 1124–32 (discussing biases in arrest, charge, and trial that lead police and prosecutors to focus inordinately on the “usual suspects”); Josh Bowers, Response, The Unusual Man in the Usual Place, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 260, 262 (2009) (discussing “usual suspects” policing); Bratton, supra note 97, at 18 (“A significant element of quality-of-life policing . . . entailed confronting unauthorized people . . . . The Department increased its presence in the buildings through what is known as vertical patrols, or top-to-bottom walkthroughs of the structures.”). In my experience, I represented dozens of legally innocent defendants arrested pursuant to this policy. Infra notes 172–81 and accompanying text (discussing innocence in petty cases, including trespass).

  99. The figures vary a bit but all fall roughly in this range. Patten et al., supra note 95, at 20 (“In New York City, there were 64,745 misdemeanor arrests in 1980. This number increased to 247,496 in 2010, followed by a decrease to 155,798 in 2017.”); Bratton, supra note 97, at 12 (providing a figure of 292,219); see also Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 45 fig.1.5 (tracking misdemeanor arrests over twenty-five-year period from 1990–2015, and showing peak in 2010).

  100. See, e.g., Harcourt, supra note 83, at 50, 252 n.3 (“This is not an exercise in police discretion . . . . It was about sweeps.”); Tim Newburn & Trevor Jones, Symbolizing Crime Control: Reflections on Zero Tolerance, 11 Theoretical Criminology 221, 226 (2007) (“Although . . . the main players in the New York policing story distanced themselves from the term Zero Tolerance, it became inextricably associated with the policing approaches developed under [Police Commissioner] Bill Bratton.”).

  101. Bratton, supra note 97, at 3.

  102. To be sure, the NYPD still found ways to be creative, but principally in finding novel means to arrest. Thus, in Betancourt v. Bloomberg, the NYPD innovated by arresting a homeless man using a penal ordinance intended to prohibit people from abandoning property on city streets. 448 F.3d 547, 549 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting vagueness challenge to ordinance); see also id. at 559 (Calabresi, J., dissenting) (“The fact that a law against leaving . . . [inter alia] ‘movable property’ in a public place . . . was listed, by the police department, as an ‘enforcement option’ to target seemingly unrelated crimes . . . is evidence of that very unfettered discretion that causes vague texts to give rise to constitutional problems.”).

  103. Id. at 559 (Calabresi, J., dissenting) (“[T]he NYPD issued a catalog of ‘enforcement options’ to effectuate then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s ‘Quality of Life’ initiatives. This type of ‘guidance’ is anything but comforting.”).

  104. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 26–27 (quoting Interview by Issa Kohler-Hausmann with William J. Bratton, New York City Police Commissioner (July 21, 2013)); see also Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 9 n.19 (“Based on interviews with NYPD officials, NYPD does not have a single official definition for what it considers a ‘quality of life offense.’”).

  105.  Jeffrey Rosen, Excessive Force, New Republic (Apr. 10, 2000), https://newrepublic.com/article/74124/excessive-force [https://perma.cc/RF8H-F5NS] (“[P]olice stop, frisk, and arrest vast numbers of young black and Hispanic men for minor offenses, in the hope that turnstile jumpers and pot smokers may also be guilty of more serious offenses.”); Jeffrey Fagan, Race, Legitimacy, and Criminal Law, 4 Souls 69, 70 (2002) (“Under the recent policies of the New York City Police Department, aggressive stops and searches have been disproportionately aimed at nonwhite citizens, far outpacing their actual involvement in crime.”); Jeffrey A. Fagan, Amanda Geller, Garth Davies & Valerie West, Street Stops and Broken Windows Revisited: The Demography and Logic of Proactive Policing in a Safe and Changing City, in Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings 309, 311, 323–25, 331–32 (Stephen K. Rice & Michael D. White eds., 2010) (finding that broken windows enforcement is concentrated in majority-minority neighborhoods); Reed Collins, Note, Strolling While Poor: How Broken-Windows Policing Created a New Crime in Baltimore, 14 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol’y 419, 426 (2007) (“When police departments do adopt aggressive arrest policies to combat disorder, . . . the group[s] most affected by those strategies . . . [are] ‘both African Americans and the poor.’”); Devon W. Carbado, Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes, 104 Geo. L.J. 1479, 1486 (2016) (“[O]ur perception of disorder is racialized . . . . [A] police officer is more likely to view three black teenagers on a street corner as a sign of disorder than he is to so view three white teenagers.”).

  106. Mike Laws, Why We Capitalize ‘Black’ (and Not ‘white’), Colum. Journalism Rev. (June 16, 2020), https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php [https://perma.cc/5Z7H-CQT8] (“For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community. White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists.”).

  107. Patten et al., supra note 95, at 14, 76; Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 51 fig.1.10 (tracking misdemeanor arrests by race and ethnicity from 1990–2015); cf. Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540, 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (detailing more than 4.4 million stops over an eight-year period, overwhelmingly of people of color, with figures approaching 90% certain years). This is consistent with racial disparities in quality-of-life policing nationally. Harcourt, supra note 83, at 173 tbl.6.4 (finding that, across large American cities, police arrested Black people disproportionately to white people for every category of public-order misdemeanor).

  108. Patten et al., supra note 95, at 14–15.

  109. Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 41, 43.

  110. Id. at 16.

  111. On the intersection between gentrification and racialized order-maintenance policing, see Harold Stolper, New Neighbors and the Over-Policing of Communities of Color, Cmty. Serv. Soc’y (Jan. 6, 2019), https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/New-Neighbors [https://perma.cc/89PJ-B89Y] (“The largest increases in NYPD-referred complaints occurred in communities of color with large influxes of white residents accompanied by new housing development.”); cf. Goluboff, supra note 88, at 234–35 (discussing use of vagrancy laws to control people “out of place”); Carbado, supra note 104, at 1492 (describing people of color who are “presumptively ‘out of place’ and therefore presumptively suspicious because of the racial geography”). See generally Robert J. Sampson, Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect, at ix (2012) (discussing the “powerful effects of ecologically concentrated disadvantage on individual outcomes as well as rates of behavior across neighborhoods”).

  112. Tracey L. Meares, Programming Errors: Understanding the Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk As a Program, Not an Incident, 82 U. Chi. L. Rev. 159, 175 (2015) (“The fact that racial minorities in cities disproportionately encounter police in both constitutional and unconstitutional contexts fuels [their] perceptions of the illegitimacy of the police.”); Bowers & Robinson, supra note 10, at 246–52 (examining popular perceptions of order-maintenance policing); Rod K. Brunson, “Police Don’t Like Black People”: African-American Young Men’s Accumulated Police Experiences, 6 Criminology & Pub. Pol’y 71, 85 (2007) (finding that minority members of “distressed neighborhood[s]” harbor expectations of disrespectful treatment by police officers). Black musicians have described their experiences firsthand. See, e.g., Brand Nubian, Probable Cause, on Foundation (Arista Records 1998) (“Couldn’t believe it when he took me in/Threw me and my man up in the van, a seven-hour stand/ . . . Now Giuliani wanna talk about the ‘quality of life’/Think he got the right to follow me at night/ . . . Up in central booking . . . people looking.”).

  113. Aya Gruber, Why Amy Cooper Felt the Police Were Her Personal “Protection Agency,” Slate (May 27, 2020), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/amy-cooper-white-women-policing.html [https://perma.cc/9595-KDCJ].

  114. Skogan, supra note 57, at 6 (“After the Civil War, police focused their attention on minor offenses against public order. This led to skyrocketing arrests for public drinking, vagrancy, suspicion, and loitering.”); Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness 13 (2010).

  115. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 54 n.20 (1999) (“[M]any American vagrancy laws were patterned on these ‘Elizabethan poor laws.’ . . . In addition, vagrancy laws were used after the Civil War to keep former slaves in a state of quasi slavery.”); Goldman v. Knecht, 295 F. Supp. 897, 902 (D. Colo. 1969) (“Vagrancy control dates back to the fourteenth century . . . as an economic measure which sought to shore up the crumbling structure of feudal society by prohibiting mobility among the laboring class . . . [and] in post-feudal society as a means of protecting a local community from . . . undesirable strangers.”); Goluboff, supra note 88, at 253; Roberts, supra note 37, at 7–8 (noting that the “carceral punishment system can be traced back to slavery and the racial capitalist regime it relied on and sustained”); Connie Hassett-Walker, The Racist Roots of American Policing: From Slave Patrols to Traffic Stops, Conversation (June 2, 2020), https://theconversation.com/the-racist-roots-of-american-policing-from-slave-patrols-to-traffic-stops-112816 [https://perma.cc/4YZ4-RCJB]; Skogan, supra note 57, at 6 (discussing policing efforts to bring “immigrants into conformity with the labor discipline of industrial society”); Smith, supra note 71 (“[L]ocal governments can criminalize sleeping outside, or criminalize panhandling, which begins to look a lot like the criminalization of vagrancy as part of the Black Codes in the era that ended Reconstruction.”). See generally Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 16 (“If the function of the modern punishment system is to preserve racial and economic hierarchy through brutality and control, then its bureaucracy is performing well.”); Butler, supra note 81, at 144243 (arguing that the system is designed for racial and economic oppression); Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 7 (“[A] Marxian approach understands punishment as social control by being an instrument of class control. . . . [T]he forms of punishment in our society are determined by the needs of the ruling class to control the laboring classes.”).

  116. Clay Cane, The Original Karens: From Emmett Till’s Accuser to the White Woman Who Sparked the Tulsa Massacre, BET (June 19, 2020), https://www.bet.com/news/national/‌2020/06/19/original-karens-emmett-till-accuser-tulsa-massacre.html [https://perma.cc/USC5-WT2B].

  117. Decoder Ring: The Karen, Slate (July 13, 2020), https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2020/07/decoder-ring-the-karen [https://perma.cc/T7YL-37DQ].

  118. Harcourt, supra note 83, at 172 (“Law enforcement policies that target minor disorderly conduct only aggravate the black face of crime.”).

  119. See, e.g., Julian V. Roberts, Punishing Persistent Offenders: Exploring Community and Offender Perspectives 7–8 (2008); Youngjae Lee, Recidivism as Omission: A Relational Account, 87 Tex. L. Rev. 571, 610 (2009); Andrew von Hirsch, Proportionality and Progressive Loss of Mitigation: Further Reflections, in Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives 1, 1–16 (Julian V. Roberts & Andrew von Hirsch eds., 2010); Julian V. Roberts, First-Offender Sentencing Discounts: Exploring the Justifications, in Previous Convictions at Sentencing, supra, at 17–35; Youngjae Lee, Repeat Offenders and the Question of Desert, in Previous Convictions at Sentencing, supra, at 49–71; Christopher Bennett, “More to Apologize For”: Can a Basis for the Recidivist Premium Be Found Within a Communicative Theory of Punishment?, in Previous Convictions at Sentencing, supra, at 73–89; Richard Dagger, Playing Fair with Recidivists, in Recidivist Punishments: The Philosopher’s View 41, 41–59 (Claudio Tamburrini & Jesper Ryberg eds., 2012); Julian V. Roberts, Past and Present Crimes: The Role of Previous Convictions at Sentencing, in Recidivist Punishments: The Philosopher’s View, supra, at 115–33; Christopher Bennett, Do Multiple and Repeat Offenders Pose a Problem for Retributive Sentencing Theory?, in Recidivist Punishments: The Philosopher’s View, supra, at 137–56; Andrew von Hirsch, Desert and Previous Convictions in Sentencing, 65 Minn. L. Rev. 591, 594–95 (1981); Andrew von Hirsch, Criminal Record Rides Again, 10 Crim. Just. Ethics 2, 55 (1991); Andrew von Hirsch & Andrew Ashworth, Proportionate Sentencing: Exploring the Principles 131–32 (2005); David A. Dana, Rethinking the Puzzle of Escalating Penalties for Repeat Offenders, 110 Yale L.J. 733, 738–39 (2001).

  120. Lewis, supra note 9, at 3–6; infra notes 189–90 and accompanying text (responding to prevention-based justification).

  121. U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual, ch. 4, pt. A, introductory cmt. (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2016); Lewis, supra note 9, at 5 (“Some argue that in cases of repeat offending, we have more evidence of malice, ill will, or bad character than we do when someone is convicted of an otherwise similar first offense.”).

  122. Ewing, supra note 28, at 300–01.

  123. Lee, supra note 118, at 581, 585, 599–600, 609–10, 613–14 (2009) (noting that “the fact that one did not do what one was told to do is precisely at the heart of this type of criminality”); von Hirsch, Proportionality and Progressive Loss of Mitigation: Further Reflections, supra note 118, at 9 (“The offender’s original conviction and punishment should put him on notice that under certain circumstances he may be tempted to offend again.”); see also Jeffrey W. Howard, Punishment as Moral Fortification, 36 Law & Phil. 45, 49 (2017).

  124. Lewis, supra note 9, at 17–18; see also von Hirsch, Proportionality and Progressive Loss of Mitigation: Further Reflections, supra note 118, at 2; Roberts, First-Offender Sentencing Discounts: Exploring the Justifications, supra note 118, at 20–22; Roberts, Punishing Persistent Offenders, supra note 118, at 82; Dana, supra note 118, at 779 (“The ‘break’ given first-time violators can be understood . . . as morally appropriate because the violator may have simply made a mistake or acted foolishly out of impulse, rather than having determinedly flouted the moral authority of the laws.”).

  125. Jonathan Simon, Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear 16 (2007) (discussing the sentiment that a “zero-risk environment is . . . a reasonable expectation, even a right”); infra notes 217–24 and accompanying text (discussing crime control and risk aversion).

  126. Joseph E. Kennedy, Monstrous Offenders and the Search for Solidarity Through Modern Punishment, 51 Hastings L.J. 829, 831–33 (2000) (examining the contemporary cultural depiction of the criminal as “monster,” and describing the criminal-legal system as a “civic religion” of us versus “them”); see also Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 67 (“The ‘law enforcement’ religion is hostile to the view that a society that is more equal would have less crime, not because that idea is untrue, but because the very goal of the criminal legal system is to preserve certain elements of an unequal social order.”); cf. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 6 (citing Émile Durkheim for the proposition that “punishment is a social enterprise that expresses a group’s foundational, shared moral order and sustains it by enacting rituals”).

  127. Kennedy, supra note 125, at 829; Lara Abigail Bazelon, Exploding the Superpredator Myth: Why Infancy Is the Preadolescent’s Best Defense in Juvenile Court, 75 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 159, 165–67 (2000); Tamar R. Birckhead, The Racialization of Juvenile Justice and the Role of the Defense Attorney, 58 B.C. L. Rev. 379, 408–11 (2017). See generally James Q. Whitman, Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide Between America and Europe 13 (2003) (discussing the powerful contemporary American “drive to hit every offender . . . hard”).

  128. Simon, supra note 124, at 108; Harcourt, supra note 83, at 26 (“Though [the convicted offender] may continue to live in the projects, he is no longer a ‘project resident,’ no longer a ‘citizen,’ and no longer has a legitimate voice.”).

  129. Zimring, supra note 3, at 192–93; Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 268 (“[T]he instrumentalities of criminal law [are] the primary social control mechanisms in urban spaces of concentrated poverty and insecurity.”); Simon, supra note 124, at 10, 14 (describing crime control as a “first response” and urging “a movement to restore crime to its rightful place as one ‘social’ problem among many”).

  130. Zimring, supra note 3, at 192–93 (discussing the “everything works” crime-control mentality); Skogan, supra note 57, at 3 (observing that “disorder[] often lead[s] to complaints that the authorities ‘do something’”); United States v. Clary, 846 F. Supp. 768, 793 (E.D. Mo. 1994) (noting “the demands of [political] constituenc[ies] to ‘do something’ about the most pressing problem in America today—crime”).

  131. Simon, supra note 124, at 273 (noting that the logic behind broken windows is that “dangerous acts arise from dangerous people whom you know by their character, to be read in their minor conduct”).

  132. Jeffrie G. Murphy & Jean Hampton, Introduction, in Forgiveness and Mercy 1, 2 (1988) (“[L]egal doctrines are rooted in specific passions (feelings, emotions) . . . . [T]he criminal law . . . institutionalizes certain feelings of anger, resentment, and even hatred.”). See generally William Ian Miller, The Anatomy of Disgust 34–35 (1997) (discussing the manner by which disgust and hatred produce a preference for punishment and ostracism).

  133. David Garland, The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society 131 (2001) (quoting James Q. Wilson).

  134. Lee, supra note 118, at 618, 620.

  135. Id. at 609–10, 613–14; Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 21 (“The standard narrative portrays ‘criminals’ as a vast collection of individuals who have each made a choice to ‘break the law.’ Convictions and punishments are consequences that flow naturally from that bad choice.”); infra notes 222–27 and accompanying text (discussing luck, freewill, and the “American Dream”).

  136. Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540, 667 (2013) (holding that NYPD’s practice of stop and frisk systematically violated the equal protection and Fourth Amendment rights of class-action litigants); Ligon v. City of New York, 925 F. Supp. 2d 478, 540–41 (2013) (holding the same as to the practice of stop and frisk as part of trespass enforcement).

  137. Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 7 (emphasis added).

  138. Misdemeanor Justice Project, The Criminal Justice Reform Act Evaluation: Post Implementation Changes in Summons Issuance and Outcomes 7 (2018).

  139. Bratton, supra note 97, at 15 (“A person stopped for a violation of transit rules [even a non-criminal violation] who is identified as a transit recidivist is ineligible for a civil notice and must be arrested for the offense.”); see also Class Action Complaint at 12–13, R.C. v. City of New York, 100 N.Y.S.3d 824 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019) (No. 153739/2018) (detailing NYPD mandatory arrest policy for transit recidivists); Harold Stolper & Jeff Jones, Community Service Society of New York, The Crime of Being Short $2.75: Policing Communities of Color at the Turnstile 24 (2017).

  140. Alexa St. John, MTA Board Considers Banning Repeat Transit Criminals from Subway, Wall St. J. (June 24, 2019), https://www.wsj.com/articles/mta-board-considers-banning-repeat-transit-criminals-from-subway-11561414572 [https://perma.cc/N23W-TNN5]; cf. supra, infra notes 63, 131–134, 222–27 and accompanying text (discussing culture of blame and shame and “governing through crime”).

  141. Rocco Parascandola, Shayna Jacobs, Jillian Jorgensen, Thomas Tracy & Graham Rayman, NYPD Top Cop Slams DA Cy Vance for Not Prosecuting Some Fare-Beaters, N.Y. Daily News (Feb. 6, 2018), https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-top-slams-da-vance-not-prosecuting-fare-beaters-article-1.3803058; Alison Fox & Vincent Barone, Turnstile Jumpers With Open Summonses Will No Longer Be Arrested, AMNY (Aug. 1, 2018), https://www.amny.com/news/fare-evasion-arrests-nyc-1-20238070/ [https://perma.cc/T68Y-5YDR]; Alexander C. Kaufman, As New York Cracks Down on Fare Evasion, Another City Weighs Free Transit, Huffington Post (Nov. 18, 2019), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mbta-free-transit_n_5dd2e1d6e4b01f982f06b00c [https://perma.cc/7SH2-7M5H].

  142. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 5, 108, 132, 165, 252 (describing the process by which penalties escalate for recidivist misdemeanants and indicating that “the defendant’s record largely dictates . . . the sentence”); id. at 97 (quoting public defender: “[A] person can be stopped and searched fifteen times before they’re arrested. . . . And then they get an ACD. . . . And then once your fingerprint even reflects contact with the system, you’re in a different posture. . . . [Next time, y]ou get a [violation] and then you get a misdemeanor, and then you get jail time”).

  143. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 115, 293 n.37 (indicating that “operation spotlight” lasted over a decade but is “now largely defunct in some boroughs”); Julia Vitullo-Martin, Operation Spotlight, Etc., Gotham Gazette (June 1, 2002), https://www.gothamgazette.com/criminal-justice/1657-operation-spotlight-etc [https://perma.cc/788H-99QC]; Freda F. Solomon, Operation Spotlight: Year Four Program Report 1–4 (2007).

  144. Solomon, supra note 142, at 1–4, 12, 37 (detailing Operation Spotlight in practice); Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 293 n.37 (same). It is not obvious which spotlight cases involved quality-of-life offenses. But it stands to reason that these charges were the overwhelming majority because—depending on the borough—only 3–8% of Operation Spotlight cases involved “harm to persons.” Solomon, supra note 142, at 11, 16. Comparatively, in every borough, more than one-half to more than two-thirds of spotlight cases involved drugs, trespass, or turnstile hops. Solomon, supra note 142, at 16.

  145. Solomon, supra note 142, at 10; John Feinblatt, Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, Criminal Justice Indicator Report 15 (2013).

  146. Solomon, supra note 142, at 6.

  147. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 132, 264, 266 (coining the term “misdemeanorland” and explaining that the “moral meaning” of misdemeanors is distinct from felonies, but suggesting that longtime recidivists may “have the same cultural status” as felons); Garland, supra note 132, at 191–92 (discussing the manner by which “a record of prior offending affects the individual’s perceived moral status,” displacing “careful calculations of cost and effect” in favor of “a very different way of thinking which presses the imperatives of punishing criminals and protecting the public, ‘whatever the cost’”).

  148. McLeod, supra note 49, at 1616; Angela Y. Davis, Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement 7, 90 (2016) (arguing that prison reform, as opposed to abolition, grants the current institution undue legitimacy); Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 93; see also Note, The Paradox of “Progressive Prosecution”, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 748, 759–68 (2018) (highlighting the manner by which structural barriers undermine systemic reforms to the criminal-legal system).

  149. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 93; cf. Stephanos Bibas, Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 911, 921–23, 930–31 (2006) (comparing the incentives of criminal-legal insiders and outsiders).

  150. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 16, 73, 85 (cautioning against “advocates of some of the harshest punishments in the world pushing minor changes . . . for purposes that they do not acknowledge”); see also Butler, supra note 81, at 1466–68 (2016) (noting how incremental steps can distract from more meaningful systemic change).

  151. Josh Bowers, Contraindicated Drug Courts, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 783, 830, 834–35 (2008); see also Daniel Abrahamson, Drug Courts Are Not the Answer: Guest Commentary, L.A. Daily News (May 12, 2015), https://www.dailynews.com/2015/05/12/drug-courts-are-not-the-answer-guest-commentary/ [https://perma.cc/M5CM-4U7G] (highlighting the practical shortcomings of California’s drug courts).

  152. Bowers, supra note 150, at 795–97.

  153. Id. at 786, 789 (“[D]rug courts . . . provide the worst results to their target populations . . . . Conversely, drug offenders who are noncompulsive or less compulsive ultimately do much better. . . . As such, the expected failure of addicts to respond to external stimuli seems an odd basis from which to subject them to alternative sentences that outstrip standard pleas.”); infra notes 228–37 and accompanying text (discussing recidivism as evidence of need).

  154. Bowers, supra note 150, at 807 (discussing “coerced treatment that uses conventional justice as a backstop”); see, e.g., Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 253 (quoting a drug-court prosecutor: “[W]e have to take a stance and offer a jail alternative. We are a DA’s office in the end.”); cf. Erin R. Collins, The Problem of Problem-Solving Courts, 54 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1573, 1573 (2021) (noting that the problem with “the problem-solving court model . . . [is that] its entrenchment creates resistance to alternatives that might truly reform [or transform] the system”).

  155. See generally Michael C. Dorf & Charles F. Sabel, Drug Treatment Courts and Emergent Experimentalist Government, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 831, 843 (2000) (describing the first drug court in Miami-Dade County, Florida); The Early Drug Courts: Case Studies in Judicial Innovation 7 (W. Clinton Terry III ed., 1999) (describing efforts by drug court judges to address social harms that may contribute to drug dependency and criminal conduct).

  156. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 82 (“[A] movement to dismantle the punishment bureaucracy must learn how to distinguish little tweaks from big changes.”).

  157. Unger, supra note 42, at 29–32, 49–50.

  158. Id. at 30, 49.

  159. Id. at 49.

  160. Dorf & Sabel, supra note 154, at 841; see also Richard C. Boldt, Problem-Solving Courts and Pragmatism, 73 Md. L. Rev. 1120, 1130–31 (2014) (examining the pragmatic principles underlying problem-solving courts); Bowers, supra note 150, at 796 (“Drug courts . . . are experimentalist institutions born of incremental compromise. They developed from the ground up in ad hoc and undertheorized fashions.”).

  161. Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 283–86.

  162. Bowers, supra note 150, at 807 (noting that drug court punishments “are informed by the same social, economic, and institutional pressure points that historically have led to disparate punishment under the conventional . . . war on drugs”).

  163. Susan R. Klein, Independent-Norm Federalism in Criminal Law, 90 Cal. L. Rev. 1541, 1542 (2002).

  164. Id.; see Charles Sabel, Dewey, Democracy, and Democratic Experimentalism, 9 Contemp. Pragmatism 35, 36 (2012) (“Dewey was nothing if not a fallibilist. He held that inquiry in its exemplary form—in the laboratory—was a process of continuous self-correction, of learning from mistakes . . . [of pursuing] the ideal of democracy.”); Unger, supra note 42, at 23 (“[T]he promises of democracy can be kept only by the ceaseless experimental renewal of their institutional vehicles.”).

  165. See Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 68–69 (arguing that the “‘law enforcement’ myth . . . lulls people into abandoning scrutiny of their assumptions”); Butler, supra note 81, at 1466–69.

  166. Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 3, 8 (“What caused or contributed to the City’s decline in crime has been a continuing debate.”). Significantly, however, I endorse a radically different objective and metric for measuring success. Infra Section III.B. (discussing harm reduction and the “capabilities approach”).

  167. William Bratton & George L. Kelling, The Assault on ‘Broken Windows’ Policing, Wall St. J. (Dec. 18, 2014), https://www.wsj.com/articles/william-bratton-and-george-kelling-the-assault-on-broken-windows-policing-1418946183 [https://perma.cc/P3YS-T6YT]; George L. Kelling & William J. Bratton, Why We Need Broken Windows Policing, City J. (Winter 2015). See generally Wesley G. Skogan, Broken Windows: Why—and How—We Should Take Them Seriously, 7 Crim. & Pub. Pol’y 195 (2008) (describing broken windows policing’s effect on social order).

  168. See Franklin E. Zimring, supra note 3; see also Michael Tonry, Why Crimes Rates Are Falling Throughout the Western World, 43 Crime & Just. 1, 17–18 (2014) (describing national decline in American crime nationwide).

  169. Peters & Eure, supra note 91, at 4 (“Between 2010 and 2015 there was a dramatic decline in quality-of-life enforcement with no increase in felony crime. In fact, felony crime, with a few exceptions, declined along with quality-of-life enforcement . . . . [We] find[] no empirical evidence to suggest that crime control can be directly attributed to quality-of-life summonses and misdemeanor arrests.”); see also William Wan, Does New York City’s ‘Broken Windows’ Policing Work? New Report Says No, Wash. Post (June 22, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/22/does-nypds-broken-windows-policing-work-new-report-says-no/ [https://perma.cc/FNU8-MCS7] (refuting that quality-of-life policing was responsible for fewer felony crimes in New York City).

  170. Carbado, supra note 104, at 1486 n.14 (“The empirical evidence on this theory is mixed, at best.”).

  171. Zimring, supra note 3, at 80; Harcourt, supra note 83; see also Bernard E. Harcourt & Jens Ludwig, Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 271 (2006) (detailing the lack of positive evidence in favor of broken windows policing); Agan, Doleac & Harvey, supra note 71, at 37 (finding that, under some circumstances, not prosecuting individuals for nonviolent misdemeanors reduces recidivism).

  172. Lewis, supra note 9, at 8–9 n.21; see Carbado, supra note 104, at 1488–89 (observing that selective order-maintenance policing creates recidivists in some places but not others, depending upon where police exercise discretion to focus enforcement efforts); see also Simon, supra note 124, at 274; Harcourt, supra note 83, at 172 (explaining that because of the “disparate impact” of broken windows policing, it is “practically impossible to gauge [the rate of] misdemeanors reliably by race”).

  173. See Bowers, supra note 34, at 1124–32 (describing the incentives of police and prosecutors in public-order cases).

  174. See Josh Bowers, The Normative Case for Normative Grand Juries, 47 Wake Forest L. Rev. 319 (2012) (describing “disposable” cases); see also Bowers, supra note 34, at 1124–27; Bowers, supra note 10, at 1698–99.

  175. Bowers, supra note 34, at 1124–27; Bowers, supra note 36, at 210 (describing “the propensity of the law enforcer to exercise dominion reflexively over the usual suspect”); Lewis, supra note 9, at 16 (“Having a prior criminal record itself makes people easier to monitor, and thus more likely to get caught . . . easier to detect.”).

  176. Josh Bowers, Upside-Down Juries, 111 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1655, 1674 (2017) (describing the practice).

  177. Bowers, supra note 34, at 1132–38 (describing “process pleas” to avoid “process costs”); see Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 124 fig.3.5, 132 (indicating that “the defendant’s record largely dictates . . . the incentive to take the plea at arraignment,” and finding a range of between approximately 50% and 70% of New York City sub-felony cases disposed of at arraignments between the years 1992 and 2014).

  178. See Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 97 (quoting a public defender: “[T]hat’s how a criminal record builds . . . . Good pleas, bad pleas. They were guilty, they weren’t. The main thing is to get out of jail.”); id. at 266 (“The probability of conviction . . . increases substantially with each subsequent criminal conviction.”); Jeffries, supra note 58, at 197, 215 (describing “street-cleaning” statutes as laws that “invite manipulation . . . for which the individualized adjudication of guilt is an unusually inadequate check on police and prosecutorial action”); Bowers, supra note 34, at 1124–31; Bowers, supra note 10, at 1705–12. See generally Stephanos Bibas, The Machinery of Criminal Justice (2012) (describing the justice system’s emphasis on speedy convictions).

  179. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 264–65.

  180. See Wikipedia, Loosie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loosie [https://perma.cc/NC8T-DVMW] (defining a “loosie” as a “single cigarette . . . purchased or sold . . . illegal[ly] and commonly . . . in low-income areas,” and noting that Eric Garner died after a confrontation with police while allegedly selling loosies) (last visited Mar. 12, 2021); Urban Dictionary, Dollar Cab, https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dollar%20cab [https://perma.cc/A3H2-UY26] (defining dollar cabs as “unmarked, unlicensed cabs, (usually vans) common in . . . ‘bad’ areas”) (last visited Mar. 12, 2021).

  181. Supra notes 97 & 174 and accompanying text (describing the likelihood of wrongful arrest of legally innocent “usual suspects” in quality-of-life trespass sweeps).

  182. See Bibas, supra note 177; Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 263.

  183. See Michael Massoglia & Christopher Uggen, Settling Down and Aging Out: Toward an Interactionist Theory of Desistance and the Transition to Adulthood, 116 Am. J. Soc. 543, 544–45 (2010). See generally John H. Laub & Robert J. Sampson, Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70, at 4 (2003) (looking at patterns of criminal behavior over the life course of high-risk children); Darrell J. Steffensmeier, Emilie Andersen Allan, Miles D. Harer & Cathy Streifel, Age and the Distribution of Crime, 94 Am. J. Soc. 803, 803 (1989); Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington & Alfred Blumstein, Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development 207 (2007) (acknowledging that most offenders cease offending by age 40); Michael E. Ezell & Lawrence E. Cohen, Desisting from Crime: Continuity and Change in Long-Term Crime Patterns of Serious Chronic Offenders 269 (2005) (describing the phenomenon of “aging out” and its implications for society).

  184. See Johann Hari, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs 212 (2015) (“Most addicts will simply stop, whether they are given treatment or not, provided prohibition doesn’t kill them first.”); Richard Lawrence Miller, The Case for Legalizing Drugs 53 (1991) (“Researchers have found chronological age to be a prevalent reason for drug abuse. Abuse is typically a young person’s habit, given up as the individual matures. Most opiate addicts relinquish their drug within [ten] years.”); The Sentencing Project, People Serving Life Exceeds Entire Prison Population of 1970, at 3 (2020) (“Even so-called ‘chronic-offenders,’ people who have committed repeated crimes, gradually desist from criminal conduct so that their public safety risk is substantially reduced by their late 30s or 40s.”).

  185. Shawn D. Bushway, Paul Nieuwbeerta & Arjan Blokland, The Predictive Value of Criminal Background Checks: Do Age and Criminal History Affect Time to Redemption?, 49 Criminology 27, 49–50 (2011).

  186. John Feinblatt, Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, Criminal Justice Indicator Report 5 (2013).

  187. Lewis, supra note 9, at 8; see also Paul Gendreau, Tracy Little & Claire Goggin, A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!, 34 Criminology 575, 588 (1996) (finding that “criminal history” correlates with recidivism).

  188. Solomon, supra note 142, at 5–6.

  189. Patten et al., supra note 95, at 27.

  190. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 108; cf. Todd R. Clear & James Austin, Reducing Mass Incarceration: Implications of the Iron Law of Prison Populations, 3 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 307, 319 (2009) (“[W]ith little exception, the outer years of [long prison] terms have no public safety value.”).

  191. Compare Joseph Kahn, Are Long Baseball Contracts Worth It?, Bos. Globe (Apr. 15, 2015), https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/04/01/are-long-baseball-contracts-worth/lJNSnCmD8VjSvO9YQLb0zH/story.html [https://perma.cc/2PFK-5DNW] (“Megadeals for players that stretch well into their 30s are perilous. So why do teams keep doing it?”), with The Sentencing Project, supra note 183, at 3 (“Most people serving life, including for murder, will not forever present a risk to public safety. . . . Therefore, from a public safety perspective, life imprisonment is an unwise investment.”).

  192. Hari, supra note 183, at 172–75.

  193. See, e.g., Robert Weiss, The Opposite of Addiction Is Connection: New Addiction Research Brings Surprising Discoveries, Psych. Today (Sept. 30, 2015), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/love-and-sex-in-the-digital-age/201509/the-opposite-addiction-is-connection [https://perma.cc/5K5V-GES7]; Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 802 (“The environmental theory of addiction insists that pharmacology is only secondarily related to dependence. Chemicals have physiological effects to be sure, but plenty of drug users . . . maintain relative free will to ingest (or not) without becoming dependent.”); see also Hari, supra note 183, at 173 (describing how 95% of American addicts returning from the Vietnam War stopped using).

  194. See infra notes 384–90 and accompanying text (discussing link between incarceration, social isolation, and “lost time”).

  195. Hari, supra note 183, at 166.

  196. Supra notes 142–46 and accompanying text (discussing “Operation Spotlight”).

  197. Unger, supra note 42, at 7–8.

  198. Id. at 29, 31–32.

  199. See Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 284 (observing that “we do not aim to provide conclusive answers to particular controversies” because “[a] method founded on the generalization of experimental corrigibility would belie itself in proceeding otherwise”); supra notes 37–45 and accompanying text (discussing radical pragmatism as a social-movement strategy for political persuasion).

  200. Unger, supra note 42, at 37–38 (emphasis added); RSA, supra note 46.

  201. Unger, supra note 42, at 37–38, 43 (emphasis added). This is something John Dewey understood, as well: “Ideals express possibilities . . . . Imagination can set them free from their encumbrances . . . . But, save as they are related to actualities, they are pictures in a dream.” John Dewey, Individualism Old and New 72 (1999).

  202. Adrian Vermeule, Integration from Within, 2 Am. Affs. 202 (Spring 2018).

  203. Micah Schwartzman & Jocelyn Wilson, The Unreasonableness of Catholic Integralism, 56 San Diego L. Rev. 1039, 1041–43 (2019) (“Integralists argue that liberalism is a relentless and destructive ideology. . . . These are radical views . . . . Catholic integralism . . . conflict[s] with a conception of reasonableness that requires cooperating on fair terms, including by respecting the freedom and equality of citizens . . . .”).

  204. Vermeule, supra note 201; Matt Ford, The Emerging Right-Wing Vision of Constitutional Authoritarianism, New Republic (Apr. 2, 2020), https://newrepublic.com/article/157132/emerging-right-wing-vision-constitutional-authoritarianism [https://perma.cc/XUR3-CB5W] (“[Vermeule] imagines a small coterie of integralists infiltrating elite institutions and the machinery of the liberal state so they can subtly co-opt them in favor of their ultimate goals.”).

  205. Vermeule finds critics on the right and the left. See, e.g., Randy E. Barnett, Common-Good Constitutionalism Reveals the Dangers of Any Non-originalist Approach to the Constitution: This Wolf Comes as a Wolf, Atlantic (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/dangers-any-non-originalist-approach-constitution/609382/ [https://perma.cc/29WF-CVVC]; Garrett Epps, Common-Good Constitutionalism Is an Idea as Dangerous as They Come: It’s an Argument for Authoritarian Extremism, Atlantic (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/‌common-good-constitutionalism-dangerous-idea/609385/ [https://perma.cc/C6UC-XL74].

  206. Simon, supra note 124, at 259–83.

  207. See generally Ezekiel J. Emanuel, et al., Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19, 382 N.E. J. Med. 2049, 2051–52 (May 21, 2020) (proposing “six specific recommendations for allocating medical resources in the Covid-19 pandemic”).

  208. See infra Conclusion (examining the ways in which our pandemic response could do more to embrace harm reduction).

  209. See generally Dayna Bowen Matthew, Just Medicine: A Cure for Racial Inequality in American Health Care (2015) (illustrating racial and ethnic disparities in America’s health care system and discussing changes to correct them).

  210. See, e.g., Jeneen Interlandi, Why Doesn’t the United States Have Universal Health Care? The Answer Has Everything to Do with Race, N.Y. Times (Aug. 14, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/universal-health-care-racism.html [https://perma.cc/A7E7-FBDN].

  211. Jason Tan de Bibiana, et al., Changing Course in the Overdose Crisis: Moving from Punishment to Harm Reduction and Health 2 (2020) (defining “the principles of harm reduction,” as applied to addiction, as “a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing the negative consequences of drug use without insisting on cessation of use” and by treating drug abuse as “a public health problem rather than a criminal justice issue”).

  212. See generally Robert J. MacCoun & Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places 2 (2001) (assessing “the likely effects of legalization” and “review[ing] a wide variety of experiences and theories that have been used in the debates”); see also Robert J. MacCoun, Moral Outrage and Opposition to Harm Reduction, 7 Crim. L. & Phil. 83, 85 (2013) (examining “the tension between . . . prevalence reduction and harm reduction” and demonstrating that “many citizens are willing to blend” their different responses to risk); Robert J. MacCoun & Peter Reuter, Assessing Drug Prohibition and Its Alternatives: A Guide for Agnostics, 7 Ann. Rev. L. & Soc. Sci. 61, 73 (2011) (surveying the challenges and merits of ending drug prohibition, along with various alternatives to full prohibition); Robert J. MacCoun, Harm Reduction is a Good Label for a Criterion All Drug Programs Should Meet, 104 Addiction 341, 342 (2009) (arguing that “we should recognize explicitly three criteria—prevalence reduction, quantity reduction and average harm reduction—for any drug program, no matter how it might be labeled”); Don C. Des Jarlais, Harm Reduction in the USA: The Research Perspective and an Archive to David Purchase, 14 Harm Reduction J. 51 (2017) (recounting the history of harm reduction and the current challenges that it faces in the United States).

  213. It is not even obvious that widely available contraceptives do increase incidence of sex. Melissa Healy, Does No-Cost Contraception Promote Promiscuity? No, Says Study, L.A. Times (Mar. 6, 2014), https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-contraceptives-sex-promiscuity-20140306-story.html [https://perma.cc/TL5L-YPKY]; Julia Marcus, Americans Aren’t Getting the Advice They Need, Atlantic (May 28, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/no-one-telling-americans-how-reopen-their-lives/612172/ [https://perma.cc/YW6V-4FTY] (“People have argued against providing the HPV vaccine to teens out of concern that it will lead them to have sex earlier or with more people, even though no evidence shows this to be the case.”).

  214. Helena Bachmann, Sex in the City: Zurich’s Prostitution ‘Sex Boxes’ Deemed Success in Switzerland, USA Today (Aug. 24, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/‌world/2018/08/24/sex-boxes-make-legal-prostitution-safe-zurich-switzerland-europe/1083444002/ [https://perma.cc/XKC8-BETL].

  215. Id.

  216. Id.

  217. Id. (quoting city’s website); see also id. (“The Swiss have taken this pragmatic approach to prevent exploitation, sexually transmitted diseases, links with criminal networks and other problems common in countries where sex commerce is banned.”).

  218. Glenn C. Loury & Bruce Western, Introduction: The Challenge of Mass Incarceration in America, 139 Daedalus 5, 6 (2010).

  219. How Stranger Danger Changed the Way Children Play, BBC News Mag. (Dec. 8, 2009); see also supra Section II.A (discussing crime-control governance and the irrationally costly and inequitable pursuit of a “zero-risk environment”).

  220. Simon, supra note 124, at 6–7, 14 (describing a culture of “fear and control” and noting that “[w]hat is visibly different about the way we govern since the 1960s is the degree to which crime is a first response”).

  221. Julia Marcus, Quarantine Fatigue Is Real, Atlantic (May 11, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/quarantine-fatigue-real-and-shaming-people-wont-help/611482/ [https://perma.cc/3VCP-AT2N] (“Public-health campaigns that promote the total elimination of risk, such as abstinence-only sex education, are a missed opportunity to support lower-risk behaviors that are more sustainable in the long term.”); supra notes 24–41 and accompanying text (discussing the costs of crime control and the failure to rationally assess them).

  222. Marcus, supra note 212. Notably, when we talk about “flattening the curve” of pandemic infection, we are speaking the language of harm reduction. We very much want case counts to drop, but that is not necessarily the primary goal. Our alternative aim is to reduce harm by spreading out the impact of infections across time and place to avoid overtaxing the medical personnel and resources.

  223. See, e.g., Horatio Alger, Jr., Ragged Dick: Or, Street Life in New York with the Boot Blacks (Hildegard Hoeller ed., 1868).

  224. Samuel Bazzi, Martin Fiszbein & Mesay Gebresilasse, Frontier Culture: The Roots and Persistence of “Rugged Individualism” in the United States (Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Rsch., Working Paper No. 23997, 2017); cf. infra notes 463–66 and accompanying text (discussing “rugged individualism” and resistance to COVID-epidemic mask-wearing orders).

  225. Unger, infra note 42, at 40 (“The blind fortune that presides over our birth—out of the consequences of the accidental coupling of our parents—pursues us in the big things as well as in the little ones.”). Of course, the idea of “lucky breaks” is related to “luck egalitarianism” and John Rawls’ discussion of the “natural lottery.” John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 63–64 (1921) (discussing the “natural lottery”). See generally Richard J. Arneson, Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare, 56 Phil. Stud. 77 (1989) (arguing that “the idea of equal opportunity for welfare is the best interpretation of the ideal of distributive equality”); G. A. Cohen, On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, 99 Ethics 906 (1989) (examining “[w]hat aspect(s) of a person’s condition should count in a fundamental way for egalitarians, and not merely as cause of or evidence of or proxy for what they regard as fundamental”); Carl Knight, Luck Egalitarianism: Equality, Responsibility, and Justice 4 (2009).

  226. E.B. White, Here Is New York 19 (1949).

  227. Seidman, supra note 31, at 13; see also Dina R. Rose & Todd R. Clear, Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for Social Disorganization Theory, 36 Criminology 441 (1998) (arguing that “an overreliance on incarceration as a formal control may hinder the ability of some communities to foster other forms of control because they weaken family and community structures”); Unger, infra note 42, at 18 (“What individuals can do with their lives depends on the way society is organized and on their place within the social order, as well as on achievement and luck.”).

  228. Garland, supra note 132, at 48; Richard Delgado, “Rotten Social Background”: Should the Criminal Law Recognize a Defense of Severe Environmental Deprivation, 3 L. & Inequality 9, 64 (1985).

  229. von Hirsch, Proportionality and Progressive Loss of Mitigation: Further Reflections, in Previous Convictions at Sentencing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives, supra note 118, at 9; Julian V. Roberts, Punishing Persistent Offenders: Exploring Community and Offender Perspectives 2–7, 137–84 (2008) (observing that punishing recidivists more harshly is a persistent practice worldwide); cf. Lewis, supra note 9, at 29, 55–56 (offering reasons to do “the opposite of what human societies have done for millennia” with the recidivist premium).

  230. Kohler-Hausman, supra note 5, at 144–82 (discussing criminal-legal “marks”).

  231. Donald Black, Crime as Social Control, 48 Am. Socio. Rev. 34 (1983) (“There is a sense in which conduct regarded as criminal is often quite the opposite. Far from being an intentional violation of a prohibition, . . . it is self-help.”). On this score, I am reminded of the observation of my old boss, Robin Steinberg, former executive director of the Bronx Defenders. She claimed that—because the organization’s holistic-defense model served also the civil-legal and social-service needs of criminal-defense clients—it was a crime-fighting outfit; cf. Experts: Robin Steinberg, at http://gideonat50.org/experts/robin-steinberg/ [https://perma.cc/UX4C-TPL2] (describing holistic defense as a “model of representation to fight both the causes and consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system”). We eliminate crime by meeting people’s needs in the first instance.

  232. David L. Bazelon, The Morality of the Criminal Law, 49 S. Cal. L. Rev. 385, 389 (1976) (asking “whether a free choice to do wrong can be found . . . in the act of a ‘modern Jean Valjean’”); Victor Hugo, Les Misérables (1862) (telling the story of Jean Valjean).

  233. Aditi Bagchi, Lying and Cheating, or Self-Help and Civil-Disobedience?, 85 Brook. L. Rev. 1, 20–21 (2020).

  234. Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875), reprinted in The Marx-Engels Reader 382, 388 (Robert C. Tucker ed., 1972).

  235. Ewing, supra note 28, at 283, 330 (observing that the recidivist premium “is problematic in practice because ex-offenders’ opportunities to avoid reoffending are arguably worsened by criminogenic prison conditions and collateral consequences of conviction to a greater extent than they are improved by . . . punishment”); see also Lee, supra note 118, at 618–20 (arguing that the state shares at least partial blame for an offender’s recidivism because it has “made it difficult for ex-offenders to pursue normal lives by denying them housing, welfare, education, certain jobs, and the ability to drive to work”); cf. Christopher Lewis, Incentives, Inequality, Criminality, and Blame, 22 Legal Theory 153 (2016) (arguing social conditions create incentives to commit crime, and, in such circumstances, blame is inappropriate). Ewing identified a number of moral and prudential objections to “large recidivist premiums,” including the criminogenic effect of long-term incarceration, the elasticity of criminal conduct, and corresponding concerns about the value of incapacitation. Ewing, supra note 28, at 292. But, to my thinking, Ewing did not go far enough. As I argue here, there are good reasons, in some circumstances, to doubt not only large recidivist premiums but any recidivist premium—and, in fact, any punishment at all for the longtime recidivist offender.

  236. Bowers, supra note 150, at 809 (describing akrasia in the context of addiction); Harry G. Frankfurt, Duty and Love, 1 Phil. Explorations 4, 5 (1998); see also Andrew Koppelman, Conscience, Volitional Necessity, and Religious Exemptions, 15 Legal Theory 215, 234 (2009); Ole-Jørgen Skog, The Strength of Weak Will, 9 Rationality & Soc’y 245 (1997); Donald Davidson, How Is Weakness of the Will Possible?, in Essays on Actions and Events 21 (2d ed. 2001) (1969); infra notes 356–61 and accompanying text (discussing “volitional necessity”).

  237. Peggy Fulton Hora, William G. Schma & John T.A. Rosenthal, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Treatment Court Movement: Revolutionizing the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Drug Abuse and Crime in America, 74 Notre Dame L. Rev. 439, 463, 523 (1999) (describing addiction as a “chronic, progressive, relapsing disorder”); Eric J. Miller, Embracing Addiction: Drug Courts and the False Promise of Judicial Interventionism, 65 Ohio St. L.J. 1479, 1485 (2004) (discussing the “inevitability of relapse”).

  238. Infra notes 255–61 and accompanying text (discussing environmental theories of addiction).

  239. Bowers, supra note 150, at 788 (“Ultimately, when drug courts imprison failing participants, they punish them not for their underlying crimes, but for their inability to get with the program.”); id. at 828 (“Drug courts . . . view the addict as only partially responsible (and, rhetorically, perhaps not even that) when valuing the retributive worth of his crime, but wholly rational and responsible when it comes to his success or failure at responding to the carrots and sticks of treatment.”).

  240. See generally Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk, 47 Econometrica 263 (1979) (arguing that “people underweight outcomes that are merely probable in comparison with outcomes that are obtained with certainty”); Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty, 5 J. Risk & Uncertainty 297 (1992) (“develop[ing] a new version of prospect theory” that “allows different weighting functions for gains and for losses” and “confirm[s] a distinctive fourfold pattern of risk attitudes”).

  241. Christine Jolls, Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler, A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471, 1539 (1998) (defining hyperbolic discounting as an irrational “impatience . . . for near rewards . . . and aversion . . . for near punishments”); George Ainslie, A Research-Based Theory of Addictive Motivation, 19 L. & Phil. 77, 91 (2000) (describing the hyperbolic discounter as one who “fails to develop a faculty for ‘utility constancy’”). On irrationality and addiction, see Michael Louis Corrado, Addiction and Responsibility: An Introduction, 18 L. & Phil. 579, 583–585 (1999); Michael Louis Corrado, Behavioral Economics, Neurophysiology, Addiction and the Law 1, 27 (Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, UNC Legal Studies Research Paper No. 892007, 2006) (discussing the argument that addicts may discount hyperbolically because of “distorted reasoning[,] . . . a flaw in our way of approaching future costs and benefits . . . that . . . lands the addict . . . in hot water”); Richard Birke, Reconciling Loss Aversion and Guilty Pleas, 1999 Utah L. Rev. 205, 246 n.132 (1999) (“[W]e can see that criminals appear to be more risk seeking than the general population in both the decision to engage in prohibited behavior and in the decision to exacerbate penalties by hiding or running from detection.”); Lewis, supra note 9, at 15 (“[T]hose who commit crime tend to be impulsive and risk-seeking in general[.]”). On risk seeking and youth, see Laura Duberstein Lindberg, Scott Boggess, Laura Porter & Sean Williams, Teen Risk-Taking: A Statistical Portrait 22 (2000) (discussing statistics on risk-taking behaviors in adolescent males); Laurence Steinberg, A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking, 28 Dev. Rev. 78 (2008) (citing sources); supra notes 182–95 and accompanying text (examining the “aging out” process whereby offenders and drug users temper risk-seeking behavior with age).

  242. Ewing, supra note 28, at 293 (explaining that deterrence theory does not support recidivist premiums where the recidivist has “problems rationally assessing his options, exercising self-control, or protecting his future interests when they come into conflict with immediate desires”).

  243. Infra notes 374–90 and accompanying text (discussing optimal screening); cf. Richard J. Bonnie, Anne M. Coughlin, John C. Jeffries, Jr. & Peter W. Low, Criminal Law 9 (4th ed. 2015) (introducing the argument that, to account for “society’s own conduct in relation to the actor,” the criminal law should allow for more capacious excuse defenses based upon “physiological, psychological, environmental, cultural, educational, economic, and hereditary factors”) (quoting David Bazelon).

  244. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. L. § 511(3)(a)(ii), (b) (McKinney 2013) (defining felony aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle as, inter alia, “operating a motor vehicle while . . . ha[ving] in effect ten or more suspensions,” and mandating prison sentence for predicate felons).

  245. Id. (providing mandatory prison or probation for felony “unlicensed operation”).

  246. Links have been drawn between obsessive compulsive disorder and kleptomania. Jon E. Grant, Understanding and Treating Kleptomania: New Models and New Treatments, 43 Isr. J. Psych. & Related Sci. 81 (2006) (“Evidence suggests that there may be subtypes of kleptomania that are more like OCD, whereas others have more similarities to addictive and mood disorders.”).

  247. It is also possible that the problem was situational necessity, but that seems less likely given widely available public transportation in New York City. In another part of the country, however—where car travel is more central to everyday living—my client’s criminal history might have pointed to the manner by which unlicensed driving is a crime of poverty. Infra notes 353–55 and accompanying text (discussing circumstances where unlicensed driving may be a crime of situational necessity).

  248. Herbert Morris, Rehabilitation and Dignity, in Principled Sentencing 20 (Andrew von Hirsch & Andrew Ashworth eds., 1992).

  249. Stephen J. Morse, The Twilight of Welfare Criminology: A Reply to Judge Bazelon, 49 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1247, 1253–54, 1268 (1976) (explaining that it is “respectful to the actor to hold the actor responsible”).

  250. Supra notes 222–27 and accompanying text (discussing luck, freewill, and the “American Dream”).

  251. Unger, supra note 42, at 35.

  252. Martha C. Nussbaum, Equity and Mercy, 22 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 83, 111 (1993); Bibas, supra note 177, at xvi; Josh Bowers, Probable Cause, Constitutional Reasonableness, and the Unrecognized Point of a “Pointless Indignity,” 66 Stan. L. Rev. 987, 1021–24 (criticizing the dominant role of formalism in criminal procedure); supra notes 172–81 and accompanying text (discussing criminal-legal “machinery” and the need for individualized justice).

  253. Unger, supra note 42, at 35 (“A philosophy that takes sides with the agent . . . [endeavors to] reveal how we can redirect thought and reorganize society so that the vision of the agent able to use contingency against constraint becomes more real, and the picture of the toolmaker made into a tool . . . becomes less real.”).

  254. Id. at 26, 28, 35 (explaining that “[a] radicalized pragmatism” uses as its touchstone “the agent and his ambitions”).

  255. RSA, supra note 46, at 5:59 and 2:50.

  256. Martha C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach 46–56 (2013); see also Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice 225–91 (2009); Amartya Sen, Capability and Well-Being, in Quality of Life 30, 30 (Martha Nussbaum & Amartya Sen eds., 1993).

  257. Nussbaum, supra note 255, at ix.

  258. Id. at 33–34, 49.

  259. Lewis, supra note 9, at 38–39 (discussing “conceptions of the good”); supra notes 78–80 and accompanying text.

  260. Nussbaum, supra note 255, at 33–34; see also Kony Kim, Restoring Human Capabilities After Punishment: Our Political Responsibilities Toward Incarcerated Americans 39–40 (2016) (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley) (ProQuest); supra notes 191–95 and accompanying text (discussing the “environmental theory” of addiction).

  261. Nussbaum, supra note 255, at 20, 29–33 (emphasizing dignity and human flourishing); Amartya Sen, Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation, 10 Feminist Econ. 77, 77–80 (2004) (emphasizing a more generalized capabilities approach).

  262. Nussbaum, supra note 255, at 18-20; see also Kim, supra note 259, at 39 (“Among the most essential human capacities, in Nussbaum’s view, is the ability to make reasoned choices: in a word, agency . . . . When people are exercising agency reasonably, they’re living in a manner most worthy of their dignity. Thus, agency is vital to human flourishing, and respect for people’s dignity requires preserving and protecting their exercise of agency.”).

  263. Unger, supra note 42, at 51; cf. Robin West, Jurisprudence and Gender, 55 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 2 (1988) (describing Unger as the “premiere spokesperson for the communitarian left”).

  264. See Rebecca Solnit, A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster 3 (2009) (“The very concept of society rests on the idea of networks of affinity and affection, and . . . the keeping of one’s brothers and sisters.”).

  265. West, supra note 262, at 1–2.

  266. Unger, supra note 42, at 18. In a related vein, Ta-Nehesi Coates wrote: “Slavery is not an indefinable mass of flesh. It is a particular, specific enslaved woman, whose mind is active as your own, whose range of feeling is as vast as your own . . . , who loves her mother in her own complicated way.” Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me 69 (2015).

  267. See Kim, supra note 259, at 39 (“[E]fforts to protect agency must account for human vulnerability: by nature, people have inherent needs and weaknesses . . . . [P]eople need to inhabit societies that afford them freedom to flourish by meeting welfare needs, protecting against exploitation, and supporting the growth and exercise of essential human capacities.”).

  268. Unger, supra note 42, at 44.

  269. RSA, supra note 46, at 2:43; Unger, supra note 42, at 256.

  270. The concepts of mercy and forgiveness are, of course, familiar to many religious traditions. Murphy & Hampton, supra note 131, at 5.

  271. Luke 15:29–32 (King James) (“Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: but as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.”).

  272. Arland J. Hultgren, The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary 80 (2002).

  273. Jean Hampton, Forgiveness, Resentment and Hatred, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 87 (“This might be the first step towards coming to like himself again.”).

  274. Kubo and the Two Strings (Laika Films 2016).

  275. Id. at 1:29:02.

  276. Id. at 1:29:19.

  277. Infra notes 299–301 and accompanying text (discussing libertarian-paternal “nudges”).

  278. Joan Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry 15 (2003); NYU Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, Disrupting the Cycle: Reimagining the Prosecutor’s Role in Reentry: A Guide to Best Practices 44 (2017).

  279. Jean Hampton, The Retributive Idea, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 111, 151.

  280. Martha Minow, When Should Law Forgive? 153 (2019).

  281. See, e.g., Antonin Scalia, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175, 1176, 1179 (1989) (“It is this dichotomy between ‘general rule of law’ and ‘personal discretion to do justice’ that I wish to explore . . . There are times when even a bad rule is better than no rule at all.”); David Dolinko, Some Naive Thoughts About Justice and Mercy, 4 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 349, 349–51 (describing mercy as infliction of less punishment than deserved and recognizing the argument that “a deliberate departure from the requirements of justice [may be] an injustice”); Jeffrie G. Murphy, Mercy and Legal Justice, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 167–70 (“If mercy requires a tempering of justice, then there is a sense in which mercy may require a departure from justice.”); Minow, supra note 279, at 129 (“Forgiveness judgments must always consider the jeopardy to the rule of law and to the fair treatment of others who obey the rules.”).

  282. Bowers, supra note 10, at 1673, 1680–81 (discussing mercy’s relationship to justice and treating “like cases alike”); Bowers, supra note 36, at 135–37 (responding to rule-of-law objections to leniency).

  283. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Mercy and Legal Justice, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 172 & n.7 (arguing that a “sophisticated theory” of justice is not “overrestricted and simplistic,” but rather remains flexible enough to account for “morally relevant differences”); infra notes 287–98 and accompanying text (discussing “normative guilt and innocence”).

  284. Bibas, supra note 177, at 97; see also Minow, supra note 279, at 142 (“The legal tools of forgiveness can themselves be abused, but that should not be a reason for less forgiveness in the law. Instead, it should be a reason for developing rigorous, reasoned analysis about when forgiveness is and is not warranted.”); infra notes 393–411 and accompanying text (discussing the objection of “undeserved windfall”).

  285. Supra notes 78–85 and accompanying text (discussing contested concepts of disorder and quality of life).

  286. Supra note 146 and accompanying text.

  287. Infra notes 381–90 and accompanying text; cf. Minow, supra note 279, at 146, 153 (noting that forgiveness may be a means to use “a wider lens” and “acknowledge larger social failures to prevent misery [and] restrain power”).

  288. Nussbaum, supra note 251, at 85–86 (arguing complete justice requires legal justice tempered by equity, and recognizing the “close connection between equitable judgment—judgment that attends to the particulars—and mercy”); Bowers, supra note 10, at 1672, 1678–79 (“Complete justice demands both the simple justice that arises from fair and virtuous treatment and the legal justice that arises from the application of legal rules . . . Roughly, normative innocence is equivalent to a lack of blameworthiness, . . . [which] relies upon particularized exercise of practical intuition and intelligence, not on formal legal designations . . . [I]t demands a separate (and contextualized) evaluation.”); see also Eric L. Muller, The Virtue of Mercy in Criminal Sentencing, 24 Seton Hall L. Rev. 288, 343 (1993) (“[M]ercy is neither a redundancy of justice nor an indefensible deviation from justice. Instead, . . . mercy is a guarantor of justice.”); C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics 294 (Walter Hooper ed., 1970) (“Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. That is the important paradox. As there are plants which will flourish only in mountain soil, so it appears that Mercy will flower only when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice.”).

  289. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness and Resentment, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 26.; see also Jeffrie G. Murphy, Mercy and Legal Justice, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 162, 171, 180–81 (endorsing “individuation” as “a basic demand of justice,” and describing mercy as a “free gift” whether “acted on or not”); see also Ewing, supra note 28, at 316; cf. John Tasioulas, Mercy, 103 Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 101, 117–18, 122 (2003) (observing that not “taking . . . extenuating circumstances into account is unduly harsh”).

  290. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Forgiveness and Resentment, in Forgiveness and Mercy, supra note 131, at 27–28; see also Stephanos Bibas, Forgiveness in Criminal Procedure, 4 Ohio State J. Crim. L. 329, 333 n.14 (defending exercises of “humane compassion” in criminal justice).

  291. Bowers, supra note 36, at 157–60 (critiquing the special role played by formalism in criminal justice).

  292. Seana Valentine Shiffrin, Inducing Moral Deliberation: On the Occasional Virtues of Fog, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 1214, 1242–43 (2010) (defending the notion of “treating like cases differently . . . because we . . . have differing opinions . . . of what constitutes right treatment”); David A. Strauss, Must Like Cases Be Treated Alike? 12 (U. Chi. Law Sch. Pub. L. & Legal Theory Working Paper, Paper No. 24, 2002) (arguing that, rather than measuring whether like cases are treated alike according to application of legal rules, the justice system could measure according to “morally relevant differences” of cases); Bowers, supra note 10, at 1674 (“[A] contextualized approach to criminal justice necessarily demands more than just a rigid application of legal rules pursuant to formal designations. It demands an evaluation of relative blameworthiness to ensure that equitably distinct cases are recognized as such, even if those cases happen to be legally identical under insufficiently discriminating statutes.”).

  293. Jeffries, supra note 58, at 201, 212; see also Bowers, supra note 36, at 193; Minow, supra note 279, at 146 (“Promoting legal forgiveness . . . may jeopardize the predictability, reliability, and equal treatment sought by the rule of law.”).

  294. Bowers, supra note 36, at 144–45; Bowers, supra note 251, at 988–89.

  295. Supra Section I.B.

  296. Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156, 185 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

  297. Supra notes 86–112 and accompanying text (discussing large role played by discretion in quality-of-life enforcement and adjudication).

  298. Scalia, supra note 280, at 1175.

  299. In any event, leniency is a special case. Certain rule-of-law concerns—for instance, the concept of notice—are simply not as pressing when it comes to mercy, as compared to punishment. According to Meir Dan-Cohen: “[T]he rule of law allegedly promotes liberty or autonomy by increasing predictability. But the need for security of individual expectations is not a great obstacle . . . when decision rules are more lenient than conduct rules would lead people to expect. In such cases no one is likely to complain of frustrated expectations.” Meir Dan-Cohen, Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 3, 10–11 (2011); see also Anne M. Coughlin, Of Decision Rules and Conduct Rules, or Doing the Police in Different Voices, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 15, 16 (2011) (“What does the lawbreaker have to whine about? The fact that she thought she was going to be punished . . . ? That would be goofy, to say the very least.”). In other words, the rule of law tolerates pleasant surprises. Bowers, supra note 36, at 136, 147–48, 160 (“[P]ositive legality is not offended by pleasant surprises, and an exception that tends toward leniency produces only a pleasant surprise. . . . In other words, the rule of law abides pleasant surprises because such surprises do not affect the individual’s opportunities to plan conduct in the shadow of law.”).

  300. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, Libertarian Paternalism, 93 Am. Econ. Rev. 175–76 (2003) (“If no coercion is involved, we think that some types of paternalism should be acceptable to even the most ardent libertarian. . . . [I]n some cases individuals make inferior choices, choices that they would change if they had complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities, and no lack of willpower. . . . [P]lanners are forced to make some design choices.”); Michael Louis Corrado, Behavioral Economics, Neurophysiology, Addiction and the Law 35 (UNC Legal Stud., Research Paper No. 892,007, 2010) (“[I]f the behavioral economist is right we might arrange choices so that people can get what they want for the long run without our making the choice for them.”); cf. Bowers, supra note 150, at 790, 830–33 (describing a way to restructure drug courts around carrots, rather than sticks, as a means to “provide something akin to a ‘libertarian-paternal’ nudge in the right direction for the addicted ex-convict who found himself ready for treatment but who still required some help to get and to keep clean”).

  301. Minow, supra note 279, at 160 (quoting Katie J.M. Baker: “In restorative justice, . . . [the] emphasis is on repairing and preventing harm, not indefinite, often ineffective punishment”); see, e.g., Kony Kim, From Adversarial Legalism to Collaborative Problem-Solving: A Pragmatic Turn in American Criminal Justice 20–25 (examining the Red Hook Community Justice Center in Brooklyn, New York).

  302. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 95 (“[M]aking whole the many survivors of systemic government atrocities is entirely absent from broader ‘criminal justice reform’ discourse.”); cf. supra notes 147–64 and accompanying text (critiquing the scope of internal criminal-legal “reformist” reforms, like drug courts).

  303. Richard Gonzales, To Reduce Gun Violence, Potential Offenders Offered Support and Cash, NPR (Mar. 28, 2016), https://www.npr.org/2016/03/28/472138377/to-reduce-gun-violence-potential-offenders-offered-support-and-cash [https://perma.cc/J2WM-AA2T].

  304. Stephanie Pagones, New York City Gifting Alleged Criminals Baseball Tickets, Gift Cards as Part of $12M Perk Program, Fox Bus. (Nov. 8, 2019), https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/new-york-city-gifting-alleged-criminals-baseball-tickets-gift-cards-as-part-of-12m-perk-program [https://perma.cc/8B7N-SATG]. I was a Reporter for the Uniform Law Commission’s recently adopted “Pretrial Release and Detention Act.” We included, in our proposed statute, a similar set of provisions that would require courts to consider whether “practical assistance” or “supportive service” could effectively manage release risks. Uniform Law Commission, Pretrial Release and Detention Act, § 305 (adopted July 15, 2020).

  305. Douglas B. Marlowe, Behavior Modification 101 for Drug Courts: Making the Most of Incentives and Sanctions 3 (2012); see also supra notes 150–64 and accompanying text (discussing drug courts).

  306. Vivian Vásquez Irizarry, Gretchen Hildebran & Julia Steele Allen, Decade of Fire, PBS (Nov. 4, 2019), https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/decade-of-fire/ [https://perma.cc/S5K9-NV4R].

  307. Soraya Nadia McDonald, Out of the Chaos, a Beat: ‘Rubble Kings’ Explains How Gang Violence Gave Way to the Creation of Hip-Hop, Wash. Post (June 25, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2015/06/25/out-of-the-chaos-a-beat-rubble-kings-explains-how-gang-violence-gave-way-to-the-creation-of-hip-hop/ [https://perma.cc/Q5GE-RSAZ]; Jeff Chang, Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop: A History of the Hip-Hop Generation 60 (2005).

  308. Chang, supra note 306, at 80.

  309. Cf. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 32 (“[A] variety of other alternatives to human caging exist . . . education, employment, companionship, after-school art and theater programs, medical and mental health care, addiction treatment, and stable housing, to name a few.”).

  310. Maki Becker, The War on Drugs Hit Them Hard, So Oakland Is Saving Them a Spot in the Pot Trade, Buff. News (May 5, 2019), https://buffalonews.com/news/local/the-war-on-drugs-hit-them-hard-so-oakland-is-saving-them-a-spot-in/article_d0e501f1-b2bb-550c-a5dd-fb4fb25ed92a.html [https://perma.cc/5FBE-T9JF] (drawing an analogy to reparations); Max Blau, Legal Pot Is Notoriously White. Oakland Is Changing That., Politico (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/27/oakland-legal-cannabis-hood-incubator-217657/ [https://perma.cc/4ATX-E48W].

  311. Becker, supra note 309. In addition to $3 million in interest-free loans, the city is looking to provide commercial kitchen space for edible-cannabis processing. Id.

  312. Blau, supra note 309 (noting that, under the program, Oakland set aside at least half the permits “for residents who had been targets of the war on drugs”).

  313. Becker, supra note 309 (“It came down to this: White people were being allowed to sell and smoke marijuana—even getting rich off it—while African Americans were getting arrested.”); Blau, supra note 309 (describing one equity participant for whom “cannabis suppressed her life” but “now, cannabis will uplift her family’s life”); Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 96–97 (describing “[p]olicies to reserve profitable marijuana business licenses to people with prior marijuana convictions” as meaningful radical reform and a “reinvestment” effort designed to promote “community-based wellness”).

  314. Blau, supra note 309 (quoting a founder of the Hood Incubator that “[i]t’s there to help those most impacted by the war on drugs”).

  315. Supra notes 269–79 and accompanying text (discussing the Parable of the Lost Son as a tale of harm-reduction and restorative justice).

  316. Ellen M. Weber, Failure of Physicians To Prescribe Pharmacotherapies for Addiction: Regulatory Restrictions and Physician Resistance, 13 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 49, 56 (2010) (“[T]he medical community viewed addiction as a medical problem, and physicians prescribed opioid medications for the care of addicted patients without legal restrictions.”); David T. Courtwright, The Hidden Epidemic: Opiate Addiction and Cocaine Use in the South, 1860–1920, 49 J.S. Hist. 57, 71–72 (1983) (noting that as early as 1870, medical professionals began to conceive of addiction as a disease as opposed to a moral failing, and they responded to the epidemic by treating and ultimately tracking addicts).

  317. Hari, supra note 183, at 33–34 (quoting a contemporary physician that “the doctor knows just what should be done . . . that he has but to write a few words on the prescription blank that lies at his elbow, and the patient . . . will receive the remedy that would restore him miraculously to a semblance of normality”); id. at 37 (“[D]octors, vets, and dentists . . . [gave] out these drugs as they saw fit . . . addicts [were] dealt with compassionately in this way.”). See generally Henry Smith Williams, Drug Addicts Are Human Beings 14 (1938) (recounting the rise to prominence of the prohibitive approach towards drug-use).

  318. See, e.g., Edward Huntington Williams, Negro Cocaine ‘Fiends’ Are New Southern Menace, N.Y. Times, Feb. 8, 1914, at 12 (warning in racist terms of the purported dangers presented by “cocaine-crazed negroes”); Hamilton Wright, Report on the International Opium Commission and on the Opium Problem as Seen Within the United States and Its Possessions, S. Doc. No. 61-377, at 49–50 (2d Sess. 1910); Cocaine Sniffers, N.Y. Daily Trib., June 21, 1903, at 11 (describing in racist terms the threats presented by a rise in “cocaine sniffing”); see also David F. Musto, The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control 7 (3d ed. 1999), (explaining that “fantasies” about super-human strength resulting from cocaine use “characterized white fear, not the reality of cocaine’s effects”); Courtwright, supra note 315, at 70–71 (describing the “supercharged racial atmosphere” and “exaggerated reactions” of the white southern power structure); How Did We Get Here?, Economist, July 28, 2001 (A Survey of Illegal Drugs), at 4 (describing racist early-twentieth century perception of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes”).

  319. Courtwright, supra note 315, at 57; Hari, supra note 183, at 36.

  320. Hari, supra note 183, at 37.

  321. Musto, supra note 317, at 151; Hari, supra note 183, at 37; Courtwright, supra note 315, at 57–62; Weber, supra note 315, at 59 (“[F]ederal and state health officials and local law enforcement, beginning around 1912, created maintenance clinics in a dozen states that would prescribe medication in an effort to prevent suffering related to addiction and wean individuals from their drug use through the gradual reduction of dosage.”).

  322. Courtwright, supra note 315, at 60–62 (analyzing the data and observing that the clinics were “designed to supply narcotics to, as well as to keep track of, addicts”).

  323. Musto, supra note 317, at 151, 156–78.

  324. Hari, supra note 183, at 37.

  325. Thomas M. Quinn & Gerald T. McLaughlin, The Evolution of Federal Drug Control Legislation, 22 Cath. U. L. Rev. 586, 594–95 (1973) (“[L]aw enforcement officials soon began to move to curtail the medical profession’s freedom to prescribe narcotics in the treatment of addicts.”).

  326. Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925).

  327. Harrison Act of 1914, Pub. L. No. 63-223, ch. 1, 38 Stat. 785, 785 (1914) (repealed 1970). Compare Linder, 268 U.S. at 18 (“[W]e cannot possibly conclude that a physician acted improperly or unwisely or for other than medical purposes solely because he has dispensed . . . in the ordinary court and in good faith . . . morphine or cocaine for relief of conditions incident to addiction.”), with United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280, 288–89 (1922) (holding that prescribing drugs for an addict was a crime regardless of the physician’s intent in the matter), and Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189, 194 (1920) (holding that a physician’s lawful prescribing authority did not include “a distribution intended to cater to the appetite or satisfy the craving of one addicted to the use of the drug”), and Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96, 99–100 (1919) (“[T]o call such an order for the use of morphine a physician’s prescription would be so plain a perversion of meaning that no discussion of the subject is required.”).

  328. Weber, supra note 315, at 56.

  329. Id. at 60.

  330. Quinn & McLaughlin, supra note 324, at 596–97 (“[T]he addict could no longer turn to the medical profession for help: he was forced to turn to a new source of supply—the growing illicit drug market.” (quoting Rufus King, The Drug Hang-Up 43 (1972))); see also id. at 595 (“The unfortunate consequence of this policy was to drive from the field of drug treatment not only the unethical ‘script doctor’ but the legitimate doctor as well.”).

  331. Hari, supra note 183, at 200–02; Matthew Power, The Alleys of Vancouver, Slate (Feb. 3, 2010), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/02/the-alleys-of-vancouver.html [https://perma.cc/3PYW-7ZTF].

  332. See Matthew Power, Welcome to Insite, Slate (Feb. 1, 2010), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/02/welcome-to-insite.html [https://perma.cc/7A2S-QU9R]. See generally Richard C. Boldt, Drug Policy in Context: Rhetoric and Practice in the United States and the United Kingdom, 62 S.C. L. Rev. 261, 348 (2010) (describing supervised injection facilities as potentially “a pragmatic call for balance and for evidence-based decisionmaking”).

  333. JoNel Aleccia, As Seattle Eyes Supervised Drug-Injection Sites, Is Vancouver a Good Model?, Seattle Times (Nov. 30, 2016), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/is-vancouvers-safe-drug-use-site-a-good-model-for-seattle/ [https://perma.cc/58S9-KB24]; see also Hari, supra note 183, at 203 (noting sharp drop in drug-related fatalities in British Columbia as a whole); Robert Matas, B.C. Drug Deaths Hit a Low Not Seen in Years, Globe & Mail (Dec. 9, 2008), https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/bc-drug-deaths-hit-a-low-not-seen-in-years/article1067082/ [https://perma.cc/7VU9-YZMQ] (same). See generally Att’y Gen. of Can. v. PHS Cmty. Servs. Soc’y, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 134, 151 (Can.) (describing the impacts of Vancouver activism and reform).

  334. Evan Wood, et al., Changes in Public Order After the Opening of a Medically Supervised Safer Injecting Facility for Illicit Injection Drug Users, 171 CMAJ 731, 733 (2004). Between 1996 and 2006, life expectancy in the Downtown Eastside rose by several years. Sam Cooper, Life-Expectancy Jump Astounds, Province (Vancouver), Sept. 7, 2012, at A3.

  335. German Lopez, The Case for Prescription Heroin: Vancouver Gives Heroin to People Suffering from Addiction—and It Works, Vox (June 12, 2017), https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/12/15301458/canada-prescription-heroin-opioid-addiction [https://perma.cc/L7RQ-T9X9].

  336. Hari, supra note 183, at 206, 209–10.

  337. Linnet Myers, Europe Finds U.S Drug War Lacking in Results, Chi. Trib., Nov. 2, 1995, at SW1.

  338. Hari, supra note 183, at 218–19. See generally John Strang, Teodora Gorshkova & Nicola Metrebian, EMCDDA Insights: New Heroin-Assisted Treatment 11, 13 (2012) (observing that, in various European countries, supervised injectable heroin treatment, though more expensive than optimized oral methadone treatment, led to significant societal savings).

  339. Gaëlle Faure, Why Doctors Are Giving Heroin to Heroin Addicts, Time (Sept. 28, 2009), http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1926160,00.html [https://perma.cc/G2U3-WH8H].

  340. Alex Kreit, Controlled Substances: Crime, Regulation, and Policy 740 (2013).

  341. Lauren Frayer, In Portugal, Drug Use Is Treated as a Medical Issue, Not a Crime, NPR (Apr. 18, 2017), https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime [https://perma.cc/B7S8-AW2X].

  342. Id.

  343. Nicholas Kristof, How to Win a War on Drugs, N.Y. Times, Sept. 24, 2017 (Sunday Review), at 1; see also Hari, supra note 183, at 249–50, 268 (noting that the number of addicts, incidents of overdose, and the proportion of people contracting HIV from drug use have fallen in Portugal after the decriminalization); Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes & Alex Stevens, What Can We Learn from the Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?, 50 Brit. J. Criminology 999, 1014–15 (2010) (finding that after decriminalization, the number of drug-related deaths, young people becoming dependent on illicit drugs, and drug users diagnosed with HIV and AIDS in Portugal has decreased); Christopher Ingraham, Why Hardly Anyone Dies from a Drug Overdose in Portugal, Wash. Post (June 5, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ [https://perma.cc/8VEQ-LPYQ] (same); Frayer, supra note 340 (same).

  344. Kristof, supra note 342. Other countries, like Uruguay and the Netherlands, have undertaken similar decriminalization reforms with promising results. Hari, supra note 183, at 264–73; Shirley Haasnoot, Opinion, Dutch Drug Policy, Pragmatic as Ever, Guardian (Jan. 3, 2013), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/03/dutch-drug-policy-pragmatic.

  345. Lopez, supra note 334; Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 788–89; cf. Kohler-Hausmann, supra note 5, at 144–82 (discussing criminal-legal “marks”).

  346. Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 801; infra notes 99–109 and accompanying text (discussing “downstream consequences” of arrest, charge, conviction, and punishment); Denis Ribeaud, Long Term Impacts of the Swiss Heroin Prescription Trials on Crime of Treated Heroin Users, 34 J. Drug Issues 163, 173 (noting 55% and 75% reduction in vehicle thefts among participants in the first and fourth years of treatment, respectively); Hari, supra note 183, at 221 (noting drop in HIV infections caused by injection drug use from 68% to 5%); Joanne Csete & Peter J. Grob, Switzerland, HIV and the Power of Pragmatism: Lessons for Drug Policy Development, 23 Int’l J. Drug Pol’y 82, 84 (2012) (noting drop in hepatitis infections caused by injection drug use from 51% to 10%); cf. Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 66 (“The drug war cost more than a trillion dollars, tens of millions of arrests, hundreds of millions of police stops, tens of millions of years in prison, tens of millions of lost jobs and educations and homes . . . .”).

  347. For instance, a study published in The Lancet found that the majority of participants in Switzerland’s addiction-maintenance clinics were able to pivot eventually to methadone or abstinence programs. Wim Weber, Heroin Prescription for Addicts in Switzerland Improves Quality of Life, 356 Lancet 1177, 1177 (2000); Hari, supra note 183, at 222 (citing studies showing that in Switzerland “[t]he number of addicts dying every year fell dramatically”); cf. Lopez, supra note 334 (describing clinics that provide social services); Karakatsanis, supra note 34, at 32 (“[A] mountain of evidence suggests that the punishment approach to drugs has actually increased drug use and the harms associated with it . . . .”); Agan, Doleac & Harvey, supra note 71, at 5–6, 37 (finding that not prosecuting marginal nonviolent misdemeanor defendants “reduces the likelihood of a new misdemeanor complaint by 24 percentage points . . . [and] a new felony complaint by 8 percentage points,” and speculating that the economic, social, and stigmatic consequences of criminal justice involvement explain the differences in recidivism rates); supra notes 212–16 and accompanying text (discussing manner by which social services may counteract the criminogenic aspects of conventional criminal legalism, and citing sources for the proposition that harm-reduction, safe-sex measures have not increased instances of sex).

  348. Supra notes 118–23, 222–28, 247–48 and accompanying text.

  349. Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 459 (1897) (“If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict . . . .”); see, e.g., N.Y. Penal Law § 145.00 (McKinney 2021) (defining “criminal mischief,” inter alia, as “[i]ntentionally damag[ing] property of another”); N.Y. Penal Law § 140.10 (McKinney 2021) (defining “criminal trespass,” inter alia, as “enter[ing] . . . real property . . . which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders”).

  350. See supra Part III.

  351. See supra Part III (describing and championing harm reduction); see also The Purge (Universal Pictures 2013) (telling narrative of alternate America in which day-to-day crime is minimized by making all crimes legal for twelve hours annually); cf. infra note 442 and accompanying text (discussing willingness of even prison abolitionists to incapacitate the “dangerous few”).

  352. Supra Part I.

  353.  Supra Section I.A. (discussing undefined nature of the concept of disorder and corresponding quality-of-life offenses).

  354. With respect to possession of firearms, I could be convinced otherwise, particularly because enforcement of weapons offenses potentially produces distributive and racial inequities. Benjamin Levin, Guns and Drugs, 84 Fordham L. Rev. 2173, 2173 (2016) (“[R]ace- and class-based critiques . . . concerns about police and prosecutorial power . . . worries about the social and economic costs of mass incarceration . . . the same issues persist in an area—possessory gun crime—that receives much less criticism.”).

  355. Supra and infra notes 83, 110–11, 113, 170–71, 192, 402 and accompanying text (discussing intersection between order-maintenance enforcement and poverty); see, e.g., Stolper & Jones, supra note 138, at 24 (describing turnstile hopping as “an essential crime of poverty”); Parascandola, et al., supra note 140 (“Most people who jump the turnstiles are doing it because it’s a [sic] economic hardship.”); Vincent Barone, Brooklyn Turnstile Jumping Arrests Target Poor African-Americans: Report (Oct. 16, 2017) (“This is basically a crime of poverty.”), https://www.amny.com/transit/brooklyn-turnstile-jumping-arrests-target-poor-african-americans-report-1-14490216/ [https://perma.cc/5X7M-JFS6]; cf. Eduardo M. Penalver & Sonia Katyal, Property Outlaws, 155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1095, 1172 (2007) (endorsing situational excuse for economic necessity).

  356. Lawyers and activists have opposed driver’s license revocation laws on precisely these grounds. See, e.g., Richard A. Oppel, Jr., Being Poor Can Mean Losing a Driver’s License. Not Anymore in Tennessee., N.Y. Times (July 4, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/04/us/drivers-license-tennessee.html [https://perma.cc/S3CB-YR24] (describing litigation as “a major victory for advocates of the poor who have targeted license revocation laws as some of the worst examples of statutes that effectively criminalize poverty”); Vivian Wang, Ticket to Nowhere: The Hidden Cost of Driver’s License Suspensions, Milwaukee J. Sentinel (Aug. 15, 2015), http://archive.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/ticket-to-nowhere-the-hidden-cost-of-drivers-license-suspensions-b99547649z1-321972931.html [https://perma.cc/RPX3-38Z9].

  357. Cf. Dan M. Kahan & Martha C. Nussbaum, Two Conceptions of Emotion in Criminal Law, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 269, 349–50 (1996) (describing the offender who “behaved virtuously, albeit lawlessly”).

  358. Frankfurt, supra note 235, at 5; see also Koppelman, supra note 235, at 216; supra note 235 and accompanying text (discussing “volitional necessity”).

  359. Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, The Vulnerability of Conscience: The Constitutional Basis for Protecting Religious Conduct, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1245, 1263 (1994).

  360. See, e.g., Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267, slip op. at 2, 21 (2020); Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 565 U.S. 171, 187–88 (2012); Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (Nov. 16, 1993). 

  361. Eisgruber & Sager, supra note 358, at 1263.

  362. Koppelman, supra note 235, at 216, 234.

  363. Id. at 234 (internal quotation marks omitted).

  364. Eisgruber & Sager, supra note 358, at 1255, 1262, 1286 (urging “parity for religious belief, not privilege”); Micah Schwartzman, What If Religion Is Not Special, 79 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1351, 1353, 1426 (2012) (“The problem . . . is that religion cannot be distinguished from many other beliefs and practices as warranting special constitutional treatment. . . . As a normative matter, religion is not special. . . . [R]eligious views, at least as traditionally conceived, cannot easily be distinguished from comprehensive secular doctrines on epistemic or psychological grounds.”).

  365. Eisgruber & Sager, supra note 358, at 1286.

  366. Amy Gutmann, Identity in Democracy 151–91 (2003) (arguing against singling out religion for special treatment and defending legal exemptions for a wider range of claims of conscience).

  367. John H. Garvey, Free Exercise and the Values of Religious Liberty, 18 Conn. L. Rev. 779 (1986).

  368. Id. at 798, 800 (“I think religion is a lot like insanity. There are two aspects to the parallel, just as there are two aspects to the most commonly used test for insanity. The first is a cognitive aspect, which concerns defects in practical reasoning; the second is a volitional aspect, which concerns the ability to conform one’s conduct to legal norms one knows to be binding.”); see, e.g., Model Penal Code § 4.01 (“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality . . . of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”).

  369. See, e.g., Julia Cameron, The Artist’s Way: A Spiritual Path to Higher Creativity, at xi–xiii (1992).

  370. William P. Marshall, In Defense of Smith and Free Exercise Revisionism, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 308, 320–21 & n.21(1991) (arguing that “bonds of ethnicity, interpersonal relationships, and social and political relationships, as well as religion may be, and are, integral to an individual’s self-identity”); see also Camille Lannert, The Perpetuation of Graffiti Art Subculture, 1 Butler J. Undergraduate Res. 47, 51 (2015) (“On the most primitive level, graffiti art is an individual’s outlet for self-expression, an outlet perceived as suppressed or blocked by society at large. For the graffiti artist, self-expression is central to the construction and maintenance of his or her identity.”).

  371. California Love Scared Straight, 99% Invisible, at 16:02 (Aug. 4, 2020), https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/california-love-scared-straight/ [https://perma.cc/2VJ8-NLVN].

  372. Michael A. Gonzales, The Holy House of Hip-Hop, N.Y. Mag. (Sept. 22, 2008), https://nymag.com/anniversary/40th/50665/ (“[T]he blackout that year spawned a whole new generation. . . . ‘During the looting, everybody stole turntables and stuff. Every electronics store imaginable got hit. Every record store. That sprung a whole new set of D.J.’s.’” (quoting Grandmaster Caz)).

  373. Julia Jacobs, The ‘Black Lives Matter’ Street Art That Contains Multitudes, N.Y. Times (July 16, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/design/black-lives-matter-murals-new-york.html [https://perma.cc/5BYL-4D6B]. On street art and political expression, see generally Lindsay Bates, Bombing, Tagging, Writing: An Analysis of the Significance of Graffiti and Street Art (2014) (Master’s Thesis, University of Pennsylvania) (on file with the University of Pennsylvania libraries); Joe Austin, Taking the Train: How Graffiti Art Became an Urban Crisis in New York City 6 (2001) (arguing that graffiti “writers” are underappreciated for their cultural and political contributions). Hip-Hop has long embraced street art. And Hip-Hop, in all its facets, is a powerful medium for political expression. See, e.g., Public Enemy, Night of the Living Baseheads, on It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back (Columbia Records 1988) (“Have you forgotten that once we were brought here, we were robbed of our name, robbed of our language? We lost our religion, our culture, our god . . . and many of us, by the way we act, we even lost our minds.” (quoting Khalid Abdul Muhammad)).

  374. Malcolm Gladwell, Complexity and the Ten-Thousand-Hour Rule, New Yorker (Aug. 21, 2013) (claiming that genius is principally a product of practice).

  375. Leigh Osofsky, Who’s Naughty and Who’s Nice?—Frictions, Screening, and Tax Law Design, 61 Buff. L. Rev. 1057, 1075–77, 1076 n.63 (2013) (noting that tax compliance and noncompliance may evidence “relative ability, well-being, or need” and thereby help identify the offenders who may be more deserving of exceptions); Wojciech Kopczuk, Redistribution When Avoidance Behavior Is Heterogeneous, 81 J. Pub. Econ. 51, 53 (2000); see also George A. Akerlof, The Economics of ‘Tagging’ as Applied to the Optimal Income Tax, Welfare Programs, and Manpower Planning, 68 Am. Econ. Rev. 8, 8 (1978).

  376. Osofsky, supra note 374, at 1075–77 & n.63 (“[T]hese tags should identify groups of people who are, on average, needy. Individuals with these tags could then receive targeted benefits.”); Kopczuk, supra note 374, at 52–53.

  377. Kopczuk, supra note 374, at 53, 69 (“[I]mperfect enforcement of existing rules[] may be welfare improving[] and need not always reflect economic inefficiency of the underlying political system.”).

  378. Id. at 69 (“[O]bserve that black market activities are highly concentrated among low-income people. Their existence can be a cheap instrument of redistribution.”).

  379. Osofsky, supra note 374, at 1077.

  380. Sandra G. Mayson, Bias In, Bias Out, 128 Yale L.J. 2218, 2221–22 (2019); Minow, supra note 279, at 157 (“Feeding the algorithms data that reflect disparate (or biased) law enforcement practices will repeat or amplify problematic practices. Rather than replacing human judgment, machine learning can push human beings to be more explicit and self-reflective about their judgments, predictions, biases, and use of discretion.”).

  381. Rodney A. Brooks & Anita M. Flynn, Fast, Cheap and Out of Control: A Robot Invasion of the Solar System, 42 J. Brit. Interplanetary Soc. 478 (1989); see also Fast, Cheap & Out of Control (American Playhouse & Errol Morris Films 1997) (documentary about Brooks).

  382. Solomon, supra note 142, at 6.

  383. Id.

  384. Id. at 28 (listing a figure of 32%).

  385. Supra notes 187–90 and accompanying text (discussing ages of different cohorts of misdemeanants in New York City).

  386. Supra notes 191–93 and accompanying text (discussing phenomenon of “aging out”).

  387. Supra note 240 and accompanying text (discussing higher levels of risk-seeking and steep and hyperbolic discounting among offenders and drug-dependent individuals).

  388. Christopher Allen Mallett, Miyuki Fukushima Tedor & Linda M. Quinn, Race/Ethnicity, Citizenship Status, and Crime Examined Through Trauma Experiences Among Young Adults in the United States, 17 J. Ethnicity Crim. Just. 110, 110–11 (2019).

  389. Massoglia & Uggen, supra note 182, at 570–71.

  390. Supra notes 315–46 and accompanying text (discussing addiction-maintenance clinics).

  391. Supra notes 299–300 and accompanying text (discussing libertarian-paternal “nudge[s]”).

  392. Osofsky, supra note 374, 1079–80 (“Good screening mechanisms separate between a group of individuals who should be screened in for a certain benefit . . . and those who should be screened out . . . [but] what matters for a screening mechanism . . . is determining what groups systematically bear the costs . . . not . . . [the] cost in a particular case.”).

  393. Robert E. Scott & William J. Stuntz, A Reply: Imperfect Bargains, Imperfect Trials, and Innocent Defendants, 101 Yale L.J. 2011, 2012 (1992) (“Prosecutors, like insurers, are charged with finding the occasional deserving claim in a sea of frauds.”). In the context of optimal tax screening, Leigh Osofsky explained: “[I]f high ability taxpayers are taxed at a higher rate when they earn high income, they can masquerade as low ability taxpayers by earning less income, which they can do by substituting leisure for work. . . . The fundamental dilemma of optimal tax theory, then, is how to meet its redistributive goal while minimizing the efficiency costs . . . .” Osofsky, supra note 374, at 1075.

  394. Osofsky, supra note 374, at 1078 (“Ordeals are costs attached to a desirable benefit.”).

  395. Bert I. Huang, Shallow Signals, 126 Harv. L Rev. 2227, 2285 (2013).

  396. Id. at 2231–32, 2234.

  397. Supra notes 169–70 and accompanying text (addressing the debate over whether broken windows policing works).

  398. Huang, supra note 394, at 2230, 2232.

  399. Supra notes 270–72 and accompanying text (discussing the “Parable of the Prodigal Son”).

  400. Supra notes 347–48 and accompanying text (discussing anecdote).

  401. Supra Part II.

  402. Cf. Huang, supra note 394, at 2237 (discussing optimal design of licensing regimes and concluding that “[t]he desirability of any strategy will turn on costs and benefits . . . the tradeoffs for any given policy”).

  403. Supra note 111 and accompanying text (detailing studies examining perceptions of illegitimacy of order-maintenance enforcement).

  404. Supra notes 42–46 and accompanying text (describing the aims of radical pragmatism).

  405. Cf. supra notes 260–65 and accompanying text (describing the “capabilities approach” as a metric for evaluating crime licenses).

  406. Supra Part I (discussing contested notions of disorder).

  407. Huang, supra note 394, at 2288 (emphasis added).

  408. 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *352 (“[B]etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”).

  409. Bowers, supra note 36, at 202 (“The rule of lenity, the presumption of innocence, the Double Jeopardy clause—these and many other procedural protections—are all liberal devices designed to correct (and even overcorrect) for potentially arbitrary errors that could harm the individual.”); see also Peter Westen, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 1001, 1018 (1980) (discussing the liberal principle that “it is ultimately better to err in favor of nullification than against it”); Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By 445–46 (2012) (“Cruel and unusual punishments are expressly prohibited by the Constitution; merciful and unusual punishments are not.”).

  410. Bowers, supra note 36, at 202–03 (“[T]he costs of error extend . . . to moral arbitrariness. . . . Look no further than Blackstone’s maxim.”); Bowers, supra note 251, at 1041 (“[T]he state ought to criminalize no more conduct than necessary to promote crime control, public safety, and retributive goals . . . as Blackstone’s maxim prescribes . . . .”); see also Matt Matravers, Unreliability, Innocence, and Preventive Detention, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 81, 82 (“[A] situation in which someone is overburdened is worse from the point of view of justice than one in which someone carries a burden that is too light. It is worse, still, for someone for whom no burden is appropriate and yet a burden is applied.”); supra notes 287–98 and accompanying text (discussing normative guilt and innocence). Megan Stevenson and Sandy Mayson have likewise extended “Blackstone’s Ratio” beyond the context of legal guilt. Megan T. Stevenson & Sandra G. Mayson, Pretrial Detention and the Value of Liberty 46 (Feb. 16, 2021) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author) (engaging in a “translation of the Blackstone ratio to the preventive detention context”).

  411. Supra Parts I–II.

  412. Richard Danzig, Toward the Creation of a Complementary, Decentralized System of Criminal Justice, 26 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 13 (1973) (arguing for “a blueprint for experimentation . . . at modest cost . . . designed to move from existing knowledge, empirically derived, to a scheme of larger, more coordinated experiments, and then ultimately, to a higher level of implementation”); supra notes 198–200, 380 (detailing this methodology).

  413. Infra notes 429–31 and accompanying text.

  414. Meir Dan-Cohen, Decision Rules and Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation in Criminal Law, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 625, 625–26 (1984).

  415. Id. at 641.

  416. Alon Harel, Why Law Matters 107 (2014).

  417. Dan-Cohen, supra note 413, at 634–35 (indicating that only “partial acoustic separation” is possible).

  418. Supra notes 89–90 and accompanying text (discussing discretionary enforcement of quality-of-life offenses).

  419. Huang, supra note 394, at 2236 (“I introduce a distinct class of solutions aimed at ‘prompting’ observers to take account of the possibility of permission, yet without disclosure of the status of individual actors.” (emphasis omitted)).

  420. Erik Luna, Transparent Policing, 85 Iowa L. Rev. 1107, 1108 (2000) (“Decent conceptions of democratic rule and individual liberty require, at a minimum, that discretionary judgments and actions be open to the electorate.”). On the connection between pragmatism and “democratic experimentalism,” see Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 314 (arguing that pragmatism, in the form of “democratic experimentalism,” promises “to create a form of collective problem solving suited to the local diversity and volatility of problems that confound modern democracies”); Sabel, supra note 163, at 35; supra notes 40–50 and accompanying text (discussing relationship between pragmatism and democratic engagement).

  421. Heather K. Gerken, Dissenting by Deciding, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1745, 1748 (2005); Danzig, supra note 411, at 4 (describing a “particular type of innovation” that is “conceptually and emotionally closely tied to . . . decentralization”); cf. Sabel, supra note 163, at 40 (discussing Dewey’s “attraction to the local”); Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 315 (“[E]ffective government is first and foremost local government.”). See generally Klein, supra note 162, at 1541–42 (endorsing a federalism that “seeks to preserve local control of the criminal-justice system”); Richard C. Schragger, City Power: Urban Governance in a Global Age 5 (2016); Richard C. Schragger, The Limits of Localism, 100 Mich. L. Rev. 371, 372 (2001).

  422. Heather K. Gerken, Second-Order Diversity, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1099, 1126–27 (2005) (“The way that second-order diversity diffuses power in practice will depend on the institution in question. For some disaggregated institutions, second-order diversity frustrates the majority faction simply by disaggregating power. For others, it allows electoral minorities to ‘edit’ the law they lack the power to ‘authorize.’”).

  423. Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 288, 314; see also Tracey L. Meares & Dan M. Kahan, The Wages of Antiquated Procedural Thinking: A Critique of Chicago v. Morales, 1998 U. Chi. Legal F. 197, 210 (1998) (arguing that the criminal-legal system must be more responsive to affected communities where offenders and victims are “linked to [each other and to the local] majority by strong social and familial ties”); Tracey L. Meares, It’s a Question of Connections, 31 Val. U. L. Rev. 579, 588–89 (1997).

  424. T.L. Short, Peirce on Science and Philosophy, 36 Phil. Topics 259, 271 (2008); see also Sabel, supra note 163, at 43 (“[A] persistent increase in uncertainty favors the emergence of a world congenial to Dewey—a world in which mutual learning and joint problem solving give rise to a democratic community.”). On the “virtues of federalism,” see, e.g., New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments.”).

  425. Dorf & Sabel, supra note 40, at 288.

  426. The Andy Griffith Show (CBS television broadcast 1960–1968) (depicting town drunk, Otis Campbell); The Simpsons (Fox television broadcast 1989–2020) (depicting town drunk, Barney Gumble).

  427. Cf. Brantly Keiek, Sobering Center for People Deemed “Publicly Intoxicated” Open Near New Orleans’ French Quarter, WXXV 25 (Nov. 12, 2019), https://www.wxxv25.com/sobering-center-people-deemed-publicly-intoxicated-open-near-new-orleans-french-quarter/ [https://perma.cc/3JZ2-H848] (“The Sobering Center is a more appropriate destination than jails . . . as clients will . . . have a ‘warm handoff’ into medically supported detox or additional services if appropriate.”).

  428. Cf. Skogan, supra note 57, at 91 (“Community Policing relies upon organizational decentralization.” (emphasis omitted)).

  429. Supra notes 153–58 and accompanying text (discussing “institutional fetishism”).

  430. Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 797–98.

  431. See, e.g., Scott Burris, Evan D. Anderson, Leo Beletsky & Corey S. Davis, Federalism, Policy Learning, and Local Innovation in Public Health: The Case of the Supervised Injection Facility, 53 St. Louis L.J. 1089, 1099 (2009) (discussing establishment of syringe exchanges as product of efforts by those who “bear the brunt of the human and financial costs associated with injection drug use and its collateral consequences”); Bowers & Abrahamson, supra note 14, at 817 (“Public health innovations typically start underground. For years . . . sterile syringes were exchanged, medical marijuana was ingested, and naloxone was distributed and injected.”).

  432. Minow, supra note 279, at 134; see also Shiffrin, supra note 291, at 1225 (“[H]ow law is understood on the street by everyday citizens may actually, and rightly, have an important influence on its ultimate judicial interpretation.”). This point obviously intersects with an extensive literature on civil disobedience. That literature is largely beyond the scope of this article, but it is, of course, an important topic that is relevant to many of the same themes that inform this project—particularly, social action and social justice. See generally Lewis Perry, Civil Disobedience: An American Tradition (2013) (tracing the origins of the notion of civil disobedience); Martin Luther King, Jr., Why We Can’t Wait (1964) (describing the manner by which civil disobedience may contribute to the nonviolent movement against racial discrimination in the United States).

  433. Supra notes 138–41 and accompanying text (describing recent farebeat crackdown).

  434. Nick Pinto, ‘Swipe It Forward’ Activists Protest NYPD Subway Arrests by Giving Out Free Rides, Village Voice (Nov. 3, 2016), https://www.villagevoice.com/2016/11/03/swipe-it-forward-activists-protest-nypd-subway-arrests-by-giving-out-free-rides/ [https://perma.cc/2WG8-VZTB]; James Ramsay, ‘Can I Get a Swipe?’ Can We Get in Trouble?, WNYC News (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.wnyc.org/story/can-i-get-swipe-can-we-get-trouble/ [https://perma.cc/F9VX-M7Z2].

  435. Swipe It Forward (@swipeitforward), Twitter (May 11, 2018, 10:25 PM), https://twitter.com/swipeitforward/status/995127801324896257 [https://perma.cc/UAT2-LSGJ]; Swipe It Forward (@swipeitforward), Twitter (Apr. 2, 2018, 3:51 PM), https://twitter.com/swipeitforward/status/980895528371277826.

  436. Pinto, supra note 433 (emphasis added).

  437. Id. (quoting Trujillo) (emphasis added) (describing goal to “highlight the role that fare-beating arrests have played in the application of the aggressive ‘Broken Windows’ police enforcement against minor ‘quality of life’ violations”).

  438. J. David Goodman & Jeffery C. Mays, Of 800,000 Poor New Yorkers, Only 30,000 Can Get the New Half-Priced MetroCards, N.Y. Times (Jan. 4, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/nyregion/fair-fares-metrocard-discount-nyc.html [https://perma.cc/98JJ-3JCC] (describing the program).

  439. Alexander C. Kaufman, As New York Cracks Down on Fare Evasion, Another City Weighs Free Transit, Huffington Post (Nov. 18, 2019), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mbta-free-transit_n_5dd2e1d6e4b01f982f06b00c [https://perma.cc/PDT3-RLAL]; Beth Musgrave, Can a Bus Pass Help End Homelessness? Lexington Is About To Find Out, Lexington Herald Leader (Aug. 12, 2018), https://www.kentucky.com/latest-news/article216452400.html. An advantage of universal free transit is that it might minimize the stigma and resentment that sometimes attach to subsidies for the poor. Recently, some school districts have experimented with universal free lunch to counteract precisely these pernicious perspectives. Amy Brown & Janna Bilski, Fighting the Stigma of Free Lunch: Why Universal Free School Lunch Is Good For Students, Schools, and Families, Ford Foundation (Sept. 29, 2017), https://www.fordfoundation.org/just-matters/just-matters/posts/fighting-the-stigma-of-free-lunch-why-universal-free-school-lunch-is-good-for-students-schools-and-families/ [https://perma.cc/D58R-FSNC].

  440. Here, I am reminded of and inspired by the many ordinary people, including some of my own students (who were inspired, in turn, by the Movement for Black Lives) to start community bail funds in an effort to take tangible radical-pragmatic steps today. See, e.g., Fundraiser by Elizabeth Fosburgh: Blue Ridge Community, https://www.gofundme.com/f/blue-ridge-bail-fund [https://perma.cc/29YY-P8BR]; Jia Tolentino, Where Bail Funds Go from Here, New Yorker (June 23, 2020), https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/where-bail-funds-go-from-here [https://perma.cc/4JYR-KSH6]; Hannah Giorgis, Why It Matters That So Many People Are Donating to Bail Funds, Atlantic (June 6, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/06/why-sudden-popularity-bail-funds-matters/612733/ [https://perma.cc/TW23-WGGZ] (“The popularity of these donations signals a quietly radical shift in many people’s attitudes toward American policing.”). Nonprofit organizations, like The Bail Project, pursue two tracks simultaneously—first, pushing to change pretrial law to eliminate money bail and, second, paying for defendants’ release in the interim. The Bail Project, at https://bailproject.org/ [https://perma.cc/5T9P-JBVX]. Both tracks describe radical-pragmatic projects—with the latter representing a means by which activists may shift to a philosophy of assistance and support without having to convince anyone to upend the prevailing legal regime. See generally Lani Guinier & Gerald Torres, Changing the Wind: Notes Toward a Demosprudence of Law and Social Movements, 123 Yale L.J. 2740, 2757–60 (2014) (“Social movements tend to emerge initially as a local source of power and moral authority . . . that draw on local resources (networks, information, relationships, and cultural symbols) . . . linking lived experience to an imagined alternative.”).

  441. As with any valid experiment, we would want a control group, which might mean that some recidivists would get licenses while other similarly situated individuals would not. Alternatively, we could provide licenses categorically to all similarly situated individuals and then compare results chronologically with past practices. But that kind of longitudinal study entails a greater number of confounding variables. In any event, we should not be too troubled about treating like cases unalike, not only for the reasons discussed supra Section III.B, but also because a genuinely random process is particularly fair, even if it produces disparate results. Bowers, supra note 10, at 1677 (“[T]here is no persuasive reason why equal treatment must be measured according to substantive outcomes only. A justice system could honor the equality principle just as well by adopting procedures that provide roughly equivalent probabilities of receiving some favorable result.”); Vincent Chiao, Ex Ante Fairness in Criminal Law and Procedure, 15 New Crim. L. Rev. 277, 306 (2012) (arguing that “roughly equalizing chances is the principle of fair treatment underlying our capital jurisprudence”); Bernard E. Harcourt, Post-Modern Meditations on Punishment: On the Limits of Reason and the Virtue of Randomization, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 163, 167–70 (arguing that within reasonable ranges the criminal-legal system should “turn to the lottery” in making punishment and enforcement decisions); Richard A. Posner, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 1193, 1213 (1985) (“[T]he criminal justice system . . . and the lottery are fair so long as the ex ante costs and benefits are equalized among the participants.”). Indeed, Rawls identified a fair gamble as a paradigmatic example of “pure procedural justice.” John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 74–75 (1971) (“If a number of persons engage in a series of fair bets, the distribution of cash after the last bet is fair, or at least not unfair, whatever this distribution is.”).

  442. William Blake, Jerusalem: The Emanation of the Giant Albion 8 (1804).

  443. Butler, supra note 37, at 19; Thomas Ward Frampton, The Dangerous Few: Taking Seriously Prison Abolition and Its Skeptics (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author).

  444. At a minimum, we must frankly acknowledge our stakes, rank, and corresponding cultural biases. Consider, for instance, the refreshingly honest way Duncan Kennedy concluded his own critique of legal education by recognizing his own privileged place in the paradigm: “Maybe I’m just wrong about what it’s like out there. Maybe my preoccupation with the horrors of hierarchy is just a way to wring the last ironic drop of pleasure from my own hierarchical superiority.” Kennedy, supra note 81, at 76.

  445. Supra notes 180–81 and accompanying text (discussing the “machinery” of the criminal-legal system).

  446. Bowers, supra note 34, at 1118.

  447. Id. See generally Feeley, supra note 34, at 199–241 (famously arguing that “the process is the punishment” in lower criminal courts).

  448. Supra note 146 and accompanying text (discussing “misdemeanorland”). On the distinction between legal and normative guilt, see Bowers, supra note 10, at 1678–80.

  449. Supra notes 441–44 and accompanying text (arguing that criminal legalism is working quite effectively as a system of subordination).

  450. Alice Ristroph, Games Punishers Play, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 173, 174.

  451. Bernard E. Harcourt, Reply, in Criminal Law Conversations, supra note 31, at 181, 183 (quoting Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals 72 (Walter Kaufmann & R.J. Hollingdale trans., 1989)).

  452. See supra Parts I–II.

  453. Cf. supra notes 182–95, 385–90 and accompanying text (discussing the phenomenon by which many offenders “age out” from crime in early middle age).

  454. Unger, supra note 42 at 7, 49 (“To the extent we move in this direction, the facts of society and culture cease to present themselves to our consciousness as an inescapable fate.”); cf. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century 1 (2014) (explaining that it took the fallout from two World Wars and a depression to modify—albeit for only half a century—capitalist structures of wealth concentration).

  455. See, e.g., Michael Hiltzik, COVID-19 May Make Universal Basic Income More Palatable. That’s a Good Thing, L.A. Times (May 22, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-05-22/covid-19-universal-basic-income. See generally The Mackinac Center, The Overton Window, https://www.mackinac.org/OvertonWindow [https://perma.cc/8899-URBR] (“The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support—they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window.”).

  456. Jamil Zaki, Habits of Kindness That Will Endure, Wall St. J. (Mar. 28, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/habits-of-kindness-that-will-endure-11585368061 [https://perma.cc/5U3Q-QU66]. This was a theme of Barack Obama’s 2020 commencement speech to all graduating high school seniors. Barack Obama, Graduate Together (May 16, 2020), https://www.obama.org/updates/president-obamas-graduation-message-class-2020/ [https://perma.cc/68SN-AQLJ] (“This pandemic has shaken up the status quo and laid bare a lot of our country’s deep-seated problems—from massive economic inequality to ongoing racial disparities to a lack of basic health care for people who need it . . . that our society and our democracy only work when we think not just about ourselves, but about each other.”).

  457. Rebecca Solnit, A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster 3 (2010). See generally Jamil Zaki, The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World 6 (2019) (describing how humanity’s “darkest times expose our noblest capacities”).

  458. Solnit, supra note 456, at 6, 9.

  459. Lee Moran, Irish Priest Pens Stirring Poem About the Coronavirus Lockdown, Huffington Post (Mar. 20, 2020), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ireland-priest-coronavirus-lockdown-poem_n_5e748a0cc5b6f5b7c541e875 [https://perma.cc/8V3L-8A36].

  460. Joseph W. Singer, The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory, 94 Yale L.J. 1, 54 (1984) (“But people do not want just to be beastly to each other. To suppose so is to ignore facts. People want freedom to pursue happiness. But they also want not to harm others or be harmed themselves. The evidence is all around us that people are often caring, supportive, loving, and altruistic, both in their family lives and in their relations with strangers.”).

  461. Unger, supra note 42, at 7–8.

  462. See Anna North, White Americans Are Finally Talking About Racism. Will It Translate Into Action?, Vox (June 11, 2020), https://www.vox.com/2020/6/11/21286642/george-floyd-protests-white-people-police-racism (discussing polls finding that the proportion of white Americans who said that police were likelier to use force against Black people had risen from 25% in 2016 to 49% in 2020); see, e.g., Stephen Collinson, Trump Turns Clock Back 155 Years with Confederacy-Inspired Election Strategy, CNN (July 7, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/politics/donald-trump-politics-race-election-2020/index.html [https://perma.cc/7HSN-9D7R].

  463. See, e.g., Philip Elliott, With the Eviction Moratorium Over and Unemployment Checks Next to Exit, Congress Is Nowhere Near a Deal, Time (July 27, 2020), https://time.com/5872273/congress-new-coronavirus-relief-package/ [https://perma.cc/UTE7-QEZU]; Niv Elis, House Democrats Include $597 Million for Police Reform in Spending Bill, Hill (July 7, 2020), https://thehill.com/policy/finance/506152-house-democrats-propose-597-million-toward-police-reform [https://perma.cc/L2NW-SYK7].

  464. Zaki, supra note 455 (discussing possibility that the pandemic may lead us to turn away from “ruthless individualism”); see, e.g., Quint Forgey, ‘Everyone is Lying’: Trump Undercuts Public Health Officials in Fresh Attacks, Politico (July 13, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/13/trump-questions-public-health-experts-twitter-359388 [https://perma.cc/8FQZ-FCVR]; Jonathan J. Cooper, Arizona’s Rugged Individualism Poses Barrier to Mask Rules, Associated Press (July 19, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-us-news-ap-top-news-az-state-wire-phoenix-27afcc9ba34281ab425293a98c0726a3; Jake Sherman, Louie Gohmert, Who Refused to Wear a Mask, Tests Positive for Coronavirus, Politico (July 29, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/29/louis-gohmert-who-refused-to-wear-a-mask-tests-positive-for-coronavirus-386076 [https://perma.cc/2Q7Y-US6B].

  465. Eric Zorn, ‘Cancel Culture’ Is Just a New Name for an Old and Bipartisan Impulse, Chi. Trib. (July 31, 2020), https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-cancel-culture-nba-charlie-kirk-zorn-20200731-nbohyowc3rbkzpvxsqgv3nljpu-story.html.

  466. Rhiannon Evans, ‘Wear a Damn Mask,’ Karens and Desmond Swayne—How Face-Coverings Became Political, Grazia (July 15, 2020), https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/face-masks-covid-karen-jennifer-aniston/; see, e.g., Nicole Gallucci, 8 Karens and Kens Who Threw Huge Tantrums Instead of Putting on Masks, Mashable (June 29, 2020), https://mashable.com/article/karen-no-mask-videos-tantrums-coronavirus [https://perma.cc/66A3-XL6P]; Eric Bradner & Sarah Mucha, Biden Blames Trump’s “Liberate Michigan” Tweet for Plot to Kidnap Michigan Governor, CNN (Oct. 16, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/joe-biden-trump-whitmer-kidnapping-plot/index.html [https://perma.cc/6M5X-TYQH]; cf. Julia Marcus & Jessica Gold, Colleges Are Getting Ready to Blame Their Students, Atlantic (July 21, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/colleges-are-getting-ready-blame-their-students/614410/ [https://perma.cc/RK52-J7UG] (discussing the blame universities are, perhaps unfairly, placing on young people for virus spread).

  467. Cf. Peter Wehner, Republicans Own This Insurrection, Atlantic (Jan. 7, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/republicans-own-insurrection/617583/ [https://perma.cc/P6V2-7W3T] (arguing that many Republican officials bear some responsibility for the insurrection); cf. Elie Mystal, The People Aren’t Freedom Fighters—They’re Virus-Spreading Sociopaths, Nation (Apr. 21, 2020), https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/liberate-america-covid/ [https://perma.cc/739Z-J5NH] (criticizing those who claim liberty and individualism entitles them not to wear masks).

  468. See supra Section II.C.

  469. Simon, supra note 124, at 6–7, 100–102; Garland, supra note 132, at 131–32; supra notes 217–23 and accompanying text (discussing risk aversion, fear, crime-control governance, mass incarceration, and mass misdemeanor arrest). Likewise, this same crime-control ethos led some politicians to demand draconian penalties for those who immunized out of formal order, rather than keeping focus on the more-important, harm-reduction aim of expeditiously putting vaccine shots in arms. See, e.g., Alexandra Kelley, New York Weighs Whether to Outlaw Cutting the Line for COVID-19 Vaccine, Hill (Jan. 4, 2021), https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/532565-new-york-to-outlaw-cutting-the-line-for-covid-19 [https://perma.cc/ZL8M-PFD2].

  470. Marcus, supra note 220.

  471. Julia Marcus, The Fun Police Should Stand Down, Atlantic (Aug. 15, 2020), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/containing-the-pandemic-isnt-a-job-for-cops/615298/ [https://perma.cc/C5JW-M26W] (“In the meantime, not a single ticket was issued in Park Slope, a wealthy and predominantly white neighborhood, despite the crowds that gathered there in Prospect Park.”).

  472. Marcus, supra note 220.

  473. Id.

  474. Unger, supra note 42, at 49–50.

  475. Id. at 49 (arguing that radical pragmatism enables us to “draw the line between the alterable features of social life and the enduring character of human existence”).

What’s Wrong with Sentencing Equality? Sentencing Legality: A Response to Professors Bierschbach & Bibas

In 2005, I was a public defender in Bronx County, New York. Contemplating a transition to academia, I developed an idea for an article about plea-bargaining and innocence.[1] Early on, I came across a tremendously helpful paper, written by Professor Stephanos Bibas.[2] Several months later, I began a teaching fellowship. On the first day, I was pleased to find Bibas’s name on the office door next to mine. Unfortunately, Bibas had already left for another institution. Our paths seemed destined not to cross. Still, I took a chance and emailed him. Bibas responded with warm words and constructive advice. Over the next decade, our relationship would become one of the most valuable of my professional career. His generosity is unparalleled, and my scholarship is demonstrably better for it. Sometimes we disagree, though perhaps less so recently (which only speaks to the great influence he has had on my thinking).

Coincidentally, I knew Professor Rick Bierschbach even before I left criminal practice. We were acquaintances—at opposite ends of a large circle of thirty-something lawyers. Rick’s reputation preceded him. He was (and is) a mensch.[3] And, true to his kind nature, he has always been available to lend an ear and to offer useful feedback.

What is the point of these brief testimonials? It is, of course, a law review convention to begin a response with kind words for the article’s authors. But that is not my principal aim. By this genuine and personal expression of affection for two profoundly decent individuals, I hope to show the power of narrative—the capacity for detail to reach comparatively more than form. The entrenched form is merely to celebrate the authors’ professional qualifications and achievements. But my narrative aspires to reach something deeper and richer. The evaluation of an academic’s worth (or lack thereof) entails much more than a recitation of her accomplishments. Similarly, the evaluation of an offender’s blameworthiness (or lack thereof) entails much more than legal and factual guilt. No single set of criteria—promulgated ex ante—is competent to tell the complete story in all its intricacies.

Bierschbach and Bibas understand this, of course. Indeed, it is a central premise of their remarkable article, What’s Wrong with Sentencing Equality? They explain that positive sentencing law has unduly prioritized sentencing “math” over other relevant (indeed, potentially more relevant) moral and prudential considerations.[4] Mandatory rules operate to sort offenders into predetermined boxes and types, typically defined by criminal records and crimes of conviction.[5] Like outcomes are thereafter imposed for each offender of every broad type.

The authors trace the source of the prevailing approach to the equality principle—or, rather, to our dominant conception of it. But I am not so sure. The first-order question is why our criminal justice system has settled upon such a formalistic conception of equality. The unanswered question is what makes sentencing math so attractive, as compared to some alternative qualitative approach to equality that might accommodate more detail. The answer to that question lies with another contested principle—the legality principle, which Professor Herbert Packer famously termed “the first principle of criminal law.”[6] The root of what is wrong with sentencing equality arises from our positive conception of this first principle, not from our positive conception of equality itself. Our fetish for formal legality is what drives our commitment to formal equality.[7] But equality qua equality is tangential, at best.

I. Three Conceptions of Equality

Bierschbach and Bibas recognize that there may be more than one viable conception of equality[8] They distinguish between our positive (and problematic) substantive conception, which aims to guarantee equal results, defined formally; and a procedural conception, which aims to guarantee equal opportunities to argue for defendant-favorable results.[9] They use the descriptor “outcomes-oriented” to describe the prevailing substantive approach, and they discuss its underappreciated tradeoffs.[10] Likewise, they defend alternative procedural approaches to equality (even random processes, like lotteries and dice rolls) as consistent with what John Rawls called “pure procedural justice.”[11]

Nevertheless, they fail to appreciate that there are, in fact, two very different strands of “outcomes-oriented” equality. There is a formal strand and an equitable strand. Pursuant to the equitable strand, there is no necessary tradeoff between individualization and equality. To the contrary, individualization is the means by which equitable equality is achieved. As I have explained elsewhere:

A justice system that admits equitable considerations is premised on the fact that legally identical cases should sometimes be handled differently for normative reasons. This does not mean, however, that equitable [variation] deviates unduly from a defensible notion of equality. . . . [A] contextualized approach to criminal justice necessarily demands more than just a rigid application of legal rules pursuant to formal designations. It demands an evaluation of relative blameworthiness to ensure that equitably distinct cases are recognized as such, even if those cases happen to be legally identical under insufficiently discriminating statutes.[12]

With respect to both the formal and equitable strands of equality, case outcomes provide the relevant reference points. In this way, both approaches remain substantive. The difference is only whether these outcomes are determined to be equitably or formally distinct or alike.

The reason for the misconception—for describing equitable equality as procedural equality—is the pivotal role that narrative plays in “equitable judgment.”[13] Narrative is, of course, a procedural endeavor. But the practice is only a means to the decisive end—a means “to look into things more deeply, to see whether we may have missed some unusual impediment that deformed the process of character formation.”[14] It is only once we have attended to the complete “narrative history” that we can determine whether a given penalty really fits the particular crime—or whether the prescribed sentence, instead, has failed to account for some “unusual hardship or inequality.”[15] On this reading, the stories we tell shape the sentences we impose. We contrast one story with the next to realize whether we have adequately grasped the differences between them.[16]

Thus, there are (at least[17]) three conceptions of equality: a procedural conception that promises like opportunities to argue; a substantive equitable conception that promises like normative results; and a substantive formal conception that promises like legalistic results. Results matter only with respect to the two substantive conceptions. But each substantive conception entails a radically different method by which to discover and ultimately compare blameworthiness.

The preceding is, to some degree, no more than a small taxonomical quibble. But I think it necessary to define our terms correctly in order to discern properly why the criminal justice system is so allergic to equitable equality. Bierschbach and Bibas do not make clear enough that the problem with positive sentencing law is not its focus on outcomes, but rather its fixation with law—a fixation that has produced results that are more obviously ordered than equal.

II. What’s Exceptional with Criminal Justice?

Sentencing was once different. Sentencing law “traditionally permitted the story of the defendant’s character-formation to come before the judge or jury in all its narrative complexity . . . .”[18] Over time, however, determinate sentencing regimes have reduced or eliminated the judge’s opportunities for “sympathetic assessment” and “merciful mitigation”—and, for that matter, for penalty enhancements for particularly bad actors and heinous acts.[19] Ironically, our most severe punishment—the death penalty—describes the one constitutional context in which the practice of narrative has continued to hold sway.[20]

What changed? Bierschbach and Bibas take as given the conventional wisdom that mandatory sentencing regimes developed as compromises between progressives (intent on reining in racial, ethnic, and class discrimination) and conservatives (intent on reining in lenient judges).[21] But the conventional wisdom is incomplete. It provides only an explanation for why both sides prioritized equality over other principles and values, but it does not account for why they settled on a formal conception of substantive equality. The answer to that question depends on an older trend.

Going back to the Enlightenment, political theorists have championed the legality principle as an “important prophylaxis against the arbitrary and abusive exercise of discretion in the enforcement of the penal law.”[22] The classical liberal view is that well-defined rules are the best means to achieve legality’s objectives—that, to the extent possible, the terms of criminal culpability and punishment must remain prospective and precise.[23] And that view gained greater currency in response to the atrocities committed by last century’s totalitarian powers.[24] Thus, even as the rest of the law witnessed a “revolt against formalism,” the law of crime—including sentencing law—grew more rule-bound.[25] This is the idea behind “the rule of law as a law of rules”—an idea grounded in legal formalism.[26] And it is this same impulse that also informs our formal conception of equality and, by extension, our rule-bound sentencing law.

The authors seem genuinely curious as to why we speak pejoratively about sentencing “disparities,” while we have elsewhere defended variability as the acceptable (or even virtuous) byproduct of “localism,” “pluralism,” or “laboratories of democracy.”[27] But there is no mystery. The “law of crime” is thought exceptional precisely because criminal justice is exceptionally harsh and stigmatic.[28] The coercion of conviction and sentence carries with it a corresponding “especial need for certainty,” which is considered essential to prevent liberal punishment from slipping into rank oppression.[29] Ultimately, then, it is our prevailing notion of the rule of law that is doing the bulk of the work. Indeed, Professor Peter Westen has observed that there is always some equality-independent principle—some alternative “moral standard”—that is doing the bulk of the work:

Equality is an empty vessel with no substantive moral content of its own. Without moral standards, equality remains meaningless, a formula that can have nothing to say about how we should act. . . . 

              . . . . 

Relationships of equality (and inequality) are derivative, secondary relationships; they are logically posterior, not anterior . . . . To say that two persons are the same in a certain respect is to presuppose . . . a prescribed standard for treating them . . . . Before such a rule is established, no standard of comparison exists.”[30]

Bierschbach and Bibas commit a category error. They mistake the triumph of a formal conception of legality with the triumph of a formal conception of equality. In fact, our obsession is not with equal outcomes as much as highly predictable and ordered outcomes. This is what the authors do not quite grasp. Consider this observation: “The stale sentencing debate[] of . . . rules versus standards needs to stop treating equality as if it were a single concept.”[31] But the rules-standards debate is neither stale nor peripheral. To the contrary, our false impression that equality is a single concept is a direct byproduct of our fidelity to rules. Equality comes in different shapes and sizes, but the dominant conception of legality is built to perceive just one—a breed of equality born of rules. When the authors celebrate a “more elastic approach[]” to sentencing equality, they are only pushing a “more elastic approach[]” to legality.[32] The equality question is a mere echo of the legality debate.

III. What’s Right (and Natural) About Sentencing Equity?

In the space provided, I cannot possibly defend thoroughly the ambitious claim that an “elastic approach” to legality is nonetheless consistent with the rule of law. Elsewhere, I do more to support this bold proposition.[33] I have argued even that a softer conception of legality might provide better protection against rough punishment, at least in some contexts.[34] To be sure, there are limits to any workable and defensible equitable approach, as even committed moral particularists have recognized.[35] No system is competent to attend to every relevant detail.[36] Legal standards set the outer boundaries. And, because resources are finite, sentencing proceedings can accommodate only so much scrutiny. But even within these practical parameters, an evaluative system necessarily has the capacity to perceive more than a mechanistic system. The process is imperfect, but not obviously arbitrary.[37]

The misapprehension—that equitable evaluation is incompatible with legality—is based upon the tendency of particularistic methodologies to reveal unwelcome disparities. But there is a difference in kind between creating a disparity and exposing what was always there. Formal legality paves over incongruence; its methods are mechanistic, facile, and somewhat fictive. Equitable legality engages incongruence; its methods are evaluative, complex, and relatively honest. Formal legality promotes a conception of equality that is predictable but thin. Equitable legality promotes a conception of equality that is indeterminate but thick. When it comes to the equitable approach, what we construe to be cacophony may just be consistency by another name—succinctly, individualization in the service of a thoroughgoing qualitative comparison. According to Professors Martha Nussbaum and Dan Kahan, “It’s when the law falsely denies its evaluative underpinnings that it is most likely to be incoherent and inconsistent; it is when the law refuses to take responsibility for its most contentious choices that its decision makers are spared the need to be principled . . . .”[38]

There is, after all, nothing inherently equality-enhancing about a rule that provides: sell X grams of heroin; receive Z years in prison. To the contrary, commentators have long observed that “sentencing math” promotes inconsistency by failing to account meaningfully for the offender’s genuine role in the offense.[39] Little fish are treated like big fish, and big fish trade information for undeserved cooperation pleas.[40] One response is that prosecutors retain the charging and bargaining discretion not only to use over-inclusive sentencing rules as threats, but also to correct for these rules’ overreach. Thus, they may choose not to treat little fish like big fish, even if the law ostensibly commands that they do so. Put differently, they may pursue individualized “substantive justice,” even (or especially) within mandatory regimes.[41]

But this prospect is hardly comforting. As Bierschbach and Bibas recognize, even if prosecutors “have the perspective and power to balance individual blameworthiness against systemic demands,” they are also subject to “incentives to clear cases quickly,” as well as other institutional and cognitive biases that may undercut their willingness (or even their ability) to exercise equitable discretion consistently, fairly, and effectively.[42] The problem is not only that the prosecutor is a professional, but also that she is partial. Here, the authors generously reference my scholarship to support the proposition that prosecutorial “decisions often turn on legalistic habits of charging and plea bargaining.”[43] But I am equally troubled (if not more so) by the manner in which prosecutors may indulge their extra-legalistic habits—their “‘nonlegal impetus’” to pursue their own vested interests and their own idiosyncratic notions of moral or prudential blameworthiness.[44]

If nothing else, the scope of prosecutorial power reveals a profound truth about almost any purportedly mandatory rule. It is destined, by some degree, to fail. The discretion we stamp out at one stage reappears at another. The authority we strip from one stakeholder works its way to another.[45] Like water through a weak dike, discretion finds the cracks—and there are always cracks. With this in mind, it makes little sense to construct a sentencing system that serves to delegate equitable authority to the least transparent and most biased parties—specifically, the prosecutors who control the pivotal decisions over whether to file mandatory charges (and whether to negotiate around them, thereafter).

I do not mean to suggest that the authors fail to appreciate this concern. To the contrary, they note, “[s]ome of the blameworthiness factors . . . . inform low-visibility but influential decisions by . . . prosecutors . . . to decline or divert charges, to plea bargain, and to strike cooperation deals, among other things. But the hydraulic pressures to dispose of cases quickly make these decisions invisible, unchecked, unaccountable, and highly variable.”[46] Yet the inevitability of discretion reveals something more profound still. Discretion is natural, whereas rule-bound reasoning is artificial. At best, rule-bound reasoning is infantile and small-minded.[47] The mature mind strives to understand things more deeply.[48] The criminal justice system is a human system, and no human system is prepared to dispense with context wholesale. This, then, seems to be what Bierschbach and Bibas mean when they write that “laymen care about a good deal more” than rigid sentencing rules.[49] Laymen also care about motive, social circumstance, and character (and also, for that matter, innumerable other moral and prudential questions and considerations).

Don’t get me wrong. As between a system stripped free of equity and a system that assigns equitable discretion exclusively to the executive, I prefer the latter—but only because one is impossible and even less desirable than the other. But neither is all that attractive. One of Bibas’s most important contributions is his brilliant book, The Machinery of Criminal Justice.[50] He hit upon certain fundamental realities—that the “machinery of criminal justice” is the province of neither sovereign prerogative nor the unbending rule.[51] In truth, liberal criminal justice is not machinery at all.

Conclusion

A mandatory sentence is like a store-bought greeting card. It strives to express a moral sentiment. But, except by rough fit, it cannot manage a genuine connection. It is just an abstract product of what typical people typically feel about typical groups. Preset categories are all that describe who should be considered similarly situated to whom. The core problem, however, is not that the mass-produced sentence (or, for that matter, the mass-produced greeting card) says the same things to everyone, but rather that it says empty things to everyone. The mandatory sentence is shallow.

Bierschbach and Bibas still need to identify the source of equality’s shallowness, as it applies to positive law. The authors’ point of attack is a particular approach to the principle. But by giving such primacy to the dominant conception of equality, they unintentionally buy into it. The real problem is legality, as conventionally formulated and expressed.

 


[1]Josh Bowers, Punishing the Innocent, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1117, 1117 (2008).

[2]Stephanos Bibas, Bringing Moral Values into a Flawed Plea-Bargaining System, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1425 (2003).

[3]“Mensch” is the Yiddish word for a good person. See Mensch, Dictionary.com, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/mensch?s=t [https://perma.cc/9W9M-C3CK].

[4]Richard A. Bierschbach & Stephanos Bibas, What’s Wrong with Sentencing Equality? 102 Va. L. Rev. 1447, 1455, 1465 (2016) (“Where moral disagreement was endemic, math supplanted morality.”).

[5]Josh Bowers, Legal Guilt, Normative Innocence, and the Equitable Decision Not to Prosecute, 110 Colum. L. Rev. 1655, 1688–92 (2010) [hereinafter Bowers, Legal Guilt]; see also Wayne A. Logan, Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life Without Parole on Juveniles, 33 Wake Forest L. Rev. 681, 703 (1998) (“Crime is now typically conceived solely in terms of the relative seriousness of a given offense, to the exclusion of offender culpability.”).

[6]Herbert L. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction 79–80 (1968).

[7]On our overly formal conception of the legality principle, see Josh Bowers, Probable Cause, Constitutional Reasonableness, and the Unrecognized Point of a “Pointless Indignity”, 66 Stan. L. Rev. 987, 996–98 (2014) [hereinafter Bowers, Pointless Indignity]; Josh Bowers, Legality & Rough Justice 6–7 (May 30, 2014) (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author); Josh Bowers, Understanding the Police 1 (Oct. 5, 2016) [hereinafter Bowers, Understanding the Police] (unpublished manuscript) (on file with author).

[8]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1492 (observing that “many alternative conceptions of sentencing equality” exist); cf. Peter Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 537, 537 (1982) (tracing the endurance of the principle to its ability to shift shape).

[9]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1447.

[10]Id. at 1456–57 (“[O]ur main goal is to show how sentencing equality, as it has come to be conventionally understood in outcomes-oriented terms, interacts with the institutional structure and goals of punishment, and how exposing that interaction complicates the tradeoffs that inhere in sentencing design.”).

[11]John Rawls, A Theory of Justice 75 (rev. ed. 1999) (defining “pure procedural justice” as a “fair procedure” that produces a result that is “likewise correct or fair, whatever it is, provided that the procedure has been properly followed”); see Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1677 (“[T]here is no persuasive reason why equal treatment must be measured according to substantive outcomes only.”); Vincent Chiao, Ex Ante Fairness in Criminal Law and Procedure, 15 New Crim. L. Rev. 277 (2012).

[12]Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1673–74; Logan, supra note 5, at 703 n.108 (“All defendants are not alike, just as all crimes, even if given the same label, are not identical.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

[13]Martha C. Nussbaum, Equity and Mercy, 22 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 83, 85–86, 92 (1993) (defining “equitable judgment” as “judgment that attends to the particulars,” and as “a gentle art of particular perception, a temper of mind that refuses to demand retribution without understanding the whole story”). My conception of equitable judgment is consistent with what Aristotle called epieikeia or “fair-mindedness.” Lawrence B. Solum, Virtue Jurisprudence: A Virtue-Centered Theory of Judging, 34 Metaphilosophy 178, 205 (2003).

[14]Dan M. Kahan & Martha C. Nussbaum, Two Conceptions of Emotion in Criminal Law, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 269, 368–70 (1996) (comparing mechanistic and evaluative approaches).

[15]Id. In any event, even our conventional legalistic conception of equality depends upon procedural methods. Here, the means consist of the conventional (and relatively technical) deconstructive craft of legal analysis, as opposed to the constructive craft of narrative. Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1690–91 (describing what it means to think and reason like a lawyer).

[16]Packer, supra note 6, at 88 (“It is not enough to say: this man goes to jail because he did something bad. There is obligation to relate the particular bad thing that this man did to other bad things that have been created as criminal in the past.”).

[17]Cf. infra note 30 and accompanying text (discussing Peter Westen’s view that equality is secondary to—and defined by—other enumerable moral principles).

[18]Kahan & Nussbaum, supra note 14, at 367; see also Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1473 (“[T]he criminal justice system once did and could again make a point of promoting remorse, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation . . . . about treating victims and offenders with dignity and respect . . . . But these considerations . . . . require context-specific judgments of real human beings . . . .” (footnote omitted)).

[19]Kahan & Nussbaum, supra note 14, at 367.

[20]Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801 (1982) (“[P]unishment must be tailored to . . . personal responsibility and moral guilt.”); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978) (holding that the capital sentencing jury is entitled to consider “as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death”); see Josh Bowers, Mandatory Life and the Death of Equitable Discretion, in Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? 25, 25 (Charles J. Ogletree Jr. & Austin Sarat eds., 2012) [hereinafter Bowers, Mandatory Life].

[21]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1459; see Michael Tonry, Sentencing Matters 6, 9, 147 (1996). I do not reject the conventional story entirely. Indeed, I have even articulated it previously. Josh Bowers, Contraindicated Drug Courts, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 783, 825 (2008) (“Stakeholders of varied political stripes came together to counteract what some saw as racist inequities in sentencing and what others saw as overly lenient discretionary sentencing.”); Bowers, Mandatory Life, supra note 20, at 30 (“Left-liberals saw determinate sentencing to be an antidote to racial and economic inequalities in discretionary sentencing. Law-and-order conservatives saw determinate sentencing to be an antidote to lenient liberal judges.” (footnote omitted)).

[22]Richard J. Bonnie et al., Criminal Law 81 (3d ed. 2010); John Calvin Jeffries, Jr., Legality, Vagueness, and the Construction of Penal Statutes, 71 Va. L. Rev. 189, 201, 212 (1985) (“The rule of law signifies the constraint of arbitrariness in the exercise of government power.”).

[23]Christine Sypnowich, Utopia and the Rule of Law in Recrafting the Rule of Law: The Limits of Legal Order 178, 179–80 (David Dyzenhaus ed., 1999) (“[T]he rule of law . . . refer[s] to the idea that law should meet certain procedural requirements so that the individual is enabled to obey it. . . . [It must] be relatively certain, clearly expressed, open, . . . adequately publicised . . . . [and] prospective . . . . The practical effect . . . is to set limits to the discretion of legislators, administrators, judges and the police.”).

[24]Bonnie et al., supra note 22, at 83 (“Would a Puritan theocracy or an Islamic state or a Marxist dictatorship have a comparable commitment to protecting . . . . the principle of legality as a fundamental ideal of the penal law dictated by liberal democracy and its underlying assumptions about the relation of the state to individual citizens?”); cf. Packer, supra note 6, at 86–87 (describing development of the legality principle and concluding that “after centuries of retrospective law-making by judges, . . . . the process of judicial law-making in the criminal field has . . . come to a halt” (emphasis omitted)).

[25]Louis Michael Seidman, Points of Intersection: Discontinuities at the Junction of Criminal Law and the Regulatory State, 7 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 97, 98, 101, 103 (1996) (“[A]lthough realism’s lessons for criminal law seem obvious, formalism continues to dominate criminal jurisprudence.”).

[26]Jeffries, supra note 22, at 212 (describing the “quite conventional” prevailing conception of the rule of law and the principle of legality); Antonin Scalia, Essay, The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules, 56 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1175 (1989). According to Professor John Jeffries: “[T]he agencies of official coercion should, to the extent feasible, be guided by rules” as a means to promote “regularity and evenhandedness in the administration of justice and accountability in the use of government power.” Jeffries, supra note 22, at 201, 212 (explaining that “appeals to the ‘rule of law,’” as they apply to the penal law tend to entail “the resort to legal formalism as a constraint against unbridled discretion”); Bowers, Pointless Indignity, supra note 7, at 989–98 (examining and critiquing the prevailing perspective); Bowers, Understanding the Police, supra note 7, at 1 (same).

[27]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1450–51, 1489 (“One might even argue that the arguments and observations of Gerken, Leib, and Schragger should have special purchase at sentencing, with its lack of easy policy answers, difficult moral tradeoffs, and inextricable connection to community norms.”); see also id. at 1487 (“The assumption in all of this is that punishment should not turn on local views.”); id at 1490–91, 1495 (arguing that “normative variation” may be “a virtue, not a vice”).

[28]Egon Bittner, The Police on Skid-Row: A Study of Peace Keeping, 32 Am. Sociological Rev. 699, 700 (1967) (“[C]rime belongs wholly to the law, and its treatment is exhaustively based on considerations of legality . . . .”); Seidman, supra note 25, at 97.

[29]Stephen R. Perry, Judicial Obligation, Precedent, and the Common Law, 7 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 215, 256 (1987); see also H.L.A. Hart, Legal Responsibility and Excuses, in Punishment and Responsibility 28, 44–47 (1968) (comparing certainty in criminal punishment to certainty in private law); Kenneth I. Winston, On Treating Like Cases Alike, 62 Calif. L. Rev. 1, 37 (1974) (discussing criminal law’s long tradition of “strict adherence to rules”); cf. Sherry F. Colb, Freedom from Incarceration: Why is This Right Different from All Other Rights?, 69 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 781, 821 (1994) (explaining that criminal justice is different in kind from other forms of legal regulation and that “liberty from confinement cannot be relegated to the status of unprotected aspects of daily life”).

[30]Westen, supra note 8, at 545, 547–48 (footnotes omitted).

[31]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1520 (emphasis added).

[32]Id at 1514.

[33]Bowers, Pointless Indignity, supra note 7, at 1030–43; Bowers, Understanding the Police, supra note 7, at 1.

[34]Specifically, I claim that equitable oversight is critical to regulating appropriately the enforcement and adjudication of low-level crimes. Bowers, Pointless Indignity, supra note 7, at 1036–37; Bowers, Understanding the Police, supra note 7, at 20.

[35]Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1670 (citing sources).

[36]Id. at 1670–72; Nussbaum, supra note 13, at 93 (“[T]he ‘matter of the practical’ can be grasped only crudely by rules given in advance, and adequately only by a flexible judgment suited to the complexities of the case.”); Solum, supra note 13, at 206 (“[T]he infinite variety and complexity of particular fact situations outruns our capacity to formulate general rules.”).

[37]Kenneth Culp Davis, Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry 21 (1969) (“[T]he conception of equity that discretion is needed as an escape from rigid rules [is] a far cry from the proposition that where law ends tyranny begins.”).

[38]Kahan & Nussbaum, supra note 14, at 274, 373–74 (noting that evaluations of normative blameworthiness “are better because they are brutally and uncompromisingly honest,” whereas “[m]echanistic doctrines . . . tend to disguise contentious moral issues”); William J. Stuntz, Unequal Justice, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 1969, 2039 (2008) (“[W]hen prosecutors have enormous discretionary power, giving other decisionmakers discretion promotes consistency, not arbitrariness. . . . [I]nstitutional competition curbs excess and abuse.”). In this vein, Professor Bill Stuntz argued that even localism is compatible with equality. Id. at 1995, 2031–33 (noting that “equality and local democracy [may] go hand in hand”).

[39]United States v. Justice, 877 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing federal sentencing as a “mechanical process”); Douglas A. Berman, The Virtues of Offense/Offender Distinctions, in Criminal Law Conversations 611, 615 (Paul H. Robins, Stephen P. Garvey & Kimberly Kessler Ferzan eds., 2009) (criticizing federal sentencing guidelines as “a sentencing process that [has] been drained of its humanity”); Bowers, Mandatory Life, supra note 20, at 29 (“[T]he vagaries of life outstrip ‘sentencing math’ that tends to count most that which can be counted most easily—like drug weight and monetary loss, as opposed to moral blameworthiness.” (emphasis omitted) (citing Berman, supra, at 615)); Jack B. Weinstein, Comment, A Trial Judge’s Second Impression of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 66 S. Cal. L. Rev. 357, 364 (1992).

[40]Daniel C. Richman, Cooperating Defendants: The Costs and Benefits of Purchasing Information from Scoundrels, 8 Fed. Sentencing Rep. 292, 292 (1996). The authors understand this, of course. They emphasize “more granular” approaches that turn on “less-quantifiable values” than determinate facts and figures, like drug weight and monetary gain. Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1455.

[41]Malcolm M. Feeley, The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court xix (1979); Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1708. It is well understood that determinate sentencing empowers prosecutors. Rachel E. Barkow, Institutional Design and Policing of Prosecutors: Lessons from Administrative Law, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 869, 877 (2009) (“With the prevalence of mandatory minimum laws, a prosecutor’s decision to bring or not bring charges can dictate whether a defendant receives a mandatory five-, ten-, or twenty-year term, or whether he or she is sentenced far below that floor.”); David Bjerk, Making the Crime Fit the Penalty: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion Under Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, 48 J.L. & Econ. 591, 593–95 (2005); William J. Stuntz, Plea Bargaining and Criminal Law’s Disappearing Shadow, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2548, 2564 (2004).

[42]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1482; see also Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1687 (“[P]rosecutors possess the human capacity for practical reason. But, in their professional roles, they are first and foremost legally trained institutional actors. And their position and profession may profoundly limit the degree to which they are willing and able to exercise equitable discretion—particularly in the petty cases where such discretion is most warranted.”); Bowers, Mandatory Life, supra note 20, at 36 (observing that a “‘mechanistic, impersonal, lawyerized criminal justice’ may interfere with what some have identified as an intuitive ‘deep human need’ to humanize and particularize retributive questions” (quoting Stephanos Bibas, Forgiveness in Criminal Procedure, 4 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 347, 348 (2007))).

[43]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1482 (emphasis added) (citing Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1701–02).

[44]Bowers, Understanding the Police, supra note 7, at 22 (quoting Frederick Schauer, Analogy in the Supreme Court, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, 2013 Sup. Ct. Rev. 405, 429 (defining a “nonlegal impetus” as, inter alia, an “idiosyncratic reaction to . . . the very particular facts of the case”)).

[45]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1470 (observing that individualization that is “omitted” from sentencing “show[s] up elsewhere in the system”); Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1687 n.146 (“[D]iscretion is a hydraulic force. An effort to eradicate it may play out like an attempt to squeeze air out of a partially inflated balloon: What disappears from one spot pops up in another.”); Debra Livingston, Police Discretion and the Quality of Life in Public Places: Courts, Communities, and the New Policing, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 551, 593 (1997) (“Limiting the discretion that police exercise on the street simply by demanding specificity in the laws that they enforce is so hopeless . . . . ‘Elimination of discretion at one choice point merely causes the discretion that had been exercised there to migrate elsewhere in the system.’” (quoting Jerry L. Mashaw, Prodelegation: Why Administrators Should Make Political Decisions, 1 J.L. Econ. & Org. 81, 97 (1985))).

[46]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1470 (footnote omitted); see also Stephanos Bibas, Essay, Transparency and Participation in Criminal Procedure, 81 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 911, 914, 931 (2006) (“On average . . . [professional] insiders are more concerned with and informed about practical constraints . . . . [Lay] [o]utsiders, knowing and caring less about practical obstacles and insiders’ interests, focus on . . . offenders’ just desserts. . . .” They “care about a much wider array of justice concerns than do lawyers, including . . . blameworthiness, and apologies.”).

[47]Jerome Frank, Law and the Modern Mind 178 (Transaction Publishers ed. 2009) (“The constant effort to achieve a stable equilibrium . . . is regressive, infantile, and immature.”); Bowers, Legal Guilt, supra note 5, at 1690–91.

[48]Nussbaum, supra note 13, at 94 (“[T]he equitable person is characterized by a sympathetic understanding of ‘human things.’”); Kahan & Nussbaum, supra note 14, at 287 (observing that an Aristotelian conception of appropriate conduct in a particular context requires “asking what a person of practical wisdom would do and feel in the situation,” not by asking mechanistically what the law commands).

[[49]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1473; David Garland, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory 1 (1990) (noting that punishment falls short of societal expectations because “we have tried to convert a deeply social issue into a technical task for specialist institutions”).

[50]Stephanos Bibas, The Machinery of Criminal Justice (2012).

[51]Bierschbach & Bibas, supra note 4, at 1483–84 (“No one institutional player should hold all the cards. . . . An outcomes-focused conception of equality bent on centralizing sentencing and reducing discretion is in tension with this checks-and-balances approach.” (footnote omitted)).