Legal Issues of Randomized Experiments on Sanctioning

Abstract

In 1981, the Federal Judicial Center proposed guidelines for balancing risks of experimentation against their supposed benefits. The ethical rules were supposed to be within the scope of American legal and constitutional justification. These guidelines would not fulfill the same criterion in Germany, especially if risks to the individual are weighed against benefits toward the society. Randomization in criminal law cannot be justified by the constitutional principle of freedom of research or by the need to gain empirical knowledge about the effectiveness of sanctions. Unequal treatment in randomized designs can only be justified if randomization is permitted for reasons other than experimentation and if the individuals give their free and informed consent. The principle of informed consent must be extended from a procedural to a material content, which guarantees that participants are not forced to take part in an experiment.

Ethical Practice and Evaluation of Interventions in Crime and Justice

“…There is a long history of debate regarding whether the conduct of randomized experiments on crime and justice issues meets basic ethical requirements for conducting research (e.g., see Baunach 1980;Bergstrom 1985;Boruch 1975;Boruch, Victor, and Cecil 2000;Clarke and Cornish 1972;Esbensen 1991;Erez 1986;Geis 1967;Graebsch 2000; Lempert and Visher 1988;Sieber 1982;White and Pezzino 1986). Ordinarily, such discussions revolve around whether the random allocation of sanctions, programs, or treatments in criminal justice settings can be justified on the basis of the benefits accrued to society.…”

Are Judicial Status Hearings A Key Component Of Drug Court? During-Treatment Data From a Randomized Trial

“…Groundbreaking as it was, the D.C. Superior Court Study raised concerns about the viability of conducting controlled evaluations in the context of a drug court. Moreover, additional concerns were raised by other commentators about the ethics and practicality of randomizing conditions of sentencing or pretrial monitoring (Graebsch, 2000;Hoffman, 2000). Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are often hesitant to standardize drug court proceedings or to manipulate the core elements of those proceedings.…”

Justifying the use of non-experimental methods and disqualifying the use of randomized controlled trials: challenging folklore in evaluation research in crime and justice

“…There is a long history of debate regarding whether it is ethical to randomize treatments, interventions, or programs in crime and justice (e.g., see Baunach 1980;Boruch 1975;Clarke and Cornish 1972;Esbensen 1991;Erez 1986;Geis 1967;Graebsch 2000). Often such debate focuses on whether it is ethical to withhold treatments from offenders who might need them, or to randomly allocate sanctions in the criminal justice system.…”