substance use disorders and the justice system

Understanding Substance Use Disorders in the Justice System

Science has changed what we know about substance use disorders. Principle One of JSI’s framework examines what that understanding means for judges, prosecutors, supervision professionals, corrections, and the justice system.
Tagged under: , , , , ,
Treatment Courts Evidence

Specialty Courts: What the Evidence Actually Shows

Do specialty courts improve public safety and reduce recidivism? This evidence-based review examines current research on treatment courts, addresses common criticisms, and explains what today's evidence and national best practice standards actually show.
Tagged under: , , , , , ,
Language in Treatment Courts

Words Matter: How Language Shapes Justice in Treatment Courts

Words influence more than conversation—they shape perception, reduce or reinforce stigma, and affect how justice is experienced. Discover why language is an essential component of treatment courts, procedural justice, and evidence-based practices that support long-term recovery.
Tagged under: , , , ,
substance use disorders in the justice system

An Effective Framework for Responding to Substance Use Disorders in the Justice System

Substance use disorders affect every part of the justice system. This new series explores five evidence-based principles that can strengthen public safety, improve outcomes, and support long-term recovery.
Tagged under: , , , , ,
Judicial Education and Justice Reform Consulting

Leadership, Innovation, and the Future of Justice

Artificial intelligence, behavioral health research, and emerging technologies are transforming the justice system at an unprecedented pace. Yet innovation alone cannot ensure fairness, accountability, or public trust. The future of justice will depend on informed leadership, evidence-based decision-making, and collaboration across disciplines.
Tagged under: , , , ,
Professional Accountability in AI

Professional Accountability: The Most Important AI Guardrail for Lawyers and Courts

A federal judge removed four attorneys from a case after both sides submitted AI-generated citations to cases that did not exist. The lesson extends far beyond legal research. As courts and justice agencies adopt artificial intelligence, professional accountability remains the most important safeguard. AI can assist the work, but responsibility for the outcome must always remain with people.
Tagged under: , , , ,
AI Tort Liability

AI Tort Liability: How Courts May Regulate Artificial Intelligence First *

Artificial intelligence regulation may develop through tort litigation faster than through legislation. Courts are increasingly applying traditional product liability principles to AI systems, chatbots, and digital platforms. This article examines how judges, juries, and evolving tort doctrines may shape the future boundaries of AI accountability and governance.
Tagged under: , , , ,
AI Governance in the Justice System

Hardwiring Justice: AI Governance in the Courts

Artificial intelligence is already embedded within the justice system. Courts do not need to wait for legislatures or technology companies to establish governance standards. Through disclosure requirements, procurement oversight, auditing, and procedural safeguards, courts already possess substantial authority to regulate how AI systems operate within judicial institutions.
Tagged under: , , , ,
AI generated legal writing

When AI Writes the Law: The Risks and Limits of Large Language Models in the Justice System

AI generated legal writing is rapidly entering courtrooms, chambers, and legal practice. But large language models do not reason, evaluate evidence, or determine truth. This new Hardwiring Justice article examines the risks of AI generated legal writing, including hallucinated citations, evidentiary laundering, and the growing need for judicial verification standards.
Tagged under: , , , ,
AI evidence due process

AI Evidence and Due Process: The Real Black Box Problem

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used across criminal proceedings, yet many systems operate as opaque “black boxes.” This article argues that the real concern is not technical opacity but procedural justice. When defendants cannot challenge algorithmic evidence through meaningful disclosure, the adversarial process fails and due process is compromised.
Tagged under: , , , ,