Penn lawprof Paul Robinson, one of the best crimlaw professors in the country, has a very short essay up on SSRN entitled Criminal Justice in the Information Age: A Punishment Theory Paradox. The essay is a thought experiment about a possible future of criminal law, in which “most crimes are solved and most perpetrators caught and punished.”
Robinson doesn’t claim that the future will look this way, only that it might. Why might it look this way? Robinson points to DNA testing, computers, GPS satellites, infrared cameras, and other technologies, and notes that all of these can be used to solve crimes. According to Robinson, the fact that these technologies can be used to solve crimes creates at least the possibility that the future will be one which most crimes are solved and most criminals convicted.
I don’t think that’s right, though. Technology almost never works in a straight line like that. For every technology that makes it easier for the police to catch criminals, there are countertechnologies that make it harder for police to catch them. As DNA testing becomes more common, defendants will learn to control the DNA they leave at crime scenes — intentionally leaving the DNA of others behind, for example. Computers can be used to solve crimes, but they can also allow defendants to commit crimes with almost total anonymity. Cameras can identify wrongdoers, but can also be circumvented. For every technology there is a countertechnology, setting off a dynamic and fluid cat vs. mouse came between the cops and the bad guys.
Robinson’s very interesting essay is focused mostly on the “what if” — what might criminal law look like if this world were to come to pass? As a thought experiment, it’s a very worthy and interesting one. As a prediction, though, I don’t think it’s likely that his vision of the Information Age will become reality.
Thanks to CrimProf Blog for the link.
Comments are closed.