The Procedural Justice Industrial Complex

The singular focus on procedural justice police reform is dangerous. Procedurally just law enforcement encounters provide an empirically proven subjective sense of fairness and legitimacy, while obscuring substantively unjust outcomes emanating from a fundamentally unjust system. The deceptive simplicity of procedural justice – that a polite cop is a lawful cop – promotes a false consciousness among would-be reformers that progress has been made, evokes a false sense of legitimacy divorced from objective indicia of lawfulness or morality, and claims the mantle of “reform” in the process. It is not just that procedural justice is a suboptimal type of reform; it is the type of reform that actively frustrates other reforms by dressing up policing with the perception of correctness and legitimacy. And yet, procedural justice dominates police reform policy. Virtually all current federally funded police reform proposals support procedural justice trainings to the exclusion of proposals to address police brutality, eliminate discriminatory overpolicing, demilitarize departments, and end qualified immunity. As a result, a growing procedural justice industrial complex has taken shape. This multilayered public-private partnership between government agencies, academic institutions, and for-profit training companies increasingly helps police departments “protect their brand” and “reduce liability” through procedural politeness, while requiring no changes to unlawful, unnecessary, and violent police behavior. This Article provides the first comprehensive account of this growing complex, charting its roots in community policing and evolving into a cottage industry of private, for-profit purveyors offering costly procedural justice trainings to departments flush with federal grant money. This Article also challenges the dominant scholarly narrative supporting these procedural justice policies, interrogating its role in promoting unnecessary ubiquitous police presence and justifying new racially discriminatory practices like “hot spots policing” and “precision policing.” In doing so, the Article applies these process-oriented critiques to five substantive police reform proposals, exploring how this singular focus on procedural justice distinctly frustrates more necessary transformative reforms in the areas of discriminatory policing, police brutality, police accountability, legal reform, and police abolition

Who is a Corporation?

In recent years, there has been increasing pressure on corporate entities to engage in moral or ethical decision- making. Given the immense economic and political power of modern corporate entities, it becomes critical to determine the origin point of these ethical decisions, both to ensure that corporations are held responsible for their moral choices and to tether corporate moral decision-making power to the appropriate group, or groups, of human beings. Determining to whom corporate morality should be attributed is not an easy task, however, and requires consideration not just of the people involved in the corporation but also of the role the corporation plays within a representative democracy. Ultimately, inquiry into the attribution of a corporation’s moral judgments may best be seen as fluid and context-dependent. That is, it should examine both the way the corporation is structured and the importance of representation for the moral choices of corporate stakeholders

Desettling Fixation

Scholars have long contemplated how the effects of colonialism have permeated even race “neutral” laws. This Article scrutinizes the ways Eurocentric copyright systems have failed to protect, and have even encouraged, the unauthorized uses of indigenous heritage in derivative subject matter, exposing how settler colonialism in copyright law has entrenched an unequal hierarchy among communities seeking copyright protection. Due to its ephemeral nature, intangible cultural heritage constantly faces the threat of exploitation by dominant cultures. The intangible heritage of indigenous groups has been particularly vulnerable to illicit and uncompensated commodification. Intangible heritage, such as oral histories and traditional dances, is often of great social, psychological, and political importance for indigenous communities. The current national and international legal regimes have failed to protect indigenous communities from the misappropriation of their cultural resources. Building on a comparative analysis of the fixation requirement in other countries, this Article proposes a reformation of the “fixation” requirement in American copyright doctrine, which requires a work to be “sufficiently permanent” for a period of “more than a transitory duration.” By allowing authors to establish copyright in ephemeral works, communities may be able to protect more effectively their intangible cultural heritage from commodification and misappropriation. This Article joins the call for reconsidering how copyright law reinforces structural inequities and proposes a novel solution. This Article is the first in legal literature to apply the process of desettling to a legal problem derived from settler colonialism. Through the desettling of fixation in copyright law, true “progress” can be realized

COVID-19 pediatric vaccine authorization, FDA authority, and individual misperception of risk

Vaccines are one component to the public health strategies to alleviate the COVID-19 pandemic. Hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines in the United States has been problematic, which is not surprising given increasing overall vaccine hesitancy in recent decades. Most vaccines are administered during childhood years. Consequently, understanding hesitancy toward administration of vaccines in this age group may provide insight into possible interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy. The present study analyzed a subset of over 130,000 public comments posted in response to a notice of meeting of the vaccine advisory group to the Food and Drug Administration. The meeting addressed whether to recommend Emergency Use Authorization (‘EUA’) of the COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5–11. The results of the study demonstrate that most comments opposed EUA and these comments were associated with statements that indicated misperceptions of risk. Findings provide interesting insights regarding the role of public comments generally but also suggest that the public participation process in notice and comment can be modified to serve as an intervention to align individual perceptions of risk more closely with evidence-based assessment of risk. In addition, the findings provide opportunities to consider strategies for public health messaging