The Justice Evolution that Escaped our Notice
February 4, 2026 by John M. Collins
Valid Comparisons will be my fifth and most recent book, at least as of this writing. Among the major themes I will cover in this work of nonfiction is that the “junk science” narrative being perpetuated by activists in the innocence movement is both unfair and unjustified in its current iteration. The rhetorical excesses of these activists defies logic, which is surprising because so many of them are quite intelligent.
It was this realization that arose during my writing of Valid Comparisons that inspired the ending passage you see below, which speaks to what I believe has been - and will continue to be - an underlying but unstated rationale for much of the criminal justice reform efforts we see taking place today. If you think I’m missing something, drop me a note as I’d be curious to know what you think.
From the Epilogue of Valid Comparisons by John M. Collins
26.2 It was Never About the Science
For over a century, the comparison and interpretation of stochastic patterns have allowed the most consequential legal questions to be answered with greater accuracy and confidence. So why would any highly intelligent or credentialed professional go to such lengths to discredit these forensic methods wholesale, knowing how well-established they are, how scrutinized they’ve been both legally and scientifically, and what a profound disadvantage it could create for any court opting to deprive itself of such vital information? It doesn’t seem to make much sense, that is until we open our minds to the realities of much larger and more important societal trends that are slowly – almost imperceptibly – changing how we endeavor to investigate, solve, and punish the perpetrators crime.
Perhaps it is among the most consequential of these trends that average citizens increasingly appreciate and accept that people who commit even serious crimes don’t always do so because they are bad people who need to be punished. Sometimes they do so because they are hurting, confused, overwhelmed, scared, hungry, or perhaps gripped by an alcohol or substance addiction they can’t control.
Many advocates of criminal justice reform are inspired by a genuine empathy for those individuals whose life circumstances have become exceedingly difficult, making it hard or even impossible to participate as a productive and cooperative member of society. I am too. And for many defendants, these circumstances had nothing to do with any decisions or choices they made. Maybe they were born into a poor family living in a community overrun by drugs and gangs. Maybe they have debilitating learning disabilities or communication disorders that confine them to a life of unimaginable frustration. Whatever circumstances help explain criminal behavior, society is evolving in its understanding that crime may not always be dismissed as something that bad people do. More often than not, it’s something lost people do.
Extensive research has shown that somewhere between 2-5% of the human population suffers from an antisocial personality disorder, the cluster of pathologies that give rise to what’s often termed the psychopath. Although many violent crimes are heinous in their utter brutality, they do not represent most crimes committed in the United States or anywhere else for that matter.
The forensic experts who support the investigation and adjudication of crime are credentialed and talented professionals. Their work honors the traditional societal mission to identify, arrest, prosecute, and punish individuals who’ve perpetrated crimes against humanity or its property. As such, it’s easy for a highly empathetic and motivated reform advocate to look suspiciously on these forensic experts as evil oppressors – agents of an unfair, heartless, and retaliatory system that seems negligently dismissive of the very real hardships that many arrestees and defendants face in their lives. So, in many ways, what may appear as an unfair attack on commonly practiced forensic methods is actually a veiled rebellion – a rebellion by activists against an entire system of justice they believe must be gutted and reinvented as quickly as possible. Forensic science, therefore, is but a casualty in a much bigger battle.
26.3 A Changing Model of Justice
As contemporary society continues to rethink its response to crime, and as research continues to improve our understanding of human psychology and the motivations for deviancy, the true causes of crime will be increasingly understood and explained, even more so than they are now. And to the extent that future perpetrators are not fully conscious of their motivations or not in full control of their impulses, a rehabilitative approach to responding to such crimes will likely be prioritized over retributive punishment.
As this evolution plays out in the coming years and decades, we should take notice of softened attitudes about crime and the benefits of treatment, which can place an already burdened system of justice at odds with victims and surviving relatives who are often driven by intense emotional anguish. They may lack any capacity to feel empathy for a defendant, demanding “swift and certain justice,” as the saying goes. Prosecutors, to a large extent, are the only advocates for these suffering victims of circumstance, and we can therefore understand why so many prosecutors like to bare their teeth, adopting an aggressively unsympathetic approach to holding defendants accountable for the charges against them. Moreover, many prosecutors know from experience that the fear of severe punishment is the only motivation preventing many of those who are most vulnerable to criminal impulses from acting them out. As a result, softer-on-crime approaches to criminal justice can indeed have the unintended consequence of intensifying these impulses and setting the conditions for more crimes to occur.
It is not my goal here to litigate these nuances or predict how they will affect the future investigation and adjudication of crime. But it’s clear that accounting for these nuances requires degrees of thoughtfulness and caution that often feel or appear to be lacking in today’s criminal justice system. And it is this absence that understandably inflames the anger of reformers and helps to explain why they portray forensic experts as enablers of the dysfunction.
But we have to keep in mind that even if criminal justice could one-day become entirely rehabilitative, and even if we could eliminate the most severe forms of punishment – such as long-term incarceration and the death penalty – and even if there was a genuine and sincere effort to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders under a rigorous framework of treatment and personalized support, it would still be necessary to identify and arrest them. We would still need crime scene responders, forensic experts, detectives, and prosecutors to tell the story of what happened and who was responsible.
This means that even under the most progressive and empathetic system of justice conceivable, society will still depend on those experts who compare and interpret stochastic patterns. Our courts will still need to know what gun fired a bullet, what person left a fingerprint at a crime scene, who forged a check, whose burnt remains were found at the scene of an arson, or from what notebook a ransom note was written and torn. Stochastic patterns are vital to our pursuit of truth. No reforms will ever change that. We will always need the responsible, well-trained, and conscientious practitioners who give these kinds of evidence a voice when it’s needed most.
As long as there are people asking important questions, they will always go looking for answers.
