Criminal justice reform has long been a contested space for research and policy, with scholars and practitioners searching for effective ways to drive change. One of the most debated tools in this context is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). Traditionally considered the "gold standard" for evaluating interventions, RCTs have recently come under scrutiny for their effectiveness in the criminal justice field.
Two key articles address this issue: Cause, Effect, and the Structure of the Social World by Megan Stevenson, and Then a Miracle Occurs: Cause, Effect, and the Heterogeneity of Criminal Justice Research by Brandon del Pozo and colleagues. Stevenson's piece is a critique of the use of RCTs in criminal justice, while del Pozo's article serves as a counterargument, challenging the validity of Stevenson’s conclusions. This post delves into both perspectives, exploring their arguments, methodologies, and conclusions, with the a