John Pfaff
@johnpfaff.bsky.social
Professor at Fordham Law. Prisons and criminal justice quant. I'm not contrarian, the data are. Author of Locked In. New stuff at johnfpfaff.com.
tl;dr: not only should we all be Bayesian, but the fact that most are not creates real SYSTEMIC harm.
In a Bayesian world, the returns on “potentially-brilliantly innovative” shrink significantly, bc they collide headlong into priors (ie, Fuller’s demand for “suspect” takes on radial departures).
In a Bayesian world, the returns on “potentially-brilliantly innovative” shrink significantly, bc they collide headlong into priors (ie, Fuller’s demand for “suspect” takes on radial departures).
I'm reminded of Dan Farber's 1986 article, "The Case Against Brilliance," which is pretty much about that problem in the legal academy.
scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcont...
scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcont...
December 26, 2025 at 1:55 AM
tl;dr: not only should we all be Bayesian, but the fact that most are not creates real SYSTEMIC harm.
In a Bayesian world, the returns on “potentially-brilliantly innovative” shrink significantly, bc they collide headlong into priors (ie, Fuller’s demand for “suspect” takes on radial departures).
In a Bayesian world, the returns on “potentially-brilliantly innovative” shrink significantly, bc they collide headlong into priors (ie, Fuller’s demand for “suspect” takes on radial departures).
Putting the “Jesus Christ What Did I Just Look At” back in Christmas.
Do Republicans ever stop and think "we're making AI slop about beating the shit out of Santa Claus now. How did we lose the plot so much?"
um...
December 25, 2025 at 11:24 PM
Putting the “Jesus Christ What Did I Just Look At” back in Christmas.
Reposted by John Pfaff
I feel like things are a bit too serious on here for Christmas Eve. One or two nights on non-doomery are okay. Not just okay: necessary.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
Sump'n Claus - SNL
YouTube video by Saturday Night Live
youtu.be
December 25, 2025 at 1:01 AM
I feel like things are a bit too serious on here for Christmas Eve. One or two nights on non-doomery are okay. Not just okay: necessary.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
I feel like things are a bit too serious on here for Christmas Eve. One or two nights on non-doomery are okay. Not just okay: necessary.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
Sump'n Claus - SNL
YouTube video by Saturday Night Live
youtu.be
December 25, 2025 at 1:01 AM
I feel like things are a bit too serious on here for Christmas Eve. One or two nights on non-doomery are okay. Not just okay: necessary.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
So, to try to break that up, here’s one of my fav Christmas carols of all time.
And just like that, we go from one teenager in the house to three.
a man and woman standing next to each other with #schittscreek written on the bottom
Alt: a man and woman standing next to each other with #schittscreek written on the bottom, saying God Help Us All.
media.tenor.com
December 24, 2025 at 11:12 PM
And just like that, we go from one teenager in the house to three.
If I were President, I’d decorate the Oval by painting a giant mural of that famous painting of Lee surrendering to Grant, cyclorama style. A whole 360 degree immersion experience
You have to crush the racists, not appease them.
You have to crush the racists, not appease them.
December 24, 2025 at 2:37 PM
If I were President, I’d decorate the Oval by painting a giant mural of that famous painting of Lee surrendering to Grant, cyclorama style. A whole 360 degree immersion experience
You have to crush the racists, not appease them.
You have to crush the racists, not appease them.
These declines are MASSIVE.
And the comparative silence in media coverage is absolutely DAMNING.
“Why are ppl always so afraid of crime?”
THIS is why. When crime goes up, media trips over itself to report it.
Falls to pre-war (!!) levels? Just CRICKETS.
And the comparative silence in media coverage is absolutely DAMNING.
“Why are ppl always so afraid of crime?”
THIS is why. When crime goes up, media trips over itself to report it.
Falls to pre-war (!!) levels? Just CRICKETS.
I count 10 cities in 2025 that are on track to have the fewest murders since at least 1970. Newark is on pace to have the fewest murders since 1956 (though only have data through Oct this year) and San Francisco is on pace to have the fewest murders since 1942.
December 23, 2025 at 10:03 PM
These declines are MASSIVE.
And the comparative silence in media coverage is absolutely DAMNING.
“Why are ppl always so afraid of crime?”
THIS is why. When crime goes up, media trips over itself to report it.
Falls to pre-war (!!) levels? Just CRICKETS.
And the comparative silence in media coverage is absolutely DAMNING.
“Why are ppl always so afraid of crime?”
THIS is why. When crime goes up, media trips over itself to report it.
Falls to pre-war (!!) levels? Just CRICKETS.
Kavanaugh: stopped.
Kavanaugh in a footnote in today's opinion says "the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity."
December 23, 2025 at 9:44 PM
Kavanaugh: stopped.
I thought we generally don’t comment on an investigation while it is on-going?
Also, interesting that they don’t mention that the letter was sent to the FBI in 2020 for authentication.
Feel like if the FBI had cast doubt on this, they’d be hyping it. ESPECIALLY in a post w excuses.
Also, interesting that they don’t mention that the letter was sent to the FBI in 2020 for authentication.
Feel like if the FBI had cast doubt on this, they’d be hyping it. ESPECIALLY in a post w excuses.
December 23, 2025 at 7:40 PM
I thought we generally don’t comment on an investigation while it is on-going?
Also, interesting that they don’t mention that the letter was sent to the FBI in 2020 for authentication.
Feel like if the FBI had cast doubt on this, they’d be hyping it. ESPECIALLY in a post w excuses.
Also, interesting that they don’t mention that the letter was sent to the FBI in 2020 for authentication.
Feel like if the FBI had cast doubt on this, they’d be hyping it. ESPECIALLY in a post w excuses.
I want a template of this post.
“ ‘Do we think [FILL IN BLANK]?’ is a vastly healthier question to be asking than ‘Does exegesis of the Constitution and surrounding documentary history suggest that some guys who lived over 250 years ago would have wanted [SAME BLANK]?’.“
I would use this SO often.
“ ‘Do we think [FILL IN BLANK]?’ is a vastly healthier question to be asking than ‘Does exegesis of the Constitution and surrounding documentary history suggest that some guys who lived over 250 years ago would have wanted [SAME BLANK]?’.“
I would use this SO often.
I'd counter that "Do we think such and such behavior warrants impeachment?" is a vastly healthier question to be asking than "Does exegesis of the Constitution and surrounding documentary history suggest that some guys who lived 250 years ago would have wanted to impeach over this?"
December 23, 2025 at 6:52 PM
I want a template of this post.
“ ‘Do we think [FILL IN BLANK]?’ is a vastly healthier question to be asking than ‘Does exegesis of the Constitution and surrounding documentary history suggest that some guys who lived over 250 years ago would have wanted [SAME BLANK]?’.“
I would use this SO often.
“ ‘Do we think [FILL IN BLANK]?’ is a vastly healthier question to be asking than ‘Does exegesis of the Constitution and surrounding documentary history suggest that some guys who lived over 250 years ago would have wanted [SAME BLANK]?’.“
I would use this SO often.
Wait, we can still find the cases though, right? Even without every part of the over-the-top citation style that the Bluebook imposes on us?
Mocking the DOJ's incompetence here is the low-hanging fruit.
Aim higher!
Use this as ammo to take down the Bluebook!
Mocking the DOJ's incompetence here is the low-hanging fruit.
Aim higher!
Use this as ammo to take down the Bluebook!
I have seen DOJ do some strange redactions before, but this is up there:
December 23, 2025 at 5:49 PM
Wait, we can still find the cases though, right? Even without every part of the over-the-top citation style that the Bluebook imposes on us?
Mocking the DOJ's incompetence here is the low-hanging fruit.
Aim higher!
Use this as ammo to take down the Bluebook!
Mocking the DOJ's incompetence here is the low-hanging fruit.
Aim higher!
Use this as ammo to take down the Bluebook!
So this, from CNN today, on the (alleged) Epstein-Nasser letter, strikes me as a dog that didn't bark.
The FBI requested handwriting analysis of the letter in 2020. It's 2025. If the analysis said "no match" or "inconclusive," I HAVE to think the DOJ would have released that: "Look at these scams!"
The FBI requested handwriting analysis of the letter in 2020. It's 2025. If the analysis said "no match" or "inconclusive," I HAVE to think the DOJ would have released that: "Look at these scams!"
December 23, 2025 at 5:29 PM
So this, from CNN today, on the (alleged) Epstein-Nasser letter, strikes me as a dog that didn't bark.
The FBI requested handwriting analysis of the letter in 2020. It's 2025. If the analysis said "no match" or "inconclusive," I HAVE to think the DOJ would have released that: "Look at these scams!"
The FBI requested handwriting analysis of the letter in 2020. It's 2025. If the analysis said "no match" or "inconclusive," I HAVE to think the DOJ would have released that: "Look at these scams!"
Worth remembering that Bari Weiss signed that oh-so-remarkable Harper’s Letter about the vital importance of free speech and the need to resist attacks on it.
I know that letter is five years old now, but utterly annoys me as much today as it did when it came out.
So transparently bad.
I know that letter is five years old now, but utterly annoys me as much today as it did when it came out.
So transparently bad.
December 23, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Worth remembering that Bari Weiss signed that oh-so-remarkable Harper’s Letter about the vital importance of free speech and the need to resist attacks on it.
I know that letter is five years old now, but utterly annoys me as much today as it did when it came out.
So transparently bad.
I know that letter is five years old now, but utterly annoys me as much today as it did when it came out.
So transparently bad.
Princeton at last can breathe a sigh of relief.
December 23, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Princeton at last can breathe a sigh of relief.
I deleted my post on the Epstein-Nasser letter.
Maybe it’s real, but with so much misinfo out there, THIS is a case where waiting a bit for more confirmation is the right call (unlike, say, a vetted report on CECOT).
Maybe it’s real, but with so much misinfo out there, THIS is a case where waiting a bit for more confirmation is the right call (unlike, say, a vetted report on CECOT).
December 23, 2025 at 2:29 PM
I deleted my post on the Epstein-Nasser letter.
Maybe it’s real, but with so much misinfo out there, THIS is a case where waiting a bit for more confirmation is the right call (unlike, say, a vetted report on CECOT).
Maybe it’s real, but with so much misinfo out there, THIS is a case where waiting a bit for more confirmation is the right call (unlike, say, a vetted report on CECOT).
Reposted by John Pfaff
Although reading the comments to the post I quote-replied, they’re all conspiratorial “oh, isn’t it convenient that he wrote a suicide note right before committing suicide?! SUSPICIOUS!”
It was 2019. If the Trump admin was going to make a mock letter, do you think they’d implicate THEIR GUY in it?
It was 2019. If the Trump admin was going to make a mock letter, do you think they’d implicate THEIR GUY in it?
December 23, 2025 at 1:33 PM
Although reading the comments to the post I quote-replied, they’re all conspiratorial “oh, isn’t it convenient that he wrote a suicide note right before committing suicide?! SUSPICIOUS!”
It was 2019. If the Trump admin was going to make a mock letter, do you think they’d implicate THEIR GUY in it?
It was 2019. If the Trump admin was going to make a mock letter, do you think they’d implicate THEIR GUY in it?
American Samizdat.
Yakov Smirnoff is going to leave Branson for, I don't know, Sochi (?) to start telling "In America ..." jokes.
Yakov Smirnoff is going to leave Branson for, I don't know, Sochi (?) to start telling "In America ..." jokes.
December 23, 2025 at 4:25 AM
American Samizdat.
Yakov Smirnoff is going to leave Branson for, I don't know, Sochi (?) to start telling "In America ..." jokes.
Yakov Smirnoff is going to leave Branson for, I don't know, Sochi (?) to start telling "In America ..." jokes.
My kid just asked how long to microwave something, and I couldn’t tell him.
The range I genuinely needed to suggest was longer than 5 minutes but less than 8.
Which is unfortunate, since it is now impossible to invoke the gap between them.
By the way I refused to answer, they figured it out.
The range I genuinely needed to suggest was longer than 5 minutes but less than 8.
Which is unfortunate, since it is now impossible to invoke the gap between them.
By the way I refused to answer, they figured it out.
December 23, 2025 at 12:55 AM
My kid just asked how long to microwave something, and I couldn’t tell him.
The range I genuinely needed to suggest was longer than 5 minutes but less than 8.
Which is unfortunate, since it is now impossible to invoke the gap between them.
By the way I refused to answer, they figured it out.
The range I genuinely needed to suggest was longer than 5 minutes but less than 8.
Which is unfortunate, since it is now impossible to invoke the gap between them.
By the way I refused to answer, they figured it out.
These cases are all removable to Fed Court under 28 USC § 1442, right? That allows removal of cases involving fed officers charged by states while acting in their official capacity.
So Feds can remove then dismiss in bulk.
Not saying bad idea: there could be real political cost to that move.
So Feds can remove then dismiss in bulk.
Not saying bad idea: there could be real political cost to that move.
“It basically says that a federal officer can be criminally prosecuted for unreasonable actions. Federal officers, by virtue of being federal officers, do not get immunity from all state civil and criminal laws,” Dean Chemerinsky told @calmatters.org https://bit.ly/45eaYcB #BerkeleyLaw
New California law bans federal agents from wearing masks in showdown over immigration raids
The Trump administration is suing to block a new California that would ban federal law enforcement officers from wearings masks on duty. It was shaped by concerns over masked immigration agents in Los...
calmatters.org
December 22, 2025 at 9:13 PM
These cases are all removable to Fed Court under 28 USC § 1442, right? That allows removal of cases involving fed officers charged by states while acting in their official capacity.
So Feds can remove then dismiss in bulk.
Not saying bad idea: there could be real political cost to that move.
So Feds can remove then dismiss in bulk.
Not saying bad idea: there could be real political cost to that move.
Why are we no longer allowed to have color?
I'm not a big fan of 1960s-era psychedelic styles, but there has to be a happy medium between that and everything being monochrome and sans serif.
I'm not a big fan of 1960s-era psychedelic styles, but there has to be a happy medium between that and everything being monochrome and sans serif.
NYC's OMNY card is here, and I am full of regret
aftermath.site/nyc-subway-omn...
aftermath.site/nyc-subway-omn...
December 22, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Why are we no longer allowed to have color?
I'm not a big fan of 1960s-era psychedelic styles, but there has to be a happy medium between that and everything being monochrome and sans serif.
I'm not a big fan of 1960s-era psychedelic styles, but there has to be a happy medium between that and everything being monochrome and sans serif.
Also, Baltimore has seen a 30% drop in homicides vs. 2025.
Which suggests the causal effect of the Feds on crime reduction is prob much less than the Feds want you to think.
Which suggests the causal effect of the Feds on crime reduction is prob much less than the Feds want you to think.
December 22, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Also, Baltimore has seen a 30% drop in homicides vs. 2025.
Which suggests the causal effect of the Feds on crime reduction is prob much less than the Feds want you to think.
Which suggests the causal effect of the Feds on crime reduction is prob much less than the Feds want you to think.
“Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always pri
NEW: The federal government has retreated from gun enforcement in Baltimore and elsewhere this year as more of its investigators turn their attention to President Donald Trump’s new priority for law enforcement: hunting immigrants in the U.S. illegally to deport.
www.reuters.com/world/how-im...
www.reuters.com/world/how-im...
December 22, 2025 at 4:28 PM
“Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always prioritize punitive social control over true public safety. “Tough on Crime” will always pri
There are two types of people in the world.
(And we had to buy multi-option LEDs this year to keep the peace between them.)
(And we had to buy multi-option LEDs this year to keep the peace between them.)
December 22, 2025 at 2:42 PM
There are two types of people in the world.
(And we had to buy multi-option LEDs this year to keep the peace between them.)
(And we had to buy multi-option LEDs this year to keep the peace between them.)
I have to image that it is perhaps impossible to actually gather, but has anyone seen good quantitative (large-n, non-anecdotal, etc.) data on what percent of ppl returned to prison for a parole violation (tech or non-tech) actually committed a new-but-uncharged-for-convenience crime?
December 22, 2025 at 2:26 PM
I have to image that it is perhaps impossible to actually gather, but has anyone seen good quantitative (large-n, non-anecdotal, etc.) data on what percent of ppl returned to prison for a parole violation (tech or non-tech) actually committed a new-but-uncharged-for-convenience crime?