Episode 12: Why the Criminal Justice System Can't Predict Human Behavior

August 10, 2026

Patterns feel predictive.

When someone repeatedly behaves a certain way, it feels natural to assume we know what they'll do next. We use patterns to decide who we trust, who we avoid, and what we expect from the people around us.

But what happens when that prediction determines whether someone goes free?

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we explore one of the most difficult problems facing the criminal justice system: how much should a person's past be allowed to determine their future?

The case of Donald James Smith makes that question especially difficult. Long before the 2013 abduction and murder of eight-year-old Cherish Perrywinkle, Smith had an extensive history involving children. Florida's legal system didn't ignore that history. It used one of the strongest tools available to keep him confined beyond his prison sentence because his pattern suggested he remained dangerous.

Eventually, he was released.

Twenty-one days after his final release from jail in 2013, Cherish Perrywinkle was dead.

But giving someone's past more weight doesn't always produce justice either.

We also examine the case of Leandro Andrade, whose prior criminal history transformed the theft of roughly $150 worth of videotapes into a sentence of fifty years to life under California's three strikes law.

Two very different cases reveal the same uncomfortable problem.

Patterns can tell us something about people.

They cannot tell us with certainty what one individual will do next.

And when the criminal justice system has to make that prediction, every possible mistake carries consequences.

In This Episode

Why patterns can feel like proof
Why juries are often prevented from hearing about a defendant's criminal history
Why someone's past becomes much more important after guilt is established
How criminal history influences sentencing
Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act and civil commitment
The Donald James Smith case and the murder of Cherish Perrywinkle
How plea deals and charging decisions can affect which legal safeguards are triggered
Leandro Andrade and California's three strikes law
How actuarial risk assessments attempt to predict future behavior
Why statistical models can outperform individual human judgment
The unavoidable tradeoff between public safety and individual justice
Why a pattern can inform a prediction without becoming a guarantee

Questions to Reflect On

When should someone's past influence what happens to them in the future?
How much uncertainty should we accept when public safety is at stake?
What happens when protecting society requires making predictions about people who haven't committed another crime?
How often do we turn patterns in someone's behavior into certainty about who they are?
Are we actually predicting someone's future, or explaining their past after we already know what happened?

Listen to the episode

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

How much should someone's past matter when we're trying to predict what they'll do next? And how much certainty should we demand before that prediction affects someone's freedom?

Share your perspective on social media or through the website. The conversation continues long after the episode ends.