3 ms·

> A judges thought process is closed source also, no? No, a judge's thought process is determined by open law, open precedent, and the judge's reasoning is exp

> A judges thought process is closed source also, no? No, a judge's thought process is determined by open law, open precedent, and the judge's reasoning is explained openly in the published legal opinion. That reasoning can be challenged in an appeal. Openness in courts is a fundamental of democracy, liberty and human rights. Otherwise, you can't defend yourself and the government doesn't have to explain its actions to the public.

rayiner 10y ago
Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors.
- nickysielicki 10y ago
  > sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. Sure, but they are put out in the open, and the judge does justify it in some written account, so that it can be referenced when challenged in an appeals court. What answer should be given to someone who is given a sentence based on this algorithm and challenges it? "Well, the algorithm said so, and studies say that it's pretty accurate, and we don't know how it came to this particular rating of you, so you're shit out of luck?"
  - ahartman00 10y ago
    And the studies are closed as well. edit: since i cant reply to hackuser below, here is a quote from the article: "Company officials say the algorithm’s results are backed by research, but they are tight-lipped about its details. "
    - hackuser 10y ago
      Interesting. Does it say that in the article? EDIT: ahartman00: I'm not sure why you don't see the reply link, but another option is the click the time ('x minutes/hours ago'), and you can reply there. Regarding that quote, I thought it meant they were tight-lipped about the algorithm, not the research, but I see that it's ambiguous.
    - nickysielicki 10y ago
      I'm not sure that's true: http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-the-COMPAS-Risk-Assessment-Classification-Instrument.pdf http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-...
- hackuser 10y ago
  > Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. I'm pretty sure that's not true * Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law, and those requirements are a or the major factor in the high incarceration rates in the 'War on Drugs' and for 'Three Strikes' offenders - so certainly they are prevalent. * I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent), and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. * Sentences can be appealed, so the judge has to follow certain standards to avoid having their sentence overturned by a higher court.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law The laws, e.g. the U.S. sentencing guidelines, give you a pretty wide range for any given scenario. > I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent) Not really, at least not formally. Within the guideline range, it's mostly about extenuating or aggravating circumstances unique to the case, not a comparison with other similar cases. > and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. The sentencing guidelines do use formulas (add X points for prior criminal history, add Y points for amount of money stolen). That doesn't mean they're not totally ad-hoc and unscientific. Here are the federal sentencing guidelines for larceny, theft, etc: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archive/2011-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archiv.... E.g. if the amount lost was between $200,000 and $400,000, you add 12 points to the score. If it involved more than 250 victims, you add 6 points. There is no science or rigor here. Just the drafters of the guidelines picking round numbers of dollars for one column and increasing the other column two levels at a time. What purpose does it serve to sentence someone differently based on whether they stole $350,000 or $450,000? And what impact does the difference in sentences have on things we care about: deterrence, recidivism, etc? It doesn't: It's quackery. It adopts the pretense of science without being in any way scientific.
    - 10y ago
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Yes, they are. > Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. Whether that's true in any particular jurisdiction for any particular offense is, itself, a matter of law (including case law or precedent.) Under the federal system, while there are a possibility of departures -- and which departures are allowed is also a matter of law and precedent -- sentences tend to tightly follow the federal sentencing guidelines (which are a law) as well as being bound by the specific criminal statute under which a sentence is issued, so sentences are very much prescribed by law and precedent.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    See my comment below. The sentencing guidelines ranges are pretty wide. On top of that, they're arbitrary. Instead of being based on one judge's "discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration" it's just the U.S. Sentencing Commission's "discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration."
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The sentencing guidelines ranges are pretty wide. That's a subjective description, but I don't think its true for what most people would consider "pretty wide". Once you've added up the scoring points to get to an entry on the sentencing table, the ranges for any given cell on the table on the low end are 6 months wide (centered on 3 months for the lowest categories), those near the high end (where there is a definite range) get up to just under 7 years wide centered around 30 years. (After that, there are 30 years to life bands, which may be fairly wide, and bands which have only a life option, which leave no wiggle room.) And the actual ranges for a particular sentence may be narrower than the cell, since they are also constrained by any minimums or maximums specified for the particular offense. > On top of that, they're arbitrary. No more, or less, than the definitions of crimes themselves are arbitrary.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        > No more, or less, than the definitions of crimes themselves are arbitrary. "Arbitrary" to me means "not making rational distinctions based on criteria we care about." Murder versus arson isn't arbitrary. NY's 5 degrees of larceny probably are. Sentencing someone differently for stealing $250k versus $350k is.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> [...] and the judge's reasoning is explained openly in the published legal opinion. Published opinions are exceptional, rather than normal, for trial courts.

rayiner 10y ago

Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors.

nickysielicki 10y ago
> sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. Sure, but they are put out in the open, and the judge does justify it in some written account, so that it can be referenced when challenged in an appeals court. What answer should be given to someone who is given a sentence based on this algorithm and challenges it? "Well, the algorithm said so, and studies say that it's pretty accurate, and we don't know how it came to this particular rating of you, so you're shit out of luck?"
- ahartman00 10y ago
  And the studies are closed as well. edit: since i cant reply to hackuser below, here is a quote from the article: "Company officials say the algorithm’s results are backed by research, but they are tight-lipped about its details. "
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Interesting. Does it say that in the article? EDIT: ahartman00: I'm not sure why you don't see the reply link, but another option is the click the time ('x minutes/hours ago'), and you can reply there. Regarding that quote, I thought it meant they were tight-lipped about the algorithm, not the research, but I see that it's ambiguous.
  - nickysielicki 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's true: http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-the-COMPAS-Risk-Assessment-Classification-Instrument.pdf http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Validation-of-...
hackuser 10y ago
> Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. I'm pretty sure that's not true * Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law, and those requirements are a or the major factor in the high incarceration rates in the 'War on Drugs' and for 'Three Strikes' offenders - so certainly they are prevalent. * I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent), and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. * Sentences can be appealed, so the judge has to follow certain standards to avoid having their sentence overturned by a higher court.
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Judges often complain about sentencing requirements in the law The laws, e.g. the U.S. sentencing guidelines, give you a pretty wide range for any given scenario. > I'm pretty sure judges look carefully at other sentences for similar crimes and criminals (precedent) Not really, at least not formally. Within the guideline range, it's mostly about extenuating or aggravating circumstances unique to the case, not a comparison with other similar cases. > and I know many courts use formulas that consider past convictions and other factors in determining a sentence. The sentencing guidelines do use formulas (add X points for prior criminal history, add Y points for amount of money stolen). That doesn't mean they're not totally ad-hoc and unscientific. Here are the federal sentencing guidelines for larceny, theft, etc: http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archive/2011-2b11 http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/2015-guidelines-manual/archiv.... E.g. if the amount lost was between $200,000 and $400,000, you add 12 points to the score. If it involved more than 250 victims, you add 6 points. There is no science or rigor here. Just the drafters of the guidelines picking round numbers of dollars for one column and increasing the other column two levels at a time. What purpose does it serve to sentence someone differently based on whether they stole $350,000 or $450,000? And what impact does the difference in sentences have on things we care about: deterrence, recidivism, etc? It doesn't: It's quackery. It adopts the pretense of science without being in any way scientific.
  - 10y ago
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Sentences are not, generally, based on law and precedent. Yes, they are. > Within a wide range, sentences are heavily dependent on judges' discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration of various factors. Whether that's true in any particular jurisdiction for any particular offense is, itself, a matter of law (including case law or precedent.) Under the federal system, while there are a possibility of departures -- and which departures are allowed is also a matter of law and precedent -- sentences tend to tightly follow the federal sentencing guidelines (which are a law) as well as being bound by the specific criminal statute under which a sentence is issued, so sentences are very much prescribed by law and precedent.
- rayiner 10y ago
  See my comment below. The sentencing guidelines ranges are pretty wide. On top of that, they're arbitrary. Instead of being based on one judge's "discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration" it's just the U.S. Sentencing Commission's "discretion and ad-hoc and unscientific consideration."
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The sentencing guidelines ranges are pretty wide. That's a subjective description, but I don't think its true for what most people would consider "pretty wide". Once you've added up the scoring points to get to an entry on the sentencing table, the ranges for any given cell on the table on the low end are 6 months wide (centered on 3 months for the lowest categories), those near the high end (where there is a definite range) get up to just under 7 years wide centered around 30 years. (After that, there are 30 years to life bands, which may be fairly wide, and bands which have only a life option, which leave no wiggle room.) And the actual ranges for a particular sentence may be narrower than the cell, since they are also constrained by any minimums or maximums specified for the particular offense. > On top of that, they're arbitrary. No more, or less, than the definitions of crimes themselves are arbitrary.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      > No more, or less, than the definitions of crimes themselves are arbitrary. "Arbitrary" to me means "not making rational distinctions based on criteria we care about." Murder versus arson isn't arbitrary. NY's 5 degrees of larceny probably are. Sentencing someone differently for stealing $250k versus $350k is.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> [...] and the judge's reasoning is explained openly in the published legal opinion. Published opinions are exceptional, rather than normal, for trial courts.