3 ms·

My main issue with this algorithm is that it purports to predict THE DEFENDANT'S actual risk to the community. That's impossible to do. Instead, it seems like

by iplaw 9y ago

My main issue with this algorithm is that it purports to predict THE DEFENDANT'S actual risk to the community. That's impossible to do. Instead, it seems like it should provide data-centric trends based on objective data and metrics, such as age, sex, race, socio-economic metrics, housing, charges, peers, gang affiliations, state, city, ZIP, block, historical recidivism, charge severity, marital status, child status, and any other obtainable piece of data. From this, you would be able to generate concrete statistical evidence which could be used to supplement, not replace, the standard factors considered by the Court. This data could be used by prosecution or defense to counteract any intentional bias introduced by those running the numbers. Even then, however, this data would be generalized, treated as a predictor, and applied as prophecy to the particular defendant in question. It seems like it should be inadmissible.

olliej 9y ago
Here's the problem with saying include "age, sex, race, socio-economic..." as being /objective/ is that it literally repeats existing stereotypes and biases. There's plenty of evidence that there is a huge amount of bias due to race, being poor means you can't afford good lawyers, etc. So now what happens is the information hat feeds into the algorithm is going to be something like "<X> currently receives longer sentences" leads it to just repeat the existing behaviour, but now it claims to be a machine and so unbiased, so judges defer to it. I feel that as a defendant i should be able to ask them to re-run the algorithm with a changed race and a changed zip code so we can get a comparison and measure of effective algorithmic bias.
- iplaw 9y ago
  My suggestion was to 1) not use any data or algorithms, or 2) use an objective algorithm to figure out if poor white males with criminal records but with a new child are likely to be repeat violent offenders. I did not suggest to use a single variable, nor did I suggest that it be used to determine guilt, explicitly dictate sentencing, etc. If there is going to be any algorithmic "fact" finding, it should involve plugging in all available data for a defendant and trending it against all available data. Not cherry picking.

by iplaw 9y ago

olliej 9y ago

Here's the problem with saying include "age, sex, race, socio-economic..." as being /objective/ is that it literally repeats existing stereotypes and biases. There's plenty of evidence that there is a huge amount of bias due to race, being poor means you can't afford good lawyers, etc. So now what happens is the information hat feeds into the algorithm is going to be something like "<X> currently receives longer sentences" leads it to just repeat the existing behaviour, but now it claims to be a machine and so unbiased, so judges defer to it. I feel that as a defendant i should be able to ask them to re-run the algorithm with a changed race and a changed zip code so we can get a comparison and measure of effective algorithmic bias.

iplaw 9y ago
My suggestion was to 1) not use any data or algorithms, or 2) use an objective algorithm to figure out if poor white males with criminal records but with a new child are likely to be repeat violent offenders. I did not suggest to use a single variable, nor did I suggest that it be used to determine guilt, explicitly dictate sentencing, etc. If there is going to be any algorithmic "fact" finding, it should involve plugging in all available data for a defendant and trending it against all available data. Not cherry picking.