5 ms·

The obvious flipside: Sent to Prison at The Discretion of a Human Being.

danso 10y ago
Reminds me of this 2011 study of how time relative to lunch break seemed to have an impact on judges' leniency: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgm...
- schoen 10y ago
  This has become pretty proverbial for questioning human judges' objectivity, but another interpretation has been suggested: possibly different kinds of matters were commonly scheduled for morning and afternoon sessions (for example, maybe defendants represented by counsel, or those expected to enter a plea bargain, were commonly seen before lunch). I forgot where I read this point, but it might imply that the judges' hunger is not necessarily the only factor leading to the different outcome.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    This got passed around from SlateStarCodex, not sure where else it got traction. But yes: a followup study found that judges schedule open and shut cases for near lunch so they won't get held up, and more ambiguous cases for open periods. Since "open and shut" usually means "guilty", the original study found higher conviction/sentence rates for near-lunch cases. Remove cases where judges can set their own case schedule and you see way less of this.
    - schoen 10y ago
      I thought it was probably on SSC and I even searched there, but didn't manage to find the article. Thanks for the summary!
  - danso 10y ago
    Thanks for this. I think I remember at the time that there were still questions about the study. And generally when a study matches my sentiment of "Of course that's the case" I'm inclined to treat it with skepticism. Priceonomics had more detail in a 2014 post, which mentions that the Israeli Courts Research Decision did indeed reject the findings on the basis that the study didn't fully consider the mundane details of how cases were scheduled: https://priceonomics.com/justice-isnt-blind-its-cranky-by-5pm/ https://priceonomics.com/justice-isnt-blind-its-cranky-by-5p... The study's authors, according to Priceonomics, had argued against this explanation but they also conceded that they were unable to account for other factors, such as lawyers with multiple clients who decide which order to present them. And how prisoners without lawyers would typically come up right before the break.
    - schoen 10y ago
      It would still be very interesting to study judges' consistency and inter-rater reliability. There was someone's blog post that suggested doing empirical studies of trials by jury to see how often juries tended to agree with each other (with the suggestion that if there's a very high random component, it's harder to think of the juries' decisions as all reflecting a notion of justice). I've now also forgotten who proposed that.
kafkaesq 10y ago
The point (as made clear in the article) is that a Human Being's decisions can at least, in principle, be challenged: "So you think the defendant poses a high risk of violence, recidivism or pretrial risk -- why exactly?" Not so with the "decisions" that were made by the proprietary algorithm described in the article.
sp332 10y ago
The other flipside: a non-secret, audit-able algorithm.

danso 10y ago

Reminds me of this 2011 study of how time relative to lunch break seemed to have an impact on judges' leniency: https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgment/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/time-and-judgm...

schoen 10y ago
This has become pretty proverbial for questioning human judges' objectivity, but another interpretation has been suggested: possibly different kinds of matters were commonly scheduled for morning and afternoon sessions (for example, maybe defendants represented by counsel, or those expected to enter a plea bargain, were commonly seen before lunch). I forgot where I read this point, but it might imply that the judges' hunger is not necessarily the only factor leading to the different outcome.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  This got passed around from SlateStarCodex, not sure where else it got traction. But yes: a followup study found that judges schedule open and shut cases for near lunch so they won't get held up, and more ambiguous cases for open periods. Since "open and shut" usually means "guilty", the original study found higher conviction/sentence rates for near-lunch cases. Remove cases where judges can set their own case schedule and you see way less of this.
  - schoen 10y ago
    I thought it was probably on SSC and I even searched there, but didn't manage to find the article. Thanks for the summary!
- danso 10y ago
  Thanks for this. I think I remember at the time that there were still questions about the study. And generally when a study matches my sentiment of "Of course that's the case" I'm inclined to treat it with skepticism. Priceonomics had more detail in a 2014 post, which mentions that the Israeli Courts Research Decision did indeed reject the findings on the basis that the study didn't fully consider the mundane details of how cases were scheduled: https://priceonomics.com/justice-isnt-blind-its-cranky-by-5pm/ https://priceonomics.com/justice-isnt-blind-its-cranky-by-5p... The study's authors, according to Priceonomics, had argued against this explanation but they also conceded that they were unable to account for other factors, such as lawyers with multiple clients who decide which order to present them. And how prisoners without lawyers would typically come up right before the break.
  - schoen 10y ago
    It would still be very interesting to study judges' consistency and inter-rater reliability. There was someone's blog post that suggested doing empirical studies of trials by jury to see how often juries tended to agree with each other (with the suggestion that if there's a very high random component, it's harder to think of the juries' decisions as all reflecting a notion of justice). I've now also forgotten who proposed that.

kafkaesq 10y ago

The point (as made clear in the article) is that a Human Being's decisions can at least, in principle, be challenged: "So you think the defendant poses a high risk of violence, recidivism or pretrial risk -- why exactly?" Not so with the "decisions" that were made by the proprietary algorithm described in the article.

sp332 10y ago

The other flipside: a non-secret, audit-able algorithm.