4 ms·

A few months back, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against someone who wanted to examine the algorithms by which he was sentenced. https://www.nytimes.com/20

A few months back, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against someone who wanted to examine the algorithms by which he was sentenced. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-prison-by-a-software-programs-secret-algorithms.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-priso...

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
To be fair the very article details that conditions of his arrest (evading police in a car he drove during a shooting) would have resulted in the same sentencing under Wisconsin law. He also had prior sex offense convictions. This wasn't a guy with a clean record being persecuted for the sake of corporate profit. I don't like the idea of being tried and sentenced by an unaccountable algorithm any more than you do, but when using examples like these, we also have to accept that if someone's gonna do the crime, they gotta do the time.
- lghh 9y ago
  Regardless of if the person performed the crime or how clear it was that they did it, being able to review the algorithm should be their right just as much as it would seem to be if it was a questionable arrest.
  - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
    Agreed. The "what if it's me" response ought to be felt by everybody. And algorithms used in criminal justice cases should be open and reviewable. I made my comment above because it's easy to read "6 years...algorithmic sentencing...unaccountable" and miss the fact that this sentencing was given to a dangerous man with multiple prior convictions.
    - cortesoft 9y ago
      Right, but the fact that he was deserving of the punishment doesn't change anything; he still has a right to know the rules for what sentenced him.
      - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
        Technically, the rules were already there. Absent the algorithm, regular sentencing guidelines would have given him 6 years either way.
  - tj-teej 9y ago
    In the US I believe there is a Constitutional Right to meet your accuser in Court, I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that factors in...
  - mhh__ 9y ago
    Indeed. Any other than complete transparency in matters like this just weakens the verdict. IMO, at least.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

To be fair the very article details that conditions of his arrest (evading police in a car he drove during a shooting) would have resulted in the same sentencing under Wisconsin law. He also had prior sex offense convictions. This wasn't a guy with a clean record being persecuted for the sake of corporate profit. I don't like the idea of being tried and sentenced by an unaccountable algorithm any more than you do, but when using examples like these, we also have to accept that if someone's gonna do the crime, they gotta do the time.

lghh 9y ago
Regardless of if the person performed the crime or how clear it was that they did it, being able to review the algorithm should be their right just as much as it would seem to be if it was a questionable arrest.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Agreed. The "what if it's me" response ought to be felt by everybody. And algorithms used in criminal justice cases should be open and reviewable. I made my comment above because it's easy to read "6 years...algorithmic sentencing...unaccountable" and miss the fact that this sentencing was given to a dangerous man with multiple prior convictions.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Right, but the fact that he was deserving of the punishment doesn't change anything; he still has a right to know the rules for what sentenced him.
    - rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
      Technically, the rules were already there. Absent the algorithm, regular sentencing guidelines would have given him 6 years either way.
- tj-teej 9y ago
  In the US I believe there is a Constitutional Right to meet your accuser in Court, I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if that factors in...
- mhh__ 9y ago
  Indeed. Any other than complete transparency in matters like this just weakens the verdict. IMO, at least.