4 ms·

Both judges and "risk-assessment tools" have biases. Judges have unconscious biases and risk-assessment tools are fed biased data. So I'm not confident this w

• Someone1234 8y ago
  Judge's biases exist in the money bail system too. Judges often set bail amounts from a range. This doesn't solve all issues, this just solves one issue, which is that someone's economic status shouldn't be why they're in jail, only their likelihood of committing more crime, witness tampering, or skipping court. I'm sure this new system will have problems that will need to be addressed, but it is a moral thing to TRY.
  • ENOTTY 8y ago
    What if biases are easier to detect (and correct) in the cash bail system? If true, would it then be more moral to to stick with the cash bail system? I could argue that a judge's biases are harder to detect and correct because in doing so you literally have to accuse another human person of being biased, which is something nobody wants to do. To argue that an algorithm is biased requires that one analyze all the data fed into the algorithm and gain some insight into the algorithm. Most of the time the original data is unavailable, incomplete, or proprietary and the models used to predict risk are also considered proprietary, which limits an outsider's ability to detect and correct biases.
  • dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Judge's biases exist in the money bail system too. Judges often set bail amounts from a range. Or deny it because no arrangement can adequately guarantee appearance, yes. The fact that money is the key element used to guarantee appearance doesn't mean that money is always sufficient even in the money bail system.