3 ms·

Judges can't do that because you can't just wholesale eliminate cash bail without other changes as you can't just release everyone. The new laws are necessary t

Judges can't do that because you can't just wholesale eliminate cash bail without other changes as you can't just release everyone. The new laws are necessary to introduce alternatives as part of that elimination. For example, the law in California would give judges risk scores to switch to a risk based bail system.

aerostable_slug 5y ago
Risk scoring has been problematic after AI/expert risk scoring systems produced politically unpalatable results. It is difficult to see a productive way out of this dilemma since "correcting" the input data is a priori impossible to do in an objective way, and skewing the algorithms will almost certainly produce unintended effects (e.g. a violent criminal being underscored, released, then they victimize innocents again).
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Whether the risk score is discriminatory on protected classes can be easily measured. (After implementing a risk score system, is the fraction of bail jumpers equivalent across groups?) I assume that kind of measurement is what prompted the overhaul of cash bail.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    But unless the system is either completely perfect (i.e., its predictions are never wrong), or completely worthless because it ignores all input data and always gives the same risk score, then there will always be some measurement that says it's discriminatory on protected classes: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01195 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01195
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      The paper you linked to describes three different definitions of fairness that don't agree. I gave a single definition of fairness that is self-consistent.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Yes, if everyone agreed that your definition of fairness were the right one (which I personally do) then there'd be no problem. But in practice there will be people who want to use other ones (in some cases because they want to be able to say it's discriminatory).

aerostable_slug 5y ago

Risk scoring has been problematic after AI/expert risk scoring systems produced politically unpalatable results. It is difficult to see a productive way out of this dilemma since "correcting" the input data is a priori impossible to do in an objective way, and skewing the algorithms will almost certainly produce unintended effects (e.g. a violent criminal being underscored, released, then they victimize innocents again).

lern_too_spel 5y ago
Whether the risk score is discriminatory on protected classes can be easily measured. (After implementing a risk score system, is the fraction of bail jumpers equivalent across groups?) I assume that kind of measurement is what prompted the overhaul of cash bail.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But unless the system is either completely perfect (i.e., its predictions are never wrong), or completely worthless because it ignores all input data and always gives the same risk score, then there will always be some measurement that says it's discriminatory on protected classes: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01195 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.01195
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    The paper you linked to describes three different definitions of fairness that don't agree. I gave a single definition of fairness that is self-consistent.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Yes, if everyone agreed that your definition of fairness were the right one (which I personally do) then there'd be no problem. But in practice there will be people who want to use other ones (in some cases because they want to be able to say it's discriminatory).