The title of this post is the headline of this notable new Marshall Project commentary authored by Adam Neufeld. its subheadline highlights its main theme: " Algorithms can help the criminal justice system, but only alongside thoughtful humans." And here is an excerpt:
It may seem weird to rely on an impersonal algorithm to predict a person’s behavior given the enormous stakes. But the gravity of the outcome — in cost, crime, and wasted human potential — is exactly why we should use an algorithm.
Studies suggest that well-designed algorithms may be far more accurate than a judge alone. For example, a recent study of New York City’s pretrial decisions found that an algorithm’s assessment of risk would far outperform judges’ track record. If the city relied on the algorithm, an estimated 42 percent of detainees could be set free without any increase in people skipping trial or committing crimes pretrial, the study found.
But we are far from where we need to be in the use of these algorithms in the criminal justice system. Most jurisdictions don’t use any algorithms, relying instead on each individual judge or decisionmaker to make critical decisions based on their personal experience, intuition, and whatever they decide is relevant. Jurisdictions that do use algorithms only use them in a few areas, in some instances with algorithms that have not been critically evaluated and implemented.
Used appropriately, algorithms could help in many more areas, from predicting who needs confinement in a maximum security prison to who needs support resources after release from prison.
However, with great (algorithmic) power comes great (human) responsibility. First, before racing to adopt an algorithm, jurisdictions need to have the foundational conversation with relevant stakeholders about what their goals are in adopting an algorithm. Certain goals will be consistent across jurisdictions, such as reducing the number of people who skip trial, but other goals will be specific to a jurisdiction and cannot just be delegated to the algorithm’s creator....
Many criticisms of algorithms to date point out where they fall short. However, an algorithm should be evaluated not just against some perfect ideal, but also against the very imperfect status quo. Preliminary studies suggest these tools improve accuracy, but the research base must be expanded. Only well-designed evaluations will tell us when algorithms will improve fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.
Public officials have a social responsibility to pursue the opportunities that algorithms present, but to do so thoughtfully and rigorously. That is a hard balance, but the stakes are too high not to try.
A few (of many) prior related posts:
- Thoughtful account of what to think about risk assessment tools
- "The Use of Risk Assessment at Sentencing: Implications for Research and Policy"
- Wisconsin Supreme Court rejects due process challenge to use of risk-assessment instrument at sentencing
- Parole precogs: computerized risk assessments impacting state parole decision-making
- ProPublica takes deep dive to idenitfy statistical biases in risk assessment software
- Thoughtful look into fairness/bias concerns with risk-assessment instruments like COMPAS
- "Gender, Risk Assessment, and Sanctioning: The Cost of Treating Women Like Men"
Comments
Post a Comment