Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 90 posts

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#21

Post by dsfyu404ed »

>While this can be the fastest route, the GPS’s algorithm does not concern itself with factors important to truckers carrying a heavy load, such as the 43’s 1,300-foot elevation drop over four miles with two sharp turns.

I know this is somewhat off topic but the lack of advanced options for GPS routing is such a PITA. It would be trivial to add check-boxes for things like:

"I'm towing a trailer, don't make me take dumb lefts across multiple lanes, avoid clustterfawks and don't make me take unnecessary turns"

"Yes I'm wealthy enough to afford an iphone, that doesn't mean I want you to send me through a $5 bridge toll"

"I'm taking a road-trip, send me on a route that uses ten fewer roads even if it takes twenty more minutes, I don't want to have to look for a turn every 10min"

I know tons of options aren't good for the UI but just hiding all that stuff behind an "advanced preferences" menu or something would be nice.

Just a simple tie in to a weather API that increases the cost of route features that are a PITA in snow would be nice (no I don't want to stop on a downhill to take a >90deg left across 40mph traffic in snow thank you very much).

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#22

Post by Verdex_2 »

cmahler7 wrote: post #15

based on some studies I've seen, human judges are terrible due to basic human nature, so I'd like to see something happen to make things more objective. Of course, the algo would have to be open, as opposed to the proprietary software being used now. For example just having your sentencing be before lunch or at the end of the day results in harsher punishment simply due to the judge being hungry or tired. Same goes f…

Apparently washing your hands also causes you to be more lenient.

So AI probably shouldn't be used for sentencing, but that's more to do with all the stakeholders being clueless about the technology. The people asking for it, paying for it, using it, and building it (hey I can just throw some packages together in R right?) don't know what they're doing and are using it to significantly impact the lives of others.

On the other hand, pretending an arbitrary Judge / Jury / sentencing guidelines also don't form a dynamic system with not well understood effects that's equivalent to random AI in terms of output doesn't exactly help anyone either.

At the end of the day you need people who are honorable who you can trust to do the right thing (as much as it sounds like a saturday morning cartoon).

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#23

Post by [deleted] »

mattnewton wrote: post #13
rayiner wrote: post #8

> These algorithmic outputs inform decisions about bail, sentencing, and parole. Each tool aspires to improve on the accuracy of human decision-making that allows for a better allocation of finite resources. It's really not clear to me that much is gained from having very precise decisions made about bail and sentencing. Trying to predict the future is a fool's errand, whether a judge does it or a computer. It'd be b…

I don't disagree it could be much better and based on something other than arbitrary nonsense, but these guides are designed to bring consistency to sentences within the same jurisdiction which would make them fairer than completely arbitrary judge sentences. At least everyone is subject to the same arbitrary nonsense guidelines instead of the mood and familiarity of the judge.

[deleted]

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#24

Post by marcosdumay »

I_am_neo wrote: post #2

AI is only able to keep performing as it has learned from the data set. In other words, it keeps the status quo within a few percent of an intended target. Unless given the clear go ahead to just keep learning, at which point they seem to fail at random

I'd say it optimizes something from the point of view of the status quo.

There's nothing in machine learning that bias it into keeping the status quo (differently from people), there's also nothing there biasing it into optimizing the correct thing (also differently from people).

That said, having machines in a consultative position under a judge may be a good thing.

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#26

Post by EliRivers »

bmh_ca wrote: post #9

I wonder if the algorithm is evidence-based, and learns from the results of prior decisions. In which case it is possible it would eventually discover that in the USA incarceration is very strongly linked to recidivism. It follows that the algorithm might refuse to incarcerate many convicts. Which is arguably exactly what the algorithm should do, namely what politicians will/can not: employ evidence to advance the me…

and learns from the results of prior decisions

And is that fair? If the last ten guys to come through who looked like me should have had harsher sentences, is it fair that I get that harsher sentence?

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#27

Post by jpalomaki »

Playing devils advocate I'd say that the main problem with employing AI would be that it will how bad decisions humans make. This is exactly the kind of case where computers, just relying on hard data would do much better than humans.

The article complains that AI is a black box for the defendant. How is this any different from judge's brain? You can't peek into his mind to figure out what is behind the decision. Judge can give some justifications, but you won't know if those are the real reasons or if the decision is just mostly based on defendants skin color, socioeconomic background or clothing.

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#28

Post by eganist »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #21

>While this can be the fastest route, the GPS’s algorithm does not concern itself with factors important to truckers carrying a heavy load, such as the 43’s 1,300-foot elevation drop over four miles with two sharp turns. I know this is somewhat off topic but the lack of advanced options for GPS routing is such a PITA. It would be trivial to add check-boxes for things like: "I'm towing a trailer, don't make me take du…

> "Yes I'm wealthy enough to afford an iphone, that doesn't mean I want you to send me through a $5 bridge toll"

https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+maps+avoid+tolls

https://www.google.com/search?q=google+maps+avoid+tolls

But I agree with the other ones. Quite a few of them might need better recognition of weight restrictions and other such rules on roadways, though. It in theory shouldn't be hard to develop (self-driving tech already either reads signs or sources data from previous mappings of roads where said signs have been read), but I wouldn't be surprised if this info hasn't yet been catalogued yet.

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#29

Post by mcherm »

One of my big concerns is whether the algorithms are institutionalizing racism, with legal decisions that make it impossible to challenge these.

After all, the algorithm has been trained on information about recidivism that was collected in a world where racism skews arrest rates, conviction rates, and sentencing.[1] That means the algorithm is almost certainly baking in a racial bias. Now, I'm sure they aren't foolish enough to put "race" in as one of the input factors, but other correlated factors will allow the algorithm to continue to enforce this racism, but now with legal immunity.

[1] Do I really need to footnote this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-... is one source that addresses all of these, but there are many, many other sources.

Re: Courts are using risk-assessment software to sentence criminals

#30

Post by daveguy »

cmahler7 wrote: post #15

based on some studies I've seen, human judges are terrible due to basic human nature, so I'd like to see something happen to make things more objective. Of course, the algo would have to be open, as opposed to the proprietary software being used now. For example just having your sentencing be before lunch or at the end of the day results in harsher punishment simply due to the judge being hungry or tired. Same goes f…

> Same goes for other basic things like women getting lighter sentences, minorities harsher sentences, etc.

The problem is, "AI" today is glorified pattern matching. So, it learns what "should be" based on the current state. In other words because the pattern exists it will learn precisely that "women should get lighter sentences and minorities should get harsher ones"

Not only that, they are so good at pattern matching that you don't even need to provide the gender or race for them to identify those as a parameter.

It would be great if we could train an AI to eliminate bias, but as it is they are training to reinforce bias that already exists.

Until we get natural language understanding and context aware AI, using AI for sentencing is a terrible idea.

Post reply on HN