![]() Proponents also argue that RAIs promote accuracy and equality by providing judges with objective, statistically supported information to guide their subjective risk assessments.Īt the same time, RAIs reveal which individuals are less likely to commit crimes in the future, allowing judges to recommend more lenient sentences for these offenders. In fact, a sizable body of literature challenges RAIs’ promises of scientific objectivity and accuracy.ġ0 Id.ĭespite their potential benefits, RAIs have not been immune to criticism. 11 See, e.g., Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu & Lauren Kirchner, Machine Bias, ProPublica (May 23, 2016), Julia Dressel & Hany Farid, The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism, 4 Sci. Critics argue that, rather than avoiding the subjectivity of human discretion, RAIs codify and veil the biased judgments and data on which they base their statistical analyses. Critics point to studies showing that RAIs falsely identify Black men as future criminals at twice the rate that white men are falsely identified. In addition to these concerns about objectivity, critics also raise doubts about the accuracy of RAIs more generally. ![]() For example, software engineer Julia Dressel and digital-forensics scholar Hany Farid concluded that a popular RAI was “no more accurate or fair than the predictions of people with little to no criminal justice expertise.” 14 Dressel & Farid, supra note 11, at 3.Īmid the crossfire between empiricists, another line of criticism has emerged. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |