Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wisconsin's Prison-Sentencing Algorithm Challenged in Court (engadget.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the judicial-code dept.

"Do you want a computer to help decide a convict's fate?" asks Engadget, telling the story of a Wisconsin convict who "claims that the justice system relied too heavily on its COMPAS algorithm to determine the likelihood of repeat offenses and sentenced him to six years in prison." Sentencing algorithms have apparently been in use for 10 years. His attorneys claim that the code is "full of holes," including secret criteria and generic decisions that aren't as individually tailored as they have to be. For instance, they'll skew predictions based on your gender or age -- how does that reflect the actual offender...?

[T]he court challenge could force Wisconsin and other states to think about the weight they give to algorithms. While they do hold the promise of both preventing repeat offenses and avoiding excessive sentences for low-threat criminals, the American Civil Liberties Union is worried that they can amplify biases or make mistakes based on imperfect law enforcement data.
The biggest issue seems to be a lack of transparency, which makes it impossible to determine whether convicts actually are receiving fair sentences.

4 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Yes please by penguinoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think a computer is biased and unfair and makes decisions using secret criteria, wait till you meet a human!

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Yes please by Archfeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no AI involved, just some code written by humans. A computer cannot express compassion. IMHO Compassion is the highest virtue, and the first to be discarded. Hope can be rekindled, faith restored, love reunited but compassion once lost is rarely seen again. Even the guilty deserve compassion, it is that which elevates man from beast. We do that which is necessary but it should NOT stop us from being sorry it has to come to that.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    2. Re:Yes please by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The advantage of a computer algorithm is that it can be analyzed, refined, improved, and relied upon to function more or less as well as it did in the past (assuming the new inputs aren't radically different from the previous ones.)

      Now, judges - they come to their position through politics and lawyering, two selection criteria that would seem to get you the last people you would want to determine what is fair or reasonable for "the people at large." Even 200+ years ago this was recognized and is the basis for "trial by jury of peers" laws, and everyone knows that amounts to a random lottery style decision, but it's still better than leaving it up to a judge.

  2. The real issue is lack of transparency by cowtamer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While the idea of using an algorithm to sentence a human being is bone-chilling, you might be able to justify this as a "formula" for sentencing -- which, of course, merits its own debate.

    What is unconscionable about this is the fact that it's a SECRET algorithm. As in closed source. Essentially a secret law.

    This has no place in democracy.

    (Also, any algorithm which ingests statistical and demographic data is bound to come up with unpalatable and/or spurious demographic correlations (since there is a causal link between poverty and crime and a historic link between race and poverty) which I wold rather have society refrain from codifying -- in law or in actual computer code).