The BBC is reporting on the Compas assessment, Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions. This tool is used by a number of agencies to assess if someone is likely to commit additional crimes and the resulting score is used in determining bail, sentencing, or determining parole. The article points out that while the questions on the assessment do not include race the resulting score may be correlated with race but this is disputed by the software's creators. The assessment scores someone on a 10 point scale but the algorithm used to determine someone's score is kept secret. Because of this defendants are unable to effectively dispute that the score is incorrect.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jcross on Tuesday October 18 2016, @01:56PM
The counterargument is probably that the accused does have this right for purposes of conviction, but not for bail, sentencing, or parole. In the case of bail and parole, this sort of makes sense, as these are perceived to be the government showing leniency, which they don't have to do. It can also be made to make sense for sentencing if you consider the default to be the maximum sentence, and the judge is reducing this out of leniency. Not that I agree with these counterarguments, mind you.
IMO the most important reason for transparency is to curb the potential for abuse. I can imagine a scenario where a crime with a maximum sentence of 20 years without parole is magically commuted to only a month with parole for a select group of people because of their outstanding Compas scores, perhaps due to algorithmic slant, or perhaps to money slipped to someone who can tweak the algorithm or modify the score in transit from A to B. The impossibility of independently verifying the accuracy of the score makes all of these methods much easier. If this is possible, the law may as well not exist for those who can get the month-long sentence. Sure, they'd wind up with a felony on their record, but this isn't a big deal for anyone with enough wealth to not need to get hired as a peon.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 18 2016, @03:07PM
Well, not exactly. Bail exists, at least in principle, because the accused is presumed innocent.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 18 2016, @03:58PM
The counterargument is probably that the accused does have this right for purposes of conviction, but not for bail, sentencing, or parole.
The US Constitution doesn't make this distinction. For example, from the Fifth Amendment:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Pulling shenanigans during sentencing or parole would violate this clause.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Tuesday October 18 2016, @08:38PM
But what if we interpret the arrest/sentencing/incarceration as depriving a citizen of liberty, and bail/clemency/parole as granting it? Looked at this way, due process is observed for the first set of actions, and Compas scores are only used for the second set, where due process is technically not required. Of course this is a dodge, like constant deep discounts off the "rack rate" of a hotel room, but at face value I don't see how it's inconsistent with the part of the Fifth amendment you've quoted.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 18 2016, @08:46PM
But what if we interpret the arrest/sentencing/incarceration as depriving a citizen of liberty, and bail/clemency/parole as granting it?
Or we could look at it as culling the weak and stupid from society. Mealy mouthed or self-serving rationalizations are nothing new. It's still a violation of the Fifth Amendment, but a violation that can be conveniently ignored, if you're no longer going by rule of law.
Of course this is a dodge
Agreed.
but at face value I don't see how it's inconsistent with the part of the Fifth amendment you've quoted.
Anything is arguable. Anything can be deemed consistent even when it's not.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday October 22 2016, @01:39AM
"Not that I agree with these counterarguments, mind you."
Good - because I disagree with them.
Your slippery slope comment is on target - but don't we already have that? If you can afford a good lawyer, you can hack your wife and her boyfreind to pieces in the driveway, and get away with it. If you can't afford a good lawyer, you might serve years in prison for a petty crime, even if committed unintentionally. This algorithm seems to legitimize all that skew for the wealthy.