AI is Sending People To Jail -- and Getting it Wrong (technologyreview.com) 355
At the Data for Black Lives conference last weekend, technologists, legal experts, and community activists snapped the kind of impact AI has on our lives into perspective with a discussion of America's criminal justice system. There, an algorithm can determine the trajectory of your life.
From a report: The US imprisons more people than any other country in the world. At the end of 2016, nearly 2.2 million adults were being held in prisons or jails, and an additional 4.5 million were in other correctional facilities. Put another way, 1 in 38 adult Americans was under some form of correctional supervision. The nightmarishness of this situation is one of the few issues that unite politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Under immense pressure to reduce prison numbers without risking a rise in crime, courtrooms across the US have turned to automated tools in attempts to shuffle defendants through the legal system as efficiently and safely as possible. This is where the AI part of our story begins. Police departments use predictive algorithms to strategize about where to send their ranks. Law enforcement agencies use face recognition systems to help identify suspects. These practices have garnered well-deserved scrutiny for whether they in fact improve safety or simply perpetuate existing inequities.
Researchers and civil rights advocates, for example, have repeatedly demonstrated that face recognition systems can fail spectacularly, particularly for dark-skinned individuals -- even mistaking members of Congress for convicted criminals. But the most controversial tool by far comes after police have made an arrest. Say hello to criminal risk assessment algorithms.
Under immense pressure to reduce prison numbers without risking a rise in crime, courtrooms across the US have turned to automated tools in attempts to shuffle defendants through the legal system as efficiently and safely as possible. This is where the AI part of our story begins. Police departments use predictive algorithms to strategize about where to send their ranks. Law enforcement agencies use face recognition systems to help identify suspects. These practices have garnered well-deserved scrutiny for whether they in fact improve safety or simply perpetuate existing inequities.
Researchers and civil rights advocates, for example, have repeatedly demonstrated that face recognition systems can fail spectacularly, particularly for dark-skinned individuals -- even mistaking members of Congress for convicted criminals. But the most controversial tool by far comes after police have made an arrest. Say hello to criminal risk assessment algorithms.
Perfect World (Score:2, Insightful)
People want a perfect world. People don't know history and how far humanity has come. People complain about modern life like we live in 1850. People should continue to work to fix things - but the constantly bitching , finger pointing and dividing of people into groups *does not help*.
Re:Perfect World (Score:5, Insightful)
If nobody calls out things that are broken, how the hell will they get fixed? Who the hell needs these newfangled electric lights anyway. Quit your bitching about oil lamps.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The data is abused in the most disgusting and ingenious way imaginable. What the data actually analyses is the performance of various correctional services and highlight which are failing and which are succeeding and blaming the victims, the recidivist criminals, who commit crime upon release because not only were they not rehabilitated but due to abuse and corruption within the systems, icentivised to commit future crimes.
The US correctional services system has become of cesspool of abuse, corruption and
Re:Perfect World (Score:5, Informative)
no, the point of the article is that algorithm training usually carries the implicit assumption that the data used to train is good, in all important ways, but the history of law enforcement has not always been fair, and that causes problems with the algorithm's outputs.
Re: (Score:3)
Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Algorithms and bad statistics are not artificial intelligence. People using algorithms and bad statistics in idiotic ways is also not ai. Words mean things. Use them with care and precision.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, since people are not (generally speaking) artificial, the "A" part of A.I.
However, if a person who is using statistics happens to make a decision that is wrong, even if a person is using a specific and detailed process by which to arrive at the decision, that does not mean that the decision was made without any application of intelligence. And therefore the process by which that decision is made is offloaded to some art
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem here, and in many other cases of AI failure is complete lack of quality control.
In most cases, alleged AI is not intelligent, and probably not artificial - it is mechanized processes that were defective in concept, implementation, and application. Yes ... all three. Its not the Intel CPU that is at fault, it is the fools that believed the marketing hype.
Re:Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
A pattern recognition program is only as good as the people who train it. The problem isn't that the *statistics* are bad; it's that the data collection system feeding those statistics is biased.
For example, we know both from studies and common sense that marijuana use is extremely commonplace in both the black and white communities, in fact it's used at almost exactly the same rate. However blacks are far more likely to be arrested on marijuana possession charges than whites. Even if you don't feed in race to your algorithm, if the algorithm is any good it will in effect infer race from where the offender lives, the schools he went to, the jobs he's held and so on.
Just taking marijuana charges into account is enough to bias your dataset even if your algorithm is itself color-blind. We don't really have data on how likely someone is to break the law; we only have data on how likely they are to be charged with breaking the law.
Re:Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Funny)
Sending people to jail for crimes they didn't commit is a dick move
Sending people to jail for crimes they didn't commit yet is a Philip K. Dick move
Re:Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of a justice system is to punish people for what they have done, not for what they may do.
That is your opinion, but it certainly is not a universal viewpoint.
Many of us believe that prisons should not be for vengeance or punishment, but precisely for what you say they are not for: Preventing future crimes.
If someone is unlikely to be a physical threat to society, then they shouldn't be incarcerated. We can use techniques like ankle trackers and RFID to monitor them while they work, contribute to the economy, and pay restitution to their victims. By locking them up, not only are they more likely to reoffend upon release, but their children are also more likely to grow up to be criminals.
Despite spending far more on incarceration than any other country, America has a horrible record of recidivism. Other countries do far better. Even within the USA, states that spend more on prisons, and lock up more people, have worse outcomes by any measurable criteria. Louisiana is rock bottom.
America's penal system is extremely inexpensive, and a counter-productive breeding ground for future crime. But it does provide lots and lots of punishment.
Re:Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to expand on this, there's a big stigma against hiring people who have served time in prison. So John Smith is convicted of a crime and spends 3 years behind bars. He serves his time and is released from prison. Theoretically, he shouldn't be paying for his past crimes from this point on assuming he stays out of trouble in the future, So he tries to do the right thing and get a job. At every interview, though, mentioning his past prison time leads to him being excluded for job after job. With little to no legal avenues of income, he'll be more likely to revert to criminal behavior. This, in turn leads to a vicious cycle. The more criminal convictions, the harder it is to get legal work, the harder it is to pull out of the life of crime.
If we could keep nonviolent, non-repeat offenders out of prison, they could be given a chance to turn their lives around. By all means, monitor them and make sure they go to therapy or any other relevant service, but don't toss them behind bars and then expect them to never commit another crime again. Unfortunately, most politicians will balk at this because longer prison times make them look "tough on crime."
Re: (Score:2)
If you were really tough on crime, a lot more politicians would be behind bars. It is more a case of "Something must be done, this is something, so we must do it".
Re: (Score:3)
I generally agree with you, However, there are some issues.
1) Having a three years unemployed windows would lead the hiring company to infer they probably were in jail.
2) if the person was in jail for , oh, assault and has anger management issues, you really don't want to hire them for customer service at the local burger joint. The hiring company would then have no way to know how to make that decision. Or theft in charge of handling large amounts of cash.
3) A company does have the right to know the histo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you understand the difference between "justice system" and "prison system"?
I live in America, where there is no difference.
Do you have an idea what the word "justice" in "justice system" means?
Yes, I know what a euphemism is.
Re: Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:3)
Actually, the amount of people who not commit violence and muder only due to the risk of being caught and punished is known. That's stage 1 in Kohlberg's scale of moral reasoning, and about 2% to 5% of the adult population on any social context are stuck on it due to cognitive deficiencies. Most people overcome that stage by age 3, with the vast majority reaching stages 3 or 4 (from six known stages) within their lifetimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Stage 1 isn't exactly about being violent and murderous. It means the person's horizon when it comes to moral reasoning is that of rewards vs. punishment. A small child thinks like this. For them, they do something "because pa will give me a candy!" or don't do something "because mom will scold me!" An adult who happens to remain at that level of moral reasoning simply doesn't understand notions such as "the dignity of the human person", and merely feels it's fine for someone to do anything they want whenev
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing really preventing you from grabbing a crowbar from your garage, getting and your car and driving off to brain everyone who's annoyed you in the last month. The fact that you'd be caught and punished deters people, otherwise everyone would be doing it, not just people who are defective in the head.
If punishment or the threat of going to hell is all that is deterring you from murdering people you're a fucking psychopath.
Re:Algorithms and bad statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy is an undersensitivity to punishment or the threat of punishment. Psychpaths do have a high degree of goal orientation. There's some interesting programs for treating psychopathic youths by teaching them to find rewards within the boundaries of social norms.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling us you have no moral compass but the fear of punishment? Absent that you would freely engage in murder rape and robbery without remorse?
There are such people in the world, and if they cannot be lead to mature in their thinking, lifelong supervision might be the only choice for them, but many can be brought to live reasonably well in society with appropriate guidance and therapy.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about rules you internalized over a lifetime of living in a society that punishes certain behavior. However if you lived, say, in early Anglo-Saxon times, you might well react to a slight by killing someone and igniting a blood feud.
Re: (Score:3)
The statistics have it right.
And how do you know this?
The US imprisons a higher percentage of its people (Score:2, Insightful)
It is more correct to say, "The US imprisons a higher percentage of its people than any other country in the world."
Prison is a big, profitable business in the United States. The companies that manage prisons are paid up to $70,000 per prisoner, per year.
Articles:
The Economics of the American Prison System [smartasset.com] (May 21, 2018)
The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form o [globalresearch.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
The rise in private prisons has merely been a direct result of the government owned facilities getting overcrowded and the inability for states to secure funding to build additional prisons. Of course these private prisons want guara [mic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Private prisons also account for a tiny % of bribes being paid by the 'prison system', the vast majority of which is from the guards unions.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a sizable group of prisoners who are there for no other reason than possessing slightly too much of a particular plant or other substance. We're wasting a lot of money locking up people who could otherwise be paying taxes.
Especially if marijuana is legalized and taxed!
Re:The US imprisons a higher percentage of its peo (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting the Slashdot story summary: "The US imprisons more people than any other country in the world."
It is more correct to say, "The US imprisons a higher percentage of its people than any other country in the world."
Either is correct. America is the world leader both in percent and absolute number of prisoners. China is the only other country that even comes close. China imprisons about a quarter as many people as a percentage, but even if you include the "re-education" camps in Xinjiang they are still below America in absolute numbers.
Prison is a big, profitable business in the United States. The companies that manage prisons are paid up to $70,000 per prisoner, per year.
Private prisons are a problem, and in my opinion should be shut down. But prison unions in government run prisons are also a big problem. The California prison union was a big financial supporter of the "three strikes" law that caused prison populations to soar, locking up thousands of non-violent geriatric geezers that should be in nursing homes instead of prison cells.
Private prisons and prison unions both work to not only lock up more offenders and lengthen sentences, but also to increase recidivism. It is well known that prisoners that keep in touch with their families and friends are more likely to successfully reintegrate with society. So the prisons actively work to prevent that, by moving prisoners out-of-state, denying visits for capricious reasons, and making phone calls expensive and infrequent.
It is a rotten corrupt process, and we all pay the price.
Re: (Score:3)
It is well known that prisoners that keep in touch with their families and friends are more likely to successfully reintegrate with society.
Interesting. I once heard here that recidivism is lower in Nordic countries which relocate convicts, upon release, to a location far from where they used to live. The theory was that if they're separated from their old criminal friends and contacts then they're less likely to reoffend.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting. I once heard here that recidivism is lower in Nordic countries which relocate convicts, upon release, to a location far from where they used to live. The theory was that if they're separated from their old criminal friends and contacts then they're less likely to reoffend.
I just did some googling, and was unable to find a single citation for any Nordic country doing this. To the contrary, as an inmate nears release, Norway offers weekend releases to ease the reintegration with their family and community.
Re: (Score:2)
9 out of 10 dentists agree 95 times out of a hundred that using tools with care and precision is important.
That's not a mistake (Score:5, Funny)
quote: even mistaking members of Congress for convicted criminals
If there ever was a non-mistake, that would be it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which demonstrates another problem with AI partitioning algorithms. If 99% of Congress is criminal, an algorithm that blanket assigns criminality 100% of the time is perforce 99% accurate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
264 member of Congress have used a taxpayer fund of $17 million to pay off sexual harassment accusers. That is half of the 538 total members.
Paying off an accuser and not declaring it to the FEC is a felony, Michael Cohen is charged with a felony and 5 years for doing the same with Stormy Daniels.
Congress is not subject to FOIA requests, and are refusing to list the names of those involved. They know felonies have been committed and are protecting those felons. That is aiding a felon after the fact, and
Re: (Score:2)
Paying off an accuser and not declaring it to the FEC is a felony, Michael Cohen is charged with a felony and 5 years for doing the same with Stormy Daniels.
...during the run-up to an election. So only a subset of those congresscritters have done the same.
In addition I'm sure some of the 264 sexual harassment accusers are legit
Probably most of them. If they're obviously not legit, then it's not worth paying them off.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between convicted and elected.
Re: (Score:3)
> There's a difference between convicted and elected.
Re: (Score:3)
The mistake (Score:2)
Oh it's a mistake, just in the AI not being bribable.
Without a rise in crime? :) (Score:2)
As I've heard it, it's primarily "reduce prison numbers" because minorities are disproportionally incarcerated. If there's any "rise in crime" discussion it's typically been around the promise that "non-violent" criminals will only continue to commit non-violent crimes like (unattended) car theft, (unattended) home robbery and state-wide drug distribution, and won't escalate crimes that directly threaten or harm anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
As I've heard it, it's primarily "reduce prison numbers" because minorities are disproportionally incarcerated.
In California, we enacted strict laws, so the jails filled up. No one wanted to increase the budget of jails, so instead, they over-filled them with prisoners, or reduced the number of guards (no guards in the guard towers), or tried to get county jails to take some of the state prisoners.
That created health problems, so there were lawsuits, and the court ordered the prison systems to release some prisoners, or build new jails. The court didn't explain how to do it. Eventually they did just release a bunc
Re: (Score:2)
Just 'cause you read it doesn't mean it's true. Drug offenders are only a small portion of the inmate population.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
War on Drugs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We put more people in jail because of the war on drugs.
Only around 1 of 5 of the US prison population has drug charges as the only or main reason. Both property crime and violent crime have far more incarcerations.
https://static.prisonpolicy.or... [prisonpolicy.org]
The ratio of incarcerations to the general population is sky high in the US compared to other countries even if every single one of the drug convicts were released.
There are many factors why the US has such a high number of inmates, including a for-profit prison system, elected judges (nobody will get elected on a pro
Re: (Score:2)
The first google hit. And it's even from a far leftist propaganda site. You need to change your talking points.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We also put people in jail for stealing. Legalize it!
I wish I could go get a prescription for stealing. And they should end the war on stealing. It's cost many lives. And the thiefs are filling up our jails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except drugs are not an entirely victimless crime. [justice.gov]
Also, see Rationalization #8, The Trivial Trap [ethicsalarms.com] (scroll about 10% of the way down, regretfully that page has no direct links to particular paragraphs).
Re: (Score:2)
Except drugs are not an entirely victimless crime.
Using drugs should not be a crime. Society should provide alternatives to drugs which are attractive. The sociopathic behavior that some people engage in when using drugs should continue to be a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not drugs should or should not be legal is entirely orth
Re: (Score:2)
Even people who do not engage in what you apparently term sociopathic behavior as a result can still induce a drain on a social medical system through sickness, general poor health, and perhaps ultimately an ill-timed death.
Smokers cost less medically because they die early and fast. I wonder how other drugs compare.
The idea that people who do such harm to themselves through drug abuse are not really harming others is at best an illusion.
And the idea that they're doing it just for fun is also at best an illusion — studies have shown that people whose conditions actually improve have an easier time recovering from drugs.
Obvious racism in enforcement. (Score:4, Insightful)
The most blatant statistic that shows cultural racism is the crime clearance rate by race of the victim.
The computer should send many more cops into 'communities of color', not doing so is racist!
They aren't getting their 'fair share' of law enforcement, as seen by the fact that blacks are shot at a lower rate than their share of crime committed. Until 40%+ of those shot by cops are black, they aren't being treated fairly.
Re: (Score:2)
The computer should send many more cops into 'communities of color', not doing so is racist!
Prevention is better than cure. Fix the poverty problems and the crime will go down. Cops are not the right tool.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderdome is fine, if you're handing them bread and circuses?
Have you ever lived in a _crap_ neighborhood? It's expensive, you lose more to crime than you save on rent, if you own anything worth stealing.
Cops are part of any solution that could work. Cops with full time on cameras though, not typical corrupt cops. Prevention doesn't do anything for people on the ground today.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are people committing crimes? Poverty, drug addiction, lack of opportunity. Fixing that prevents crime, police mostly just clean up after it.
Re: (Score:2)
You approve of cops doing less for black victims? You are the racist.
Re: (Score:3)
HornWumpus's post went right over your head AC. If there was an overall larger police presence in the neighborhoods that had higher crime rates, the crime rate would go down. The streets would be safer for everyone but the gangs running the place. Parents don't want their children getting show while walking home from school because a bunch of gang members are shooting at each other.
Hence his point is, not doing more to help the communities that need help is in fact racist. More police would let the mostly n
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm Stay classy!
Re: (Score:2)
Not an isolated stat. Focus on race of victim and conviction rate, for a bunch of violent crimes.
It's likely worse than the stats show, as people of color are likely to not even report the crime in the first place, knowing they won't get any help.
Not that anybody gets much help with property crimes.
It's likely unconstitutional. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because most risk assessment algorithms are proprietary, it’s also impossible to interrogate their decisions or hold them accountable.
You can't have secret laws, or secret government. Government and criminal justice must have the ability to scrutinize the decisions, and you can't scrutinize a secret algorithm.
This is the same thing that's happened with blood alcohol testing machines. Courts have ruled they have to allow scrutiny of the source code. The same should happen for these algorithms.
The n
Re: (Score:2)
Failure in the US Justice system. (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States doesn't a a Justice system, but a punishment system.
It is running off the Old Idea. If we treat the population like pre-teen kids, where punishment is an effective way to curve behavior, and prevent this from happening.
Now lets not straw man this, and talk about murderers, and the harden criminals, where harsher sentence are needed.
Most Americans Jailed are for lower level crimes, crimes of passion, or crimes because they couldn't find an effective legal way out.
The cost of keep these people in jail, is often far more then their hindrance too society that they caused.
We can be tough on crime, without jailing everyone. Jailing should be used only if the criminal is considered too much of a risk to the general public. They are other ways to punish and rehabilitate criminals. Such as Home Confinement or Monitored Home Confinement, where the criminal can still go to work, and live their life, but just cannot travel anywhere he wants and when. Giving them a life, while making sure they don't go out of bounds. There is also just general relocation, sometimes the criminal causes crime, because they are living in a place that fosters such activity. Then there should be more effort in educations, and showing people a better way out.
People shouldn't be able to get away with criminal activity. But just locking them up isn't justice. It is just being cruel, and wanting revenge for their damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Now lets not straw man this, and talk about murderers, and the harden criminals, where harsher sentence are needed.
Hasn't the US pretty much tapped out that one? I mean you regularly hear about people serving 25+ year sentences and life convictions. You can get out when you're near retirement age with no work history, no savings, probably estranged from all friends and family and you're a convicted felon. Granted, now that I'm a bit older I see there's life at 50+ too but to my younger self it already sounds like a "my life is over if I get caught" sentence, do they really care if you make it 50 or 500 years? Do the eve
Re: (Score:3)
Reducing the sentences for sheep stealing significantly improved the life expectancy of shepherds. (Although, not being land owners, they still did not have the vote).
facially convicted (Score:2)
So the AI is performing correctly in Minority Report mode, then?
TL;DR Summary (Score:2)
Long story short, don't do things that get you in the legal system in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
It's not AI!!! (Score:3)
The alternative (Score:3)
At least with a computer, we'll be properly skeptical of it. With humans, we're too susceptible to being drawn in to what they say (regardless of whether they're genuinely mistaken or willfully deceptive) and people will continue to maintain some false recollection, even if they're not being malicious, long after other evidence should be sufficient to dismiss it. Worse still, other humans tend to gravitate towards whatever they've heard from someone else first and weight it disproportionately to information they receive later. That can still happen when interacting with computers, but I don't believe that we assign them the same amount of trust.
Legalize Drugs (Score:2)
The only downside is you won't be able to use our drug war against populations you don't like anymore. [cnn.com] Yes, that includes dirty hippies [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you that we should decriminalize all drugs, but you really ought to lay off them yourself because I can't think of what else might cause a person to pull numbers like that out of their ass.
Wasn't pulled out of my ass (Score:2)
Still pretty damn good. We could pay off the national debt in about 40 years. Not my lifetime, but my kid's.
I'm worried about saving lives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People wanting Medicare for All are only worried about... obtaining the power derived in being the one that gets to decide how the money is spent.
Wouldn't it be easier for such people to just get jobs pushing paperwork for an insurance company?
Not AI, they are simply poorly weighted checklists (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The question implied, but not asked would be, "If allowed to walk away unsupervised, would the young, minority joint owner ever be heard from again?" You walked, and apparently that worked, because you answered the phone each month. So, exactly what are you claiming is broken with the system?
Re: (Score:2)
You need a law like GDPR. Then you could demand to know the inner workings of the algorithm too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not AI, they are simply poorly weighted checkli (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that TFA uses language such as "defendant" and not "convicted criminal"; the problem is that one does not have to be convicted of a crime to have their life ruined. Actually, one doesn't even have to be charged with a crime. Imagine a scenario where someone is detained for a day or two then released without being charged with any crime, because an algorithm decides that they might be a risk, and in the meantime because they don't show up to work they lose their job. Whereas if another person, say someone charged with a crime, is let go within a very short timeframe on promise of making a phone call the next morning, or is allowed to post bail while awaiting trial, they might not suffer any major life interruption.
You Just Criticized The Justice System (Score:2)
So you participated in a conference publicly criticizing the justice system... It's a safe bet the AI just flagged you as a potential law breaker.
a bunch of racist excuse-making (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is less tolerant of crime and better at catching it than other countries.
Citation needed. The evidence when compared to other similar countries, does not bear out that assertion.
For example, The homicide clearance rate (percentage of murders where the offender is caught):
- United States: 65%
- Canada: 75%
- England: 85%
- Australia: 87%
- New Zealand: 91%
There's also ample evidence that there are simply more crimes committed in the US compared to other parts of the western world. (e.g. that homicide rate is about 4 times higher in the US than any of those other countries)
Black people commit more crimes so they go to jail more often.
While that
Re: (Score:2)
Blacks are also 2 to 3 times more likely to be poor. Perhaps being poor is what makes the percentage higher for committing crimes.
How many black Doctors or Teachers commit crimes? My guess would be the same or lower as compared to whites.
Re: (Score:2)
Found the NPC.
Up yours MIT (Score:2)
Making Mistakes Identifying Criminals (Score:2)
"even mistaking members of Congress for convicted criminals"
That's easy. Just teach it to distinguish between convicted and unconvicted criminals.
"Minority Report" level bullshit (Score:2)
Risk assessment (Score:2)
They don't like computerized risk assessment.
Would they prefer HUMANIZED risk assessment, or will they also call that racial profiling? The point they don't get is that the word "stereotype" is not a dirty word until you put "mindless" in front of it.
Mark Twain (Score:2)
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Humans also use algorithms (Score:4, Insightful)
One important missing part of the story is how does the decision-making of algorithms fare against decision-making of humans?
Just like self-driving cars, the important thing for law enforcement AI isn't the absolute rate of errors in judgement, it's the relative rate of errors compared to humans making those decisions. Human decision making is far from perfect, so we shouldn't throw out algorithmic tools completely because they don't end up magically being correct 100% of the time. They just have to be at least 1% more consistent than we are to be of overall benefit. Remember, the goal here is to *reduce* the prison population through the use of AI. Less people will end up in prison due to the algorithms than would otherwise be there. Sure, it will make some mistakes, but overall, less people will be in prison compared to the human-judgement based system, because that is the metric the AIs are being trained to improve. If the prison population drops by 30% due to AI optimization, then that means a LOT less black people in prison, so even if the percentage error rate was a bit higher, less black people would be negatively impacted.
WTF! (Score:5, Interesting)
Put another way, 1 in 38 adult Americans was under some form of correctional supervision.
All victimless crimes need to be removed from the books. If someone wants to smoke pot, do coke, or what ever, let them. But also spend money on better education. Work on the root cause of why this is the case. Obviously there are some people who are going to waste their life. But it's a hell of a lot less than the wasted lives we have with people in prison, or who get out and will never be able to find a meaningful job afterward. Tax drugs and use the money to help people too. This eliminates the money made by current criminals in the drug trade as well.
If someone is publicly intoxicated, who cares. If they are making a nuisance of themselves, put them in a drunk tank until they sober up the next day. Just because someone is staggering a bit on the way home from the bar, who cares. Why is this something that can get a person prison time? If they are being belligerent or threatening others, that's a different case. But that's illegal even if you are sober.
Prostitution is another case. As long as it's a persons choice and they are not being forced into it, why is this a crime. Pimps should be punished for sure. But if someone wants to work for a prostitute, or group of them for an agreed upon amount/percentage I don't see the issue. At least as long as it's understood that the prostitute is in charge and not the other way around. Again, taxes and education should get funding from this. As well as testing.
While I don't necessarily agree with copyright infringement, it is not a criminal offense. This is a civil matter. But copyright law is such a mess in this county, I don't think it will be fixed in my lifetime. But no one should ever go to jail for downloading music or video. If a person gets caught for it, then they should not have to pay any more than the cost of what it would be to purchase the track on iTunes or similar service. $400,000 for one song is insane.
Some crimes should also be judged on the circumstance as well. If someone gets pulled over for a DUI, maybe we shouldn't have the criminal justice system destroy their life. But make the punishment for a second offense much stricter. Granted, the possibility of an innocent bystander getting harmed could go up too. So this might not be the best example.
The criminal justice system is in place to protect the citizenry, not enslave it. If 1 in 38 adults are somehow in the system, then something is obviously very wrong. The laws are in place to help protect the people, not enslave them. Our system of government was supposed to be for the people. The rich and corporations should not be able to purchase politicians either. When someone does more time for a joint than stealing a couple million from a pension fund, something is very wrong.
Except....this is what you wanted (Score:2)
The Left has asserted that EVERYTHING in the criminal justice system is dirty - cops are racist, the judges are racist, detectives are racist, prison guards are racist, etc ad infinitum.
So, every jurisdiction is trying to find some sort of objective agent for every possible step in the process. And then we have legions of data pimps insisting that AI is here, that their software can do this, etc and it looks like a godsend: we get to take all the human elements of racism out of the equation and now we have
What is the reason for the numbers? (Score:3)
The US imprisons more people than any other country in the world.
Is this because:
1. The US are better at catching criminals?
2. There are more criminals per capita in the US? (I assume that the careless quote is meant per capita).
3. The US imprisons more innocent people?
4. There are more actions that are deemed illegal in the US than elsewhere?
5. It is profitable to run prisons.
6. ???
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Black Lives Don't Matter because we continue to accuse China of jailing Muslims? Or because we're NOT accusing them enough?
The emphasis on "jailing" suggests you don't believe they're actually jailing them so I don't know what you meant.
Can someone please explain?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Putting the cart before the horse. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every judge does a "criminal risk assessment" before they will assign bail. And, yes, they use statistical groups. It has been an honored part of Western Justice since bail has existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
This is not true in Europe and Africa (possibly excluding war zones) - but is true in the Americas. There is a distinct possibility that the history of slavery in the Americas may have a bearing on this.