When I was completing my Bachelor of Education program, I was selected for jury duty, and I remember being excited about it. I thought it would be interesting and wanted to participate; unfortunately, it started on the same day as my graduation, so I was excused. At the time, I was eager to participate and intrigued by the legal process. However, with more lived experience, I now recognize the weight of such a responsibility. As a juror, you are expected to consider only the evidence. However, subconsciously, you cannot ignore the impact of your decision on the accused’s life and potentially public safety. While compiling the detain/release activity, I felt similarly. Each accused person had a compelling reason why detention would be devastating: losing a job, custody of their children, or access to medical care.
This exercise exemplifies the delicate balancing act that judges must play when making decisions. I prioritized the severity of the charges, especially whether they involved violence, along with the prosecution’s recommendations over the Iliad System’s risk assessment. However, I did find myself wondering how the Iliad System was calculating the ratings. It was frustrating that, as a judge, I needed to consider jail capacity and public opinion in my decision to detain or release someone. I went through the simulation twice and ultimately lost my position both times, once due to jail overcrowding and once due to public opinion. In this system, it appears that being a judge is a no-win situation.
This simulation made me reflect on my own community, where crime is on the rise, and it seems that no matter how many times the police arrest someone, the same people get released and re-offend. As a community member, I recognize the need for a more effective system. However, I also understand how once a person is in the system, perhaps because of a non-violent mistake in early adulthood or a crime of necessity due to poverty, it is hard to escape, and the deck may, in fact, be stacked against you. The criminal justice system desperately needs reform; however, AI is not the silver bullet fix that some may think. When Cathy O’Neil talks about weapons of math destruction, she speaks of them as widespread, mysterious, and destructive. The Iliad System is all of these things. As Cathy O’Neil points out, there is a danger when things that we would consider unconstitutional and never accept in open court are being used “because it’s being embedded in a risk score, which is being claimed as scientific,[and] this somehow has the authenticity of mathematics and science” (Talks at Google, 2016, 30:56).
If a risk-assessment tool that was not biased could be developed, would it even be possible to improve this system? So many factors are involved in whether someone commits another crime while awaiting trial. Is it even possible to predict? Should we be trying to predict this? Should people be treated differently based on whether they might commit another crime? That doesn’t seem to follow the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which we as a society have agreed to. While public pressure makes judicial decisions challenging, perhaps for non-violent offences, the priority should be ensuring the accused appears for trial. This task and the associated module resources have given me much to think about.
References:
Talks at Google. (2016, November 2). Weapons of math destruction | Cathy O’Neil | Talks at Google [Video]. YouTube.
Hi Natalie,
I managed to survive as a judge through the simulation by the skin of my teeth but mostly because I changed my own internal bias to be a bit more willing to detain in order to survive the simulation. I also did not see non-violent crimes with low risk of flight needing to be detained. However without fail each time it said low change of not appearing they always didn’t appear and the fraudsters ended up committing a violent criminal offense when released. Midway I changed my view and began detaining these individuals as well and it allowed me to finish the simulation but I was intrigued by how you mentioned public opinion made you lose a round.
As you mentioned, in my area we also have violent crime happening often but criminals are released within days or months and they then go on to commit another crime and the courts release that they had a criminal record of dozens of violent crimes. But no matter how often innocent people are harmed by repeat offenders judges do not seem to be able to be removed in Canada for their failing even when public opinion is against them, unlike in the simulation where you’d have to step aside if public opinion was against you as the judge.
To address your question, a risk-assessment tool that could accurate predict would be similar to Jack Maple’s COMPSAT program initially until it was co-opted as a political tool and misunderstood that if COMPSAT reports fall it mean that the offending criminals have been detained and society is safer. Altruistic politicians are needed to continue unbiased risk-assessment tools and if the tool works effectively then it should be expected to report low or insignificant numbers and then the tool could be adjusted to address other crimes.