Criminal Justice and Artificial Intelligence: How Should we Assess the Performance of Sentencing Algorithms?

Author:

Ryberg JesperORCID

Abstract

AbstractArtificial intelligence is increasingly permeating many types of high-stake societal decision-making such as the work at the criminal courts. Various types of algorithmic tools have already been introduced into sentencing. This article concerns the use of algorithms designed to deliver sentence recommendations. More precisely, it is considered how one should determine whether one type of sentencing algorithm (e.g., a model based on machine learning) would be ethically preferable to another type of sentencing algorithm (e.g., a model based on old-fashioned programming). Whether the implementation of sentencing algorithms is ethically desirable obviously depends upon various questions. For instance, some of the traditional issues that have received considerable attention are algorithmic biases and lack of transparency. However, the purpose of this article is to direct attention to a further challenge that has not yet been considered in the discussion of sentencing algorithms. That is, even if is assumed that the traditional challenges concerning biases, transparency, and cost-efficiency have all been solved or proven insubstantial, there will be a further serious challenge associated with the comparison of sentencing algorithms; namely, that we do not yet possess an ethically plausible and applicable criterion for assessing how well sentencing algorithms are performing.

Funder

Roskilde University

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference39 articles.

1. Chiao, V. (2018). Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing. Criminal Justice Ethics, 37, 238–261.

2. Clair, M., & Winter, A. S. (2017). How Judges Can Reduce Racial Disparities in the Criminal-Justice System. Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, 598, 158–160.

3. Davies, B., & Douglas, T. (2022). Learning to discriminate: The perfect proxy problem in artificially intelligent sentencing. In J. Ryberg & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 97–120). Oxford University Press.

4. Duff, A., & Garland, G. (Eds.). (1994). A Reader on Punishment. Oxford University Press.

5. Duus-Ötterström, G. (2020). Weighing Relative and Absolute Proportionality in Punishment. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Of One-Eyed and Toothless Miscreants (pp. 30–50). Oxford University Press.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3