Can an algorithmic system be a 'friend' to a police officer's discretion?: ACM FAT 2020 translation tutorial

M. Oswald, David Powell
{"title":"Can an algorithmic system be a 'friend' to a police officer's discretion?: ACM FAT 2020 translation tutorial","authors":"M. Oswald, David Powell","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3375673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This tutorial aims to increase understanding of the importance of discretion in police decision-making. It will guide computer scientists, policy-makers, lawyers and others in considering practical and technical issues crucial to avoiding the prejudicial and instead develop algorithms that are supportive - a 'friend'- to legitimate discretionary decision-making. It combines explanation of the relevant law and related literature with discussion based upon deep operational experience in the area of preventative and protective policing work. Autonomy and discretion are fundamental to police work, not only in relation to strategy and policy but for day-to-day operational decisions taken by front line officers. Such discretion 'recognizes the fallibility of interfacing rules with their field of application.' (Hildebrandt 2016). This discretion is not unbounded however and English common law expects discretion to be exercised reasonably and fairly. Conversely, discretion must not be fettered unlawfully, by failing to take a relevant factor into account when making a decision, or by abdicating responsibility to another person, body or 'thing'. Algorithmic systems have the potential to contribute to factors relevant to the decision in question at the point of interaction between their outputs and the real-world outcome for the victim, offender and/or community. Algorithmic decision tools present a number of challenges to legitimate discretionary police decision-making. Unnuanced outputs could be highly influential on the human decision-maker (Cooke and Michie 2012) and may undermine discretionary power to deal with atypical cases and 'un-thought of' factors that rely upon uncodified knowledge (Oswald 2018). Practical and technical considerations will be crucial to developing MLA that are supportive to discretionary decision-making. These include the methodological approach, design of the humancomputer interface having regard the decision-maker's responsibility to give reasons for their decision, the avoidance of unnuanced or over-confident framing of results, understanding of the policing context in which the MLA will operate, and consideration of the implications of organisational culture and processes to the MLA's influence.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375673","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This tutorial aims to increase understanding of the importance of discretion in police decision-making. It will guide computer scientists, policy-makers, lawyers and others in considering practical and technical issues crucial to avoiding the prejudicial and instead develop algorithms that are supportive - a 'friend'- to legitimate discretionary decision-making. It combines explanation of the relevant law and related literature with discussion based upon deep operational experience in the area of preventative and protective policing work. Autonomy and discretion are fundamental to police work, not only in relation to strategy and policy but for day-to-day operational decisions taken by front line officers. Such discretion 'recognizes the fallibility of interfacing rules with their field of application.' (Hildebrandt 2016). This discretion is not unbounded however and English common law expects discretion to be exercised reasonably and fairly. Conversely, discretion must not be fettered unlawfully, by failing to take a relevant factor into account when making a decision, or by abdicating responsibility to another person, body or 'thing'. Algorithmic systems have the potential to contribute to factors relevant to the decision in question at the point of interaction between their outputs and the real-world outcome for the victim, offender and/or community. Algorithmic decision tools present a number of challenges to legitimate discretionary police decision-making. Unnuanced outputs could be highly influential on the human decision-maker (Cooke and Michie 2012) and may undermine discretionary power to deal with atypical cases and 'un-thought of' factors that rely upon uncodified knowledge (Oswald 2018). Practical and technical considerations will be crucial to developing MLA that are supportive to discretionary decision-making. These include the methodological approach, design of the humancomputer interface having regard the decision-maker's responsibility to give reasons for their decision, the avoidance of unnuanced or over-confident framing of results, understanding of the policing context in which the MLA will operate, and consideration of the implications of organisational culture and processes to the MLA's influence.
算法系统能成为警察自由裁量权的“朋友”吗?: ACM FAT 2020翻译教程
本教程的目的是提高对自由裁量权在警察决策中的重要性的理解。它将指导计算机科学家、政策制定者、律师和其他人考虑对避免偏见至关重要的实际和技术问题,而不是开发支持合法自由裁量决策的算法——一个“朋友”。它结合了对相关法律和相关文献的解释,以及基于预防性和保护性警务工作领域的深厚操作经验的讨论。自主和自由裁量权是警务工作的基础,不仅涉及策略和政策,而且涉及前线人员的日常行动决定。这种自由裁量权承认将规则与其应用领域相结合的不可靠性。(Hildebrandt 2016)。然而,这种自由裁量权并不是不受限制的,英国普通法期望自由裁量权得到合理和公平的行使。相反,自由裁量权不应被非法束缚,在作出决定时不考虑相关因素,或将责任推卸给另一个人、团体或“事物”。算法系统在其输出与受害者、罪犯和/或社区的现实结果之间的相互作用点上,有可能对与所讨论的决策相关的因素做出贡献。算法决策工具对合法的警察自由裁量决策提出了许多挑战。不细致的输出可能对人类决策者产生很大的影响(Cooke和Michie 2012),并可能破坏处理非典型案例和依赖于未编纂知识的“未考虑”因素的自由裁量权(Oswald 2018)。实践和技术方面的考虑对于开发支持自由裁量决策的MLA至关重要。这些包括方法论方法、考虑到决策者有责任为其决策提供理由的人机界面设计、避免对结果框架的不细致或过度自信、了解MLA将在其中运作的警务环境,以及考虑组织文化和流程对MLA影响的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信