{"title":"Justice by Algorithm: The Limits of AI in Criminal Sentencing","authors":"Isaac Taylor","doi":"10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275967","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractCriminal justice systems have traditionally relied heavily on human decision-making, but new technologies are increasingly supplementing the human role in this sector. This paper considers what general limits need to be placed on the use of algorithms in sentencing decisions. It argues that, even once we can build algorithms that equal human decision-making capacities, strict constraints need to be placed on how they are designed and developed. The act of condemnation is a valuable element of criminal sentencing, and using algorithms in sentencing – even in an advisory role – threatens to undermine this value. The paper argues that a principle of “meaningful public control” should be met in all sentencing decisions if they are to retain their condemnatory status. This principle requires that agents who have standing to act on behalf of the wider political community retain moral responsibility for all sentencing decisions. While this principle does not rule out the use of algorithms, it does require limits on how they are constructed.Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI)criminal justiceFeinbergJoelpunishmentsentencing algorithms [I am very grateful to audiences at the Higher Seminar in Philosophy of Law at Uppsala University; the Political Theory Seminar at Stockholm University; and the workshop on “Ethics of AI in the Public Sector” at KTH Royal Institute of Technology for discussions on previous drafts of this paper; as well as to the anonymous reviewers from Criminal Justice Ethics for very helpful comments.][Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)].Notes1 Danziger, Levav and Avnaim-Pesso, “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.”2 Pamela McCroduck suggests that many members of disadvantaged groups may want to take their chances with an impartial computer over a (potentially biased) human judge. See McCorduck, Machines Who Think, 375.3 Yong, “A Popular Algorithm is No Better at Predicting Crimes Than Random People.”4 Angwin, Larson, Mattu, and Kirchner, “Machine Bias.” The question of whether algorithms can avoid objectionable forms of discrimination has been addressed in Davis and Douglas, “Learning to Discriminate: The Perfect Proxy Problem in Artificially Intelligent Criminal Sentencing.”5 Dressel and Farid, “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.”6 One worry here is that there is no possible algorithm that can simultaneously meet various intuitively plausible criteria of fairness. See, for example, Chouldechova, “Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact.” I set this issue aside for the purposes of this paper, and assume that a fair algorithm is at least possible to construct. This might be because some of the purported criteria of fairness which cannot be met simultaneously are not, in fact, genuine moral requirements. Cf. Hedden, “On Statistical Criteria of Algorithmic Fairness;” Eva, “Algorithmic Fairness and Base Rate Tracking.”7 For the purposes of this paper, “","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"13 15","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135818630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Disenfranchisement as Distancing from Offenders?","authors":"Gustavo A. Beade","doi":"10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275966","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135871479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Proposal to Criminalize State Torture in the United States","authors":"Kai Draper","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2230756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2230756","url":null,"abstract":"As a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, the United States is under an obligation to criminalize all state torture. The aim of this article is to show that the United States has failed to fulfill that obligation and should correct that failure by broadening the respective definitions of “torture” in two federal criminal statutes, the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act. The broader definition that is proposed is formulated with an eye to minimizing ambiguity and vagueness, avoiding both overcriminalization and undercriminalization, and facilitating accurate determinations of guilt or innocence.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"133 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41411122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Agency Objection to Preventive Exclusion from Public Spaces","authors":"S. Holmen","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2233331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2233331","url":null,"abstract":"One way to seek to reduce the risk of potential offenders engaging in certain types of crime in a public or semi-public area is to make it much more difficult, or even impossible, for them to gain access to the area in question and subject them to a sanction if they do enter the area. This paper considers whether preventive exclusion of this kind should be considered a pro tanto morally impermissible means of crime prevention because it violates the agency of those excluded. Several variants of this agency objection to preventive exclusion are identified and critically assessed. It is argued that none persuasively show preventive exclusion to be pro tanto morally wrong.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"178 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45109341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Actions, Agents, and Consequences","authors":"Re’em Segev","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2225995","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2225995","url":null,"abstract":"According to an appealing and common view, the moral status of an action – whether it is wrong, for example – is sometimes important in itself in terms of the moral status of other actions – especially those that respond to the original action. This view is especially influential with respect to the criminal law. It is accepted not only by legal moralists but also by adherents of the harm principle, for example. In this paper, I argue against this view. The main arguments emphasize the distinctions between the moral status of actions, consequences, and agents. I argue that what matters, in terms of other actions, is not the moral status of the original action but rather other factors that may be confused with it, such as the moral status of its consequences – whether they are good or bad – and the moral status of the agent – whether she is praiseworthy or blameworthy. The intuitive appeal of the common view is, I argue, at least partly due to a conflation of these factors. Most importantly, once we recall the distinctions between these factors, we can see more clearly that this view lacks a compelling rationale. Or, at least, that it is based on assumptions that, first, are much more controversial than their conclusion, and, second, do not support every aspect of this view – and thus do not offer a unified foundation for this view.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"99 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45263371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
H. Källmén, Magnus Israelsson, P. Wennberg, A. H. Berman
{"title":"Criminal Behavior and Mental Health Problems among Adolescents: A Cross-sectional Study and Description of Prevention Policy in Sweden","authors":"H. Källmén, Magnus Israelsson, P. Wennberg, A. H. Berman","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2241765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2241765","url":null,"abstract":"The present study investigates the association between mental health problems and criminal behavior among adolescents in Sweden. Community crime prevention in a Swedish context is also discussed. Every two years, pupils from schools in Stockholm answer the Stockholm School Survey with questions and statements about their social situation, alcohol and drug use, attitudes, school climate, school grades and criminal behavior. Data collected from pupils who answered the survey in 2014, 2018 and 2020 form the basis of this study. A significant association between mental health problems and criminal behavior was shown, even after controlling for factors suggested in international literature. Mental health problems were shown to be a strong explanation for criminal behavior among adolescents.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"158 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49446160","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What Does It Mean to End Mass Incarceration, and How Would We Know If We Did?","authors":"Vincent Chiao","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170658","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170658","url":null,"abstract":"Katherine Beckett’s new book, Ending Mass Incarceration (EMI), is ambitious and wide-ranging. Beckett tackles one of the most urgent human rights problems of the last fifty years, namely the massive growth of incarceration in the United States, with devastating consequences for millions of people who cycle through jails and prisons, disadvantaged communities, and for the cause of racial justice. The first half of EMI is diagnostic, focusing on Beckett’s analysis of the causes of mass incarceration, whereas the second half is programmatic, defending a series of proposals for winding it down. Broadly speaking, Beckett’s diagnosis centers on increases in the rates at which felony arrests are converted into custodial sentences in rural and suburban counties, and on across-the-board increases in time served over the last generation. Programmatically, Beckett proposes three main reforms: reducing what she deems “excessive” sentencing, in particular by imposing a twentyyear cap on custodial sentences and broadening parole eligibility; expanding restorative justice programs, including for people convicted of violent crimes; and replacing criminal enforcement for low-level drug offenses with harm reduction programs, perhaps taking a lead from the LEAD 2.0 program in Seattle. There is much to admire about EMI. Beckett is a careful researcher, draws on awide range of quantitative and qualitative research, and has the unusual ability to speak to both specialist and lay audiences. The last, in particular, is a difficult task to Vincent Chiao, University of Richmond, School of Law & Jepson School of Leadership. Email: vchiao@richmond.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2023 Vol. 42, No. 1, 86–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2170658","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"86 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49162392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Punishment and Public Reason: Reply to Hoskins","authors":"Chad W. Flanders","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2181524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2181524","url":null,"abstract":"In his paper “Public Reason and the Justification of Punishment,” Zachary Hoskins develops and defends an idea of “public reason” that might be applicable to debates over punishment in the Western world. This short reply takes issue with some of Hoskins’ conclusions (while agreeing with many of his premises), and suggests that contra Hoskins, many versions of retribution are not compatible with the ideal of public reason as Rawls articulated it. Instead, debates over criminal justice and punishment should properly revolve around the goods of public safety and harm reduction—rather than around any of the supposed metaphysical goods achieved by retributive punishment.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"38 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43977302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Exprisonment: Deprivation of Liberty on the Street and at Home","authors":"Hadassa Noorda","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2023.2174722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2023.2174722","url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have addressed restrictions on individual liberty, or deprivations thereof, that do not entail prison or jail—including area restrictions, revoking driver’s licenses, and GPS bracelets. In all legal domains, the effects of these measures on the lives of targeted individuals can be significant, primarily with respect to their capability to guide their own behavior. Some are applied categorically rather than individually, do not involve a fair trial or hearing, or are applied preventively or after the targeted individual has completed a prison sentence. My aim in this article is to extend our view from prison as the quintessential method of depriving individuals of their liberty to control of individuals without locking them up. I address degrees of individual liberty and inquire into legal protections for individuals who are partially free but deprived of liberty in some areas of life.","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":"42 1","pages":"1 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48685651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
