司法系统中的预测算法和技术改良主义的局限性

IF 1.8 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Pamela Ugwudike
{"title":"司法系统中的预测算法和技术改良主义的局限性","authors":"Pamela Ugwudike","doi":"10.5204/ijcjsd.2189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data-driven digital technologies are playing a pivotal role in shaping the global landscape of criminal justice across several jurisdictions. Predictive algorithms, in particular, now inform decision making at almost all levels of the criminal justice process. As the algorithms continue to proliferate, a fast-growing multidisciplinary scholarship has emerged to challenge their logics and highlight their capacity to perpetuate historical biases. Drawing on insights distilled from critical algorithm studies and the digital sociology scholarship, this paper outlines the limits of prevailing tech-reformist remedies. The paper also builds on the interstices between the two scholarships to make a case for a broader structural framework for understanding the conduits of algorithmic bias.","PeriodicalId":51781,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive Algorithms in Justice Systems and the Limits of Tech-Reformism\",\"authors\":\"Pamela Ugwudike\",\"doi\":\"10.5204/ijcjsd.2189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Data-driven digital technologies are playing a pivotal role in shaping the global landscape of criminal justice across several jurisdictions. Predictive algorithms, in particular, now inform decision making at almost all levels of the criminal justice process. As the algorithms continue to proliferate, a fast-growing multidisciplinary scholarship has emerged to challenge their logics and highlight their capacity to perpetuate historical biases. Drawing on insights distilled from critical algorithm studies and the digital sociology scholarship, this paper outlines the limits of prevailing tech-reformist remedies. The paper also builds on the interstices between the two scholarships to make a case for a broader structural framework for understanding the conduits of algorithmic bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.2189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

数据驱动的数字技术在塑造多个司法管辖区的全球刑事司法格局方面发挥着关键作用。特别是预测算法,现在为刑事司法程序的几乎所有层面的决策提供信息。随着算法的不断扩散,一个快速增长的多学科学术已经出现,挑战它们的逻辑,并强调它们使历史偏见永久化的能力。根据从关键算法研究和数字社会学奖学金中提取的见解,本文概述了流行的技术改革主义补救措施的局限性。本文还以两项奖学金之间的间隙为基础,提出了一个更广泛的结构框架,以理解算法偏见的渠道。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictive Algorithms in Justice Systems and the Limits of Tech-Reformism
Data-driven digital technologies are playing a pivotal role in shaping the global landscape of criminal justice across several jurisdictions. Predictive algorithms, in particular, now inform decision making at almost all levels of the criminal justice process. As the algorithms continue to proliferate, a fast-growing multidisciplinary scholarship has emerged to challenge their logics and highlight their capacity to perpetuate historical biases. Drawing on insights distilled from critical algorithm studies and the digital sociology scholarship, this paper outlines the limits of prevailing tech-reformist remedies. The paper also builds on the interstices between the two scholarships to make a case for a broader structural framework for understanding the conduits of algorithmic bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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