Pre Crime Algorithms in Criminal Justice

Justice and Ethics

One of the longstanding problems with regard to decision-making is that it is often biased. That is, individual decisions may be influenced by personal factors such as race, gender, or socio-economic status. This can lead to unfair outcomes, as those with privilege are more likely to have their preferences realized. Algorithmic decision-making offers the potential to overcome these biases, as the algorithms used are not subject to the same personal factors.

However, it is important to note that algorithms are created by humans, and as such they may be subject to the same biases. In addition, algorithms may contain data that is itself biased. As a result, algorithmic decision-making is not a cure-all for the problem of bias, but it perhaps can offer the potential for significant improvement. Still, there will always be a need to control for bias.

Thanks to developments in artificial intelligence technology in recent years, there has been increasing interest in the use of algorithms for making decisions that have significant social implications. For example, algorithms are now being used to assess job applicants, determine who should be released on parole, and grade student essays. Proponents of this approach argue that algorithms can make more objective and equitable decisions than humans. They also point to the potential benefits of increased transparency and accountability. However, there should still be serious concerns and reservations about the potential biases of algorithms. In particular, there is a risk that they could perpetuate and amplify existing societal inequalities. There is also a lack of transparency around how these decisions are made, which could lead to public mistrust. Overall, it is clear that there are both potential advantages and disadvantages to using algorithms for social decision-making. The question of whether or not they should be used therefore requires careful consideration on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to “The New Science of Sentencing,” one should really take pause. Barry-Jester et al. pose the question, “Should prison sentences be based on crimes that haven’t been committed yet?” In what seems like a script straight from a sci-fi film, the authors note that “Pennsylvania is on the verge of becoming one of the first states in the country to base criminal sentences not only on what crimes people have been convicted of, but also on whether they are deemed likely to commit additional crimes” (Barry-Jester et al.). In other words, it is a real-life Minority Report situation—sentencing based on pre-crime (according to what an algorithm has been programmed to detect). Obviously from a justice and ethics standpoint, there are problems here. The first glaring problem is the issue of free will: until a person has actually acted of his own free will, he cannot be accused or charged with or sentenced for having done anything. Some utilitarians might argue that from a consequentialist ethical perspective, it might help to protect the greatest common good if such algorithms were implemented to prevent crime from happening. But one must also ask what is at stake in a system of duty ethics, where public administrators have a duty to respect the rights of every person—regardless of what a computer might have to say. Or what about from a virtue ethics standpoint? Is it virtuous and just to condemn a person because an algorithm has noted a pattern of behavior in the person’s actions that will likely make that individual a threat to public safety in the future? Ethically speaking, it appears that society is taking a big risk in terms of violating human rights by adopting a Minority Report approach to criminal justice.