
In Wisconsin, a Backlash Against Using Data to Foretell Defendants’ Futures - denzil_correa
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-against-using-data-to-foretell-defendants-futures.html
======
socalnate1
The real issue for me is that the algorithm is itself proprietary, and the
company who made it won't release any of its details.

That's the part that is most Orwellian. "Our magic box says you are going to
commit another crime if we let you out. Sorry, no, you aren't allowed to know
anything about the magic box."

~~~
carleverett
Yeah this argument holds a lot less water in a post-Theranos world. Just
because something is proprietary does not mean it's effective.

And just like with Theranos, the stakes are too high for people to just assume
these people know what they're doing. If someone is going to be spending years
of their life in jail because of an algorithm, it better be accurate.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
It didn't hold any in the pre Theranos world either. Remember voting machines?

~~~
Kalium
Live free or Diebold!

------
hackuser
tl;dr:

Wisconsin courts use an algorithm called Compas for sentencing (though not
exclusively AFAICT). Compas is an algorithm _that calculates the likelihood of
someone committing another crime and suggests what kind of supervision a
defendant should receive in prison_.

Compas' algorithm is secret:

 _Company officials say the algorithm’s results are backed by research, but
they are tight-lipped about its details. They do acknowledge that men and
women receive different assessments, as do juveniles, but the factors
considered and the weight given to each are kept secret.

“The key to our product is the algorithms, and they’re proprietary,” said
Jeffrey Harmon, Northpointe’s general manager._

------
alsetmusic
> In Chicago, where there has been a sharp rise in violent crime this year,
> the police have used an algorithm to compile a list of people most likely to
> shoot or be shot. Over Memorial Day weekend, when 64 people were shot in
> Chicago, the police said 50 of the victims were on that list.

I'd like to know the size of the list. If they made predictions regarding 100
people, that's more credible than a list of 1000. Context is missing for a
thorough evaluation of the results.

------
projectramo
You have to confer with the third twin who disagrees with the others. Hasn't
anyone seen minority report?

Or, you know, the predictor in the random forest that is weighted very low.

------
brudgers
Pro Publica's analysis of Compas: [https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-
analyzed-the-compa...](https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-
compas-recidivism-algorithm)

------
trhway
>calculates the likelihood of someone committing another crime

_another_ ? Why not optimize further and just determine the likelihood of
committing of the original crime and lock up based on that even before it
happens?

------
ahartman00
maybe I'm biased because I'm a software engineer, but I really dont see the
controversy here.

When you realize that an algorithm is just a process to be performed, what is
new here other than using a computer and a large amount of data? Judges always
have been using information to predict the harm that a defendant might do in
the future. I dont have the data, but I'm sure that past convictions,
antisocial behavior, friends that have pro criminal beliefs, etc do in fact
correlate with future criminal behavior.

Now I know that correlation is not causation, but still. Is this just because
the algorithm is closed source? A judges thought process is closed source
also, no? To me this seems like an obvious and good thing.

edit: paragraphs

~~~
rayiner
Consider why people get worked up over civil asset forfeiture of people with
large amounts of cash on their person. Statistically, it's highly probable
that money is the product of illegal activity-- _i.e._ if you find 10 people
carrying 10,000 in their car, only one or two probably obtained that money
legitimately.

Yet, it strikes people as "unfair" to play the statistics like that, because
peoples' sense of justice requires some sort of _individualized due process_.
That is why, for example, you generally can't introduce evidence of past
crimes in order to prove guilt for a different crime.

~~~
hackuser
> Consider why people get worked up over civil asset forfeiture of people with
> large amounts of cash on their person. Statistically, it's highly probable
> that money is the product of illegal activity

I haven't seen any stats about the assets seized; do you know of any?

~~~
rayiner
80-85% of seized assets go uncontested: [http://www.fed-
soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-rea...](http://www.fed-
soc.org/publications/detail/forfeiture-is-reasonable-and-it-works). _I.e._
nobody even files a claim to get back their thousands of dollars in cash. You
can use your common sense to figure why that's the case.

I don't think we should have civil asset forfeiture. But I think it's
improbable that more than a small minority of those assets are legitimate
(especially in the $10,000 in the glove box scenarios).

~~~
mindslight
> _But I think it 's improbable that more than a small minority of those
> assets are legitimate_

Yes, and only few people that are arrested that aren't guilty and only a few
people the cops shoot don't deserve it.

However, each of these rare instances constitutes its own crime perpetuated
against an innocent victim. If the justice system doesn't actually strive for
justice, it's just another gang of thugs.

~~~
rayiner
That's my point! Arguing that justice requires more than statistical
probability does not require asserting that the presumed probabilities are
wrong. _I.e._ asset forfeiture can be unjust even if the vast majority of
seized assets are actually illegitimate.

~~~
mindslight
I think characterizing it as unfair downplays the problem. It's not "unfair",
it's straight up _incorrect_ to reason off probabilities - the design of the
justice system is explicitly not utility maximization.

But yes I think people concerned about these issues would do well to
understand that they're the minority of cases. If they were that common,
things would easily change through the democratic process. The job is then
convincing the majority, who will likely never have a problem, that such
injustice _could_ happen to them.

~~~
harryh
> it's straight up incorrect to reason off probabilities

When a jury decides that someone committed a crime "beyond reasonable doubt"
they are reasoning off probabilities.

~~~
mindslight
Sure, everything decomposes to probabilities after all. I really mean
statistics, and optimizing for expected value.

