Should we use AI to make parole decisions?

[Hamish Howl]

Absolutely not. The justice system is the one place where human decision-making is critical.

 

[Gatsby]

Crime is not being “an idiot” it’s a moral failing. It is choosing to perform an evil act you know is wrong for a benefit.

Whatever you want to call it, many criminals outgrow it by the time they are 27-30.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Whatever you want to call it, many criminals outgrow it by the time they are 27-30.

No, they don’t. Maybe they outgrow it by age 50 when they become less able to commit crime.

 

[Hamish Howl]

No, they don’t. Maybe they outgrow it by age 50 when they become less able to commit crime.

You of course have a credible link to demonstrate that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You of course have a credible link to demonstrate that.

And I’m sure by credible you mean anything affirms your current world view right?

 

[Hamish Howl]

And I’m sure by credible you mean anything affirms your current world view right?

I'm guessing that's a "No, EMN was blowing wind out of his ass again."

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm guessing that's a "No, EMN was blowing wind out of his ass again."

Another leftist. You are probably another person with a communist worldview, who is simply refuses to answer anything directly because you don’t want to be nailed down on a radical position.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Another leftist. You are probably another person with a communist worldview, who is simply refuses to answer anything directly because you don’t want to be nailed down on a radical position.

You got caught bullshitting again. Now you're angry.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You got caught bullshitting again. Now you're angry.

You’re the one angry. You’re angry that you know crime is moral failure and so you’re demanding “links” to obfuscate

 

[Hamish Howl]

You’re the one angry. You’re angry that you know crime is moral failure and so you’re demanding “links” to obfuscate

Nope. You made an assertion and then you ran away from it when asked for evidence.

Again.

Just like always.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nope. You made an assertion and then you ran away from it when asked for evidence.

Again.

Just like always.

Are used to heavily source posts. But what I found is that it doesn’t matter how much I source any assertion, if you are ideologically against what the sources say, you will always have an excuse as to why they’re not valid. That’s why you asked for a “credible” link. So that you’re already setting up to dismiss any source that disagrees with you.

 

[Gatsby]

No, they don’t. Maybe they outgrow it by age 50 when they become less able to commit crime.

Murder/manslaughter peaks at age 19, and drops off pretty substantially beyond age 30.
Rape peaks at age 18, but declines much more slowly.
Robbery/burglary/larceny all peak at 18, and drop off beyond age 30.
Aggravated assault peaks at 24, but declines by the early to mid 30s.
Motor vehicle thefts peak at 16, and decline by 30.
Overall crime peaks at 24, and declines by 30.

Table 20

ucr.fbi.gov

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Murder/manslaughter peaks at age 19, and drops off pretty substantially beyond age 30.
Rape peaks at age 18, but declines much more slowly.
Robbery/burglary/larceny all peak at 18, and drop off beyond age 30.
Aggravated assault peaks at 24, but declines by the early to mid 30s.
Motor vehicle thefts peak at 16, and decline by 30.
Overall crime peaks at 24, and declines by 30.

Table 20

ucr.fbi.gov

Yeah, I don’t believe any of those numbers. This seems like some sort of statistical sophistry. Or some egghead creating statistics on things that don’t matter.

The majority of people arrested for murder or not 19.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Are used to heavily source posts. But what I found is that it doesn’t matter how much I source any assertion, if you are ideologically against what the sources say, you will always have an excuse as to why they’re not valid. That’s why you asked for a “credible” link. So that you’re already setting up to dismiss any source that disagrees with you.

You are dismissed for making bullshit statements again.

Again.

 

[Cardinal]

Absolutely not. The justice system is the one place where human decision-making is critical.

The human decision making component in parole is probably bad for a host of reasons, but codifying (quite literally) the errors in their decision making process sounds like a dystopian nightmare.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Yeah, I don’t believe any of those numbers. This seems like some sort of statistical sophistry. Or some egghead creating statistics on things that don’t matter.

The majority of people arrested for murder or not 19.

Of course you don't believe the numbers. The credible link disagrees with your feeeeeeeelings.

 

[Gatsby]

Yeah, I don’t believe any of those numbers. This seems like some sort of statistical sophistry. Or some egghead creating statistics on things that don’t matter.

The majority of people arrested for murder or not 19.

So on the one hand, I could believe the FBI's official crime stats. Or I could believe some rando on the internet with no expertise or supporting data. Hmm. Tough call.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So on the one hand, I could believe the FBI's official crime stats. Or I could believe some rando on the internet with no expertise or supporting data. Hmm. Tough call.

Your link does not support the assertion the majority of murder suspects are 19.

 

[nucky9]

You know, America is the most incarcerated nation in the developed world. By a long shot.
What do you think of that?

Not directed at me, but when a country's justice system includes for-profit elements, like private prisons, and especially when money has an out-sized influence on said country's politics, it doesn't seem too surprising that this would the case. The war on (poor people) drugs is another big factor, I think.

So, what I think about it, is that it is a sign that the US isn't prioritizing protecting its populous and encouraging rehabilitation, but is instead allowing political and economic factors to influence justice.

 

[Gatsby]

Your link does not support the assertion the majority of murder suspects are 19.

According to the stats, 19 is the most common age to be arrested for murder. 511 people who were 19 years old were arrested for murder in the most recent year of these stats. By the time you hit age 30-34, only about 230 people are arrested for murder in any given birth year.

 

[Grand Mal]

Not directed at me, but when a country's justice system includes for-profit elements, like private prisons, and especially when money has an out-sized influence on said country's politics, it doesn't seem too surprising that this would the case. The war on (poor people) drugs is another big factor, I think.

So, what I think about it, is that it is a sign that the US isn't prioritizing protecting its populous and encouraging rehabilitation, but is instead allowing political and economic factors to influence justice.

It doesn't take much thinking on it to decide that a high incarceration rate is self- perpetuating. It's obvious. That, and mandatory sentences and the three-strikes rule combined with the profit motive you cited create a huge percentage of the population in prisons.

 

[nucky9]

I was working on a machine learning project to predict the likelihood that a parole applicant will reoffend if released, and it got me thinking about the Tom Cruise film "Minority Report", a dystopian sci-fi story where people are punished for future crimes they were predicted to commit.

In a few years, it will be possible for ML algorithms to reliably outperform parole boards in determining whether a prisoner will reoffend. But should we use them?

On the one hand, it would be great to identify prisoners who are no threat to society so we can release them early. But on the other hand, it seems like a violation of due process (and possibly discriminatory) to punish people for crimes they haven't yet committed.

What are your thoughts? If an AI can reliably outperform parole boards in determining who will reoffend, should we use it?

I think AI analysis can have a place, but it should just be a tool similar to statistical analysis. The problem with AI is that it would reflect societal biases. For instance, if systemic racism exists, and has an influence on incarceration rates, then the AI would also be systemically racist.

Another problem is the training. What is the relative negative value of releasing someone who would go on to re-offend, compared to the negative value of denying parole to someone who wouldn't? I.e. how do you measure 'outperforming' relative to the current system? Of course, that is an issue with a parole board as well, but finding problems and solutions for the way the current parole boards work would be a different discussion.

 

[nucky9]

It doesn't take much thinking on it to decide that a high incarceration rate is self- perpetuating. It's obvious. That, and mandatory sentences and the three-strikes rule combined with the profit motive you cited create a huge percentage of the population in prisons.

No, not much at all. Unfortunately, I think the values of capitalism, government austerity, and the justice system as a means to deliver societal revenge, tend to resonate in a large portion of the population. Even those that may not hold these values, probably aren't going to fight too hard, by and large, since it involves people that, in theory, deservedly lost their standing within their society.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I think AI analysis can have a place, but it should just be a tool similar to statistical analysis. The problem with AI is that it would reflect societal biases. For instance, if systemic racism exists, and has an influence on incarceration rates, then the AI would also be systemically racist.

Another problem is the training. What is the relative negative value of releasing someone who would go on to re-offend, compared to the negative value of denying parole to someone who wouldn't? I.e. how do you measure 'outperforming' relative to the current system? Of course, that is an issue with a parole board as well, but finding problems and solutions for the way the current parole boards work would be a different discussion.

The AI would get systemically racist because one particular group of people commits a wildly disproportionate share of violent crimes. Even if the system is systemically racist it doesn’t matter, because criminal liability should be an individual responsibility. Even if you are oppressed you are still required to obey the law.

 

[Logician Man]

because one particular group of people commits a wildly disproportionate share of violent crimes. <--- Which 'one particular group of people" are you referring?