Should we use AI to make parole decisions?

[Individual]

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

I think we need to find ways to reduce the cost to taxpayers for keeping them there.

 

[nucky9]

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.

No, none of what you say is logical. If (and I won't debate how likely the 'if' is with you) outcomes in the justice system are influenced by *both* the severity the crimes, as well as ethnicity (or any other factor external to the severity of the crime), then that is a flaw in the justice system and one that the AI would perpetuate. You could use money as the influencing factor instead, if that is less challenging to your worldview. Do you believe that the severity of punishment for a given crime is independent of the quality of an accused's lawyer, and/or that the quality of a lawyer is independent of their cost?

Put another way, unless you believe that there are no flaws in the justice system, or that any such flaws are stochastic, then those flaws would be magnified in the AI. This is because such AI would only be trained on the 'what' not the 'why'.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

No, none of what you say is logical. If (and I won't debate how likely the 'if' is with you) outcomes in the justice system are influenced by *both* the severity the crimes, as well as ethnicity (or any other factor external to the severity of the crime), then that is a flaw in the justice system and one that the AI would perpetuate. You could use money as the influencing factor instead, if that is less challenging to your worldview. Do you believe that the severity of punishment for a given crime is independent of the quality of an accused's lawyer, and/or that the quality of a lawyer is independent of their cost?

Put another way, unless you believe that there are no flaws in the justice system, or that any such flaws are stochastic, then those flaws would be magnified in the AI. This is because such AI would only be trained on the 'what' not the 'why'.

Well it’s all a moot point if you don’t get involved with the criminal justice system to begin with. Which for most people is easy. Now if you support the previous president you will be subjected to politically motivated crimes and charges, but for those who didn’t staying out of involvement with the justice system is easy.

 

[nucky9]

Well it’s all a moot point if you don’t get involved with the criminal justice system to begin with. Which for most people is easy. Now if you support the previous president you will be subjected to politically motivated crimes and charges, but for those who didn’t staying out of involvement with the justice system is easy.

It's a moot point that people convicted of the same crime will be punished disproportionately, depending on external factors? I strongly disagree. I don't think it is acceptable at all that Justice is sneaking a peek from underneath her blindfold. And, that is before even considering the fact that not everyone who runs afoul of the justice system actually did anything wrong.

That said, I think you are more or less an authoritarian (God will sort it all out type of thing), no? So your view is at least internally consistent. I always wonder why authoritarians assume the authorities will be on their side though.

 

[nucky9]

I think we need to find ways to reduce the cost to taxpayers for keeping them there.

You could try starting with putting less people in them, and see how that goes.

 

[AmNat]

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?

People who are denied parole have a 0% recidivism rate (so far as the outside world is concerned).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's a moot point that people convicted of the same crime will be punished disproportionately, depending on external factors? I strongly disagree. I don't think it is acceptable at all that Justice is sneaking a peek from underneath her blindfold. And, that is before even considering the fact that not everyone who runs afoul of the justice system actually did anything wrong.

That said, I think you are more or less an authoritarian (God will sort it all out type of thing), no? So your view is at least internally consistent. I always wonder why authoritarians assume the authorities will be on their side though.

Well the authorities are not on my side. Look at the peaceful election protestors being held without bail for entering the Capitol through open doors held open by the police.


But regardless, whatever sentences you go for violating the law are written into the statute by legislative authorities. If you commit any crime you are consenting to the maximum possible penalty and any lower amount is simply an act of grace.

The vast majority of people who get arrested are guilty of what the police accus them of. Usually they’re guilty of a lot more when arrested and they’re pled down to lower charges. The vast majority of “victimless drug offenses” (victimless itself being a stupid libertarian assertion that someone wasting their life away on drugs has no victims) are really plea deals down from violent crimes.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

People who are denied parole have a 0% recidivism rate (so far as the outside world is concerned).

Maybe so but I think that multi-decade prison sentences are cruel. I think really that the justice system should go from the death penalty to public flogging or being locked in the stocks on the lower end. Long term incarceration should be rare.

Obviously civil and regulatory offenses can be fines, misdemeanors can be 12 lashes with cat o nine tails, and a day locked in public in the stocks, and then capital offenses can be rape, murder, molestation of a child and should carry either death or 5 years hard labor (and I mean really hard labor, think like the French prison in South America) I would then say society should be culturally conditioned to see the 5 years of hard labor convicts as redeemed and not subject to stigma, unless they reoffend


No one should spend 20 years in prison, that is wanton cruelty and serves no penal interests of the state

 

[Lord of Planar]

Should we use AI to make parole decisions?​

Only if I can program it.

 

[nucky9]

Well the authorities are not on my side. Look at the peaceful election protestors being held without bail for entering the Capitol through open doors held open by the police.

Ah, this must be one of those acts of grace you were describing, except in reverse. I see your point now. A capricious Justice makes a kegger a lot more fun.

But regardless, whatever sentences you go for violating the law are written into the statute by legislative authorities. If you commit any crime you are consenting to the maximum possible penalty and any lower amount is simply an act of grace.

Like I said, internally consistent.

The vast majority of people who get arrested are guilty of what the police accus them of. Usually they’re guilty of a lot more when arrested and they’re pled down to lower charges. The vast majority of “victimless drug offenses” (victimless itself being a stupid libertarian assertion that someone wasting their life away on drugs has no victims) are really plea deals down from violent crimes.

Maybe so but I think that multi-decade prison sentences are cruel. I think really that the justice system should go from the death penalty to public flogging or being locked in the stocks on the lower end. Long term incarceration should be rare.

Excellent points, and that would certainly go a long way towards helping those wasting their life on drugs.

Obviously civil and regulatory offenses can be fines, misdemeanors can be 12 lashes with cat o nine tails, and a day locked in public in the stocks,

Are we allowed to throw poop at them?

and then capital offenses can be rape, murder, molestation of a child and should carry either death or 5 years hard labor (and I mean really hard labor, think like the French prison in South America) I would then say society should be culturally conditioned to see the 5 years of hard labor convicts as redeemed and not subject to stigma, unless they reoffend

Makes sense - we'd already have a bunch of 'cat o nine tails' handy, and they sound like they were made for that job.

 

[AmNat]

Maybe so but I think that multi-decade prison sentences are cruel. I think really that the justice system should go from the death penalty to public flogging or being locked in the stocks on the lower end. Long term incarceration should be rare.

Obviously civil and regulatory offenses can be fines, misdemeanors can be 12 lashes with cat o nine tails, and a day locked in public in the stocks, and then capital offenses can be rape, murder, molestation of a child and should carry either death or 5 years hard labor (and I mean really hard labor, think like the French prison in South America) I would then say society should be culturally conditioned to see the 5 years of hard labor convicts as redeemed and not subject to stigma, unless they reoffend


No one should spend 20 years in prison, that is wanton cruelty and serves no penal interests of the state

I agree with all this. What I don't agree with is having a robot (or a committee of bureaucrats) decide how long a person should be imprisoned based on a "probability of recidivism". People should generally receive the punishment they were sentenced to in court; reprieves should be granted by a unitary executive authority using his own human judgment.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Ah, this must be one of those acts of grace you were describing, except in reverse. I see your point now. A capricious Justice makes a kegger a lot more fun.

See you don’t care about bias in justice as long as it’s politically motivated in a way you agree with.

Like I said, internally consistent.

yea the rule of law is an easy concept to keep consistent.

Excellent points, and that would certainly go a long way towards helping those wasting their life on drugs.

most felony crimes are not drug offenses.

Are we allowed to throw poop at them?

no, the liability to the state from the convict contracting hepatitis is too great. Rotten fruit will suffice

Makes sense - we'd already have a bunch of 'cat o nine tails' handy, and they sound like they were made for that job.

I don’t know why you put that in quotes. Cat o nine tails is a noun, a real object

https://alchetron.com/cdn/cat-o-nine-tails-737d7908-09de-468a-a5c0-424153210f2-resize-750.jpeg

 

[nucky9]

See you don’t care about bias in justice as long as it’s politically motivated in a way you agree with.
yea the rule of law is an easy concept to keep consistent.

I've been convinced by your arguments that any bias is irrelevant, so I don't understand?

most felony crimes are not drug offenses.

Oh, ok.

no, the liability to the state from the convict contracting hepatitis is too great. Rotten fruit will suffice

There are ways to treat it first.

I don’t know why you put that in quotes. Cat o nine tails is a noun, a real object

I don't do english good.

 

[nucky9]

I agree with all this. What I don't agree with is having a robot (or a committee of bureaucrats) decide how long a person should be imprisoned based on a "probability of recidivism". People should generally receive the punishment they were sentenced to in court; reprieves should be granted by a unitary executive authority using his own human judgment.

Would you consider a cat?

 

[Individual]

You could try starting with putting less people in them, and see how that goes.

People who are convicted of crimes which carry a jail term SHOULD be put in them, AND made responsible for provision of their needs until they are released or permanently, whichever the case may be.
Good behavior is not a good reason to release someone early, and should only be a reason to keep someone from becoming imprisoned. Bad behavior, while imprisoned, should result in extending a sentence, and committing and being convicted of a second offense should result in a life sentence.
Commit the crime, do the time.

 

[Allan]

No.

If we are going to punish our fellow citizens for crimes, our society owes it to those human beings to have fellow human beings being their judge.

Having a computer decide human fates is dystopian and would increase disrespect for the process of justice.

 

[Gatsby]

People who are denied parole have a 0% recidivism rate (so far as the outside world is concerned).

Are you suggesting that we should do away with the parole system entirely, and just have the judge determine the entire sentence at the time of their conviction? I disagree with that, because the judge is missing some key pieces of information (e.g. how they've conducted themselves in prison) that will be relevant near the end of their sentence, when it's in society's interest to determine if they are still a danger.

If we get rid of parole, we will either end up with a situation where 1) judges start issuing lighter sentences to account for this, which will cause some dangerous people to be released from prison earlier than they should be, or 2) judges continue issuing sentences just as harsh as they currently are, which will cause some people to languish in prison at taxpayer expense for longer than is necessary to protect society. Either of those outcomes seems worse than having parole hearings, IMO.

I think the current system is more-or-less the way that it should be: When the person is convicted they get a minimum sentence (i.e. the length of time they need to wait before parole) and a maximum sentence (i.e. the length of time they'll serve if they are denied parole), as well as annual parole hearings. This will make sure that they serve enough time to punish them for their wrongdoing, but not an unnecessarily long time if they are no longer a threat to society.

 

[Gatsby]

I agree with all this. What I don't agree with is having a robot (or a committee of bureaucrats) decide how long a person should be imprisoned based on a "probability of recidivism". People should generally receive the punishment they were sentenced to in court; reprieves should be granted by a unitary executive authority using his own human judgment.

Why a unitary executive instead of a parole board? The parole board at least has time to examine the case; governors/presidents generally don't, unless it's a very high-profile case.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why a unitary executive instead of a parole board? The parole board at least has time to examine the case; governors/presidents generally don't, unless it's a very high-profile case.

That is exactly the point, A unitary executive would not spend large amounts of time worrying about this, and because the executive has to be directly accountable to the people he is protecting, He is more likely to suffer political push back if he releases someone from prison who goes on to hurt people again. Whereas if the parole board release is a dangerous criminal who hurt someone else, No one knows how to form a riot outside their house

 

[Grand Mal]

I think we need to find ways to reduce the cost to taxpayers for keeping them there.

Or get more normal.
There's a bunch of people doing life for pot. No guns involved, no kids involved, just pot.
This guy got life without parole for selling two $10 bags to a narc. Three strikes yer out and now you can house him, feed him and guard him till he dies.

This man is "waiting to die in prison" for selling two bags of pot

Even as more Americans toke up legally, many are still rotting behind bars for marijuana offenses.

www.motherjones.com

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Or get more normal.
There's a bunch of people doing life for pot. No guns involved, no kids involved, just pot.
This guy got life without parole for selling two $10 bags to a narc. Three strikes yer out and now you can house him, feed him and guard him till he dies.

This man is "waiting to die in prison" for selling two bags of pot

Even as more Americans toke up legally, many are still rotting behind bars for marijuana offenses.

www.motherjones.com

I’ll bet you he regrets doing that huh?

I mean, this is not making the point you think it is. What you are showing is that this person was a constant problem to society, persistently breaking the law, and because he was treated so leniently he just kept doing it until finally he did it enough that now he’ll never be released from prison. I think if He was flogged like I think these types of offender should be, he would get the message right away that he should start obeying the rules.

 

[Gatsby]

That is exactly the point, A unitary executive would not spend large amounts of time worrying about this, and because the executive has to be directly accountable to the people he is protecting, He is more likely to suffer political push back if he releases someone from prison who goes on to hurt people again. Whereas if the parole board release is a dangerous criminal who hurt someone else, No one knows how to form a riot outside their house

Ehh, that essentially amounts to getting rid of the parole system. Which I oppose because:

If we get rid of parole, we will either end up with a situation where 1) judges start issuing lighter sentences to account for this, which will cause some dangerous people to be released from prison earlier than they should be, or 2) judges continue issuing sentences just as harsh as they currently are, which will cause some people to languish in prison at taxpayer expense for longer than is necessary to protect society. Either of those outcomes seems worse than having parole hearings, IMO.

I am intrigued by your idea though:

Maybe so but I think that multi-decade prison sentences are cruel. I think really that the justice system should go from the death penalty to public flogging or being locked in the stocks on the lower end. Long term incarceration should be rare.

Although I'm against the death penalty, I like your idea of some physical punishment in lieu of prison time for lesser crimes. At the very least, it's worth exploring to see if it's an effective deterrent. It seems so weird to me that many people in our legal system would call what you described "cruel and unusual punishment," but they wouldn't bat an eye at sentencing someone to decades in a cage to be raped.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Ehh, that essentially amounts to getting rid of the parole system. Which I oppose because:



I am intrigued by your idea though:

Although I'm against the death penalty, I like your idea of some physical punishment in lieu of prison time for lesser crimes. At the very least, it's worth exploring to see if it's an effective deterrent. It seems so weird to me that many people in our legal system would call what you described "cruel and unusual punishment," but they wouldn't bat an eye at sentencing someone to decades in a cage to be raped.

I think we should stop caring about deterrent, and focus less on rehabilitation. The criminal justice system does not exist to deter or rehabilitate. The criminal justice system should exist to institutionalized the practice of revenge. The primary purpose should be expiation

 

[Grand Mal]

I’ll bet you he regrets doing that huh?

I mean, this is not making the point you think it is. What you are showing is that this person was a constant problem to society, persistently breaking the law, and because he was treated so leniently he just kept doing it until finally he did it enough that now he’ll never be released from prison. I think if He was flogged like I think these types of offender should be, he would get the message right away that he should start obeying the rules.

Probably not his only regret.
Is this how a civilized nation behaves? Life without parole for a victimless crime. For offending someone's delicate feelings. Sounds very Muslim-theocracy to me.
But I have no doubt that you approve.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Probably not his only regret.
Is this how a civilized nation behaves? Life without parole for a victimless crime. For offending someone's delicate feelings. Sounds very Muslim-theocracy to me.
But I have no doubt that you approve.

Again, drug use is not a victimless crime. Only someone who didn’t live in a major American city in the 80s and 90s could believe it is.