Northpointe’s algorithm takes real people, with complex identities and lives, and reduces them to abstract equations. The job of a judge is to listen to the evidence presented by the defence and the prosecution, consider the whole picture, and issue a decision based on the available facts and the the law. When something like a mandatory minimum is introduced into the legal system, it takes part of the process of thinking and adjudication away from the judicial process. It is certainly true that the biases and prejudices of our greater american public are already reflected in our judges. When Northpointe’s algorithm, however, is used in matters of jurisprudence to influence bond and sentencing two things are occurring. First, we are relying on computers and programs to do our thinking for us and pretending that a number can accurately represent the complexities of a human life. Second, we are obscuring the biased process which gives a false notion of objectivity.
I wonder how ethicists, sociologists, lawmakers, and community members were consulted to determine what questions should be asked and how they should be weighted? Even seemingly innocuous questions such as where someone lives are tied up in issues of racial and economic segregation in America.
This post impressed upon me the dangers of relying on computers to make complex decisions. I especially like Sean’s line “we are relying on computers and programs to do our thinking for us”. In my opinion, this is something that is becoming more and more prevalent. Many people can no longer read maps, as the GPS provides accurate location data whenever people need it. Many people do not actively search for news stories; they just allow the algorithms of major social media outlets to provide them with a insular smattering of stories. And now, the legal and law enforcement community is relying on technology to facilitate their decisions. This trend worries me, and I do feel that it’s in concert with the general shift towards ‘the easy way being the right way’ in our society. In my opinion, this assertion could not be more false and warped. In general, facilitating and expediting processes can make them more error prone. Moreover, there is no room for critical thinking in this type of situation. This may be a complete aside ,but nevertheless I believe something needs to be done to forestall the trend toward taking the easy way out, especially in matters of great importance, that I see a pervasive issue in our society today.