“Even if these sources of data bias could be identified and corrected, however, there may still be some group-based differences that are not attributable to data bias. If so, groups may experience different risk scores and categories that would not necessarily indicate bias. Further, it is often difficult (or impossible) to discern whether some observed group-level differences in data are genuine or reflect some sort of systemic bias.“
Hopefully it’s clear this is super problematic in the context of risk assessment tools. It means if you are categorized as part of a racial group that is convicted of more crimes, you might be categorized as a higher risk than you would otherwise.
They argue models from education and psychology that address racial disparities could be adapted, but those institutions are designed to help people rather than to decide if they should be in jail.
It means if you are categorized as part of a racial group that commits more crimes, you might be categorized as a higher risk thank you would otherwise.
Not commits more crimes. Disproportionately arrested and convicted of more crimes.
Yes that’s more precise, I’ve edited it. Thanks!
Further, it is often difficult (or impossible) to discern whether some observed group-level differences in data are genuine or reflect some sort of systemic bias.
The fact that systemic bias is sufficient to make someone say this is kind of problematic, no?
Yes (agreed)— justice in the US is supposed to happen at an individual level, so even if it were true that systemic bias made one more likely to be convicted of a crime (just for illustration say living in a high conviction zip code where 99% of people have been convicted of a crime) it would not be appropriate to use that data to predict or assess any individual human’s potential behavior.
Just in case people aren’t familiar, some context from the aclu.
Also note: the is regarding the united states