Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:47:01.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mechanical Jurisprudence and Domain Distortion: How Predictive Algorithms Warp the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Dasha Pruss
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The value-ladenness of computer algorithms is typically framed around issues of epistemic risk. In this article, I examine a deeper sense of value-ladenness: algorithmic methods are not only themselves value-laden but also introduce value into how we reason about their domain of application. I call this domain distortion. In particular, using insights from jurisprudence, I show that the use of recidivism risk assessment algorithms (1) presupposes legal formalism and (2) blurs the distinction between liability assessment and sentencing, which distorts how the domain of criminal punishment is conceived and provides a distinctive avenue for values to enter the legal process.

Type
Social Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 88 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 1101 - 1112
Copyright
Copyright 2021 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright, A. 2019. “If You Give a Judge a Risk Score: Evidence from Kentucky Bail Decisions.” Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Angwin, J., and Larson, J.. 2016. “ProPublica Responds to Company’s Critique of Machine Bias Story.” ProPublica, July 29. https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-responds-to-companys-critique-of-machine-bias-story.Google Scholar
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., and Kirchner, L.. 2016. “Machine Bias: There’s Software Used across the Country to Predict Future Criminals; And It’s Biased against Blacks.” ProPublica, May 23. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.Google Scholar
Berk, R. 2017. “An Impact Assessment of Machine Learning Risk Forecasts on Parole Board Decisions and Recidivism.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 13 (2): 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, J. B., and Kukla, R.. 2017. “The Geography of Epistemic Risk.” In Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science, 215–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boudette, N. E. 2016. “Autopilot Cited in Death of Chinese Tesla Driver.” New York Times, September 15.Google Scholar
Cohen, F. S. 1935. “Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach.” Columbia Law Review 3:809–49.Google Scholar
Corbett-Davies, S., and Goel, S.. 2018. “The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning.” arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00023.Google Scholar
Danks, D., and London, A. J.. 2017. “Algorithmic Bias in Autonomous Systems.” In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4691–97. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI.Google Scholar
Danziger, S., Levav, J., and Avnaim-Pesso, L.. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17): 6889–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Dieterich, W., Mendoza, C., and Brennan, T.. 2016. “COMPAS Risk Scales: Demonstrating Accuracy Equity and Predictive Parity; Performance of the COMPAS Risk Scales in Broward County.” Report, July 8, Northpointe.Google Scholar
Douglas, H. E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressel, J., and Farid, H.. 2018. “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.” Science Advances 4 (1).10.1126/sciadv.aao5580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Estelle, S. M., and Phillips, D. C.. 2018. “Smart Sentencing Guidelines: The Effect of Marginal Policy Changes on Recidivism.” Journal of Public Economics 164:270–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forward, J. 2017. “The Loomis Case: The Use of Proprietary Algorithms at Sentencing.” InsideTrack 9 (14).Google Scholar
Green, B., and Viljoen, S.. 2020. “Algorithmic Realism: Expanding the Boundaries of Algorithmic Thought.” In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’20, Barcelona, Spain, 19–31. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannah-Moffat, K. 2013. “Actuarial Sentencing: An ‘Unsettled’ Proposition.” Justice Quarterly 30 (2): 270–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, B. E. 2010. “Risk as a Proxy for Race.” SSRN Scholarly Paper 1677654, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
Kruse, K. R. 2011. “Getting Real about Legal Realism, New Legal Realism and Clinical Legal Education.” New York Law School Law Review 56:295–320.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. 1950. “Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed.” Vanderbilt Law Review 3 (3): 395–406.Google Scholar
Lopez, G. 2017. “Report: Black Men Get Longer Sentences for the Same Federal Crime as White Men.” Vox, November 17.Google Scholar
Monahan, J. 2006. “A Jurisprudence of Risk Assessment.” Virginia Law Review 92 (3): 392–435.Google Scholar
Monahan, J., and Skeem, J. L.. 2016. “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 12 (1): 489–513.10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, M. 1986. “Purblind Justice: Normative Issues in the Use of Prediction in the Criminal Justice System.” In Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals”, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, D. E. 2002. “Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy.” Report, May, US Sentencing Commission.Google Scholar
Northpointe. 2015. “Practitioners Guide to COMPAS.” Report, August 17, Northpointe. http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/technical_documents/FieldGuide2_081412.pdf.Google Scholar
Parasuraman, R., and Manzey, D. H.. 2010. “Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration.” Human Factors 52 (3): 381–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, A. L. 2019. “Injustice Ex Machina: Predictive Algorithms in Criminal Sentencing.” UCLA Law Review, February 19.Google Scholar
Pound, R. 1908. Mechanical Jurisprudence. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pound, R.. 1910. “Law in Books and Law in Action.” American Law Review 44:12–36.Google Scholar
Rachlinski, J. J., and Wistrich, A. J.. 2017. “Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges.” SSRN Scholarly Paper 2979342, Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. E. 2002. “What Makes Sentencing Facts Controversial: Four Problems Obscured by One Solution.” Villanova Law Review 47 (4): 965–88.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 1988. “Formalism.” Yale Law Journal 97 (4): 509–48.10.2307/796369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. 1988. “Legal Realism Now.” California Law Review 76 (2): 465–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solum, L. B. 2005. “Legal Theory Lexicon: Formalism and Instrumentalism.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Spamann, H., and Klöhn, L.. 2016. “Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges.” Journal of Legal Studies 45 (1): 255–80.Google Scholar
Starr, S. B. 2014. “Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination.” Stanford Law Review 66:803–72.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. T. 2018. “Assessing Risk Assessment in Action.” Minnesota Law Review 103:303–84.Google Scholar
Stith, K., and Cabranes, J. A.. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Western, B., and Wildeman, C.. 2009. “The Black Family and Mass Incarceration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 621 (1): 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar