Quantifying Criminal Procedure: How to Unlock the Potential of Big Data in Our Criminal Justice System

Ric Simmons
{"title":"Quantifying Criminal Procedure: How to Unlock the Potential of Big Data in Our Criminal Justice System","authors":"Ric Simmons","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2816006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Big data’s predictive algorithms have the potential to revolutionize the criminal justice system. They can make far more accurate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, thus increasing both the efficiency and the fairness of the system, since fewer innocent people will be stopped and searched. However, three significant obstacles remain before the criminal justice system can formally use predictive algorithms to help make these determinations. First, we need to ensure that neither the algorithms nor the data that they use are basing their decisions on improper factors, such as the race of the suspect. Second, under Fourth Amendment law, individualized suspicion is an essential element of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This means that either the predictive algorithms must be designed to take individualized suspicion into account, or the predictive algorithms can only be used as one factor in determining whether the legal standard has been met, forcing police and judges to combine the algorithm’s results with individualized factors. And finally, the legal standards themselves must be quantified so that police and judges can use the numerical predictions of big data in their reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. These obstacles are not insurmountable. And if the necessary changes are made, the criminal justice system will become far more transparent, since the factors the algorithms take into consideration will necessarily be open for judges and the general public alike. Furthermore, setting a quantified likelihood for reasonable suspicion and probable cause will allow us to engage in a healthy debate about what those numbers ought to be, and it will also ensure conformity across different jurisdictions.","PeriodicalId":18488,"journal":{"name":"Michigan State international law review","volume":"8 1","pages":"947"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan State international law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2816006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Big data’s predictive algorithms have the potential to revolutionize the criminal justice system. They can make far more accurate determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, thus increasing both the efficiency and the fairness of the system, since fewer innocent people will be stopped and searched. However, three significant obstacles remain before the criminal justice system can formally use predictive algorithms to help make these determinations. First, we need to ensure that neither the algorithms nor the data that they use are basing their decisions on improper factors, such as the race of the suspect. Second, under Fourth Amendment law, individualized suspicion is an essential element of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This means that either the predictive algorithms must be designed to take individualized suspicion into account, or the predictive algorithms can only be used as one factor in determining whether the legal standard has been met, forcing police and judges to combine the algorithm’s results with individualized factors. And finally, the legal standards themselves must be quantified so that police and judges can use the numerical predictions of big data in their reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations. These obstacles are not insurmountable. And if the necessary changes are made, the criminal justice system will become far more transparent, since the factors the algorithms take into consideration will necessarily be open for judges and the general public alike. Furthermore, setting a quantified likelihood for reasonable suspicion and probable cause will allow us to engage in a healthy debate about what those numbers ought to be, and it will also ensure conformity across different jurisdictions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
量化刑事程序:如何在刑事司法系统中释放大数据的潜力
大数据的预测算法有可能彻底改变刑事司法系统。他们可以更准确地确定合理的怀疑和可能的原因,从而提高系统的效率和公平性,因为无辜的人会被拦下和搜查。然而,在刑事司法系统正式使用预测算法来帮助做出这些决定之前,仍然存在三个重大障碍。首先,我们需要确保算法和它们使用的数据都不是基于不适当的因素做出决定,比如嫌疑人的种族。第二,根据第四修正案,个体化的怀疑是合理怀疑或可能原因的基本要素。这意味着,要么预测算法的设计必须考虑到个人的怀疑,要么预测算法只能作为确定是否达到法律标准的一个因素,迫使警察和法官将算法的结果与个人因素结合起来。最后,法律标准本身必须量化,以便警察和法官能够在合理怀疑和可能原因确定中使用大数据的数字预测。这些障碍并非不可逾越。如果做出必要的改变,刑事司法系统将变得更加透明,因为算法所考虑的因素必然会对法官和公众开放。此外,为合理怀疑和合理理由设定一个量化的可能性,将使我们能够就这些数字应该是什么进行健康的辩论,而且还将确保不同司法管辖区的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Incomparable Chief Justiceship of William Howard Taft Looking for a Life Raft: Citizen Voice and Votes of No Confidence Retracing the Right to Free Movement: Mapping a Path Forward Patent Reform, Then and Now The Obligation to Grant Nationality to Stateless Children under Customary International Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1