Criminal Justice Ethics最新文献

英文中文

Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul 从神经科学到表观遗传学，揭露、扭转和继承作为创伤的犯罪：为什么刑法还经不起另一场由生物学引发的大变革？

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2376444

Riccardo Vecellio Segate

引用次数: 0

Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility 机构腐败、机构腐蚀和集体责任

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-07-24 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2381295

Seumas Miller

引用次数: 0

Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor 量刑、人工智能和谴责：对泰勒的答复

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2373604

Jesper Ryberg

引用次数: 0

Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case 一罪不二审、无罪释放与反对不合理分案规则的法律伦理

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-04-16 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2325795

Zia Akhtar

引用次数: 0

Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare 警务工作中的道德资源分配：警务工作为何需要采用与医疗保健不同的方法

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2327819

Hannah Maslen, Colin Paine

引用次数: 0

Can Retributivism and Risk Assessment Be Reconciled? 报应主义和风险评估可以调和吗？

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2324541

Toby Napoletano, Hanna Kiri Gunn

引用次数: 0

Between Redemption and Retribution: Justifying Commutations for Life-without-parole Sentences in California 救赎与报应之间：加州无假释终身监禁减刑的合理性

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2323362

Doris Schartmueller

引用次数: 0

Fear and Actual Victimization: Exploring the Gap among Social Activists in India 恐惧与实际受害：探索印度社会活动家之间的差距

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2024-02-18 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2024.2318977

Michael L. Valan, Rohan Nahar, C. T. Coston

引用次数: 0

Gendered Challenges in the Line of Duty: Narratives of Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Violence Against Female Police Officers 执勤中的性别挑战:对女警察的性别歧视、性骚扰和暴力的叙述

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275965

R. A. Aborisade, O. G. Ariyo

AbstractGender discrimination and sexual harassment of female police officers by their male counterparts remain areas of liability where police departments appeared to have failed to effectively confront the nagging issues. However, the appreciable level of research conducted on these issues in the global North has not been matched by the South, where issues bordering on sexual violence have cultural underpinnings. Drawing from the case of the Nigeria Police Force, feminist analysis was used to explore the lived reality of 43 female officers in a qualitative study. Participants expressed distress in abiding by structural discriminatory regulations against female officers which include non-admittance of married women into the force, forbidding unmarried officers from getting pregnant, and a stipulated minimum of three-year work period before a female officer can marry. Findings also indicated that participants suffer a variety of sexual harassment, intimidation, and, violence from their male colleagues, while they feel constrained in reporting their victimization. Important policy and practical implications requiring the Nigerian police to address hegemonic masculinity and promote gender equality were provided.Keywords: discriminationfemale officersgenderNigeria policesexual harassment Disclosure Statement:[No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).]Notes1 See McGoogan, “Every Woman Police Officer;” Taylor et al., “Sexual Harassment,” NP8456–58; Sands et al., “Police Sexual Violence,” 5; Rabe-Hemp, Female Police, 87–8; Rees and Strange, Real Lives of Policewomen, 122–4.2 See England et al., “Progress toward Gender Equality,” 6990; Hazel and Kleyman, “Gender and Sex Inequalities,” 281–84; SteelFisher et al., “Gender Discrimination,” 1442–1453.3 See Dowuona-Hammond et al., “Women’s Survival in Ghana,” 3; Espi et al., “Gender inequality,” 44–46; Gradin, “Occupational Gender Segregation,” 102–3; Gyasi et al., “Explaining the Gender Gap,” 1089–91; Maunganidze, “Dealing with Gender-related Challenges” 1–3; Scent et al., “Patriarchy on Women Police,” 39–41.4 See Aborisade, “Police Abuse of Sex Workers,” 407–9; “Pandemic Policing,” 6; Aborisade and Oni, “Crime Fighters,” 243–47; “Female Offenders as Victims,” 1182-–1204; Amnesty International, “Rape-The Silent Weapon;” Mbote, et al., “Police Discrimination,” 199–203; Salihu & Fawole, “Police Crackdowns” 40–45.5 See Aborisade, “Influence of Rape Myth,” 155; “Sexual Violence at Music Festivals,” 68–70.6 See Dowler and Arai, “Stress, Gender and Policing,” 123–26; Duxbury et al., “Bringing the Badge Home,” 997.7 See Akinjobi-Babatunde, “Women Police,” 438–440; Oluwafemi, “Gender Inequality,” 433.8 See Aborisade and Oni, “Women’s Inhumanity Towards Women?” 54–56; Buhari et al., “Career Prospects,” 252; Scent et al., “Patriarchy on Women Police,” 44; Yalley and Olutayo, “Gender, Masculinity and Policing,” 7.9 See Ivković et al., “Decoding the Code,” 172–8; Skolnick, “Blue Code of Silence,”

摘要性别歧视和男警察对女警察的性骚扰仍然是警察部门未能有效应对的责任领域。然而，在全球北方对这些问题进行了相当程度的研究，而在南方，与性暴力有关的问题具有文化基础。本文以尼日利亚警察为例，运用女性主义分析对43名女警官的生活现实进行了定性研究。与会者表示，对女军官的结构性歧视规定，包括已婚妇女不得进入警队、禁止未婚人员怀孕，以及规定女军官须至少工作三年才可结婚，都令他们感到苦恼。调查结果还表明，参与者遭受了来自男同事的各种性骚扰、恐吓和暴力，而他们在报告自己的受害者时感到受限。提出了需要尼日利亚警察解决男性霸权问题和促进两性平等的重要政策和实际影响。关键词:歧视女警官性别尼日利亚警察性骚扰披露声明:作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1参见McGoogan，“Every Woman Police Officer”;Taylor et al.，“Sexual Harassment”，NP8456-58;Sands等人，“警察性暴力”，第5期;Rabe-Hemp，女警察，87-8;Rees和Strange，《女警的真实生活》，122-4.2 See England et al.，“Progress towards Gender Equality，”6990;Hazel和Kleyman，“性别和性别不平等”，281-84;SteelFisher等人，“性别歧视”，1442-1453.3见Dowuona-Hammond等人，“加纳妇女的生存”，3;Espi et al.，“性别不平等”，44-46;格拉丁，“职业性别隔离”，102-3;Gyasi et al.，《解释性别差距》，1989 - 91;Maunganidze，“处理与性别有关的挑战”1-3;Scent等人，“父权制对女警察的影响”，39-41.4见Aborisade，“警察对性工作者的虐待”，407-9;“流行病警务”，6期;Aborisade和Oni，《犯罪斗士》(Crime Fighters)， 243-47;《女性罪犯作为受害者》(1182- 1204);大赦国际，“强奸——无声的武器”，Mbote等人，“警察歧视”，199-203;Salihu & Fawole，“警察镇压”40-45.5见Aborisade，“强奸神话的影响”155;《音乐节上的性暴力》，68-70.6见道勒和新井，《压力、性别和治安》，123-26;达克斯伯里等人，“带着警徽回家”，997.7见Akinjobi-Babatunde，“女警察”，438-440;Oluwafemi，“性别不平等”，433.8见Aborisade和Oni，“女性对女性的不人道?”“54-56;Buhari等人，“职业前景”，252;Scent et al.，“父权制对女警察的影响”，44;Yalley和Olutayo，“性别、男子气概和治安”，7.9见ivkoviki等人，“解码代码”，172-8;Skolnick，“沉默的蓝色代码”，7-11.10见Aborisade，“强奸报告的障碍”，6-7;《幸存者的强奸报告经历》，第6期;Tade和Udechukwu，《强奸犯的特征》11见Fernandes，“Women in Policing”，13;瓜哈尔多，《警察中的女性》，20-22页;Sebire，“为什么性别平等”，80-82;Server，“组织文化的影响”，6.12见Acker，“性别机构”，567.13见Dowler和Arai，“压力，性别和警务，”123-27;England et al.， " Progress towards Gender Equality， " 699114 See Taylor et al.， " Sexual Harassment， " NP8458115 Taylor Greene and del Carmen， " Female Police Officers， " 385-87.16 Marshall， " Barriers for women， " 6-7.17 See Brodeur， " Female law Officers， " 9;诺维奇等人，“他们不能搜查她”，260-63.18 Morash和Haar，“性别，工作场所问题”113-14.19见Taylor等人，“性骚扰”，NP845620见McGoogan，“每个女警官”。21坎宁安和拉姆肖，《女警官的经历》，26-27.22见瓜哈尔多，《警察中的女性》，25.23见维尔马，《女警官》。5.24见普伦茨勒和辛克莱，《女警官》，115-17.25见国家统计局《关于女性的统计报告》，64.26见Onyekwere，“警察监管，性别包容性”6.27见Nnochiri，“未婚女警察”14.28该法案于2018年5月30日星期三在参议院首次宣读。29 Vanguard，“女警察”35.30见布哈里等人，“职业前景”254;Oluwafemi，“性别不平等”，436.31见Aborisade and Oni，“女性对女性的不人道?”58.32参见Stanley，“方法论很重要!”199.33参见Heidensohn，《女性主义犯罪学的未来》，123-24.34参见Renzetti，《女性主义犯罪学》，13.35参见Cunningham and Ramshaw，《女性警官的经验》，26-7.36参见addetola et al.，《研究方法》，11;金和霍罗克斯，《定性研究中的访谈》，36.37见麦克罗比，《女权主义研究的政治》，46-50.38见布朗和海德森，《性别与警务》，242;Chan等人。

{"title":"Gendered Challenges in the Line of Duty: Narratives of Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Violence Against Female Police Officers","authors":"R. A. Aborisade, O. G. Ariyo","doi":"10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275965","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractGender discrimination and sexual harassment of female police officers by their male counterparts remain areas of liability where police departments appeared to have failed to effectively confront the nagging issues. However, the appreciable level of research conducted on these issues in the global North has not been matched by the South, where issues bordering on sexual violence have cultural underpinnings. Drawing from the case of the Nigeria Police Force, feminist analysis was used to explore the lived reality of 43 female officers in a qualitative study. Participants expressed distress in abiding by structural discriminatory regulations against female officers which include non-admittance of married women into the force, forbidding unmarried officers from getting pregnant, and a stipulated minimum of three-year work period before a female officer can marry. Findings also indicated that participants suffer a variety of sexual harassment, intimidation, and, violence from their male colleagues, while they feel constrained in reporting their victimization. Important policy and practical implications requiring the Nigerian police to address hegemonic masculinity and promote gender equality were provided.Keywords: discriminationfemale officersgenderNigeria policesexual harassment Disclosure Statement:[No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).]Notes1 See McGoogan, “Every Woman Police Officer;” Taylor et al., “Sexual Harassment,” NP8456–58; Sands et al., “Police Sexual Violence,” 5; Rabe-Hemp, Female Police, 87–8; Rees and Strange, Real Lives of Policewomen, 122–4.2 See England et al., “Progress toward Gender Equality,” 6990; Hazel and Kleyman, “Gender and Sex Inequalities,” 281–84; SteelFisher et al., “Gender Discrimination,” 1442–1453.3 See Dowuona-Hammond et al., “Women’s Survival in Ghana,” 3; Espi et al., “Gender inequality,” 44–46; Gradin, “Occupational Gender Segregation,” 102–3; Gyasi et al., “Explaining the Gender Gap,” 1089–91; Maunganidze, “Dealing with Gender-related Challenges” 1–3; Scent et al., “Patriarchy on Women Police,” 39–41.4 See Aborisade, “Police Abuse of Sex Workers,” 407–9; “Pandemic Policing,” 6; Aborisade and Oni, “Crime Fighters,” 243–47; “Female Offenders as Victims,” 1182-–1204; Amnesty International, “Rape-The Silent Weapon;” Mbote, et al., “Police Discrimination,” 199–203; Salihu & Fawole, “Police Crackdowns” 40–45.5 See Aborisade, “Influence of Rape Myth,” 155; “Sexual Violence at Music Festivals,” 68–70.6 See Dowler and Arai, “Stress, Gender and Policing,” 123–26; Duxbury et al., “Bringing the Badge Home,” 997.7 See Akinjobi-Babatunde, “Women Police,” 438–440; Oluwafemi, “Gender Inequality,” 433.8 See Aborisade and Oni, “Women’s Inhumanity Towards Women?” 54–56; Buhari et al., “Career Prospects,” 252; Scent et al., “Patriarchy on Women Police,” 44; Yalley and Olutayo, “Gender, Masculinity and Policing,” 7.9 See Ivković et al., “Decoding the Code,” 172–8; Skolnick, “Blue Code of Silence,”","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135391261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Justice by Algorithm: The Limits of AI in Criminal Sentencing 算法正义:人工智能在刑事量刑中的局限性

Q2 Social Sciences

Criminal Justice Ethics

Pub Date : 2023-11-03 DOI: 10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275967

Isaac Taylor

AbstractCriminal justice systems have traditionally relied heavily on human decision-making, but new technologies are increasingly supplementing the human role in this sector. This paper considers what general limits need to be placed on the use of algorithms in sentencing decisions. It argues that, even once we can build algorithms that equal human decision-making capacities, strict constraints need to be placed on how they are designed and developed. The act of condemnation is a valuable element of criminal sentencing, and using algorithms in sentencing – even in an advisory role – threatens to undermine this value. The paper argues that a principle of “meaningful public control” should be met in all sentencing decisions if they are to retain their condemnatory status. This principle requires that agents who have standing to act on behalf of the wider political community retain moral responsibility for all sentencing decisions. While this principle does not rule out the use of algorithms, it does require limits on how they are constructed.Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI)criminal justiceFeinbergJoelpunishmentsentencing algorithms [I am very grateful to audiences at the Higher Seminar in Philosophy of Law at Uppsala University; the Political Theory Seminar at Stockholm University; and the workshop on “Ethics of AI in the Public Sector” at KTH Royal Institute of Technology for discussions on previous drafts of this paper; as well as to the anonymous reviewers from Criminal Justice Ethics for very helpful comments.][Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)].Notes1 Danziger, Levav and Avnaim-Pesso, “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.”2 Pamela McCroduck suggests that many members of disadvantaged groups may want to take their chances with an impartial computer over a (potentially biased) human judge. See McCorduck, Machines Who Think, 375.3 Yong, “A Popular Algorithm is No Better at Predicting Crimes Than Random People.”4 Angwin, Larson, Mattu, and Kirchner, “Machine Bias.” The question of whether algorithms can avoid objectionable forms of discrimination has been addressed in Davis and Douglas, “Learning to Discriminate: The Perfect Proxy Problem in Artificially Intelligent Criminal Sentencing.”5 Dressel and Farid, “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.”6 One worry here is that there is no possible algorithm that can simultaneously meet various intuitively plausible criteria of fairness. See, for example, Chouldechova, “Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact.” I set this issue aside for the purposes of this paper, and assume that a fair algorithm is at least possible to construct. This might be because some of the purported criteria of fairness which cannot be met simultaneously are not, in fact, genuine moral requirements. Cf. Hedden, “On Statistical Criteria of Algorithmic Fairness;” Eva, “Algorithmic Fairness and Base Rate Tracking.”7 For the purposes of this paper, “

摘要刑事司法系统传统上严重依赖于人的决策，但新技术越来越多地补充了人在这一领域的作用。本文考虑了在量刑决策中使用算法需要设置的一般限制。它认为，即使我们能够构建出与人类决策能力相当的算法，也需要对它们的设计和开发方式施加严格的限制。谴责行为是刑事判决的一个有价值的因素，在判决中使用算法- -即使是作为咨询的角色- -有可能破坏这一价值。这篇论文认为，如果要保持量刑的地位，就应该在所有量刑决定中遵守“有意义的公共控制”原则。这一原则要求有资格代表更广泛的政治团体行事的代理人对所有量刑决定负有道德责任。虽然这一原则并不排除算法的使用，但它确实要求对它们的构造方式进行限制。关键词:人工智能(AI)刑事司法feinberg joelpunishment量刑算法我非常感谢在乌普萨拉大学法律哲学高级研讨会上的观众;斯德哥尔摩大学政治理论研讨会;以及在KTH皇家理工学院举办的“公共部门人工智能伦理”研讨会，讨论本文件的先前草稿;以及来自《刑事司法伦理》的匿名评论者，他们的评论非常有帮助。[披露声明:作者未报告潜在的利益冲突]。注1 Danziger, Levav和Avnaim-Pesso，“司法判决中的外来因素”。帕梅拉·麦克罗达克认为，许多弱势群体的成员可能更愿意选择一个公正的计算机，而不是一个(可能有偏见的)人类法官。参见McCorduck，会思考的机器，375.3 Yong，“一个流行的算法在预测犯罪方面并不比随机的人好。”4 Angwin, Larson, Mattu, and Kirchner， <机器偏见>算法是否能避免不良的问题形式的歧视已经在戴维斯和道格拉斯,解决“学习区别:完美的代理问题在人工智能的刑事判决。5 Dressel and Farid，《预测累犯的准确性、公平性和局限性》。这里的一个担忧是，没有可能的算法可以同时满足各种直觉上合理的公平标准。例如，请参阅Chouldechova的“具有不同影响的公平预测”。为了本文的目的，我把这个问题放在一边，并假设至少有可能构建一个公平的算法。这可能是因为一些不能同时满足的所谓公平标准实际上并不是真正的道德要求。参见Hedden，“论算法公平的统计标准”;Eva，“算法公平与基准率跟踪”。“7为本文的目的，“量刑决定”将不仅包括在定罪后立即对罪犯作出的严重程度和量刑类型的初步决定，而且还包括在执行刑罚时作出的类似决定(例如在假释听证会上)人们注意到，关于风险评估分数如何更普遍地用于刑事司法系统的研究存在空白。参见英格兰和威尔士法律协会，“刑事司法系统中的算法”。52.9 Skitka, Mosier和Burdick，《自动化会影响决策吗?》我所说的“客观”是指这些因素不包括个人的评价或心理反应。与主观因素的对比将在适当的时候进行功利主义者边沁认为，减少犯罪是刑事惩罚的唯一合法目的。参见边沁，《道德与立法原则导论》，170-203.12摩尔，《怪罪》，13瑞伯格，《风险与报应》。并非所有的报复主义者都反对基于风险的量刑。参见胡萨克，“为什么法律哲学家(包括报应主义)应该更少抵制基于风险的判决。”14 Cf. Chiao，“预测比例”，341-3.15基于先前司法判决的建议的算法可能为这些因素提供有用的代理。类似的算法在同上被设想过。Jesper Ryberg注意到报应主义者试图证明使用现有案例作为输入的机器学习算法是合理的一个困境。这些算法要么依赖于一个太小而无法给出可接受结果的样本，要么依赖于一个太大而难以构建的样本。看到Ryberg量刑差异和人工智能。16 Abney，“自主机器人与正义战争理论的未来”，347;Wallach and valor，道德机器。17达夫:《惩罚、交流与社区》，第175-202页;《刑法主体的社会化》;《沙漠、民主与量刑改革》。 18报复因素可能被认为具有这种形式。19一直到20世纪70年代，美国刑事司法系统之所以给予法官如此广泛的自由裁量权，是出于工具性的原因。参见Berman，“重新平衡句子的适宜性、公平性和终了性”，157-8.20这可能是基于这样一种观点，即在某种程度上，应得是比较的，在某种意义上，某人应得的(例如，报应主义的适当判决)可能取决于其他人得到了什么。关于这个观点，请参见米勒的《比较与非比较沙漠》。21另一个著名的例子，见Wringe:《惩罚的表达理论》。22 Feinberg:《惩罚的表达功能》，400.23同上，397-8.24同上，404-8。我们可以补充说，谴责可能受到工具主义者(因为谴责的可能性可以作为一种有用的抑制因素)和报复主义者(因为谴责产生的耻辱可能构成严厉对待的一部分，报复主义者认为这是有内在价值的)的欢迎关于表现主义者应该支持对仇恨犯罪判处更严厉刑罚的观点，请见威尔曼:《为仇恨犯罪判处更严厉刑罚辩护》，68.30诺齐克:《哲学解释》，370.31 Cf.谢尔比:《黑暗的贫民窟》，240-241，其中认为是定罪(而不是量刑)阶段涉及表达因素Boonin, The Problem of Punishment, 176-9.33关于谴责是有价值的，但不足以证明惩罚本身是正当的观点，见Narayan，“适当的反应和预防性利益”;Hirsh，谴责和制裁，6-19.34应该指出，某些可能被标记为“交际”而不是表达的惩罚理论也可能解释为什么算法的某些使用存在问题。这些理论表明，惩罚应该是一种互惠行为，需要被惩罚者一定程度的理性参与(例如，参见Duff, punishment, Communication, and Community;汉普顿，《惩罚的道德教育理论》)。因为某些算法可能无法向那些被判刑的人解释，理性参与可能是不可能的。虽然这个想法值得进一步注意，但我无法在本文中提供它Fischer和Ravizza，责任和控制，12-4.36，这些不同形式的责任的有用概述，见Jeppsson，“问责制，可回答性和归因性。”37沃森，《责任的两面》，229.38夏基，《自主武器系统、杀手机器人和人类尊严》，《麻雀》，《机器人和尊重》，《麻雀》，《杀手机器人》，67;泰勒，“谁该对杀人机器人负责”，232-3.39这个概念已经成为制定正在进行的关于法律监管的国际谈判的指导原则。见联合国日内瓦办事处，“致命自主武器系统领域新兴技术政府专家组2019年会议报告”，25.40例如，见麻雀，“杀手机器人”。41 Santoni de Sia和van den Hoven，“对自主系统的有意义的人类控制”。42泰勒，《谁该为杀手机器人负责?》234.43可解释性是人工智能伦理的一个被广泛认可的要求，原因与这里概述的不同。参见Floridi和Cowls，“人工智能在社会中的五项原则的统一框架”，7。可解释性的重要性在弗里登伯格的《解释的权利》一书中得到了更广泛的讨论。关于我们希望从算法中获得的可解释性，请参见Chiao，“量刑时的透明度”;Ryberg，“量刑与算法透明度”;Ryberg和Petersen，“量刑与算法准确性与透明度之间的冲突”。44 Roff和Moyes，“有意义的人类控制，人工智能和自主武器。”(45 Cf. Wellman，权利没收与惩罚，49.46)关于惩罚(而不是

{"title":"Justice by Algorithm: The Limits of AI in Criminal Sentencing","authors":"Isaac Taylor","doi":"10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.2023.2275967","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractCriminal justice systems have traditionally relied heavily on human decision-making, but new technologies are increasingly supplementing the human role in this sector. This paper considers what general limits need to be placed on the use of algorithms in sentencing decisions. It argues that, even once we can build algorithms that equal human decision-making capacities, strict constraints need to be placed on how they are designed and developed. The act of condemnation is a valuable element of criminal sentencing, and using algorithms in sentencing – even in an advisory role – threatens to undermine this value. The paper argues that a principle of “meaningful public control” should be met in all sentencing decisions if they are to retain their condemnatory status. This principle requires that agents who have standing to act on behalf of the wider political community retain moral responsibility for all sentencing decisions. While this principle does not rule out the use of algorithms, it does require limits on how they are constructed.Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI)criminal justiceFeinbergJoelpunishmentsentencing algorithms [I am very grateful to audiences at the Higher Seminar in Philosophy of Law at Uppsala University; the Political Theory Seminar at Stockholm University; and the workshop on “Ethics of AI in the Public Sector” at KTH Royal Institute of Technology for discussions on previous drafts of this paper; as well as to the anonymous reviewers from Criminal Justice Ethics for very helpful comments.][Disclosure Statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)].Notes1 Danziger, Levav and Avnaim-Pesso, “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.”2 Pamela McCroduck suggests that many members of disadvantaged groups may want to take their chances with an impartial computer over a (potentially biased) human judge. See McCorduck, Machines Who Think, 375.3 Yong, “A Popular Algorithm is No Better at Predicting Crimes Than Random People.”4 Angwin, Larson, Mattu, and Kirchner, “Machine Bias.” The question of whether algorithms can avoid objectionable forms of discrimination has been addressed in Davis and Douglas, “Learning to Discriminate: The Perfect Proxy Problem in Artificially Intelligent Criminal Sentencing.”5 Dressel and Farid, “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.”6 One worry here is that there is no possible algorithm that can simultaneously meet various intuitively plausible criteria of fairness. See, for example, Chouldechova, “Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact.” I set this issue aside for the purposes of this paper, and assume that a fair algorithm is at least possible to construct. This might be because some of the purported criteria of fairness which cannot be met simultaneously are not, in fact, genuine moral requirements. Cf. Hedden, “On Statistical Criteria of Algorithmic Fairness;” Eva, “Algorithmic Fairness and Base Rate Tracking.”7 For the purposes of this paper, “","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135818630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Criminal Justice Ethics

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀