论逮捕作为犯罪代理的有效性:种族与暴力犯罪逮捕的可能性

Riccardo Fogliato, Alice Xiang, Z. Lipton, D. Nagin, A. Chouldechova
{"title":"论逮捕作为犯罪代理的有效性:种族与暴力犯罪逮捕的可能性","authors":"Riccardo Fogliato, Alice Xiang, Z. Lipton, D. Nagin, A. Chouldechova","doi":"10.1145/3461702.3462538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Re-offense risk is considered in decision-making at many stages of the criminal justice system, from pre-trial, to sentencing, to parole. To aid decision-makers in their assessments, institutions increasingly rely on algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs). These tools assess the likelihood that an individual will be arrested for a new criminal offense within some time window following their release. However, since not all crimes result in arrest, RAIs do not directly assess the risk of re-offense. Furthermore, disparities in the likelihood of arrest can potentially lead to biases in the resulting risk scores. Several recent validations of RAIs have therefore focused on arrests for violent offenses, which are viewed as being more accurate and less biased reflections of offending behavior. In this paper, we investigate biases in violent arrest data by analysing racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest for White and Black violent offenders. We focus our study on 2007--2016 incident-level data of violent offenses from 16 US states as recorded in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Our analysis shows that the magnitude and direction of the racial disparities depend on various characteristics of the crimes. In addition, our investigation reveals large variations in arrest rates across geographical locations and offense types. We discuss the implications of the observed disconnect between re-arrest and re-offense in the context of RAIs and the challenges around the use of data from NIBRS to correct for the sampling bias.","PeriodicalId":197336,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Validity of Arrest as a Proxy for Offense: Race and the Likelihood of Arrest for Violent Crimes\",\"authors\":\"Riccardo Fogliato, Alice Xiang, Z. Lipton, D. Nagin, A. Chouldechova\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3461702.3462538\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Re-offense risk is considered in decision-making at many stages of the criminal justice system, from pre-trial, to sentencing, to parole. To aid decision-makers in their assessments, institutions increasingly rely on algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs). These tools assess the likelihood that an individual will be arrested for a new criminal offense within some time window following their release. However, since not all crimes result in arrest, RAIs do not directly assess the risk of re-offense. Furthermore, disparities in the likelihood of arrest can potentially lead to biases in the resulting risk scores. Several recent validations of RAIs have therefore focused on arrests for violent offenses, which are viewed as being more accurate and less biased reflections of offending behavior. In this paper, we investigate biases in violent arrest data by analysing racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest for White and Black violent offenders. We focus our study on 2007--2016 incident-level data of violent offenses from 16 US states as recorded in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Our analysis shows that the magnitude and direction of the racial disparities depend on various characteristics of the crimes. In addition, our investigation reveals large variations in arrest rates across geographical locations and offense types. We discuss the implications of the observed disconnect between re-arrest and re-offense in the context of RAIs and the challenges around the use of data from NIBRS to correct for the sampling bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":197336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462538\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462538","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

在刑事司法系统的许多阶段,从预审、量刑到假释,都要考虑再犯的风险。为了帮助决策者进行评估,机构越来越依赖于算法风险评估工具(RAIs)。这些工具评估一个人在释放后的一段时间内因新的刑事犯罪而被捕的可能性。然而,由于不是所有的犯罪都会导致逮捕,RAIs并不直接评估再次犯罪的风险。此外,被捕可能性的差异可能会导致风险评分的偏差。因此,最近几次对RAIs的验证都集中在暴力犯罪的逮捕上,这被认为是对犯罪行为更准确、更少偏见的反映。在本文中,我们通过分析白人和黑人暴力罪犯被捕可能性的种族差异来调查暴力逮捕数据中的偏见。我们的研究重点是2007- 2016年美国16个州的暴力犯罪事件级数据,这些数据记录在国家事件报告系统(NIBRS)中。我们的分析表明,种族差异的程度和方向取决于犯罪的各种特征。此外,我们的调查显示,不同地理位置和罪行类型的逮捕率差异很大。我们讨论了在RAIs背景下观察到的再逮捕和再犯罪之间脱节的含义,以及围绕使用NIBRS数据来纠正抽样偏差的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
On the Validity of Arrest as a Proxy for Offense: Race and the Likelihood of Arrest for Violent Crimes
Re-offense risk is considered in decision-making at many stages of the criminal justice system, from pre-trial, to sentencing, to parole. To aid decision-makers in their assessments, institutions increasingly rely on algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs). These tools assess the likelihood that an individual will be arrested for a new criminal offense within some time window following their release. However, since not all crimes result in arrest, RAIs do not directly assess the risk of re-offense. Furthermore, disparities in the likelihood of arrest can potentially lead to biases in the resulting risk scores. Several recent validations of RAIs have therefore focused on arrests for violent offenses, which are viewed as being more accurate and less biased reflections of offending behavior. In this paper, we investigate biases in violent arrest data by analysing racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest for White and Black violent offenders. We focus our study on 2007--2016 incident-level data of violent offenses from 16 US states as recorded in the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Our analysis shows that the magnitude and direction of the racial disparities depend on various characteristics of the crimes. In addition, our investigation reveals large variations in arrest rates across geographical locations and offense types. We discuss the implications of the observed disconnect between re-arrest and re-offense in the context of RAIs and the challenges around the use of data from NIBRS to correct for the sampling bias.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Improving Fairness in Budget-Constrained Decision Making using Confidence Thresholds Measuring Automated Influence: Between Empirical Evidence and Ethical Values Artificial Intelligence and the Purpose of Social Systems Ethically Compliant Planning within Moral Communities Co-design and Ethical Artificial Intelligence for Health: Myths and Misconceptions
×
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