This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-Stoa-59-NEG-COMPAS_BlackBoxJudiciary.docx |
File Size | 64.01 KB |
Date added | February 28, 2022 |
Category | Archived, Policy (Stoa) |
Author | Vance Trefethen |
Resolved: The United States federal government substantially reform the use of Artificial Intelligence technology
Case Summary: The AFF plan bans the use of “Black Box” (non-transparent, mysterious algorithms) AI systems used in the judicial system to recommend bail, parole and sentencing. The most notable one (and the only one specifically mentioned in AFF evidence) is known by its acronym COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions).
NOTE: Despite AFF saying so, their evidence will never say (because it is not true) that COMPAS is used to determine guilt or innocence. AI is never used for that. AI/COMPAS is used to estimate the likelihood that a person will skip out on bail (to help make the decision whether to grant bail and if so, how high it should be), or whether a convict will likely recidivate (to help the judge decide how long a sentence he should get, or to guide the parole board on whether/when to grant parole). On some occasions, COMPAS results might be used by a witness to present character testimony at trial, but COMPAS does not take the place of the jury. It also does not “decide” the sentence, it merely gives input to the judge and the judge makes the decision.
“Loomis” was a criminal in Wisconsin who appealed his 6-year state prison sentence because he couldn’t determine how COMPAS came up with its recommendation to the sentencing judge (the algorithm isn’t fully disclosed). AFF will cite him as a living example of someone who was harmed by COMPAS. He’s actually a good source for Negative material if you dig into his situation. He pled guilty to 2 felonies related to a drive-by shooting. Judge gave him the maximum, a 6-year sentence. But if you look at his awful criminal record, you’ll come away wishing he could have gotten more. And courts have ruled that there’s no constitutional violation when a judge gives a criminal the maximum sentence. Nobody has a “right” to a lighter sentence and judges have a constitutionally protected role to use whatever input they want in sentencing. Nobody’s rights were violated and Loomis wasn’t “harmed.”