Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art
Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0049124118782533
复制
发表时间：
2021-02-01
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
Roth, Aaron
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berk, Richard;Heidari, Hoda;Roth, Aaron
目标：刑事司法风险评估中关于公平性的讨论通常缺乏概念上的精确性。修辞常常代替了仔细的分析。在这篇文章中，我们试图澄清不同类型的公平性之间的权衡，公平性和准确性之间的权衡。研究方法：我们利用犯罪学，计算机科学和统计学的现有文献，对刑事司法风险评估的公平性和准确性进行综合检查。我们还提供了一个实证说明使用数据从arraignments。结果：我们发现，至少有六种公平性，其中一些是不相容的，彼此和准确性。结论：除了在琐碎的情况下，不可能同时最大限度地提高准确性和公平性，也不可能同时满足各种公平性。在实践中，一个主要的复杂问题是不同受法律保护群体的基本费率不同。有必要考虑具有挑战性的权衡。这些经验教训适用于远远超出犯罪学的应用，在这些应用中，决策者可以使用风险评估。例子包括抵押贷款，就业，大学入学，儿童福利和医疗诊断。
Objectives: Discussions of fairness in criminal justice risk assessments typically lack conceptual precision. Rhetoric too often substitutes for careful analysis. In this article, we seek to clarify the trade-offs between different kinds of fairness and between fairness and accuracy. Methods: We draw on the existing literatures in criminology, computer science, and statistics to provide an integrated examination of fairness and accuracy in criminal justice risk assessments. We also provide an empirical illustration using data from arraignments. Results: We show that there are at least six kinds of fairness, some of which are incompatible with one another and with accuracy. Conclusions: Except in trivial cases, it is impossible to maximize accuracy and fairness at the same time and impossible simultaneously to satisfy all kinds of fairness. In practice, a major complication is different base rates across different legally protected groups. There is a need to consider challenging trade-offs. These lessons apply to applications well beyond criminology where assessments of risk can be used by decision makers. Examples include mortgage lending, employment, college admissions, child welfare, and medical diagnoses.