The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment
The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment
复制标题
刑事风险评估的准确性、公平性和法理性
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Slobogin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sharad Goel;Ravi Shroff;Jennifer L Skeem;C. Slobogin
全国各地的司法管辖区，包括联邦政府通过其最近颁布的《第一步法案》，已经开始使用统计算法（也称为“工具”）来帮助确定被捕者或罪犯的重新犯罪风险。这些风险评估工具可在刑事诉讼的若干阶段使用，包括在前端由法官在定罪后作出判决，在后端由假释委员会作出关于监狱释放的决定，或在这两个阶段之间由惩教当局确定罪犯的最佳安全和服务安排。在审前阶段，在法官作出保释或审前拘留决定时，监管机构可能会发挥作用，这通常是在逮捕后不久作出的。在刑事司法系统中越来越多地使用区域审计机构引起了一些批评。据说，RAIs并不比临床评估更准确，带有种族偏见，缺乏透明度，而且由于其定量性质，不人道。本章批判性地探讨了其中的一些问题。它还强调了法律已经和应该如何应对这些问题。
Jurisdictions across the country, including the federal government through its recently enacted First Step Act, have begun using statistical algorithms (also called “instruments”) to help determine an arrestee’s or an offender’s risk of reoffending. These risk assessment instruments (RAIs) might be used at a number of points in the criminal process, including at the front-end by judges to impose a sentence after conviction, at the back-end by parole boards to make decisions about prison release, or in between these two points by correctional authorities determining the optimal security and service arrangements for an offender. At the pretrial stage, RAIs might come into play at the time of the bail or pretrial detention determination by a judge, which usually takes place shortly after arrest. The increased use of RAIs in the criminal justice system has given rise to several criticisms. RAIs are said to be no more accurate than clinical assessments, racially biased, lacking in transparency and, because of their quantitative nature, dehumanizing. This chapter critically examines a number of these concerns. It also highlights how the law has, and should, respond to these issues.