The Use of Algorithms for Profiling in Criminal Proceedings and Implications for Human Rights

Vol.26,No.2(2018)

Eva Fialová

https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2018-2-3

PDF (Czech)
Abstract
Algorithms are replacing activities that have previously been performed by humans. One of these activities is judicial decision making based on algorithms. It is generally assumed that algorithmic decision making, as opposed to the human decision making, is free from prejudice and bias. This assumption is problematic in two ways. Firstly, the algorithm decides according to pre-specified criteria and values. These values are chosen by humans who may include among the predefined criteria the criteria that correspond to their prejudices and preconceptions. Secondly, some algorithms may have their own learning ability, which means that the generated results are adapted to the previous ones to which were given preference in the past. The users may have the possibility to choose precedents that correspond with their point of view, which may be based on prejudice. In the United States and also in some European countries an algorithm is already being used by courts to assess whether or not it is likely that the accused (or condemned) will commit another crime in the future. The judge does not decide based on the circumstances of the case and individual characteristics of the accused. The judge decides instead on the basis of a profile. The profiles are based on personal data of the offender. Some of those data have a character of biometric data. The algorithmic decision making based on profiling raises concerns about the rights of the accused in the judicial proceedings, namely the prohibition of discrimination and the right to a fair trial.

Keywords:
Algorithms; Biometric Data; Criminal Proceedings; Discrimination; Profiling; Fair Trial.

Pages:
229–258
References

Administrative Office of the United States Courts Office of Probation and Pretrial Services. An Overview of the Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment. Uscourts [online]. 2011 [cit. 25. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: www.uscourts.gov/file/2749/download

BAIRD, Chris. A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice [online]. 2013 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf

BARNES, Geoffrey C. a Jordan M. HYATT. Classifying Adult Probationers by Forecasting Future Offending [online]. 2012 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238082.pdf

BARRY-JESTER, Anna Maria, Ben CASSELMAN a Dana GOLDSTEIN. Should Prison Sentences Be Based On Crimes That Haven’t Been Committed Yet? Fivethirtyeight.com [online]. Publikováno 4. 8. 2015 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/prison-reform-risk-assessment

BOBEK, Michal, Pavla BOUČKOVÁ a Zdeněk KÜHN (eds.). Rovnost a diskriminace. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2007. ISBN 80-903786-0-9.

BRUNTON, Finn a Helen NISSENBAUM. Vernacular resistance to data collection and analysis: A political theory of obfuscation. First Monday [online]. 2011, roč. 16, č. 5. Dostupné z: http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3493/2955

CRAWFORD, Kate. Can An Algorithm be Agonistic? Scenes of Contest in Calculated Publics [online]. 2016 [cit. 30. 4. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3351 & context=bclr

DE HERT, Paul. Biometrics and the Challenge to Human Rights in Europe. In: CAMPISI, Patrizio. Security and Privacy in Biometrics. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013. ISBN 9781447152293.

DRESSEL, Julia a Hany FARID. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances [online]. 2018, roč. 4, č. 1 [cit. 27. 1. 2018]. Dostupné z: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5580/tab-pdf

FISS, Owen M. The Bureaucratization of the Judiciary. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 1216 [online]. 1983 [cit. 30. 4. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2205 & context=fss_papers

GÜTTLER, Vojen a Ján MATEJKA. K otázkám některých základních lidských práv a svobod v souvislosti s právní ochranou biometrických údajů. Právník, Praha: Ústav státu a práva AV ČR, v. v. i., 2016, č. 12, s. 1038.

HANNAH-MOFFAT, Kelly. Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition. Justice Quarterly, 2013, roč. 30, č. 2.

HARCOURT, Bernard. Against Prediction. Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-226-31614-7.

CHRISTIN, Angèle, Alex ROSENBLAT a Danah BOYD. Courts and Predictive Algorithms [online]. 2015 [cit. 31. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Angele%20Christin.pdf

KABELOVÁ DOLEJŠOVÁ, Kristýna. Zákaz diskriminace jako právní problém v judikatuře Evropského soudu pro lidská práva. Praha: Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Právnická fakulta, 2012. ISBN 978-80-87146-60-6.

KATHLEEN, Hickey. Florida takes aim at juvenile recidivism with predictive analytics. GCN [online]. Publikováno 31. července 2015 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://gcn.com/articles/2015/07/31/juvenile-predictive-analytics.aspx

MARY, Philippe. Pénalité et gestion des risques:versune justice « actuarielle » en Europe? Déviance et Société [online]. 2001, roč. 25, č. 1 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://www.cairn.info/revue-deviance-et-societe-2001-1-page-33.htm

MOLEK, Pavel. Právo na spravedlivý proces. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2012. ISBN 978-80-7357-748-3.

PLAISIER, Janine a Jenneke VAN DITZHUIJZEN. Risico taxatie bij verlof van gedetineerden. Een (inter)nationale vergelijking van instrumenten en procedures [online]. Amsterdam: Impact R & D, 2008 [cit. 14. 5. 2016]. ISBN 978-90-79262-02-1. Dostupné z: http://mpct.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/03/Risicotaxatie-Verlof-Gedetineerden-1556_volledige_tekst_tcm44-167941-1.pdf

PRACOVNÍ SKUPINA 29. Stanovisko č. 3/2012 k vývoji biometrických technologií (WP 193). Dostupné z: https://www.uoou.cz/files/wp_193.pdf

Public Safety Assessment: A risk tool that promotes safety, equity, and justice. Laura and John Arnold Fundation [online]. Publikováno 14. srpna 2017 [cit. 25. 6. 2018]. Dostupné z: http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/public-safety-assessment-risk-tool-promotes-safety-equity-justice/

ROTH, Andrea. Trial by Machine. Georgetown Law Journal [online]. 2016, roč. 104, č. 5 [cit. 30. 4. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2743800

ROUVROY, Antoinette. “Of Data and Men”. Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in a World of Big Data [online]. 2011 [cit. 4. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://works.bepress.com/antoinette_rouvroy/64

ROUVROY, Antoinette. L‘algorithmen‘est „pas un système de prediction mais d’intervention“. Medipart [online]. 2015 [cit. 30. 4. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://www.academia.edu/12603930/Lalgorithme_nest_pas_un_système_de_prédiction_mais_d_intervention_Entretien_réalisé_par_Jérôme_Hourdeaux_pour_Mediapart_25_mai_2015

ROUVROY, Antoinette a Bernard STIEGLER. Le régime de vérité numérique. De la gouvernementalité algorithmique à un nouvel État de droit. Scio [online]. 2015, Vol. 4, s. 119 [cit. 30. 4. 2016]. Dostupné z: https://pure.fundp.ac.be/ws/files/13160335/socio_1251_4_le_regime_de_verite_numerique.pdf

SIMON, Jonathan a Malcolm FEELEY. The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications. Criminology [online]. 1992, Vol. 30, no. 4 [cit. 31. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717 & context=facpubs

SLOBOGIN, Christopher. Proving the Unprovable. The Role of Law, Science, and Speculation in Adjudicating Culpability and Dangerousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-19-518995-7.

STARR, Sonja. Evidence-Based Sentencing and the Scientific Rationalization of Discrimination. Law & Economics Working Papers [online]. 2013 [cit. 31. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/90

STARR, Sonja. Sentencing, by the Numbers. The New York Times [online]. Publikováno dne 10. srpna 2014 [cit. 31. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/90

STEINER, Christopher. Automate This. How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World. London: Penguin Books, 2012. ISBN 978-1-101-57215-3.

ŠÁMAL, P. a kol. Trestní řád. Komentář. 7. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2013.

ŠÁMAL, Pavel a kol. Trestní zákoník I. Obecná část (§ 1–139). 2. vyd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012. ISBN 978-80-7400-428-5.

UNDERWOOD, Barbara. Law and the Crystal Ball: Predicting Behavior with Statistical Inference and Individualized Judgment. Yale Law Journal [online]. 1979, roč. 88 [cit. 31. 5. 2016]. Dostupné z: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4140 & context=fss_papers

WÁGNEROVÁ, Eliška a kol. Listina základních práv a svobod. Komentář. Praha: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2012. ISBN 978-80-7357-750-6.

WIENER, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings: cybernetics and society. London: Free Association Books, 1989. ISBN 1-85343-075-7.

YANNOPOULOS, Angelos, Vassiliki ANDRONIKOU a Theodora VARVARIGOU. Behavioural Biometric Profiling and Ambient Intelligence. In: HILDEBRANDT, Mireille a Gutwirth SERGE. Profiling the European Citizen. Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. ISBN 9781402069130.

Metrics

0

Crossref logo

0

550

Views

263

PDF (Czech) views

Copyright © 2018 Eva Fialová

PDF (Czech)