Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice. Issue 2 (June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chiao, Vincent
• Editors: Brownsword, Roger
• Is Part Of: International journal of law in context. Volume 15:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 126
• Page End: 139
• Publication Date: 2019-06
• Subjects: algorithms, -- artificial intelligence, -- big data, -- fairness, -- accountability, -- transparency, -- criminal justice; 340.11505
• DOI: 10.1017/S1744552319000077
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1744-5523

Abstract

Abstract: Over the last few years, legal scholars, policy-makers, activists and others have generated a vast and rapidly expanding literature concerning the ethical ramifications of using artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data and predictive software in criminal justice contexts. These concerns can be clustered under the headings of fairness, accountability and transparency. First, can we trust technology to be fair, especially given that the data on which the technology is based are biased in various ways? Second, whom can we blame if the technology goes wrong, as it inevitably will on occasion? Finally, does it matter if we do not know how an algorithm works or, relatedly, cannot understand how it reached its decision? I argue that, while these are serious concerns, they are not irresolvable. More importantly, the very same concerns of fairness, accountability and transparency apply, with even greater urgency, to existing modes of decision-making in criminal justice. The question, hence, is comparative: can algorithmic modes of decision-making improve upon the status quo in criminal justice? There is unlikely to be a categorical answer to this question, although there are some reasons for cautious optimism.