Study: Private prisons result in more inmates, longer sentences
The Labour Economics study suggests two potential reasons for the increase: corruption and increased capacity.
18 September, 2020
<ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
<p>The '80s and '90s witnessed a rash of strict sentencing laws. Voters who lived through the <a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates" target="_blank">rise of violent crime in the '60s and '70s</a> offered full-throated support for such laws. Anxious to woo such voters, legislators hawked <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">tough-on-crime</a> rhetoric and passed ever-punitive legislation, such as Reagan's creation of mandatory minimum sentences through <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-tough-on-crime-drug-sentencing/360983/" target="_blank">the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986</a>.</p><p>In hindsight, the consequences are as obvious as they are unsettling. Stricter laws gave judges less latitude in sentencing, and prison populations skyrocketed across the country. By 1990, state prison populations reached <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p00.pdf" target="_blank">115 percent of their highest capacity</a>. Unable to house their new charges, nor garner equally enthusiastic support for the taxes necessary to fund building new facilities, some states turned to for-profit prison companies to manage the influx. As of 2019, <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/1/20989336/private-prisons-states-bans-califonia-nevada-colorado" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">28 states</a> incarcerate people in for-profit prisons.</p><p>Given this history, it's not without irony that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537120301123" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a new study published in Labour Economics</a> found privately-run prisons don't help states manage incarceration. The presence of such prisons may actually increase the number of incarcerated individuals as well as their sentence lengths.</p>
Cool hand rebuke
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQyMTIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjY1NTYyOH0.0MCPKN3If94mYCNf3mMNrnTvJXjXN_bKLhgk9203EXk/img.jpg?width=917&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0&height=453" id="1627b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6d76421ba1ea0de4b09956b97e80c384" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />A chart showing prison population rates (per 100,000 people) in 2018. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.
<p>Researchers at Washington State University sought to determine how the availability of private prisons affected rates of incarceration in the United States. To answer that question, they performed a regression analysis on state and individual data from 1989 to 2008. Their analysis revealed a positive correlation.</p><p>As the number of private-prison beds increased per capita, so too did sentence lengths and the number of incarcerated people per capita. All told, the increase was 178 prisoners per million population per year. That comes to a taxpayer-funded bill between approximately $2-10 million annually—assuming those additional prisoners are housed in privately-run facilities. When it comes to increased sentence lengths, Gregmar Galinato, a professor in WSU's School of Economic Sciences who co-authored the study, notes that not all crimes are judged equally.</p><p>"For crimes like property damage, fraud, or non-violent drug crimes—crimes where judges have more leeway in sentencing—states saw higher sentencing rates and significant increases in sentence lengths when private prisons were established," he <a href="https://news.wsu.edu/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/" target="_blank">said in a release</a>.</p><p>The researchers advanced two potential explanations for this interstate discrepancy. The first is good old-fashioned <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/mississippi-closes-private-prison-walnut-grove.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">corruption</a>. In states where they operate, for-profit companies can incentivize legislators to push for stricter sentencing laws and bribe judges to inflate sentence lengths.</p><p>A haunting modern example is the "<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pennsylvania-seeks-close-books-kids-cash-scandal-n408666" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kids for Cash</a>" scandal. In 2007, the Juvenile Law Center began receiving reports that hundreds of Pennsylvania juveniles were being tried and sentenced without defense lawyers present as representation. An investigation revealed that Robert Powell, a co-owner of two private juvenile prisons, was paying off two judges to return guilty verdicts and severe sentences to bolster incarceration at his facilities.</p><p>The second explanation is simply the availability of prison beds. As Galinato explains, judges become more hesitant to send non-violent offenders to prison in states where capacity is a concern. However, privately-run prisons reduce such concerns, making it easier for judges to mete out harsher punishments.</p>Who profits with for-profit prisons?
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="97ac37e6c7f6f22ec130ea2d56871701"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dB78NV2WpWc?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>The Labour Economics study suggests that privately-run prisons do convicts a few favors at the moment of sentencing. However, proponents of private prisons often point to other benefits when making their case. Specifically, they argue that private prisons reduce operating costs, stimulate innovation in the correctional system, and reduce recidivism—the rate at which released prisoners are rearrested and return to prison.</p><p>In regard to recidivism, the research is mixed. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank">One study</a> compared roughly 400 former prisoners from Florida, 200 released from private prisons and 200 from state-run facilities. It found the private-prison cohort maintained lower rates of recidivism. However, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00006.x" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">another Florida study</a> found no significant rate differences. And two other studies—one from <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0011128799045001002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Oklahoma</a> and another out of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016813478823" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Minnesota</a>, both comparing much larger cohorts than the first Florida study— found that prisoners leaving private prisons had a greater risk of recidivism.</p><p>The research is also inconclusive regarding cost savings. <a href="https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/files/economics_of_private_prisons.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A Hamilton Project analysis</a> noted that such comparisons are difficult because private prisons, like all private companies, are not required to release operational details. In comparing what studies were available, the authors estimate the costs to be comparable and that "in practice the primary mechanism for cost saving in private prisons is lower salaries for correctional officers"—about $7,000 less than their public peers. They add that competition-driven innovation is lacking as the three largest firms control nearly the entire market.</p><p>"We aren't saying private prisons are bad," Galinato said. "But states need to be careful with them. If your state has previous and regular issues with corruption, I wouldn't be surprised to see laws being more skewed to give longer sentences, for example. If the goal is to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals, increasing the number of private prisons may not be the way to go."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
8 powerful speakers that might make you think differently about racism
8 powerful voices share what it's like to be black in America, and why white people must break the racist status quo.
19 June, 2020
- Black communities have been telling the nation, for more than a century, that they have been targeted, beaten, falsely accused and killed by the police and other institutions meant to protect them.
- They have not been believed until recently, when the rise in camera phones and social media finally enabled them show and disseminate proof.
- Even after the video of George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, there remains defensiveness and denial among white Americans and institutions—a defensiveness that prevents change to the root of the problem: systemic racism. In this video, eight powerful voices share perspectives on being black in America, and why white inaction and white politeness must end.
To learn more about what you can do to end the racist status quo, educate yourself and take action. Here is Robin DiAngelo's list of resources.
Why are some psychopaths 'successful'? It may depend on one personality trait
What makes some psychopaths better able to control their antisocial tendencies?
13 May, 2020
Lions Gate Films/Columbia Pictures
- Researchers have long struggled to explain the stark differences in life outcomes of psychopaths.
- A new study suggests that the personality trait conscientiousness helps psychopaths develop impulse-control skills over time.
- However, this process seems to apply only to individuals who score high in certain psychopathic traits.
<p>What explains the stark differences in the life outcomes of psychopaths? Consider that one in five CEOs is a psychopath. That same rate also applies to prisoners. Of course, not all psychopaths are business leaders and criminals. But researchers have long struggled to explain why some psychopaths are relatively "successful," and others engage in antisocial behavior that ruins lives.</p><p>Now, a <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/rjg3q/" target="_blank">new study</a> — set to be published in the journal Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment — aims to shed light on the factors that control psychopathic behavior.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Psychopathic individuals are very prone to engaging in antisocial behaviors but what our findings suggest is that some may actually be better able to inhibit these impulses than others," lead author Emily Lasko, a doctoral candidate in the <a href="https://psychology.vcu.edu/" target="_blank">Department of Psychology</a> at Virginia Commonwealth University, told VCU News. "Although we don't know exactly what precipitates this increase in conscientious impulse control over time, we do know that this does occur for individuals high in certain psychopathy traits who have been relatively more 'successful' than their peers."</p>
'Successful' versus 'unsuccessful' psychopaths
<p>The study notes that psychopathy exists on a spectrum in society, and it can manifest through a variety of personality traits, such as interpersonal manipulation, impulsivity, callousness, grandiosity, and boldness. Some traits may help psychopaths become "successful," defined as those who adapt to social norms and avoid incarceration.</p><p>For example, the psychopathic trait fearlessness may help a psychopath become a good first-responder, while interpersonal manipulation might help a psychopath become an effective lawyer. In contrast, the psychopathic trait impulsivity may make a psychopath more likely to commit crime.</p><p>The researchers hypothesized that psychopaths who are able develop impulse-control skills are more likely to be successful. The team suggested that successful psychopaths develop a mechanism that gives them greater control over their behavior, helping them thwart their heightened antisocial impulses.</p><p>Conscientiousness is the trait that predicts whether a psychopath will develop this mechanism, according to the study.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The compensatory model posits that people higher in certain psychopathic traits (such as grandiosity and manipulation) are able to compensate for and overcome, to some extent, their antisocial impulses via increases in trait conscientiousness, specifically impulse control," Lasko said.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI3Nzk5NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTA5ODY5MX0.LD4gtXrapdyGXtEuCBWv0P0tVbGZAiMnJl9TSsbgiAU/img.png?width=980" id="59e71" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d640951d0333c77a188759c480d59a3d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Lasko et al.
<p>To test the hypothesis, the researchers examined data from a seven-year longitudinal study on adolescent criminals in Arizona and Pennsylvania.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Although these participants are not objectively 'successful,' this was an ideal sample to test our hypotheses for two main reasons," the researchers wrote. "First, adolescents are in a prime developmental phase for the improvement of impulse control. Allowing us the longitudinal variability we would need to test our compensatory model. Second, offenders are prone to antisocial acts, by definition, and their rates of recidivism provided a real-world index of 'successful' versus 'unsuccessful' psychopathy phenotypes."</p><p>The study found that adolescents who scored high in grandiose-manipulative psychopathic traits early in the study were more likely to develop better impulse control and less aggression over time. Psychopaths who scored higher in impulsivity didn't see as much of an increase.</p><p>The findings support the idea that psychopathy isn't just about personality deficits, but rather a combination of heightened and diminished traits, some of which compensate for each other over time.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Our findings support a novel model of psychopathy that we propose, which runs contradictory to the other existing models of psychopathy in that it focuses more on the strengths or 'surpluses' associated with psychopathy rather than just deficits," she said. "Psychopathy is not a personality trait simply composed of deficits — there are many forms that it can take."</p><p>The findings also suggest that the Big Five model of personality — of which conscientiousness is part — is an important tool for understanding psychopathy.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Together, these results point to the consequential nature of the development of conscientious traits for psychopathic individuals, which may promote adaptive re-entry into society. Indeed, even 'unsuccessful' offenders in our sample exhibited associations between their grandiose-manipulative traits and greater impulse control (albeit to a substantially lesser degree)."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
We spoke to hundreds of prison gang members – here’s what they said about life behind bars
Over 800 prisoners in Texas relate their experiences.
24 April, 2020
OSCAR RIVERA/AFP via Getty Images
The United States incarcerates a larger proportion of its citizens than any other developed country in the world, with around 1.5 million people serving time in prison.
<p> But to anyone who doesn't work or live in a facility, life behind bars largely remains a <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-hidden-behind-the-walls-of-americas-prisons-77282" target="_blank">mystery</a>. The public gets a glimpse of life on the inside only when there are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/mississippi-prisons.html" target="_blank">riots</a>, <a href="https://time.com/5722795/rodney-reed-innocent-execution-protests/" target="_blank">executions</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-jail-officers.html" target="_blank">scandals</a>.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/sociology/david-pyrooz" target="_blank">criminologists</a>, <a href="https://publicservice.asu.edu/content/scott-decker" target="_blank">we</a> spent nine months interviewing over 800 prisoners in Texas in 2016. They told us about their lives before and during prison, as well as their impending return to the community, a journey shared by <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf" target="_blank">over 600,000 people each year</a>.</p><p>We also learned about a significant reality in prisons: gangs. </p><p>Our <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Competing-Control-Gangs-Social-Prisons-ebook/dp/B07WNJR435" target="_blank">new book</a> pulls back the curtain on how gangs compete for control and structure prison life. Gangs wield power behind bars, but they are more fractured and have less control than people believe.</p>
<h2>Getting in, getting out</h2><p>Despite fairly extensive research on street gangs, there is little research on gangs in prison.</p><p>Conducting research in prisons is rare because it is hard to gain access. Prison officials tend to be risk-averse and loathe to let outsiders inside the walls. Even if researchers get inside, there's the possibility that prisoners will not participate in interviews. When the topic is gangs, these issues are even bigger.</p><p>That was not our experience. About half of the people we interviewed were affiliated with gangs. Gang and nongang prisoners told us, "I'd rather talk to you than sit in my cell." They saw the interview as cathartic; they were able to "get things off their chest" to a neutral party.</p><h2>The 'war years'</h2><p>Prison gangs exploded across the U.S. with the rise of <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes" target="_blank">mass incarceration</a> in the 1980s. Texas prisons were mostly gang-free until bloody battles broke out in 1984-85 between the Mexican Mafia and Texas Syndicate as well as the Aryan Brotherhood and Mandingo Warriors. Fifty-two prisoners were murdered in a 21-month period that became known as the "<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288559107100205?journalCode=tpjd" target="_blank">war years</a>."</p><p>Over 50 different gangs were represented in our study. Most of these gangs were active in prison and on the street. All of the 12 "security threat groups," or STGs as they are termed by prison officials, fit the classic view of prison gangs: organized, conspiratorial and violent. The remaining gangs are called "cliques." If security threat groups are like criminal organizations, cliques are like a band of criminals without clear leadership, direction or structure.</p><p>Race and ethnicity mattered to all gangs. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=shmK3PaaT_UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=life+in+the+gang&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj69PLKocboAhUCOs0KHTdPDdEQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=life%20in%20the%20gang&f=false" target="_blank">Geographic proximity</a> is the great social sorter for street gangs; it is race and ethnicity for prison gangs. Nearly all of the prison gangs were composed of a single race or ethnicity.</p><p>The people we spoke with made it clear that prison gangs in Texas are not what they used to be. Prison gangs were described as "watered down," no longer having the teeth to enforce rules, especially the security threat groups. Few prisoners, including gang members, believed that gangs brought order to prisons or made prisons safer, a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/how-gangs-took-over-prisons/379330/" target="_blank">claim often made about prison gangs</a>. The perception of power is stronger than its reality.</p>
<h2>Wielding power</h2><p>While gangs may not have iron-fisted control over prison life, it would be wrong to think they lack influence. If gang members compose only a minority of prisoners, around 20% in Texas according to our research, how do they wield power?</p><p>Violence.</p><p>Gangs use violence to resolve disputes, discipline members and protect their interests. Stories of violence are passed down across generations to ensure the memory lives on. The "war years" occurred more than 30 years ago, yet still loom large in the minds of the people we interviewed.</p><p>Gangs bring a different flavor to prison violence. There is a multiplier effect. A violent incident involving a gang member expands the pool of future victims and offenders because of the collective gang identity. Being in a gang means assuming these liabilities.</p>
<h2>Joining the gang</h2><p>For the uninitiated, <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/10/24/being-a-prisoner-is-like-being-a-ghost" target="_blank">prison is scary</a>. People are stripped of their identity, roles and status from the outside. About half of the prison population is convicted of a <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html" target="_blank">violent offense</a>. Joining a gang would seem like a pretty good decision.</p><p>Our research reveals that about 10% of inmates in Texas joined a gang for the first time in prison, while another 10% imported their gang affiliation from the street. Status and protection were common reasons for joining a gang in prison, much like on the street. But ideology was also important, such as race supremacy or vigilantism, which we rarely observe in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Gangs-Community-David-Curry/dp/0199891915" target="_blank">street gangs</a>.</p><p>Still, most prisoners don't end up in gangs. That's true even though avoiding gangs is harder in prison than on the street. Nongang members get their affiliations "checked" and are often recruited when they step onto a prison unit. Those that want to avoid gangs cite their religion, homosexuality or even status as sex offenders – most gangs ban inmates convicted of sex crimes – as reasons to not to join.</p><h2>Blood in, blood out</h2><p>It was once believed that once you join a gang <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Social-Order-Underworld-Prison-American/dp/0199328501" target="_blank">you could never leave</a>. Criminologists have <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318857376_A_Signaling_Perspective_on_Disengagement_from_Gangs" target="_blank">dispelled this myth</a> among street gangs; young people leave gangs regularly, and usually without repercussions like violence. We also found this to be the case in prison, even for the security threat groups.</p><p>Disillusionment is the leading reason for leaving. Gang members eventually realize they are sold a bill of goods on gangs. Snitching, victimization, solitary confinement and delayed parole crystallize discontent with gang life.</p><p>Leaving a gang is more difficult in prison. Walking away is not a credible option. Gang members sought permission or "gave notice" of intentions to leave, or enrolled in the prison system's two-year exit program.</p>
<h2>Block the on-ramps, open the off-ramps</h2><p>Despite decades of effort, breaking the grip of gangs on prison has been unsuccessful. The "silver bullet" simply doesn't exist.</p><p>Placing gang members in <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251797.pdf" target="_blank">solitary confinement</a> is thought to be a solution, but that's a management approach. It applies a Band-Aid to a bullet wound that could hurt more than help. And one-size-fits-all approaches to rehabilitation ignore the baggage of gang affiliation.</p><p>To compete for control, gangs need numbers, which is why focusing on points of entry and exit offers hope for reducing the power of gangs in attracting new members and encouraging current members to leave.</p><p>Doing nothing only allows the problem to fester and grow. Prisoners today will eventually become the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Homeward-Life-Year-After-Prison/dp/0871549557" target="_blank">neighbors, religious congregants and employees</a> of tomorrow. We want people to leave prison in a condition better than they arrived. That means effective responses to gangs.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-pyrooz-198645" target="_blank">David Pyrooz</a>, Associate Professor of Sociology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-colorado-boulder-733" target="_blank">University of Colorado Boulder</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/scott-h-decker-184796" target="_blank">Scott H. Decker</a>, Foundation Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/arizona-state-university-730" target="_blank">Arizona State University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-spoke-to-hundreds-of-prison-gang-members-heres-what-they-said-about-life-behind-bars-132573" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Algorithms identify repeat offenders better than judges
Can AI make better predictions about future crimes?
17 February, 2020
Image source: Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock
- A new study finds algorithmic predictions of recidivism more accurate than human authorities.
- Researchers are trying to construct tests of such AI that accurately mirror real-world deliberations.
- What level of reliability should we demand of AI in sentencing?
<p>It's pre-crime time again. (See <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/'" target="_blank"><em>Minority Report</em></a>.)</p><p>When judges, correctional authorities, and parole boards are making sentencing, supervision, and release decisions, they're essentially trying to peer into an offender's future to assess the person's potential for recidivism. To help guide these determinations — and no doubt influenced by our contemporary infatuation with artificial intelligence — authorities are increasingly turning to risk assessment instruments (RAIs) on the assumption that their AI can more accurately identify those likely to be repeat offenders. </p><p>A new <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaaz0652" target="_blank">study</a> in <em>Science Advances</em> more rigorously confirms that algorithmic judgements <em>may</em> in fact be more accurate than humans. Of concern, though, is that given the stakes involved — future crimes, a defendant's freedom or continued incarceration — they're still not reliable <em>enough</em> to ensure that justice is truly done and that tragic mistakes can be avoided.</p>
RAIs, NG?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDQxMjM4N30.ByZIs2U0SqXx4bf6u9LvqCAk-rwUuM33ClPkxuQhEk8/img.jpg?width=980" id="aa986" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="30eabf6c00ea57d1257274d16330fd0d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Andrey Suslov/Shutterstock
<p>The new study, led by computational social scientist <a href="https://5harad.com" target="_blank">Sharad Goel</a> of Stanford University, is in a sense a reply to a <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5580?ijkey=acb268ff69558c41f4083ae815a5c7a262232a5d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha" target="_blank">recent work</a> by programming expert Julia Dressel and digital image specialist Hany Farid. In that earlier research, participants attempted to predict whether or not any of 50 individuals would commit new crimes of any kind within the next two years based on short descriptions of their case histories. (No images or racial/ethnic information were provided to participants to avoid a skewing of results due to related biases.) The average accuracy rate participants achieved was 62%.</p><p>The same criminals and case histories cases were also processed through a widely used RAI called COMPAS, for "Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions." The accuracy of its predictions was about the same: 65%, leading Dressel and Farid to conclude that COMPAS "is no more accurate … than predictions made by people with little or no criminal justice expertise."</p>Taking a second look
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDg4MjA1MX0._jJsmArbQFUQquUG5Hnpu8xLaXG0qxSQa1zRx2GcL-E/img.jpg?width=980" id="c6964" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="69dbbb9244e916e4e4e2bf1a7efb6189" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Goel felt that two aspects of the testing method used by Dressel and Farid didn't reproduce closely enough the circumstances in which humans are called upon to predict recidivism during sentencing:</p><ol><li>Participants in that study learned how to improve their predictions, much as an algorithm might, as they were provided feedback as to the accuracy of each prognostication. However, as Goel points out, "In justice settings, this feedback is exceedingly rare. Judges may never find out what happens to individuals that they sentence or for whom they set bail."</li><li>Judges, etc. also often have a great deal of information in hand as they make their predictions, not short summaries in which only the most salient information is presented. In the real world, it can be hard to ascertain which information is the most relevant when there's arguably too much of it at hand.</li></ol><p>Both of these factors put participants on a more equal footing with an RAI than they would be in real life, perhaps accounting for the similar levels of accuracy encountered.</p><p>To that end, Goel and his colleagues performed several of their own, slightly different, trials.</p><p>The first experiment closely mirrored Dressel's and Farid's — with feedback and short case descriptions — and indeed found that humans and COMPAS performed pretty much equally well. Another experiment asked participants to predict the future occurrence of <em>violent</em> crime, not just any crime, and again the accuracy rates were comparable, though much higher. Humans scored 83% as COMPAS achieved 89% accuracy.</p><p>When participant feedback was removed, however, humans fell far behind COMPAS in accuracy, down to around 60% as opposed to COMPAS's 89%, as Goel hypothesized they might.</p><p>Finally, humans were tested against a different RAI tool called LSI-R. In this case, both had to try and predict an individual's future using on a large amount of case information similar to what a judge may have to wade through. Again, the RAI outperformed humans in predicting future crimes, 62% to 57%. When asked to predict who would wind up going back to prison for their future misdeeds, the results were even worse for participants, who got it right just 58% of the time as opposed to 74% for LSI-R.</p>Good enough?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAxNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzk5MTc5OH0.kq0yWKlclL3emX-xxqeLxN53v1czSUhKBDEmglY6VZ0/img.jpg?width=980" id="b3c58" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d00f0ba7c26d9fdada23607448ffdc33" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: klss/Shutterstock
<p>Goel concludes, "our results support the claim that algorithmic risk assessments can often outperform human predictions of reoffending." Of course, this isn't the only important question. There's also this: Is AI yet reliable enough to make its prediction count for more than that of a judge, correctional authority, or parole board member?</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ai-can-predict-criminals-repeat-offenders-better-than-humans" target="_blank"><em>Science News</em></a> asked Farid, and he said no. When asked how he'd feel about an RAI that could be counted on to be right 80% of the time, he responded, "you've got to ask yourself, if you're wrong 20 percent of the time, are you willing to tolerate that?"</p><p>As AI technology improves, we may one day reach a state in which RAIs are reliably accurate, but no one is claiming we're there yet. For now, then, the use of such technologies in an advisory role for authorities tasked with making sentencing decisions may make sense, but only as one more "voice" to consider.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
