Why doesn't somebody design a computer program that can decide on what sentence is appropriate for most crimes . It could have a bit of leeway for the judge giving a maximum , minimum and recommended punishment . Surely in this day and age it could easily be designed . Would potentially do away with massively costly re-trials and give more consistency to sentences . Would do away with potential cronyism too .
sentence = rand() % age;
Not sure we have massively costly retrials on sentences?
There's already a system that gives judges guidelines. It's probably on a computer. It might just need tweaking.
Luckily they have variants are in use in parts of the US. One is called COMPAS.
Sadly though they have tried to keep its algorithms secret which is never great for justice and some research indicates it is flawed and results in a bias against black offenders.
Yeah cos FB and Google algorithms are flawless, I'd love more automated shite in my life.
Why doesn’t somebody design a computer program that can decide on what sentence is appropriate for most crimes .
There have been systems used in other jurisdictions. Most AI researchers have concerns they are inherently biased. Hannah Fry has a very accessible book that covers this.
It could have a bit of leeway for the judge giving a maximum , minimum and recommended punishment .
Well actually I believe English magistrates already have such a basic system in place that runs on an iPad - it’s just an electronic version of the sentencing guidelines. It doesn’t make any decisions, just follows the standard process and I think does some of the arithmetic for you.
Surely in this day and age it could easily be designed . Would potentially do away with massively costly re-trials and give more consistency to sentences . Would do away with potential cronyism too .
No retrials for sentence appeals (most appeals against conviction don’t go to retrial either). But somehow the information will still need input - so one sentencer thinks it’s relevant to include the fact you are a single mum (perhaps because then sending you to prison has an adverse impact on the kids) whilst another does not (perhaps thinking the algorithm may unfairly impose family values! So there’s still a human element. If Chronyism was a real issue then changing emphasis or skipping detail would still be open to abuse. I’m pretty sure though that it’s not as widespread as you think.
There’s probably not as much variation in sentencing as you think either. In E&W there have been sentencing guidelines for a long time. Sentencers have to justify deviating from them. The Secret Barristers books go some way to explaining that much of the dramatic headlines you see are not actually bad sentencing they are a lack of communication about how the sentence was arrived at (often because the media weren’t there to hear the explanation or sometimes they chose not to report it), although Judges don’t always explain themselves and after the fact are not permitted to make public statements justifying or correcting misconceptions.
I’d suggest that in E&W if you think sentences are wrong it’s not the judge or magistrate who is in error (most of the time), their hands are tied. Politicians throw longer maximum sentences at offences or make up new variations of laws but these also have little effect - if they want to have a real impact they need to give sentencers new tools to do things other than fine people with no money, send people to prisons which have been repeatedly shown not to reduce recidivism for short sentences etc.
It can be interesting to compare sentences north and south of the border as there are no guidelines in Scotland (there are guidelines on process but right now not on the actual penalties) although for some offences they borrow English guidance. That said there are things that differ significantly between Scotland and England - no prosecution costs, and no option to recover your defence costs, discounting of penalty points and disqualification for guilty pleas, no suspended sentences, a presumption against short sentences and almost everywhere in Scotland summary cases being handled by a single Justice or Sheriff rather than three magistrates with the former having different options and not normally remitting to a higher court so the prosecutor decides the maximum available sentence when they pick the court. Despite all that I don’t think the typical sentences are that different suggesting to me that people who hear all the facts about a case are able to come to reasoned judgements.
Take a look at the sentencing council website they have mock cases where “you can be the judge” and see how your sentencing would compare if you hear all the facts.
Sadly though they have tried to keep its algorithms secret which is never great for justice and some research indicates it is flawed and results in a bias against black offenders.
Really? No! Well, colour me surprised!
I saw a documentary about a system like that.
Government algorithm worked well for exam grades last year didn't it...
Having done IT contract work for both the Scottish Courts and Tribunal service and the Ministry of Justice, I'd be careful what you wished for.
You saw what happened with Fujitsu and the post office right?
