Can We Reduce Bias in Criminal Justice?(greatergood.berkeley.edu)
greatergood.berkeley.edu
Can We Reduce Bias in Criminal Justice?
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_we_reduce_bias_in_criminal_justice
6 comments
If personal bias plays a part in increasing the amount of arrests and prosecutions for a certain subpopulation, then by definition reducing the domain of law enforcement reduces the impact of personal bias. Prohibition of substances, gambling and prostitution,the overcriminilization of our society, "zero-tolerance" policies, and increasing regulatory oversight of every facet of our lives have had the net result that the personal biases of government officials have become insufferable to those most affected by it. I just hope that the conversation shifts away from "Who should be in charge?" to "Should we have so many people in charge?".
Isn't "unconscious bias" merely humans using their instinctual bayesian reasoning systems as priors? I don't see how it's possible to eliminate that, nor that the outcome would necessarily be desirable. Educating people that there are certain biases they shouldn't bring into the courtroom is a proposed solution, but I don't think it gets us anywhere closer to the platonic ideal of objective justice. It just mucks with the bayesian priors in a way that favored activists desire.
I've pretty much never personally seen a violent/property crime committed by someone else. Don't think I've ever been witness to a mugging, or a store getting held up, or a car getting stolen.
What I have seen is media reports and then, even more vividly than news reports, movie and TV portrayals, of such and other crimes.
So now, any pattern-matching I do on "this is the type of person who does that type of thing" isn't based on my own experiences, it's based on the ones people have shown me. So maybe there were things influenced what got reported on, or what types of people get written into stories in what roles—aka my bias would be based on other people's bias which would be based on... as well as questions about what types of crimes get reported on/turned into movies, etc. Violence sells, etc. This is problematic for the idea that "bias" is just the brain doing reliable and sophisticated analysis of trustworthy data.
What I have seen is media reports and then, even more vividly than news reports, movie and TV portrayals, of such and other crimes.
So now, any pattern-matching I do on "this is the type of person who does that type of thing" isn't based on my own experiences, it's based on the ones people have shown me. So maybe there were things influenced what got reported on, or what types of people get written into stories in what roles—aka my bias would be based on other people's bias which would be based on... as well as questions about what types of crimes get reported on/turned into movies, etc. Violence sells, etc. This is problematic for the idea that "bias" is just the brain doing reliable and sophisticated analysis of trustworthy data.
Why have juries at all? Clearly a "jury of one's peers" is wholly unsuitable for the job, based on that logic. Which is a fair argument, but insincere when approached from the angle that what we need to get rid of is unconscious bias.
> Isn't "unconscious bias" merely humans using their instinctual bayesian reasoning systems as priors?
No, it's just tribal instincts against the 'other'; no prior experience is necessary; people will kill people from groups they have no expereince with because they are different. Consider homophobia: Is it because the attackers have experience being assaulted by gays? What about violence against women? (In fact, I think reality may be reverse of your theory: The same people are victimized over and over; the weak are abused by the powerful.)
The solution is conceptually simple: Teach people to see the other groups as 'one of us'. It does happen over the long run; I read research that within a few generations, for example, new immigrant groups mostly inter-marry with others (arguably blacks became the equivalent of new immigrants when they finally had full legal rights in the 1960s, and racial intermarriage now is growing quickly). Consider Protestants and Catholics, who used to riot against each other. 55 years ago, a Catholic winning the Presidency was a big deal. Now nobody cares or notices; a Catholic marrying a Protestant is completely unremarkable.
Rather than arbitrarily causing generations of suffering, we can learn to do better now.
No, it's just tribal instincts against the 'other'; no prior experience is necessary; people will kill people from groups they have no expereince with because they are different. Consider homophobia: Is it because the attackers have experience being assaulted by gays? What about violence against women? (In fact, I think reality may be reverse of your theory: The same people are victimized over and over; the weak are abused by the powerful.)
The solution is conceptually simple: Teach people to see the other groups as 'one of us'. It does happen over the long run; I read research that within a few generations, for example, new immigrant groups mostly inter-marry with others (arguably blacks became the equivalent of new immigrants when they finally had full legal rights in the 1960s, and racial intermarriage now is growing quickly). Consider Protestants and Catholics, who used to riot against each other. 55 years ago, a Catholic winning the Presidency was a big deal. Now nobody cares or notices; a Catholic marrying a Protestant is completely unremarkable.
Rather than arbitrarily causing generations of suffering, we can learn to do better now.
> Teach people to see the other groups as 'one of us'.
You're thinking in very surface terms and minimizing the argument of the opposition. What if the group values are utterly alien to the other group? For example, are people to be taught that the Crips gang is 'one of us.'? Or Neo-Nazis are 'one of us.'?
You're thinking in very surface terms and minimizing the argument of the opposition. What if the group values are utterly alien to the other group? For example, are people to be taught that the Crips gang is 'one of us.'? Or Neo-Nazis are 'one of us.'?
> What if the group values are utterly alien to the other group? For example, are people to be taught that the Crips gang is 'one of us.'? Or Neo-Nazis are 'one of us.'?
Yes, and I think that's a great example. What enables people like Neo-Nazis to do horrible things to others is to first think of their victims as alien (to "objectify" them). This is well-known and long has been used by leaders that want to promote these horrible things; the original Nazis and the Hutus (just naming two off the top of my head) before their respective genocides, ran public media campaigns conditioning the public to objectify and despise Jewish/Tutsi people. In a very different context, soldiers often objectify their enemies as gooks, ragheads, etc. (again, it's a psychological necessity before a human does horrible things to others). You can see the same thing all the time in less dangerous situations, for example in how many male abusers talk about women.
It's important to see that the Nazis aren't 'utterly alien', but normal humans like you and me (a very well-regarded, well-known book on this issue is Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"). If we don't understand the reality of how people do bad things, we won't be able to prevent them. And the reality is that we all are prone to the same thinking and mistakes (though on a much smaller, less damaging scale, hopefully!). It's also important to realize that from the perspective of the perpetrators (including Nazis), they are doing nothing wrong: The victim is indeed alien and threatening (or otherwise deserving). Racists think that of blacks, for example.
Yes, and I think that's a great example. What enables people like Neo-Nazis to do horrible things to others is to first think of their victims as alien (to "objectify" them). This is well-known and long has been used by leaders that want to promote these horrible things; the original Nazis and the Hutus (just naming two off the top of my head) before their respective genocides, ran public media campaigns conditioning the public to objectify and despise Jewish/Tutsi people. In a very different context, soldiers often objectify their enemies as gooks, ragheads, etc. (again, it's a psychological necessity before a human does horrible things to others). You can see the same thing all the time in less dangerous situations, for example in how many male abusers talk about women.
It's important to see that the Nazis aren't 'utterly alien', but normal humans like you and me (a very well-regarded, well-known book on this issue is Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"). If we don't understand the reality of how people do bad things, we won't be able to prevent them. And the reality is that we all are prone to the same thinking and mistakes (though on a much smaller, less damaging scale, hopefully!). It's also important to realize that from the perspective of the perpetrators (including Nazis), they are doing nothing wrong: The victim is indeed alien and threatening (or otherwise deserving). Racists think that of blacks, for example.
Adding to my comment above (I'm too late to edit):
In my experience, it's the poeple with the least experience with the 'other' group who are the most biased.
In my experience, it's the poeple with the least experience with the 'other' group who are the most biased.
Unconscious racial bias comes up a lot in these issues. Yet I am at a loss to see a mechanism by which we could even begin to remedy it. What steps could proposed programs take?
If we accept that unconscious bias is a fact, the only real solution is to eliminate the possibility for unconscious bias.
To fully do this, you'd need an environment in which all parties are mutually identity-blind. Some kind of virtual courtroom where everyone assumes a "neutral" avatar and speaks through a synthesized voice (again, "neutral") might approximate this.
How would you get there from here? First, you'd need a prototype and substantial basic research - not within the criminal justice system - supporting up the hypothesis that this reduces bias. Next, you'd need to beef up security, accessibility, etc. before slogging through the procurement process. You'd then test it on a small handful of actual cases, thereby gathering data to support a wider rollout.
In the meantime: not sure. The very least we could do would be to make sure everyone involved receives some "unconscious bias training" (e.g. make it a mandatory part of court proceedings).
To fully do this, you'd need an environment in which all parties are mutually identity-blind. Some kind of virtual courtroom where everyone assumes a "neutral" avatar and speaks through a synthesized voice (again, "neutral") might approximate this.
How would you get there from here? First, you'd need a prototype and substantial basic research - not within the criminal justice system - supporting up the hypothesis that this reduces bias. Next, you'd need to beef up security, accessibility, etc. before slogging through the procurement process. You'd then test it on a small handful of actual cases, thereby gathering data to support a wider rollout.
In the meantime: not sure. The very least we could do would be to make sure everyone involved receives some "unconscious bias training" (e.g. make it a mandatory part of court proceedings).
Part of the point of jury-of-your-peers trials is so people can use their biases to make subjective decisions based on their life experience. The tone/inflection/appearance of the defendant plays into all of that. What you are suggesting would eliminate that. Why have juries at all, then?
Yes. Why having easily manipulable group of people, instead of professional judges that are used to lawyers and criminal BS ?
"Juries are often justified because they leaven the law with community norms."
"Discussions among juries could lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case." (see: 12 Angry Men)
"Occasionally jurors find the law to be invalid or unfair, and on that basis acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence presented that the defendant violated the law. This is commonly referred to as "jury nullification of law" or simply jury nullification."
"It may be more difficult to corrupt 12 jurors than one or several judges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury
"Discussions among juries could lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case." (see: 12 Angry Men)
"Occasionally jurors find the law to be invalid or unfair, and on that basis acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence presented that the defendant violated the law. This is commonly referred to as "jury nullification of law" or simply jury nullification."
"It may be more difficult to corrupt 12 jurors than one or several judges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury
Lots of ideas come to mind. Probably all bad ideas, but ideas nonetheless:
* Judges and juries are only allowed to be the same race as the defendant.
* Increase/decrease the sentencing guidelines by X% for a certain race. 20 years max for a certain offense for Race Y, 15 years max for Race Z.
* Preferentially give better public defenders to people of certain races, or maybe just give them money to hire non-public defenders.
* Pick some small percentage of cases, say 5%. For people of Race Z, just let them go free 5% of the time. Don't even have a trial.
* Give nicer prison accommodations to people based on race. Similarly, make early release requirements less stringent for people based on race.
* For people of the privileged race, randomly arrest some innocent ones and try your best to pin the crime on them.
Like I said, these are all bad ideas, but they would counteract unconscious racial bias.
* Judges and juries are only allowed to be the same race as the defendant.
* Increase/decrease the sentencing guidelines by X% for a certain race. 20 years max for a certain offense for Race Y, 15 years max for Race Z.
* Preferentially give better public defenders to people of certain races, or maybe just give them money to hire non-public defenders.
* Pick some small percentage of cases, say 5%. For people of Race Z, just let them go free 5% of the time. Don't even have a trial.
* Give nicer prison accommodations to people based on race. Similarly, make early release requirements less stringent for people based on race.
* For people of the privileged race, randomly arrest some innocent ones and try your best to pin the crime on them.
Like I said, these are all bad ideas, but they would counteract unconscious racial bias.
The reason those are all bad ideas is that they're all attempting to treat the symptom rather than the problem.
If the problem is that people are dumping alkali waste into the reservoir, your suggestion is to ignore that and then dump in acid to even it out. Making the pH neutral isn't the same thing as making the water clean.
We have to solve the underlying problem.
If the problem is that people are dumping alkali waste into the reservoir, your suggestion is to ignore that and then dump in acid to even it out. Making the pH neutral isn't the same thing as making the water clean.
We have to solve the underlying problem.
Solve the underlying problem? Babies exhibit racial bias. We're going to need some serious genetic engineering applied to the brain to solve the underlying problem. I don't think that's happening any time soon.
Your solution is to ignore this and instead offer a platitude so you don't have to think about an actual solution. I'm not saying I know the perfect solution, but I'm pretty sure it's not a platitude.
Your solution is to ignore this and instead offer a platitude so you don't have to think about an actual solution. I'm not saying I know the perfect solution, but I'm pretty sure it's not a platitude.
If you ask "why" up the chain enough times you eventually end up at some immutable law of nature. But that's completely missing the point.
Fixing the cause rather than the symptom doesn't mean you have to go study evolutionary biology. "Babies exhibit racial bias" doesn't inherently lead to mass incarceration and murder. There is a whole system of causes between one and the other.
And as for an actual solution, the top voted comment has already provided it. You can't have bias in drug cases or police shootings if there are no drug cases or police shootings. End the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentences. Demilitarize the police.
Fixing the cause rather than the symptom doesn't mean you have to go study evolutionary biology. "Babies exhibit racial bias" doesn't inherently lead to mass incarceration and murder. There is a whole system of causes between one and the other.
And as for an actual solution, the top voted comment has already provided it. You can't have bias in drug cases or police shootings if there are no drug cases or police shootings. End the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentences. Demilitarize the police.
The problem we're discussing isn't that there are too many minorities imprisoned for drug crimes. The problem is systemic disparate impact throughout the entire criminal justice system.
Getting rid of drug crimes does nothing to solve that, because you see the same pattern in basically every type of crime. Legalizing drugs would reduce the number of crimes, but not the racial bias.
You could just as easily "solve" the problem of racial bias by getting rid of any class of crimes. Like, let's legalize speeding because more blacks are pulled over for speeding than whites. Great. But the fundamental problem of inequality still remains in every other area of the criminal justice system.
Also, how do mandatory minimum sentences lead to more bias? Wouldn't that lead to less bias, since it removes biaased human judgement from part of the process? Otherwise you'd probably see whites getting more lenient sentences than they already do.
Getting rid of drug crimes does nothing to solve that, because you see the same pattern in basically every type of crime. Legalizing drugs would reduce the number of crimes, but not the racial bias.
You could just as easily "solve" the problem of racial bias by getting rid of any class of crimes. Like, let's legalize speeding because more blacks are pulled over for speeding than whites. Great. But the fundamental problem of inequality still remains in every other area of the criminal justice system.
Also, how do mandatory minimum sentences lead to more bias? Wouldn't that lead to less bias, since it removes biaased human judgement from part of the process? Otherwise you'd probably see whites getting more lenient sentences than they already do.
> Getting rid of drug crimes does nothing to solve that, because you see the same pattern in basically every type of crime.
No you don't. There is no epidemic of black men being convicted of insider trading or wire fraud.
> Like, let's legalize speeding because more blacks are pulled over for speeding than whites.
You're saying that like it's a completely ridiculous suggestion, but there is truth in it. Most traffic engineering manuals recommend that speed limits normally be set at the 85th percentile traffic speed but most speed limits in the US are set around 10MPH below that speed, resulting in widespread lawbreaking. Having laws that most people violate but only some people are punished for is not the rule of law and is exactly what facilitates racially biased selective enforcement.
> Also, how do mandatory minimum sentences lead to more bias? Wouldn't that lead to less bias, since it removes biaased human judgement from part of the process?
Mandatory minimum sentences amplify the biases in who is arrested, charged and convicted by increasing the average penalties. They also don't eliminate bias in sentencing because a biased decision maker can still give black defendants more than the mandatory minimum.
The only extent to which they could be said to reduce bias is in reducing the possible range of penalties imposed, but the same range reduction could be achieved by lowering the maximum rather than raising the minimum.
No you don't. There is no epidemic of black men being convicted of insider trading or wire fraud.
> Like, let's legalize speeding because more blacks are pulled over for speeding than whites.
You're saying that like it's a completely ridiculous suggestion, but there is truth in it. Most traffic engineering manuals recommend that speed limits normally be set at the 85th percentile traffic speed but most speed limits in the US are set around 10MPH below that speed, resulting in widespread lawbreaking. Having laws that most people violate but only some people are punished for is not the rule of law and is exactly what facilitates racially biased selective enforcement.
> Also, how do mandatory minimum sentences lead to more bias? Wouldn't that lead to less bias, since it removes biaased human judgement from part of the process?
Mandatory minimum sentences amplify the biases in who is arrested, charged and convicted by increasing the average penalties. They also don't eliminate bias in sentencing because a biased decision maker can still give black defendants more than the mandatory minimum.
The only extent to which they could be said to reduce bias is in reducing the possible range of penalties imposed, but the same range reduction could be achieved by lowering the maximum rather than raising the minimum.
> There is no epidemic of black men being convicted of insider trading or wire fraud.
I'm willing to bet that the few black men that are caught for this type of crime are more likely to face court and have more severe punishment imposed.
I'm willing to bet that the few black men that are caught for this type of crime are more likely to face court and have more severe punishment imposed.
> I'm willing to bet that the few black men that are caught for this type of crime are more likely to face court and have more severe punishment imposed.
Even if that were true, constricting the scope of the problem to that sort of rare case would be a thousand fold improvement from the status quo.
Even if that were true, constricting the scope of the problem to that sort of rare case would be a thousand fold improvement from the status quo.
> Getting rid of drug crimes does nothing to solve that, because you see the same pattern in basically every type of crime. Legalizing drugs would reduce the number of crimes, but not the racial bias.
That's true, but since drug crime is used as a tool by the people who discriminate it's still useful to remove that tool of discrimination.
That's true, but since drug crime is used as a tool by the people who discriminate it's still useful to remove that tool of discrimination.
> Judges and juries are only allowed to be the same race as the defendant.
So if a white cop shoots a black person and is arrested for it, the judge and jury should all be white? Sounds about right.
They do say "jury of your peers", so a jury of white cops would be ideal in this case.
So if a white cop shoots a black person and is arrested for it, the judge and jury should all be white? Sounds about right.
They do say "jury of your peers", so a jury of white cops would be ideal in this case.
Good point. Change that one to:
* Judges and juries are only allowed to be people of the disadvantaged race
No more white judges or jury members would shake things up a bit.
* Judges and juries are only allowed to be people of the disadvantaged race
No more white judges or jury members would shake things up a bit.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
...
Except for black people... who are innocent without capable of being guilty. And Chinese who deserve a 10% increase in jail-time for being better at math. White people deserve a minimum sentence of 5 years, hard labor, for millenia of whiteprivildge.
...
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
...
Except for black people... who are innocent without capable of being guilty. And Chinese who deserve a 10% increase in jail-time for being better at math. White people deserve a minimum sentence of 5 years, hard labor, for millenia of whiteprivildge.
[deleted]
Oh cuil. The red herring of race takes hold, distracting people away from the universal brokenness of a clock-punching judicial system that assumes everyone is guilty, police that operate with impunity, and general lack of civil recompense for victims of wrongful arrest and prosecution.
The system is far from the lofty ideal you were taught in civics class, regardless of one's skin color. Fixing the fundamental issues must be done first in order to even make racial bias legible and to have an ideal to work towards.
The system is far from the lofty ideal you were taught in civics class, regardless of one's skin color. Fixing the fundamental issues must be done first in order to even make racial bias legible and to have an ideal to work towards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines
not being snarky; i think this one is a clear 'No.'
not being snarky; i think this one is a clear 'No.'
This is a bullshit response. Did you not read the article? It offers a fair share of proven optimism.
Can you point specifically to the cases of "proven optimism"?
The two studies: the first stating that you can reduce amygdala activity through systematic humanization, and the second suggesting that there seems to be nothing in the police training programs that makes officers more biased than the average citizen. These offer hope to the idea that biased behavior can be targeted and modified.
I agree with your other comment, though. There are many unaddressed questions regarding policy and its implementation. In my head, we would see progress as a society if we taught empathy and unconscious bias from a young age. Police academies would likely benefit from similar courses (it is my understanding that some program do indeed integrate this training).
Thanks for responding, and I'm sorry for being inflammatory. These are ideas I am passionate about.
I agree with your other comment, though. There are many unaddressed questions regarding policy and its implementation. In my head, we would see progress as a society if we taught empathy and unconscious bias from a young age. Police academies would likely benefit from similar courses (it is my understanding that some program do indeed integrate this training).
Thanks for responding, and I'm sorry for being inflammatory. These are ideas I am passionate about.
Your passion is a good thing. I should have been less crass, but as Betteridge's law is new to me I rather childishly pointed and exclaimed.
I thought that observation about systematic humanization was fucking awesome. That would appear to be a concrete way to normalize interactions between strangers. For the record, I really don't like the police as an institution... but I recognize that that is a bias I maintain.
Maybe cops should have a monthly pot luck get together. Watching the citizenry eat and play might foster a bit of that empathy.
I thought that observation about systematic humanization was fucking awesome. That would appear to be a concrete way to normalize interactions between strangers. For the record, I really don't like the police as an institution... but I recognize that that is a bias I maintain.
Maybe cops should have a monthly pot luck get together. Watching the citizenry eat and play might foster a bit of that empathy.
Wow, tiger. First off, i stand by my assessment. IMO if the bias were to be stripped from the Justice System, that would mean firing literally everyone and building a new one using computers and duct tape which, as every school child knows, have no bias. Secondly, "fair share of proven optimism"? In my head that translates to, "we think that maybe this might help a little"... so... the answer is still 'No.'. Just my $0.02
>Secondly, "fair share of proven optimism"? In my head that translates to, "we think that maybe this might help a little"...
That clearly translates to "no, I still haven't read the article."
That clearly translates to "no, I still haven't read the article."
Ok. Having reread the entire thing twice (just for you) i can positively say that i stand by my "no." The phrase "reduce subconscious bias" appears multiple times with no explanation as to how that may actually work.
This is a classic case of top down initiative. The leaders can say whatever they want; it is the foot soldiers that implement policy. As long as there is an entrenched, aged constabulary educating the new recruits, the inherent biases of thugs with badges will continue.
This is a classic case of top down initiative. The leaders can say whatever they want; it is the foot soldiers that implement policy. As long as there is an entrenched, aged constabulary educating the new recruits, the inherent biases of thugs with badges will continue.
"No" usually is the correct answer to a Betteridge Headline.